Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T12:01:26.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comparison and Evolution of Copper CMP Consumable Technology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

David R. Evans*
Affiliation:
SHARP Laboratories of America, Inc., Camas, WA 98607, USA
Get access

Abstract

Intensive investigation of copper CMP over the past decade has revealed that consumable technology is of critical importance. There are several reasons for this, but all are ultimately due to the chemical and material properties of copper and associated barrier layers. Moreover, in comparison to conventional dielectric polishing, copper CMP (and, perhaps, metal CMP in general) is of a much more chemical nature. This is a consequence of the fact that metal removal generally requires an oxidation-reduction mechanism while, in contrast, dielectric removal typically requires only simple hydrolysis. As any chemist knows, oxidation-reduction reactions are often notoriously hard to control and easily upset by contaminants. Of course, contaminants can be intentionally added to the chemistry for beneficial purposes in which case they become known as “proprietary additives”.

In addition, to the removal chemistry, abrasive and pad technology has also undergone considerable evolution. Indeed, free abrasive, fixed abrasive, and abrasiveless technologies have all been developed. In the case of fixed abrasive polishing, this has required modification of the pads as well, however conventional and abrasiveless polishing can be carried out with conventional polyurethane pads. This picture is further complicated by the various available hardware configurations and the use of multiplaten processes.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Luther, B., White, J. F., Uzoh, C., Cacouris, T., Hummel, J., Guthrie, W., Lustig, N., Greco, S., Greco, N., Zuhoski, S., Agnello, P., Colgan, E., Mathad, S., Saraf, L., Weitzman, E. J., Hu, C. K., Kaufman, F., Jaso, M., Buchwalter, L. P., Reynolds, S., Smart, C., Edelstein, D., Baran, E., Cohen, S., Knoedler, C. M., Malinowski, J., Horkans, J., Deligianni, H., Harper, J., Andricacos, P. C., Paraszczak, J., Pearson, D. J., and Small, M., Proc. VMIC X, 15 (1993).Google Scholar
2. Steigerwald, J. M., Zirpoli, R., Murarka, S. P., Price, D., and Gutman, R. J., J. Electrochem. Soc., 141, 2842 (1994)Google Scholar
3. Park, T., Tugbawa, T., Yoon, J., Boning, D., Chung, J., Muralidhar, R., Hymes, S., Gotkis, Y., Alamgir, S., Walesa, R., Shumway, L., Wu, G., Zhang, F., Kistler, R., and Hawkins, J., Proc. VMIC XV, 437 (1998).Google Scholar
4. Evans, D. R., Oliver, M. R., and Kulus, M., Chemical Mechanical Planarizarion IV, Electrochem. Soc. PV-2000-26, Pennington, NJ, pg. 122, 2001.Google Scholar
5. Li, Y., Jindal, A., and Babu, S. V., Copper Interconnects, New Contact Metallurgies/Structures, and Low-K Interlevel Dielectrics, Electrochem. Soc. PV-2000-27, Pennington, NJ, pg. 32, 2001.Google Scholar
6. Hariharaputhiran, M., Ramarajan, S., Li, Y., and Babu, S.V., Chemical Mechanical Polishing-Fundamentals and Challenges, Mater. Res. Soc., Warrendale, PA, pg. 129, 2000.Google Scholar
7. Vogt, M. R., Möller, F. A., Schilz, C. M, Magnussen, O. M., and Behm, R. J., Surf. Sci. 367, L33, (1996).Google Scholar
8. Vogt, M. R., Lachenwitzer, A., Magnussen, O. M., and Behm, R. J., Surf. Sci. 399, 49, (1996).Google Scholar
9. Kamigata, Y., Kurata, Y., Masuda, K., Amanokura, J., Yoshida, M., and Hanazono, M., Chemical Mechanical Polishing 2001-Fundamentals and Challenges, Mater. Res. Soc., Warrendale, PA, pg. M1.3, 2001.Google Scholar