An analytical investigation of pad wear caused by the conditioner in fixed abrasive chemical–mechanical polishing

  • N. Y. Nguyen
  • Z. W. ZhongEmail author
  • Yebing TianEmail author


Fixed abrasive chemical–mechanical polishing (CMP) is an efficient surface finishing method. The non-uniformity of substrates after polishing is one of the most interesting things in current trends in research. One of the reasons for the non-uniformity is pad wear. The pad in this polishing process has abrasive grains embedded on the surface. Researching on the pad wear will help improve the pad conditioning process to get a better pad surface. Some studies have used kinematic motion to show the correlation between the cutting path density and the pad wear. However, the effect of contact time between the conditioner’s grains and the pad surface on the pad wear non-uniformity has not been integrated yet. In this research, an analytical model was established by combining of the kinematic motions and the contact time to investigate the pad wear non-uniformity. The results indicated that the cutting path density and the contact time near the pad center are more than that near the pad edge. They could be the main reasons of the non-uniformity of the pad wear. The model results showed a good agreement with experiments.


Fixed abrasive Chemical–mechanical polishing Kinematic motion Cutting path density Contact time 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kim HJ (2013) Tribological approaches to material removal rate during chemical mechanical polishing. Met Mater Int 19(2):335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Enomoto T, Satake U, Fujita T, Sugihara T (2013) Spiral-structured fixed-abrasive pads for glass finishing. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 62(1):311–314. doi: 10.1016/j.cirp.2013.03.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Velden P (2000) Chemical mechanical polishing with fixed abrasives using different subpads to optimize wafer uniformity. Microelectron Eng 50(1–4):41–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhong ZW, Tian YB, Ng JH, Ang YJ (2013) Chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) processes for manufacturing optical silicon substrates with shortened polishing time. Mater Manuf Process 29(1):15–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tian YB, Zhong ZW, Lai S, Ang Y (2013) Development of fixed abrasive chemical mechanical polishing process for glass disk substrates. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 68(5–8):993–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tian YB, Zhong ZW, Ng JH (2013) Effects of chemical slurries on fixed abrasive chemical–mechanical polishing of optical silicon substrates. Int J Precis Eng Manuf 14(8):1447–1454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tian YB, Ang YJ, Zhong ZW, Xu H, Tan R (2013) Chemical mechanical polishing of glass disk substrates: preliminary experimental investigation. Mater Manuf Process 28(4):488–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhong ZW, Tian YB, Ang Y, Wu H (2012) Optimization of the chemical mechanical polishing process for optical silicon substrates. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 60(9–12):1197–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liao XY, Zhuang Y, Borucki LJ, Cheng J, Theng S, Ashizawa T, Philipossian A (2013) Effect of pad surface micro-texture on removal rate during interlayer dielectric chemical mechanical planarization process. Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 52 (1). doi: 10.7567/jjap.52.018001
  10. 10.
    Lee S, Jeong S, Park K, Kim H, Jeong H (2009) Kinematical modeling of pad profile variation during conditioning in chemical mechanical polishing. Jpn J Appl Phys 48(12):126502–126505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baisie E, Li ZC, Zhang XH (2013) Design optimization of diamond disk pad conditioners. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 66(9–12):2041–2052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tso P-L, Ho S-Y (2007) Factors influencing the dressing rate of chemical mechanical polishing pad conditioning. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 33(7–8):720–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Achuthan K, Curry J, Lacy M, Campbell D, Babu S (1996) Investigation of pad deformation and conditioning during the CMP of silicon dioxide films. J Electron Mater 25(10):1628–1632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim H, Kim H, Jeong H, Seo H, Lee S (2003) Self-conditioning of encapsulated abrasive pad in chemical mechanical polishing. J Mater Process Technol 142(3):614–618. doi: 10.1016/S0924-0136(03)00641-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chang O, Kim H, Park K, Park B, Seo H, Jeong H (2007) Mathematical modeling of CMP conditioning process. Microelectron Eng 84(4):577–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Y-y Z, Davis EC (1999) Variation of polish pad shape during pad dressing. Mater Sci Eng B 68(2):91–98. doi: 10.1016/S0921-5107(99)00423-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hooper B, Byrne G, Galligan S (2002) Pad conditioning in chemical mechanical polishing. J Mater Process Technol 123(1):107–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhao D, Wang T, He Y, Lu X (2013) Kinematic optimization for chemical mechanical polishing based on statistical analysis of particle trajectories. IEEE Trans Semicond Manuf 26(4):556–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Feng T (2007) Pad conditioning density distribution in CMP process with diamond dresser. IEEE Trans Semicond Manuf 20(4):464–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Li Z, Baisie EA, Zhang X (2012) Diamond disc pad conditioning in chemical mechanical planarization (CMP): a surface element method to predict pad surface shape. Precis Eng 36(2):356–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yeh H-M, Chen K-S (2010) Development of a pad conditioning simulation module with a diamond dresser for CMP applications. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 50(1–4):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baisie EA, Li Z, Zhang X (2013) Pad conditioning in chemical mechanical polishing: a conditioning density distribution model to predict pad surface shape. Int J Manuf Res 8(1):103–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhao D, He Y, Wang T, Lu X (2012) Effect of kinematic parameters and their coupling relationships on global uniformity of chemical–mechanical polishing. IEEE Trans Semicond Manuf 25(3):502–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Feng T (2007) Nonuniformity of wafer and pad in CMP: kinematic aspects of view. IEEE Trans Semicond Manuf 20(4):451–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim H, Jeong H (2004) Effect of process conditions on uniformity of velocity and wear distance of pad and wafer during chemical mechanical planarization. J Electron Mater 33(1):53–60. doi: 10.1007/s11664-004-0294-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hocheng H, Tsai H, Tsai M (2000) Effects of kinematic variables on nonuniformity in chemical mechanical planarization. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 40(11):1651–1669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhou LB, Shimizu J, Shinohara K, Eda H (2003) Three-dimensional kinematical analyses for surface grinding of large scale substrate. Precis Eng J Int Soc Precis Eng Nanotechnol 27(2):175–184. doi: 10.1016/s0141-6359(02)00225-8 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Singapore Institute of Manufacturing TechnologySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations