pp 1–8 | Cite as

Optimization of Operating Parameters in a Planetary CVD Reactor Using Response Surface Methodology

  • Zaher Ramadan
  • Ik-Tae ImEmail author
Original Paper


Film thickness uniformity is an important index to measure the quality of a deposited layer in selective epitaxial growth (SEG) of silicon using the chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process. The uniformity of a thin film is related to many parameters, such as rotation speed of a wafer, total flow rate, species concentration, susceptor temperature, and operating pressure. Therefore, it is very important to address the problem of coupling multiple parameters and solve the optimization in a computationally efficient manner. In this work, response surface methodology (RSM) is used to analyze the complex coupling effects of different operating parameters on silicon deposition uniformity. Based on the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model, an accurate RSM model is obtained to predict non-uniformity with different parameters, including temperature, pressure, rotation speed of a wafer, and mole fraction of dichlorosilane (DCS). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is conducted to determine the statistical significance of each factor in an empirical equation for the expected response. The results of ANOVA analysis indicate the goodness of fit of the regression model. The optimum combination of operating parameters of the problem considered in this study is a susceptor temperature of 1122.2 K, wafer rotation speed of 23.72 rpm, operating pressure of 112 Torr, and DCS mole fraction of 0.01186. The validation tests and optimum solution show that the results are in good agreement with those from the CFD model, and the maximum deviation between the computational solution and predicted values is 2.93%.


Chemical vapor deposition Epitaxial growth Response surface methodology Deposition uniformity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Shin D-S, Rhee H S, Ueno T, Lee H, Lee SH (2008) Methods of fabricating a semiconductor device using a selective epitaxial growth technique. U.S. Patent No. 7,361,563Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fan F-R, Ding Y, Liu D-Y, Tian Z-Q, Wang ZL (2009) Facet-selective epitaxial growth of heterogeneous nanostructures of semiconductor and metal: ZnO nanorods on Ag nanocrystals. J Am Chem Soc 131(34):12036–12037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ang CH, Lin W, Zheng JZ (2004) Method of fabricating a CMOS device with integrated super-steep retrograde twin wells using double selective epitaxial growth. U.S. Patent No. 6,743,291Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pae S, Su T, Denton JP, Neudeck GW (1999) Multiple layers of silicon-on-insulator islands fabrication by selective epitaxial growth. IEEE Electron Device Lett 20(5):194–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Loo R, Sun J, Witters L, Hikavyy A, Vincent B, Shimura Y, Favia P, Richard O, Bender H, Vandervorst W, Collaert N (2014) Strained Ge FinFET structures fabricated by selective epitaxial growth. In: Silicon-Germanium Technology and Device Meeting (ISTDM), 2014 7th International. IEEE, p 19–20Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hierlemann M, Kersch A, Werner C, Schäfer H (1995) A gas-phase and surface kinetics model for silicon epitaxial growth with SiH2Cl2 in an RTCVD reactor. J Electrochem Soc 142(1):259–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Habuka H, Aoyama Y, Akiyama S, Otsuka T, Qu W-F, Shimada M, Okuyama K (1999) Chemical process of silicon epitaxial growth in a SiHCl3–H2 system. J Cryst Growth 207(1):77–86, 1999/11/01/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oh IH, Takoudis CG, Neudeck GW (1991) Mathematical modeling of epitaxial silicon growth in pancake chemical vapor deposition reactors. J Electrochem Soc 138(2):554–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zaidi I, Jang Y-H, Ko DG, Im IT (2018) Numerical modeling study on the epitaxial growth of silicon from dichlorosilane. J Cryst Growth 483:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hazbun R, Hart J, Hickey R, Ghosh A, Fernando N, Zollner S, Adam TN, Kolodzey J (2016) Silicon epitaxy using tetrasilane at low temperatures in ultra-high vacuum chemical vapor deposition. J Cryst Growth 444:21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bartlome R, De Wolf S, Demaurex B, Ballif C, Amanatides E, Mataras D (2015) Practical silicon deposition rules derived from silane monitoring during plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition. J Appl Phys 117(20):203303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oh IH, Takoudis CG (1991) Modeling of epitaxial silicon growth from the SiH2Cl2-H2-HCl system in an rf-heated pancake reactor. J Appl Phys 69(12):8336–8345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Salinger AG, Pawlowski RP, Shadid JN, van Bloemen Waanders BG (2004) Computational analysis and optimization of a chemical vapor deposition reactor with large-scale computing. Ind Eng Chem Res 43(16):4612–4623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ramadan Z, Abdelmotalib HM, Im IT (2018) Modeling of Epitaxial Silicon Growth from the DCSH2-HCl System in a Large Scale CVD Reactor. IEEE Trans Semicond Manuf 31(3):363–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schüler C, Betzenbichler F, Drescher C, Hinrichsen O (2018) Optimization of the synthesis of Ni catalysts via chemical vapor deposition by response surface methodology. Chem Eng Res Des 132:303–312, 2018/04/01/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Biira S, Crouse PL, Bissett H, Alawad BAB, Hlatshwayo TT, Nel JT, Malherbe JB (2017) Optimisation of the synthesis of ZrC coatings in a radio frequency induction-heating chemical vapour deposition system using response surface methodology. Thin Solid Films 624:61–69, 2017/02/28/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Allaedini G, Tasirin SM, Aminayi P (2016) Yield optimization of nanocarbons prepared via chemical vapor decomposition of carbon dioxide using response surface methodology. Diam Relat Mater 66:196–205, 2016/06/01/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    An L-S, Liu C-J, Liu Y-W (2018) Optimization of operating parameters in polysilicon chemical vapor deposition reactor with response surface methodology. J Cryst Growth 489:11–19, 2018/05/01/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li J, Fei Z-y, Xu Y-f, Wang J, Fan B-f, Ma X-j, Wang G (2018) Study on the optimization of the deposition rate of planetary GaN-MOCVD films based on CFD simulation and the corresponding surface model. Open Sci 5(2):171757Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ANSYS Inc, (2016) Fluent is a Product of ANSYS, Inc., Release 17.2Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kastelic M, Oh I, Takoudis C, Friedrich J, Neudeck G (1988) Selective epitaxial growth of silicon in pancake reactors. Chem Eng Sci 43(8):2031–2036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Box GE, Draper NR (1987) Empirical model-building and response surfaces. John Wiley & Sons, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Design Expert, Version 11, Stat Ease Inc., Minneapolis, USA, 2017Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mason RL, Gunst RF, Hess JL (2003) Statistical design and analysis of experiments: with applications to engineering and science. John Wiley & Sons, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vohra A, Satyanarayana T (2002) Statistical optimization of the medium components by response surface methodology to enhance phytase production by Pichia anomala. Process Biochem 37(9):999–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical Design Engineering, College of EngineeringChonbuk National UniversityJeonjuRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations