Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T23:38:34.950Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Continuous chemical vapor deposition processing with a moving finite thickness susceptor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

Wilson K. S. Chiu  and
Yogesh Jaluria
Wilson K. S. Chiu*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08854
Yogesh Jaluria
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08854
*
a)Address all correspondence to this author.jaluria@jove.rutgers.edu
Get access

Abstract

Chemical vapor deposition (CVD) of thin films onto a moving surface is an important material processing technique for semiconductor fabrication, optical coatings, and many other applications. Continuous CVD processing offers an attractive solution to meet high volume requirements. In this study, the deposition on a finite thickness moving susceptor, considering surface reactions, is numerically investigated. When a susceptor is in motion, the reaction zone residence time and the coupling of conduction heat transfer in the susceptor with convection heat transfer in the gas flow significantly alter the deposition rate and film quality. A model is developed to quantify continuous CVD film production for several important design parameters. The numerical model is validated for the deposition of silicon through comparisons with analytical results and experimental data available in the literature. Films produced by continuous CVD are shown to be strongly dependent on susceptor speed, material selection, and susceptor thickness. Susceptor speed is directly linked to residence time in the reaction region, with lower residence times resulting in less time for reaction and heating, hence reducing growth rates. Increased thickness and susceptor thermal diffusivity alters the thermal energy distribution, thereby reducing the susceptor surface temperature and lowering the deposition rate. These effects may be overcome by increasing the length of the heating zone. Film quality is also influenced by the susceptor temperature, since reaction-controlled deposition typically produces different film structure than deposition under diffusion-controlled conditions. Overall, the results obtained demonstrate the feasibility of employing a moving finite thickness susceptor for CVD processing. A correlation of several operational parameters is also obtained for the film thickness. This may be used for the design and optimization of continuous CVD systems. The numerical model may also be used for considering deposition of other materials.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , February 2000 , pp. 317 - 328
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2000

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

REFERENCES

1.Barth, K.L. and Sampath, W.S., J. Mater. Res. 10, 493 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Bird, R.B., Stewart, W.E., and Lightfoot, E.N., Transport Phenomena (John Wiley, New York, 1960).Google Scholar
3.Bloem, J. and Giling, L.J., in Silicon Materials, VLSI Electronics: Microstructure Science Vol. 12, edited by Einspruch, N.G. and Huff, H. (Academic Press, New York, 1985), p. 89.Google Scholar
4.Chiu, W.K.S and Jaluria, Y., Numerical Heat Transfer (2000, in press).Google Scholar
5.Chiu, W.K.S and Jaluria, Y., in Proceedings of the 11th International Heat Transfer Conference, edited by Lee, J.S. (Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, PA, 1998), Vol. 5, p. 187–192.Google Scholar
6.Chiu, W.K.S and Jaluria, Y., in Manufacturing and Materials Processing Proceedings of the ASME National Heat Transfer Conference (ASME-HTD 347, New York, 1997), p. 293.Google Scholar
7.Chiu, W.K.S, M.S. Thesis, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ (1996).Google Scholar
8.Claasen, W.A.P, Bloem, J., Valkenburg, W.G.J.N, and van den Brekel, C.H.J., J. Cryst. Growth 57, 259 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Coltrin, M.E., Kee, R.J., and Evans, G.H., J. Electrochem. Soc. 136, 819 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Coltrin, M.E., Kee, R.J., and Miller, J.A., J. Electrochem. Soc. 133, 1206 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Creighton, J.R. and Parmeter, J.E., Crit. Rev. Solid State Mater. Sci. 18, 176 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Evans, G. and Greif, R., ASME J. Heat Transfer 109, 928 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Eversteyn, F.C., Severin, P.J.W, van den Brekel, C.H.J., and Peek, H.L., J. Electrochem. Soc. 117, 925 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Fotiadis, D.I., Boekholt, M., Jensen, K.F., and Richter, W., J. Cryst. Growth 100, 577 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Gebhart, B., Jaluria, Y., Mahajan, R.L., and Sammakia, B., Buoyancy-Induced Flows and Transport (Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, PA, 1988).Google Scholar
16.Gordon, R., J. Non-Cryst. Solids 218, 81 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Jaluria, Y., Design and Optimization of Thermal Systems (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998).Google Scholar
18.Jaluria, Y., Computational Methods for Engineering (Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, PA, 1996).Google Scholar
19.Jaluria, Y., Annu. Rev. Heat Transfer 4, 187 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Jaluria, Y. and Torrance, K.E., Computational Heat Transfer (Hemisphere, Washington, DC, 1986).Google Scholar
21.Jensen, K.F. and Graves, D.B., J. Electrochem. Soc. 130, 1950 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Jensen, K.F., Einset, E.O., and Fotiadis, D.I., Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 23, 197 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Kamotani, Y. and Ostrach, S., ASME J. Heat Transfer 98, 62 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Karki, K.C., Sathyamurthy, P.S., and Patankar, S.V., ASME J. Heat Transfer 115, 803 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Kee, R.J., Rupley, F. M., and Miller, J.A., CHEMKIN-III: A Fortran Chemical Kinetics Package for the Analysis of Gas-Phase Chemical and Plasma Kinetics, SAND96–8216 (Sandia National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, 1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Mahajan, R.L., Adv. Heat Transfer 28, 339 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Moffat, H.K. and Jensen, K.F., J. Electrochem. Soc. 135, 459 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Ouazzani, J., Chiu, K.C., and Rosenberger, F., J. Cryst. Growth 91, 497 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Panton, R.L., Incompressible Flow (Wiley, New York, 1984).Google Scholar
30.Patankar, S.V., Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow (Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, PA, 1980).Google Scholar
31.The National Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (Semiconductor Industry Association, San Jose, CA, 1997).Google Scholar
32.Siegel, R. and Howell, J.R., Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer, 3rd. ed. (Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, PA, 1992).Google Scholar