Mechanical Strength of Silicon Wafers Cut by Loose Abrasive Slurry and Fixed Abrasive Diamond Wire Sawing
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract This paper reports on the mechanical strength of polycrystalline silicon wafers cut by loose abrasive slurry and fixed abrasive diamond wire sawing processes. Four line bending and biaxial flexure tests are used to evaluate the fracture strength of the wafers. Fracture strength of the wafers depends on the location, size, and orientation of microcracks in the silicon wafer and the distribution and magnitude of applied stresses. Measurement of microcracks at the wafer edge and center shows that edge cracks are typically larger than center cracks. Fixed abrasive diamond wire sawn wafers are found to have a higher crack density but smaller average crack length. Wafer fracture in four line bending is found to be primarily due to the propagation of edge cracks while center cracks are found to be the primary cause of wafer failure in biaxial flexure tests. Fracture mechanics based analyses demonstrate that crack orientation plays a significant role in four line bending, but not in biaxial flexure. Correlations of the wafer fracture strength and critical crack length agree well with microcrack measurements. The fracture strength of diamond cut wafers is found to be comparable or superior to the strength of slurry cut wafers.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Advanced Surface Polishing Techniques · Tunneling and Rock Mechanics · Diamond and Carbon-based Materials Research
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (24)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.tsf.2005.01.06110.1016/j.tsf.2005.01.061 ↗
2. 10.1007/s10853-006-6567-y10.1007/s10853-006-6567-y ↗
3. P. A.Wang Proc. 4th WCPEC Waikoloa HI USA 2006 p.1179.
4. 10.1002/pssa.20056450810.1002/pssa.200564508 ↗
5. 10.1115/1.134801910.1115/1.1348019 ↗
6. 10.1002/pip.97210.1002/pip.972 ↗
7. Y.Kondo N.Watanabe D.Ide T.Matsuki H.Takato I.Sakata Proc. 23rd EUPVSEC Valencia Spain 2008 p.1297.
8. 10.1002/pip.92310.1002/pip.923 ↗
9. A.Bidiville K.Wasmer R.Kraft C.Ballif Proc. 24th EUPVSEC 2CV.1 Hamburg Germany 2009 p.86.
10. 10.1016/j.solmat.2009.01.01610.1016/j.solmat.2009.01.016 ↗
11. 10.1007/s10704-009-9324-910.1007/s10704-009-9324-9 ↗
12. H.Behnken M.Apel D.Franke Proc. 3rd WCPEC Osaka Japan 2003 p.1308.
13. Hayter A. · 2002
14. 10.1109/TCAPT.2003.81511110.1109/TCAPT.2003.815111 ↗
15. 10.1201/978142005821510.1201/9781420058215 ↗
16. Weibull W. A. · 1959
17. Standard practice for reporting uniaxial strength data and estimating Weibull distribution parameters for advanced ceramics C1239‐07. ASTM Philadelphia PA USA 2007.
18. Tada H. · 2000
19. Chen C. P. · Am. Ceram. Soc. Bull. · 1980 · 59 · 469
20. Bagdahn J. · Proc. SPIE · 2004 · 5581 · 159
21. 10.1115/1.217226810.1115/1.2172268 ↗
22. Tentative test method for biaxial flexure strength (modulus of rupture) of ceramic substrates F394‐74T. ASTM Philadelphia PA USA 1974.
23. 10.1002/adem.20040040610.1002/adem.200400406 ↗
24. 10.1023/A:101853040656810.1023/A:1018530406568 ↗