Chemical Mechanical Polishing (CMP) is a crucial process in advanced semiconductor manufacturing, essential for achieving global planarization of the wafer surface, which directly impacts device performance and yield. Uniform material removal across the wafer is vital; however, non-uniformity frequently occurs, even with nominally uniform applied pressure. A prevalent issue is the edge effect, where the removal rate at the wafer edge significantly differs from that at the center, resulting in reduced uniformity and compromised device reliability. To tackle this challenge, this study explores the effectiveness of a multi-zone pressure-controlled carrier in enhancing polishing uniformity. Conventional single-zone carriers can only influence a narrow region of approximately 5–7 mm at the wafer edge, leading to limited improvements in nonuniformity of about 3%. In contrast, the multi-zone carrier allows for precise pressure control over a broader range, extending from 3 mm to 20 mm from the wafer edge. Experimental results show that this approach reduces non-uniformity to below 3% while effectively addressing edge removal deficiencies. These findings underscore the significant potential of multi-zone carriers to improve CMP process precision. Consequently, the proposed method is anticipated to enhance both productivity and quality in semiconductor fabrication.

In this work, precise gas pressure control based on a closed pneumatic circuit was achieved with a mechanically driven gas pressure controller (MDGPC), consisting of a variable-volume bellows chamber and linear actuator. The linear actuator was employed to change an axial dimension of the bellows chamber with the proportional (P) and proportional-integral (PI) controls for fast, stable, and precise pressure control of the gas inside the bellows chamber. The pressure control stability and resolution of the MDGPC were approximately 1.5 Pa and 10 Pa for the P control and 1 Pa and 5 Pa for the PI control, respectively. Despite the more stable and precise control characteristics of the PI control method, overshoots and undershoots observed during the set-point pressure changes and recoveries from pressure disturbances rendered it unsuitable for the MDGPC control method. In contrast, the MDGPC operated under the P control did not show any significant overshoots or undershoots when the set-point pressure abruptly changed or when the MDGPC was exposed to pressure disturbances. Therefore, it was concluded that a fast, precise, and stable gas pressure control in a closed manner was attainable with the MDGPC under the P control.