1. Wear mechanisms review
It is important to remark that a worn
Since 1968 wear has been defined as ‘the
progressive loss of substance from the operating
body surface, which is resultant of relative motion
at the surface’. In 1980 Godfrey stated about
twelve kinds of wear which are categorized based
on the wear mechanisms present. Burwell listed
four major mechanisms: adhesive wear, abrasive
wear, surface fatigue, corrosive wear, while all
other mechanisms were listed as ‘minor types of
wear’. [1] This literary review will focus mainly on
the first two, adhesive and abrasive.
First, adhesive wear can be visualized as a form of
cold welding, where bonding of surfaces prevents
further relative motion. Adhesion mechanism can
be based on electron transfer between the
surfaces making it rather immediate and
spontaneous, regardless of the interface
temperature or it can be based on diffusion
between the surfaces where the adhesion process
is extremely slow and highly dependent on
temperature. [2] Under atmospheric conditions,
adhesive wear is less likely to happen than
abrasion, nevertheless, dry sliding friction between
similar materials can cause it. Worn surface would
exhibit material transfer, crests and scaling as a
result of adhesive wear.[3] Abrasive wear, on the
other hand, is the most likely to happen between
dissimilar materials in relative motion. It involves
fatigue, grain detachment and brittle/ductile
fractures. Usually a soft surface is worn by a
particle that is hard enough to plastically deform
the surface, and even plough a groove in it if a
sufficient load is provided. In spite of having
severe stages, abrasive wear can be easily
eradicated by using an adequate combination of
materials or a lubricant. [2]
Other generic wear classification are single-cycle
deformation, which are those where deformation,
displacement or fracture occur after a single
engagement; and repeated-cycle deformation,
which require repeated contact for wear to be
manifested as delamination, ratcheting or fatigue.
Another mechanism that is always present is the
atomic one which involves the migration of
individual atoms between surfaces. At an atomic
scale both thermal mechanisms, those associated
with a rise in temperature, and chemical ones,
those that involve the formation of oxides or
chemical products on the contacting surfaces, are
significant.
surface never exhibits solely one phenomenon. [4]
This literary review intends to showcase how
abrasive and adhesive wear are modeled at a
macro scale as well as at the micro one.
2. Wear Theories
2.1 Adhesion Theory
Originally proposed by Bowden and Tabor;
and formulated semi-empirically by Archard in
1953 the wear theory of adhesion is based on
the adhesion theory of friction. It states that
two surfaces that experience relative
movement will form junctions between their
asperities that will be sheared for sliding to
continue. This cycle of formation an shearing
will lead to the wearing of the surfaces in an
even manner if these are similar or unevenly if
dissimilar. Formation of junctions, however, is
dependent of surface finish and material
microstructure, see figure 1.
Figure 1. True Contact Between Surfaces[2]
The equation governing wear, as formulated
by Archard, relates the wear volume V to the
normal force P, the penetration hardness p,
the sliding distance S and an empirical
wearing coefficient as follows [4]
kP S
V = (1)
3p
Archard’s equation suggests three laws: the
volume of material worn is proportional to the
sliding distance (1st law) and also to the load
(2nd law); and it is inversely proportional to the
hardness of the softer material (3rd law). The
first law is held true for a wide range of
conditions, meanwhile, the second one is true
for very low loads to approximately one third
of the bulk yield stress of the softer material.
The third one is supported by much
experimental work but the worn volume is
 always less than this theoretical approximation
often by degrees of magnitude.
When abrasive wear occurs, wear volume V
removed by abrasive wear is related to sliding
distance S, penetration hardness p, normal
force P, angle of abrasion θ and the wearing
coefficient k according to [4]
2k tanθ P S
V = (2)
πp
2.2 Diffusion Theory
It states that two surfaces in relative motion
will develop an interface via diffusion,
particularly at the asperities whereas junctions
would be formed in the adhesion theory. For
atoms to jump from one surface to the other,
high localized temperature is needed. The
surface with the highest diffusion flux or the
less favorable solubility conditions will have a
depleted surface, evidently a wear scar.
Diffusive wear is likely to occur when there is
true contact between the atoms and a high
temperature at the interface, see figure 2.
3. Experiments
3.1 Slurry abrasivity test
Figure 2. Schematic of diffusive wear
2.3 Delamination Theory
Elaborated by Suh in 1974, it intends to explain
wear phenomena taking into detailed
considerations subsurface dislocation
interactions. [1] Barwell summarized the
physical basis of the theory in the following
four stages, see figure 3. First, plastic loading

flattens the surface asperities of the softer
material between mating surfaces in relative
motion, so that at each flattened asperity there
is a cyclic shear loading in the subsurface.
Subsequently, nucleation of voids and cracks
u :‡u L‘E‹L8
__A…gd …A‡‡8 A— g…^8 jeeOu \Y pA…b\‡‡\gdus
begins as loading continues, being crack
growth partially prevented by the surface
compressive stresses. Further cycling, causes
dislocation pile-ups that favor voids and
cracks growth via linking and at a critical crack
length failure occurs. Failure is visible as
cracks
…\)g_gQ™that shear to the surface or as wear
debris in the form of flakes. [8]
Figure 3. Schematic of delamination wear
  ‘u“‹ 2YAb!\2 gJ :A_!b\d!\gd —A!… Jg…b!\gd !d: !d A˜!bp_A gJ :A_!
‡\_–A…[p_!A: 2gppA… 2gd!2‡u
The depth h of the subsurface dislocation pile-
up can be defined in terms of the shear
YA 2gd!2\dQ bA!_‡u
‡ ! …A‡”_8 YA pY!‡A )g”d:!…™ ‡p!2\dQ :A2…A!‡A‡ ”d
modulus G, Poisson’s ration ν, the stress σf
2…™‡!__\dA b\˜”…A A˜2AA:‡ YA J…AA AdA…Q™ gJ YA !bg…pYg”‡ pY!‡Au Y
preventing the dislocation motion and the
)…A!^‡ :g—d !d: …A_A!‡A‡ ! b”_\”:A gJ :\‡_g2!\gd‡u ”…YA… Jg…b!\gd gJ !
Burger2!dvector b Y…g”QY
as
bA!_‡ g22”… YA ‡g_\: ‡!A d”2_A!\gd gd YA …Abd!d 2…™
\Q”…A ‘u“B \__”‡…!A‡ YA pY!‡A
Gb )g”d:!…™ A–g_”\gd ! ‡YA!… Y! p…gbgA
h=
pY!‡A …!d‡\\gd‡u (3)
4π (1 − ν) σf
YA bg:A_ gJ :A_!b\d!\gd \‡ gdA A˜!bp_A gJ YA !…!2\–A pg—A… g
In spitegJ 2gbp_A˜
d!\gd‡ of its popularity,
pYAdgbAd! this
! YAtheory is gJonly
)g”d:!…™ b!A…\!_‡ ‡2\Ad2A !d: bA
\‡ dg !pp_\2!)_A g bg‡ gJ YA d”bA…g”‡ 2!‡A‡ gJ —A!…8 \ Y!‡ dgdAYA_A‡‡ p
valid at low speeds, where the localized rise in
‡”:\A‡ \d ‡…”2”…!_ …!d‡Jg…b!\gd‡ gJ b!A…\!_‡ \d J…\2\gdu YA KA_: gJ A_A
temperature is insignificant so that neither
!JJA2A: )™ bA2Y!d\2!_8 A_A2…\2!_8 !d: YA! pYAdgbAd! 2gd\d”A‡ g )A
diffusion nor phase transformation are
significant.
The purpose of this test was to rank the
abrasivity of slurries and to provide a ranking
capability for wear resistance against a
particular slurry. Experimental setup consists
of a flat rectangular wear specimen, mounted
on an arm, sliding back and forth across a
rubber lap, flooded by a slurry, see figure 4.
  ‘u“Š  b\2…gQ…!pY ‡Yg—\dQ p!… gJ ! _gdQ\”:\d!_ ‡A2\gd gJ !d 
r)_g2^[gd[…\dQ QAgbA…™su YA :AJg…b!\gd ‡”)‡…”2”…A –!…\A‡ —\Y :ApY )A_g—
2”…–A: _\dA \‡ ! Q…!\d )g”d:!…™‰ \ Y!‡ )Ad \d YA ‡_\:\dQ :\…A2\gdu
……g— ‡Yg—
2g”dA…J!2Au !…^ b!A…\!_ dA!… !……g— \‡ bA2Y!d\2!__™ b\˜A: b!A…\!_u ˜pA…\bAd!
‹Š  r‹uB ^Qs‰ jœœ …A–g_”\gd‡ gJ ™pA OOœ ‡AA_ …\dQ‰ j“ b g!_ ‡_\:\dQ :\‡!d2A‰ j
!bg‡pYA…Au r…gb \QdA™8 u
u8 …\)g_gQ™ \d YA 
!d: g…bA… g–\A d\gd
™‡Y^\d8 u
Figure 4. Slurry Abrasivity Test Setup [6]
The arm lifts the specimen at the end of each
© 2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
stroke to allow the slurry to come between the
specimen and the lap. Whenever the
specimen is moved, mixing and circulation of
the slurry occurs in the tray. The wear
specimen is removed periodically and weight
 loss is determined. By varying the slurry and
keeping the wear specimen constant, a
ranking of abrasivity of the slurries can be
obtained, known as the Miller Number. The
higher this number, the more abrasive the
slurry is. If the slurry is kept constant instead
the wear resistance of different materials to
that slurry can be ranked, using SAR Number.
The wear rate from the wear curve is Figure 7. Flat-Ended Pin Alignment [6]
multiplied by a factor of 18.18 h/mg to obtain
the dimensionless Miller Number. The SAR ASTM recommends to report volume loss
Number is defined as instead of mass or geometrical loss data. For
SAR = (M illerN o.)
7.58
(4) mass loss, dividing by the density yields the
specimen specif ic weight volume loss. For geometrical loss, see figure
Experiments have shown that the Miller 8, the wear volume V is related to the width of
Number becomes less sensitive to the the wear track W on the disk, the spherical
concentration of the slurry as the concentration radius R of the pin and the radius of the wear
increases, and that oil-based slurries tend to track D according to the following formulas
result in lower wear than water-based slurries,
among others.

3.2 Pin-on-disk test

This test is used to evaluate the sliding wear

behavior of material parts. The setup consists Figure 8. Wear Scars on Pin(A) and Disk(B) [6]
of a radius-tipped or flat-ended pin pressed � �
against a flat disk, see figure 6. The relative πW 4
Vpin = (5)
motion between the two is such that a 64R
circumferential wear path on the disk surface is � �
generated. Either the pin or the disk can be πW 3 D
Vdisk = (6)
moving[6]. The test can be done in a controlled 6R
atmosphere on dry or lubricated surfaces.
3.3 Block-on-ring test

The Block-on-ring test is used to study sliding

wear and to rank materials in terms of
resistance to sliding wear [6]. The test
measures the wear on the block material, and
not the wear on the ring. The ring material is
fixed, while the block material is varied. The
block is pressed against the rotating ring, see
figure 9. Wear on both the block and the ring is
Figure 6. Pin-on-disk setup and various pins[6]
measured after a fixed number of revolutions.
To compare materials, the wear on both
members is measured after a set number of
revolutions. The relationship between wear and
sliding duration tends to be nonlinear because
the stress levels in the rounded pin change
due to wear. When using flat-ended pins, a
wear-in process is necessary until the surface
of the pin aligns with the surface of the other
member, see figure 7.
 lubrication induces a strong shear stress that
removes material at the wafer surface. First slurry
chemicals are diffused and adsorbed onto the
wafer surface, reacting with surface atoms and
molecules to form a weakened protective layer.
This modified layer is then sheared by the non-
newtonian flow of the slurry particles. The
strength of the shear results from the high shear
rate at local removal points and the non-
Newtonian viscosity being more effective than its
bulk value. Finally, removed atoms are
transported away downstream by the slurry flow,
see schematic in figure 11.

Figure 9. Block-on-Ring Test Setup [6]

Wear volume for the block is used to rank

materials in terms of their wear resistance. It is
calculated using the following geometrical
relationships, see wear track in figure 10.

Figure 10. Wear on Block [6]

� �
θ
Scar W idth = b = Dsin (7)
2 Figure 11. Schematic diagram for the unified removal
� � mechanism: (a) react: newly created molecules (filled-in gray
b circles) generate an altered layer; (b) shear: slurry particles
θ = 2sin−1 (8) (filled-in black circles) pull off molecules from the altered layer;
D
(c) transport: removed molecules are carried away downstream
d2 t and atoms (open circles) under the altered layer are exposed.
Scar V olume = [θ − sin(θ)] (9)
8 This mechanism is bolstered by various
experimental studies [12,13,14], where researchers
4. Numerical Results - CMP used a polishing pad with characteristic pores of
about 25 microns. None of these experiments,
Chemical Mechanical Planarization (CMP) is the exhibited direct participation slurry particles in the
preferred planarization step utilized in deep sub- process of material removal. Their abrasive
micron IC manufacturing[9], to remove roughness plowing effect was observed in the first stage of
from silicon oxide, metal and polysilicon surfaces. chemical reactions. Thus, it can be assumed that
Material removal mechanisms present in the active particles are embedded on the pad surface
CMP process will be discussed from an unified as part of the trapped fluid inside the pores and at
perspective rather than Kaufman’s[10] chemistry- least some of them do not roll with respect to the
aided mechanical abrasion or Cook’s chemical pad. These particles that slide with respect to the
tooth mechanism[11]. The non-Newtonian slurry wafer surface will generate heat that will lead to a
flow in the regime of mixed or boundary temperature rise. Stein[15] has shown that during
the CMP process the temperature rise in the
system can be calculated
Ws
[10]
∆T =
Fslurry Cp
where Ws is the“shaft work” due to friction, Fslurry is
the molar flow rate of the slurry, and Cp is the
average heat capacity of the slurry. The slurry
increased temperature of the slurry will accelerate
chemical reactions on the wafer surface, thus a
higher material removal rate can be obtained.
Indeed a strong correlation between material
removal rate and slurry temperature has been
found [15]. It has also been reported by Sugimoto[16]
that the removal rate of an oxide layer is sensitive
to the wafer temperature, and that the relation
between them is linear.
A mathematical model is obtained de Rosas
Further it is assumed that the shear stress is
uniformly distributed around the slurry particle. The
shape of molecules in the altered layer on the
wafer surface is modeled as a sphere with
diameter Rm. The slurry particle is regarded as a
perfect ball with diameter Rp. Since the size of a
molecule to be removed is usually on the scale of
several angstroms, a slurry particle is generally
much larger than a molecule[17,18,19], i.e., Rp >> Rm.
Thus, it is highly probable for a slurry particle to
remove more than one molecule at a time. To
remove N molecules simultaneously from the
altered layer on the wafer surface, the inequality
�π � �π � process parameters, particularly on the weight
2 2
τ R Rm ≥ 2γ R N [11]
4 p 4 m
has to be satisfied, where γ is the surface energy
between the altered layer and sub-layer molecules
[20]. The inequality suggests that in order to move
simultaneously N molecules from the wafer surface
to a distance of Rm, the energy transferred through
the slurry particle by the shear stress must be
greater enough to overcome the surface energy of
newly created surface if these N molecules are
moved. It is implicitly assumed that once a
molecule in the modified layer is moved off a
distance of its diameter or larger, it will be removed
permanently from the wafer surface. An
experimental model based on surface topography
[21] shows that the number of molecules removed
simultaneously by a single slurry particle is
proportional to the contact area, and can be
expressed as � �
π 2
N= R CN [12]
4 p
where C N is the constant of proportionality.
Substituting (12) into the expression (11), the maximum
number of molecules to be removed simultaneously
(N*) by a single slurry particle can be deduced as
�� ��
� 2τ �
∗
N = � � � [13]
πγR �
m
The expression states that the material removal
rate from the wafer surface is independent of the
slurry particle size. Such prediction is consistent
with the study of the effect of abrasive size on the
material removal rate [22]. It is generally accepted
that the material removal rate does not change
significantly with the abrasive size if the abrasive
particle size is less than 300nm [22]. However,
variations of material removal rate with respect to
slurry particles of different sizes have been
reported [17,19]. According to the study by Luo et al.
[19], such variations may be ascribed to differences
in the morphology with abrasive particles rather
than different sizes. However, Luo and Dornfeld
studies [17], were on abrasive sizes of about a
micron, thus much larger than 300 nm. The
material removal rate in volume is qualitatively
proportional to the volume of the molecule in the
altered layer, to the shearing frequency by the
slurry particle, and to the maximum number N∗
and it can be approximated to
τ 2
Ẋ ≈ R fτ [14]
3γ m
The shearing frequency fτ depends on many
concentration of particles in the slurry and on the
relative sliding speed between the wafer surface
and the pad. For the weight concentration to be
small, the simplest linear dependence of fτ is
reasonable, i.e.,
fτ = c1α α + c0alpha [15]
Various independent studies[15,17,18,19] confirm
such dependence. When the weight concentration
increases beyond a certain level, the critical
weight fraction c at the shearing spots on the
altered layer may become saturated, making the
material removal rate X independent of the weight
fraction. Conversely, the shear stress depends on
all the process parameters such as the applied
pressure on the wafer surface and the relative
sliding velocity u, it is not clear how to establish
the qualitative relation between the material
removal rate and the relative sliding velocity u.
Additionally, in the experimental studies the sliding
 velocity is usually on the order of several m/s
while in a typical CMP process, the relative sliding
velocity is about 1m/s. Nevertheless, the shear
stress can be computed quantitatively by
combining contact mechanics of pad asperities
and the wafer surface with fluid mechanics of the
slurry flow[25]. Since the fluid as a continuum in-
between the wafer surface and the pad is
separated by asperities at each discrete contact
spot, it is only meaningful to solve the fluid
problem in full three dimensions, i.e.
d 6. Bayer, Raymond G. Mechanical Wear Fundamentals and Testing,
ρv = − � ρvv − �π + ρg [16]
dt
where ρ is the fluid density, v is the fluid velocity,
and π is the momentum flux tensor and its
connection with the shear stress
π = pδ + τ [17]
where p is the fluid pressure. Since the material
removal occurs at the wafer surface, it is
appropriate to focus on the flow behavior at the
interface between the slurry and the wafer surface.
Hence, instead of solving equation 16, the liquid
crystal model or the porous media model for thin
film lubrication are two favorable alternatives[24].
Note that expression (14) can explain the edge
effect for a blanket wafer or the doming effect for a
patterned one[25]. Such effects may damage wafer
in the microelectronics industry. These are due to
the non-uniform material removal at the wafer
edge or along the circumference of a feature.
Slurry turbulent flow may cause non-uniformity.
5. Conclusions
Being wear, the progressive loss of material at a
surface due to relative motion between two
surfaces, it can be desired as in CMP processes or
undesired causing an annual billionaire loss.
Though wear is visible at the macro scale, it is at
the micro one where roughness and particle
distribution determine wear mechanism evolution.
Several theories and models, besides Archard’s,
have been developed and compared to widely
used experiments that characterize materials wear
resistance or simulate common operating
conditions i.e. pin-on-disk. Tendencies between
experimental data and models’s predictions are
congruent though wear coefficients may differ by
orders of magnitude. Nanotribology research on
thin film lubrication has been valuable to explain
non-uniformity of worn surfaces by CMP processes
versus continuum and fluid mechanics approach.
6. References
1. R. D. Arnell, P.B. Davies, J. Halling and T.L. Whomes. Tribology:
Principles and Design Applications. Springer-Verlag New York. 1991
2. Andrew William Batchelor, Loh Nee Lam and Margam
Chandrasekaran. Materials Degradation and its Control by Surface
Engineering. Imperial College Press. 1999
3. Theo Mang, Kirsten Bobzin and Thorsten Bartels. Industrial
Tribology: Tribosystems, Friction, Wear and Surface Engineering,
Lubrication. Wiley-VCH 2011
4. R. G. Bayer. Wear Analysis for Engineers. HNB Pub. NY, 2002
5. Bayer, R.G. Engineering Design for Wear: Design Perspective of
Wear Behavior, 2nd Ed, CRC Press 2004 pp 45–135
Revised and Expanded CRC Press 2004
7. Booser, Richard E. Theory and Practice of Tribology, CRC
Handbook of Lubrication Volume II: Theory and Design CRC Press
1988 pp 201–208
8. Ludema, K.C. Friction, Wear, Lubrication. A Textbook in Tribology
CRC Press 1996
9. J. M. Steigerwald, Shyam P. Murarka and R.J. Gurmann, Chemical
Mechanical Planarization of Microelectronic Material, Wiley , 1997
10. F.B. Kaufman, D.B. Thompson, R.E. Broadie, M.A. Jaso, W.L.
Guthrie, D.J. Pearson, M.B. Small, Chemical–mechanical polishing
for fabricating patterned W metal features as chip interconnects, J.
Electrochem. Soc. 138 (1991) 3460–3464.
11. L.M. Cook, Chemical processes in glass polishing, J. Non-Cryst.
Solids 120 (1990)152–171.
12. W. Lortz, F. Menzel, R. Brandes, F. Klaessig, T. Knothe, T.
Shibasaki, News from the M in CMP – viscosity of CMP slurries a
constant? Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 767 (2003) F1.7.1–
F1710.1710.1710.
13. A.S. Lawing, Pad conditioning and pad surface characterization in
oxide chemical mechanical polishing, Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc.
732 (2002) I5.3.1–I536.536.536.
14. L. Shan, J. Levert, L. Meade, J. Tichy, S. Danyluk, Interfacial fluid
mechanics and pressure prediction in chemical mechanical
polishing, ASME J. Tribol. 122 (2000) 539–543.
15. D.J. Stein, D.L. Hetherington, J.L. Cecchi, Investigation of the
kinetics of tungsten chemical mechanical polishing in potassium
iodate-based slurries. I. Role of alumina and potassium iodate, J.
Electrochem. Soc. 146 (1999) 376–381.
16. F. Sugimoto, Y. Arimoto, T. Ito, Simultaneous temperature
measurement of wafers in chemical mechanical polishing of silicon
dioxide layer, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 34 (1995) 6314–6320.
17. J. Luo, D.A. Dornfeld, Effects of abrasive size distribution in
chemical mechanical planarization: modeling and verification, IEEE
Trans. Semiconduct. Manuf.(2003) 469–476.
18. J. Luo, D.A. Dornfeld, Material removal regions in in chemical
mechanical planarization for submicron integrated circuit fabrication:
coupling effects of slurry chemicals, abrasive size distribution, and
wafer–pad contact area, IEEE Trans. Semiconduct. Manuf. 16
(2003) 45–56.
19. Q. Luo, S. Ramarajan, S.V. Babu, Modification of the preston
equation for the chemical–mechanical polishing of copper, Thin
Solid Films 335 (1998) 160–167.
20. Y.-T. Su, S.-Y. Wang, J.-S. Hsiau, On machining rate of
hydrodynamic polishing process, Wear 188 (1995) 77–87.
21. N. Gane, P.F. Pfaelzer, D. Tabor, Adhesion between clean surfaces
at light loads, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 340 (1974) 495–517.
22. I. Ali, S.R. Roy, G. Shinn, Chemical–mechanical polishing of
interlayer dielectric: a review, Solid State Technol. 37 (1994) 63–70.
23. K.L. Johnson, J.A. Greenwood, S.Y. Poon, A simple theory of
asperity contact in elastohydrodynamic lubrication, Wear 19 (1972)
91–108.
24. J.A. Tichy, Modeling of thin film lubrication, Tribol. Trans. 38 (1995)
108–118.
25. A.R. Baker, The origin of edge effect in chemical mechanical
planarization, in: I. Ali, S. Raghavan (Eds.), Chemical Mechanical
Planarization, I, Pennington, NJ, 1997, pp. 228–238.