MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7131080499 · doi:10.1115/imece2025-168015

Numerical Modeling of Nanostructure Deformation During the Phase Change Process of Sublimation Drying

2025· article· W7131080499 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammaderfan Mohit, Minghan Xu, Yosuke Hanawa, Jianliang Zhang, Yuta Sasaki, Koichi Sawada, Junichi Yoshida, Atsushi Sakuma, Agus P. Sasmito

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicNanomaterials and Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSublimation (psychology)MultiphysicsNanostructureDeformation (meteorology)ThermalHeat transferSiliconPhase changeNumerical modeling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To remove residues from the semiconductors, various drying techniques were developed over time, most of which are associated with the deformation of the nanostructure. To deal with this problem, sublimation drying has been introduced wherein the liquid material is first frozen and then sublimed to prevent liquid residues from becoming trapped in the nanostructures. However, the freezing stage can still cause the nanostructure to collapse. The deformation or collapse occurs due to thermal expansion of the sublimating agent during the solidification process. The present study investigates this phenomenon through numerical simulations. Particularly, the freezing process of the sublimating agent, here water, on the silicon (Si) substrate is modeled using COMSOL Multiphysics software. The simulation involves heat transfer in the sublimating material, its thermal expansion, and the mechanical structure of the Si substrate. The results present the displacement of the nanostructure for cells located on the side of the substrate. Furthermore, the variations of stress and temperature during the process are studied. Experimental results are used to validate the numerical model. The model facilitates the design and implementation of the sublimation drying process for semiconductor manufacturing.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNanomaterials and Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207