16 (2022) 100198

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Thermofluids

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/international-journal-of-thermofluids

A comparative study of a front opening unified pod (FOUP) moisture

removal efficiency with different purging gases
David Benalcazar a, 1, Tee Lin a, 1, Ming-Hsuan Hu a, Omid Ali Zargar a, *, Shao-Yu Lin a,
Yang-Cheng Shih a, 1, Graham Leggett b
a
Department of Energy and Refrigerating Air-conditioning Engineering, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan (Republic of China)
b
LI-COR Biosciences Company, Lincoln, NE, United States of America

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Airborne molecular contamination (AMC) is one of the main causes of chip products defects during
FOUP, ME manufacturing. The downward moist air flow originated from the fan filter unit (FFU) inside the mini-
AMCs environment (ME) can penetrate into the front opening unified pod (FOUP) and cause wafer defects. Purging
RH
nitrogen or clean dry air (CDA) are two common techniques used to minimize the relative humidity (RH) level
CFD
inside the FOUP. This computational fluid dynamics (CFD) study compares purge performance of CDA and ni­
LES
Nitrogen purge trogen when the FOUP door is open. The RH contours and moist air stream line were simulated inside the FOUP
CDA purge during purge. The FFU velocity, purging devices flow rate and temperature are kept constant during the simu­
lation. An innovative large eddy simulation (LES) model was performed with the assistance of a small mesh size
to simulate accurately the flow behavior inside the FOUP and ME. The results show that purging the FOUP with
either CDA or nitrogen can significantly decrease the RH level to below 5% (RH < 5%). However, the FOUP
purge with nitrogen is preferred due to the higher moisture removal efficiency. The CFD simulation results are
verified by RH measurements with SHT-35 sensor inside the FOUP under the same processing conditions.

1. Introduction
In recent years, the rapid development of semiconductor
manufacturing technology induced by the growing demand for elec­
tronic devices has resulted in a dramatic reduction of the semiconductor
feature size. One critical factor in achieving nanoscale manufacturing
with high yield rates is providing an ultra-clean working environment
[1], in which pollutants like solid particles and airborne molecular
contamination (AMC), such as oxygen, hydrogen fluoride, and moisture,
should be maintained at a lowest level as possible to prevent the
corrosion effect on the silicon wafer surface [2, 3]. Compared with the
particles that filters can efficiently remove, AMC is significantly harder
to control because of the physical characteristics of the molecular or
atom-scale species and chemical characteristics of gas-phase contami­
nants [4].
Since the front opening unified pod (FOUP or wafer box) is the main
wafer storage device during the manufacturing process, it has a rigorous
demand in terms of cleanliness level. FOUPs transport the wafers from
one mini-environment (ME) to another during manufacturing. Due to
the fact that the FOUP is susceptible to pollutants, especially at the step
when it is attached to the ME and the door is open [2], several methods
related to FOUP environment protection have been investigated, such as
wet cleaning, air curtain protection, and gas purging [5–7]. However,
gas purging proposed in early 2000′ s [8] has gained exceptional atten­
tion, numerous investigations and improvements related to this tech­
nology have been proposed in the following years. González-Aguirre
et al. [6] compared the performance of the wet cleaning and gas purge
method. It is reported that compared with wet cleaning, the key
parameter to maintain the FOUP’s cleanliness is to provide continuous
purging gas into the FOUP. Wang et al. [9] made an experimental study
on nitrogen purging of the FOUP’s open door case. The result shows gas
purging can efficiently decrease the moisture level to below 10% in 60 s
and maintains a constant moisture level at 3% for over two minutes.
Chiu et al. [10] further investigated an innovative purging method,

* Corresponding author at: Department of Energy and Refrigerating Air-Conditioning Engineering, National Taipei University of Technology, No. 1, Section 3,
Zhongxiao East Road, Da’an District, Taipei City, 106.
E-mail address: ozargar@ntut.edu.tw (O.A. Zargar).
1
Equal contribution.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijft.2022.100198
Received 9 July 2022; Received in revised form 22 August 2022; Accepted 23 August 2022
Available online 28 August 2022
2666-2027/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
D. Benalcazar et al. International Journal of Thermofluids 16 (2022) 100198

of CDA.
Finally, it can be inferred that both CDA and nitrogen are good
candidates for protecting the inside of the FOUP from contamination,
however, the effectiveness of both gases is still under investigation.
Therefore, this study directly compares the use of CDA and nitrogen as
purging gas. Each set of the simulation is conducted under an identical
testing condition, with the purging gas acting as the only variable. The

Fig. 1. Computational domain for both purging gases (Nitrogen and CDA).

namely vacuum purging, in which they integrated the vacuum tech­

nology with conventional purging technology. Their result shows that
vacuum purging can accelerate the moisture removal speed ten times Fig. 3. FOUP and interface zone mesh.
faster than conventional purging under an equivalent air flow rate.
Based on the aforementioned past studies, we can conclude that gas
Table 1
purging is valid in protecting the FOUP environment from contamina­ Boundary conditions values for both purging gases (Nitrogen
tion. The discussion now turns to which gas delivers the best moisture and CDA).
protection. Hu et al. [11] numerically study the performance of purging
Parameters Value
nitrogen and argon into a 300 mm FOUP and reported that nitrogen overall volume temperature 22 ◦ C
performs better than argon. Lin et al. [12] used clean dry air (CDA) to relative humidity (RH) 45%
conduct a particle image velocimetry (PIV) study on purging and re­ Diffusers flowrates 200 LPM
ported a result of maintaining the moisture level below 5% for over 4 wall conditions adiabatic
FFU air flow velocity 0.5 m/s
min. Hu et al. [13] used the vacuum purging method with CDA to purge
outlet pressure difference 3 Pa
the next generation 450 mm FOUP and again examined the effectiveness

Fig. 2. FOUP’s zone and planes locations.

2
D. Benalcazar et al. International Journal of Thermofluids 16 (2022) 100198

Fig. 4. CFD results of the simulated streamline flow patterns and RH contours per percent in FOUP median plane during (a) CDA purge and (b) Nitrogen purge. Purge
flow rate = 200 LPM.

study aims to identify the best purging gas for the FOUP’s environmental
protection. Previous studies investigated the FOUP moisture removal
efficiency of the purging gases CDA or nitrogen (N2) independently. For
example, Wang et al. [9] and Hu et al. [11] focused on the efficiency of
the nitrogen purge technique, while Lin et al. [12] and Hu et al. [13]
focused on the efficiency of the CDA purge technique. In this study the
purge efficiency of both gases, CDA and nitrogen (N2) is investigated at
the same purge flow rates. This could be helpful for the semiconductor
manufacturing industry to reduce the rate of product defects and energy
consumption.

3
D. Benalcazar et al. International Journal of Thermofluids 16 (2022) 100198

Fig. 6. CFD results of the simulated streamline flow patterns and RH contours
per percent in FOUP right diffuser plane during (a) CDA purge and (b) Nitrogen
purge. Purge flow rate = 200 LPM.

2. Methodology

2.1. Simulation domain

This study presents a CFD three-dimensional transient simulation

performed with ANSYS-Fluent program. A brief explanation of the sit­
uation to be analyzed is a flow over a square cavity. This phenomenon
creates a main vortex and secondary small vortices inside the cavity [14,
15]. The mathematical model for turbulence that perfectly fits with the
study approach is Large Eddy Simulation (LES) model due to its special
characteristic to simulate a transient flow field. Numerical simulations
are calculated under the following assumptions: (1) Cartesian coordi­
nate system, (2) 3-D unsteady flow domain, (3) incompressible &
isothermal flow, (4) species, (5) adiabatic wall, and (6) no-slip condi­
tions. Applied equations are: continuity & Momentum equations (flow
and turbulence), energy equation (gravity) and species transport equa­
tions (nitrogen, oxygen and water vapor). The LES filtered governing
equations are simplified as:

Fig. 5. CFD 3D results of the simulated RH contours per percent in FOUP and ∇⋅u = 0
ME median plane during (a) CDA purge and (b) Nitrogen purge. Purge flow
rate = 200 LPM. 1
ut − Δu + ∇⋅(uu) + ∇⋅τ + ∇p = 0
Re

Where τ is the subfilter-scale stress tensor. The symbols Δ and ∇ denote

4
D. Benalcazar et al. International Journal of Thermofluids 16 (2022) 100198

Fig. 8. CFD results of the simulated streamline flow patterns and RH contours
per percent in FOUP left diffuser plane during (a) CDA purge and (b) Nitrogen
purge. Purge flow rate = 200 LPM.

the Hamilton and the Laplace operators respectively.

Fig. 7. CFD 3D results of the simulated RH contours per percent in FOUP and
ME right diffuser plane during (a) CDA purge and (b) Nitrogen purge. Purge
flow rate = 200 LPM.
The aim of this study is to compare the purging performance of two
blanking gases widely applied in the semiconductor industry, nitrogen
(N2) and Clean Dry Air (CDA), via a diffuser purging device (internal
devices); see Figs 1 and 2. Nitrogen is an inert gas lighter than air and the
major component of air. Both nitrogen and CDA are not directly avail­
able in the atmosphere; some processes have to be performed to assure
their industrial quality. Fig. 1 presents an overall sketch of the FOUP-
mini environment assembly including the boundary conditions. Inside
the mini-environment (ME) a vertical-humid (unidirectional) flow is
deployed downwards to maintain the desired cleanliness and remove
remaining particles. Also, a positive pressure must be kept inside to
avoid external particles invading the ME. The ME design is in accor­
dance with a similar model used for real applications and previous re­
searches [5, 7] with dimensions L: W: 615 mm & H: 1550 mm. A
standard 300 mm wafer FOUP (344 mm × 430 mm × 320 mm) is
attached to the ME at 662 mm above the bottom. Fig. 2 shows a detailed
view of the FOUP’s geometry in which two diffusers (length-diameter
ratio ≈ 20.5) are installed in the rear wall of the FOUP as applied in
previous studies [7, 16]. The diffusors are the only moisture removal
devices of this CFD simulation. Also, Fig. 2 provides valuable informa­
tion about the interface zone that is in contact with the ME and selected
planes/locations.

5
D. Benalcazar et al.
Fig. 9. CFD 3D results of the simulated RH contours per percent in FOUP and
ME left diffuser plane during (a) CDA purge and (b) Nitrogen purge. Purge flow
rate = 200 LPM.
2.2. Meshing
Although the control volume is a two-part assembly, the meshing
procedure needs to focus in three important zones: (1) FOUP, (2) ME and
(3) the interface zone between the FOUP-ME system where fluid mixing
takes place. The interface zone is located in the FOUP’s door and the
surrounding areas along the door’s perimeter, especially in both upper
6
International Journal of Thermofluids 16 (2022) 100198
and bottom edges shown in Fig. 2. The designated FOUP has a complex
geometry in terms of curved shape and several steps along its cross
section in contrast with the ME simple geometry. As the FOUP is the
critical zone, the whole domain gets a mesh refinement. The ME must be
locally refined especially in the interface zone and the wall that co­
incides with the FOUP. A previous study tested different grids for the
same application stating a range from 2.5 to 20 mm [17]. It determines
the subsequent element size: (1) FOUP & interface ≤ 5 mm and (2) ME
≤ 10 mm.
Turbulent fluid flow is usually characterized by a turbulent inter­
mediate length scale commonly called the Taylor microscale that defines
how generated eddies are affected by fluid viscosity and turbulence.
Then, mesh size for the FOUP and interface region have to be deter­
mined according to the Taylor microscale correlations, which states to
have at least 5 – 10 cells per integral scale (λ) to obtain an appropriate
turbulent flow behavior. The projected Taylor microscale value is
around λ = 15.65 mm setting a size element range from 1.5 to 3 mm.
Therefore, the overall size for the FOUP is 1.75 mm and the interface
zone adopts the lowest value from the scale to assure the inflation layer
elements maintain an acceptable aspect ratio. Fig. 3 presents the mesh
for the two critical zones of the study. The initial value for the closest
zone to the interface is set to 3 mm and the farthest area is set to 10 mm,
this increasing mesh size reduces the number of cells from non-critical
parts for the study. LES model also requires a proper time step (Δt) to
solve the flow field of unsteady calculations to achieve the turbulent
behavior and vortices in both FOUP and interface region. The way to
calculate the time step follows a relationship that involves mesh size and
the FFU airflow velocity. The most suitable time step is 0.01 and the time
is 7 min, which is a suitable period of time to let both deployed gases
enter in a stabilization zone and meet favorable conditions for the sys­
tem. After the system stabilizes, purging effectiveness and humidity
level trends can be analyzed. Meshing stats are: (1) cells: 22,779,566 and
(2) nodes: 11,016,851.
The Taylor microscale or Turbulent Length Scale is used to charac­
terize and simulate a turbulent fluid flow inside the FOUP and ME. This
is an intermediate length scale method that can define how much fluid
viscosity will affect the dynamics of turbulent eddies created inside the
FOUP and ME. The mesh size must be calculated for specific zones such
as FOUP, diffuser, and ME that can be influenced by the turbulent
eddies. For this present study, the cavity mesh related to the FOUP
should follow the Taylor microscale correlations shown below.
RMSVel. fluctuations × LengthT × ρ
Re =
u
Where the Re is Reynolds number,ρ is the fluid’s density [kg/m3],
RMSVel.fluctuations is the root mean square of velocity fluctuations [m/s],u
is the fluid’s dynamic viscosity [kg/m.s], and the LengthT is the size of
the target to be simulated such as FOUP, diffuser or ME [m]. then the λ
that is the Taylor microscale mesh size [m] can be calculated by:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅
10
λ= × LengthT
Re
This present study requires 5–10 grid cells per integral scale that can
be obtain a proper LES content. Therefore, the mesh size should be be­
tween the following range in order to assure an accurate representation
of the flow pattern inside the FOUP and ME.
λ
< mesh size <
λ
10 5
In order to simulate precisely the vortices generated inside the FOUP
and ME it is necessary to calculate the correct transient time. The rela­
tionship between the mesh size and the airflow velocity is known as time
step size and can be calculated with the following formula.
mesh size [m]
Δtstep size [s] = [ ]
velocity ms
D. Benalcazar et al.
Fig. 10. CFD results related to the trend of FOUP RH level during purge. The blue graph shows the trend of CDA purge and the red graph shows the trend of ni­
trogen purge.
Fig. 11. The schematic of the RH measurement inside the FOUP.
2.3. Numerical solving conditions
First, it is not necessary to include any cleanroom influence due to
the FOUP-ME system is isolated from the cleanroom core. The control
volume geometry presented in Fig. 1 remains the same for both cases:
(1) CDA and (2) N2. LES is aforementioned as the viscous model for this
study with SIMPLE scheme. The energy equation is enable to let the
fluids adopt incompressible-ideal-gas properties such as density. Tem­
perature is constant in every point of the domain. Purging gases are
spread at a constant flow rate from both diffusers located in the rear zone
7
International Journal of Thermofluids 16 (2022) 100198
of the FOUP shown in Figs 1 and 2. FFU injects humid airflow into the
control volume from the ceiling and both flows (FFU & purging gas)
leave the control volume from the outlet. The approximate area of the
diffusers is about 0.02 m2 while FFU and outlet area is 0.38 m2 for each
zone. Table 1 summarizes the boundary conditions information for all
related zones and domain constant values.
LES model preselects some spatial discretization aspects; others are
set as second order upwind. A key point of the simulation is to define the
FOUP’s zone with zero water vapor species to match the close door case
conditions [18].
3. Result and discussion
Fig. 4(a) and (b) show CFD results of the simulated stream line flow
patterns and RH contours per percent in FOUP median plane during
purge of CDA and nitrogen respectively. Fig. 5 shows a 3D presentation
of the corresponding RH contours of Fig. 4 in the FOUP and ME. The
purge flow rate was set to 200 LPM for both CDA and nitrogen, to
provide a high level of purge cleaning performance as per the findings of
previous studies [19] and [20]. When the purge gas is CDA the moist air
can slightly penetrate into the FOUP just in a small area in the top – 0.1
< x < 0, and 0.26 < z < 0.3. However, when the purge gas is nitrogen the
moist air can slightly penetrate into the FOUP in a large area at the
bottom – 0.26 <x < 0, and 0 < z < 0.1. Monitoring the RH contours
colors in Figs. 3 and 4 shows that the purge performance of CDA is much
better than the purge performance of nitrogen in the FOUP median
plane.
Fig. 6(a) and (b). show CFD results of the simulated stream line flow
patterns and RH contours per percent in FOUP right diffuser plane
during purge of CDA and nitrogen respectively. Fig. 7 shows a 3D pre­
sentation of the corresponding RH contours of Fig 6 in the FOUP and ME.
The purge flow rate was set to 200 LPM for both CDA and nitrogen to
provide high level of purge cleaning performance as per the findings of
D. Benalcazar et al.
Fig. 12. RH values related to the CDA purge with a purge flow rate of 200 LPM and FFU face velocity of 0.5 m/s at slot number 1.
Fig. 13. RH values related to the CDA purge with a purge flow rate of 200 LPM and FFU face velocity of 0.5 m/s at slot number 13.
previous studies [19] and [20]. When the purge gas is CDA the moist air
can slightly penetrate into the FOUP in a very large area 0 < x < 0.3, and
0 < z < 0.3. However, when the purge gas is nitrogen the moist air can
slightly penetrate into the FOUP in a smaller area at the bottom 0 < x <
0.3, and 0 < z < 0.1.
Fig. 8(a) and (b) show CFD results of the simulated stream line flow
patterns and RH contours per percent in FOUP left diffuser plane during
purge of CDA and nitrogen respectively. Fig. 9 shows a 3D presentation
of the corresponding RH contours of Fig 8 in the FOUP and ME. The
purge flow rate was set to 200 LPM for both CDA and nitrogen to provide
high level of purge cleaning performance as per the findings of previous
studies [19] and [20]. When the purge gas is CDA the moist air can
slightly penetrate into the FOUP in a very large area 0 < x < 0.3, and 0 <
z < 0.3. However, when the purge gas is nitrogen the moist air can
slightly penetrate into the FOUP in a smaller area at the bottom 0 < x <
0.3, and 0 < z < 0.1. Monitoring the RH contours colors in Figs. 5–8
shows that the purge performance of nitrogen is better than the purge
performance of CDA in the plane of the FOUP left and right diffusers.
Fig. 10 shows the CFD results related to the trend of FOUP RH level
8
International Journal of Thermofluids 16 (2022) 100198
during purge. The blue and red graph shows the trend of CDA purge and
nitrogen purge respectively. At the beginning of the measurement when
the time is set to zero the FOUP door is opening. Zero RH was observed
at this moment (t = 0) for both CDA and nitrogen purge due to the
previous close door case dehumidification process. The measurements at
the period of 0 < t < 90 s is not considered because the purge process is
not yet stabilized. When the 90 < t < 420 s the average RH for nitrogen
and CDA are 3.59% and 4.91% (shown by the green and gray horizontal
lines respectively). This phenomenon shows that the nitrogen purge
could be considerably more effective than the CDA purge. By consid­
ering 5% as an allowable RH level inside the FOUP [19], the results of
the present study shown in Fig. 10 shows that even though both CDA and
nitrogen purge are effective, the efficiency of the nitrogen purge is much
higher than the efficiency of the CDA purge (up to 27%). The findings of
this study could be beneficial for semiconductor manufacturing to
reduce the defect rates in products.
D. Benalcazar et al. International Journal of Thermofluids 16 (2022) 100198

Fig. 14. RH values related to the CDA purge with a purge flow rate of 200 LPM and FFU face velocity of 0.5 m/s at slot number 25.

Fig. 15. RH values related to the Nitrogen (N2) purge with a purge flow rate of 200 LPM and FFU face velocity of 0.5 m/s at slot number 1.

Fig. 16. RH values related to the nitrogen (N2) purge with a purge flow rate of 200 LPM and FFU face velocity of 0.5 m/s at slot number 13.

9
D. Benalcazar et al.
Fig. 17. RH values related to the Nitrogen (N2) purge with a purge flow rate of 200 LPM and FFU face velocity of 0.5 m/s at slot number 25.
4. Validation and verification
To validate and verify the CFD simulation results presented in Fig 10
and analyzed by flow patterns presented in Figs. 4–9, RH data was
collected using 15 SHT-35 RH sensors located in slots 1, 13 and 15 of the
FOUP (as shown in Fig. 11). The elapsed time was set to 960 s. At 0 < t <
600 s, the FOUP door was closed. The door was open at 600 s < t < 960 s.
Figs. 12–14 show the RH values related to the CDA purge with a
purge flow rate of 200 LPM and FFU face velocity of 0.5 m/s at slot
number 1, 13, and 25, respectively. The y-axis represents the% RH
values while elapsed time is shown on the x-axis. Different colors show
the location of the RH sensor within the FOUP. C means center of the
FOUP, F means front of the FOUP, B means back of the FOUP, R means
right side of the FOUP, and L means left of the FOUP.
Figs. 15–17 show the RH values related to the Nitrogen (N2) purge
with a purge flow rate of 200 LPM and FFU face velocity of 0.5 m/s at
slot number 1, 13, and 25 respectively. The y-axis represents the% RH
values while elapsed time is shown on the x-axis. Different colors show
the location of the RH sensor within the FOUP. C means center of the
FOUP, F means front of the FOUP, B means back of the FOUP, R means
right side of the FOUP, and L means left of the FOUP.
The average RH value related to the CDA purge with a purge flow
rate of 200 LPM and FFU face velocity of 0.5 m/s measured by the ex­
periments is 12.37%. This figure is 14.85% for Nitrogen (N2) purge. The
comparison of the results of the experiments and CFD simulation shows
a significant difference between the results. This difference could be
attributed to two phenomena. The first is the limitation of the number of
the measured points in the experiments. The RH data was collected from
15 points, but the CFD results were simulated in the whole FOUP vol­
ume. The second could be attributed to the lateral flow (flow in Y di­
rection) in the FOUP. As the tube diffusers are installed symmetrically
inside the FOUP theoretically no lateral flow should exist inside the
FOUP. However, in a previous study with a loaded FOUP, it was shown
that significant lateral flows exist inside the FOUP, resulting in a sig­
nificant difference in observed RH on the left and right side the FOUP
[21]. Monitoring the orange and yellow graphs related to sensors that
are located in the left and right side of the FOUP in Figs. 12–17 of this
study (empty FOUP) confirms the same phenomenon.
5. Conclusion
The RH level and moist air flow characteristics inside the FOUP and
ME were numerically simulated with two different purge gases (CDA
and nitrogen). The simulation was performed in different FOUP vertical
10
International Journal of Thermofluids 16 (2022) 100198
planes. The CFD results shows that the CDA purge has better perfor­
mance in the FOUP median plan. In addition, the nitrogen purge has
significantly higher efficiency in the plane of left and right diffusers. The
overall purge efficiency of nitrogen was observed much higher than the
CDA. Comparing the average RH data shows that even though both CDA
and nitrogen deliver the acceptable level of average RH inside the FOUP
(RH < 5%), the efficiency of nitrogen purge could be up to 27% higher
than the performance of the CDA purge. The findings of the CFD simu­
lation were verified experimentally by RH measurements at different
locations inside the FOUP. Those findings could be extremely beneficial
to reduce the defect rates and increase product quality in semiconductor
manufacturing industries.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that the present work have no conflict of
interest.
References
[1] H. Kitajima, Y. Shiramizu, Requirements for contamination control in the gigabit
era, IEEE Trans. Semicond. Manuf. 10 (2) (1997) 267–272, https://doi.org/
10.1109/66.572081.
[2] D. Benalcazar, T. Lin, S.C. Hu, M. Peng, W. Tian-Yi, G. Leggett, Moisture control
inside a wafer box (FOUP) when its door is open, in: The 9th Asian Conference on
Refrigeration and Air-conditioning, Sapporo, Japan, 2018.
[3] Y. Kuo, T. Luoh, L.W. Yang, T. Yang, K.C. Chen, C.Y. Lu, FOUP mini-environment
contaminants analysis in semiconductor manufacturing, in: 2014 e-Manufacturing
& Design Collaboration Symposium (eMDC), HsinChu, Taiwan, 2014.
[4] C.F. Yeh, et al., The removal of airborne molecular contamination in cleanroom
using PTFE and chemical filters, IEEE Trans. Semicond. Manuf. 17 (1) (2004)
214–220, https://doi.org/10.1109/TSM.2004.826957.
[5] T. Lin, B. Fu, S. Hu, Y. Tang, Moisture prevention in a pre-purged front-opening
unified pod (FOUP) during door opening in a mini-environment, IEEE Trans.
Semicond. Manuf. 31 (1) (2018) 108–115, https://doi.org/10.1109/
TSM.2018.2791985.
[6] P. González-Aguirre, H. Fontaine, S.I. Moon, C. Beitia, J. Lundgren, J. Ohlsen,
FOUP decontamination solutions to control AMCs in semiconductor fabs: gas purge
or wet cleaning? Microelectron. Eng. 194 (1) (2018) 19–24, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.mee.2018.03.002.
[7] S.C. Hu, T. Lin, B.R. Fu, T.Y. Wang, Air curtain application in a purged unified pod,
Appl. Therm. Eng. 111 (1) (2017) 1179–1183, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2016.10.022.
[8] C.W. Kuo, L.M. Chang, A new method for sampling low-volume AMCs in a front
opening unified pod, Microelectron. Eng. 166 (1) (2016) 26–30, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.mee.2016.09.012.
[9] H. Wang, Y. Liu, P. Lee, Moisture and oxygen control in wafer microenvironments:
challenges and system solutions, ECS Trans. 27 (1) (2010) 977–983, https://doi.
org/10.1149/1.3360739.
[10] B. Chiu, S.C. Hu, A. Shiue, J.Y. Huang, Reduction of moisture and airborne
molecular contamination on the purge system of 450 mm front opening unified
D. Benalcazar et al.
pod, Vacuum 127 (1) (2016) 10–16, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
vacuum.2016.02.003.
[11] S.C. Hu, T.M. Wu, H.C. Lin, K. Hsu, Design and evaluation of a nitrogen purge
system for the front opening unified pod (FOUP), Appl. Therm. Eng. 27 (8) (2007)
1386–1393, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2006.10.028.
[12] T. Lin, O.Ali Zargar, T.-.C. Lee, D.L. Sabusap, J.-.J. Li, S.-.C. Hu, J.M. Khodadadi,
D. Jamshideasli, G. Leggett, Flow analysis of a front opening unified pod (FOUP)
subjected to different fan filter unit (FFU) coverage area in mini-environment, Int.
J. Thermofluids 12 (1) (2021), 100124, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijft.2021.100124.
[13] S.C. Hu, Z.Y. Huang, B.R. Fu, Experimental study on the moisture removal of a 450-
mm FOUP during the purge or vacuum process, Appl. Therm. Eng. 108 (1) (2016)
951–957, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.07.059.
[14] J.N. Fernando, J. Kriegseis, D.E. Rival, Modal analysis of confined square and
rectangular cavity flows, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 47 (1) (2014) 123–134, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2014.03.003.
[15] D. Samantaray, M.K. Das, D.K. Patel, Turbulence characteristics of high Reynolds
number flow inside a three-dimensional cubic lid-driven cavity, Eur. J. Mech. B.
Fluids 84 (1) (2020) 23–39, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euromechflu.2020.05.009.
[16] S.C. Hu, L.Z. Wei, L. Tee, F.B. Ran, Humidity control for front opening unified pod
after opening its door in a mini-environment, Appl. Sci. 8 (1) (2018) 1–13, https://
doi.org/10.3390/app8071149.
11
International Journal of Thermofluids 16 (2022) 100198
[17] C.Y. Peng, Numerical Investigation of the Influence of the Relative Humidity (RH)
in the FOUP By Different Ways of Purge Under Door Open Condition, National
Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, 2017. Master Thesis.
[18] J. Frickinger, J. Bügler, G. Zielonka, L. Pfitzner, H. Ryssel, S. Hollemann,
H. Schneider, Reducing airborne molecular contamination by efficient purging of
FOUPs for 300-mm wafers—the influence of materials properties, IEEE Trans.
Semicond. Manuf. 13 (4) (2000) 427–433, https://doi.org/10.1109/66.892628.
[19] T. Lin, O.A. Zargar, H.L. Chen, Y.N. Huang, S.C. Hu, G. Leggett, Flow analysis and
relative humidity (RH) measurement in the horizontal plane of a front opening
unified pod (FOUP), IEEE Trans. Semicond. Manuf. 34 (3) (2021) 429–435,
https://doi.org/10.1109/TSM.2021.3096147.
[20] T. Lin, O.A. Zargar, H.L. Chen, Y.N. Huang, S.C. Hu, G. Leggett, A comparative
study on velocity fields, humidity and oxygen concentration in a front opening
unified pod (FOUP) during purge, IEEE Trans. Semicond. Manuf. 35 (1) (2021)
110–117, https://doi.org/10.1109/TSM.2021.3128588.
[21] T. Lin, O.A. Zargar, M.H. Hu, C.Y. Lin, G. Leggett, The effect of purge flow rate and
wafer arrangement on humidity invasion into a loaded front opening unified pod
(FOUP), IEEE Trans. Semicond. Manuf. 35 (2) (2022) 353–362, https://doi.org/
10.1109/TSM.2022.3162185.