Investigates porous inserts' effects on deposition performance in chemical vapor deposition reactors, suggesting improved efficiency.
Uniform thin‐film growth in vertical chemical vapor deposition (CVD) reactors is frequently limited by complex thermo–fluid interactions, including flow recirculation, non‐uniform precursor transport, and uneven thermal boundary layers, which collectively degrade deposition uniformity and process efficiency. In this study, a coupled momentum, heat, and mass transfer framework is developed to systematically investigate the role of engineered porous inserts in stabilizing flow and enhancing deposition performance. A validated CFD model of a vertical CVD reactor is extended using a Darcy–Forchheimer porous‐media formulation to realistically capture momentum diffusion, pressure loss, and enhanced mixing induced by porous inserts positioned above the heated susceptor. A comprehensive parametric analysis is performed to assess the influence of pore diameter, bulk porosity, and insert–susceptor spacing on reactor hydrodynamics, precursor residence time, thermal field development, and surface reaction rates. The results reveal that bulk porosity predominantly governs the overall deposition rate by regulating species transport resistance, whereas the insert–susceptor spacing plays a critical role in controlling film‐thickness uniformity through its impact on boundary‐layer formation and precursor depletion. Optimized porous configurations significantly flatten axial velocity profiles, suppress secondary recirculation zones, and homogenize temperature and species distributions within the reaction zone. At the optimal condition, the introduction of a porous insert enhances the average deposition rate and film‐thickness uniformity by 90.7% and 9.25%, respectively, compared to the baseline reactor. The findings demonstrate the effectiveness of porous‐media flow conditioning as a viable strategy for improving transport efficiency and deposition uniformity in energy‐intensive CVD systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Selvam et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: