<%BANNER%>

Particle Scale Modeling of Material Removal and Surface Roughness in Chemical Mechanical Polishing

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101119_AAAADW INGEST_TIME 2010-11-19T22:41:48Z PACKAGE UFE0012201_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 25233 DFID F20101119_AACQHX ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH yeruva_s_Page_121.QC.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
4c63aa6c428b1a8641f625469a10825e
SHA-1
623cba02eba57ef54eff92ef3a20e133300d86a7
5925 F20101119_AACPFJ yeruva_s_Page_004thm.jpg
b7997d0366827ca28d3760741ec7bc3b
dc2816d65a344fd784a4778d49341ed9cbd753cc
1053954 F20101119_AACPEV yeruva_s_Page_113.tif
c3a1d97f382437ebde84344fa20560d0
8e94eaaa7fdba93f117994d3257fdac11a041ba0
2672 F20101119_AACOZP yeruva_s_Page_125.txt
fe25dfd247ca76e4f6fc3526488a2489
d1baad7fa3747570827d59d1516ca485d2a843e1
25284 F20101119_AACQHY yeruva_s_Page_126.QC.jpg
f90660252fe4ddba36dd33220cf4d593
87cc280c6ee3f5d681690b8369b0a6a850519dbc
15206 F20101119_AACPFK yeruva_s_Page_101.QC.jpg
c45369221482e86259b41cd9562ebfc2
4c453a5655f703b17eeb58d85f5dd659a9015dd8
1655 F20101119_AACPEW yeruva_s_Page_095.txt
c2e84bb3779350be58b1e10091a2e79d
527291d757ed8a6f7ece38f6db6482df740b3a31
38246 F20101119_AACOZQ yeruva_s_Page_017.pro
a7dcad78cebbdf12feda8784c5eaabd4
9a8b3f7bb89ffca0c693c4919edc499d73693f2b
26020 F20101119_AACQHZ yeruva_s_Page_127.QC.jpg
bcfbdb3bc76da0bc458f0312346b6df4
9cf65e7f772f9fba26c234e91ced7174a60881fe
781313 F20101119_AACPGA yeruva_s_Page_088.jp2
91ce736be57286b53d8d1ccc945adda8
05ca2301238acf7630dc65c41d39751bfd242d5d
22109 F20101119_AACPFL yeruva_s_Page_037.QC.jpg
6ed8cfc321055b2467a3e4ca83d4aef7
cd34402358bf1a2ac617dabeb779544fe8fc07a7
6431 F20101119_AACPEX yeruva_s_Page_053thm.jpg
b9a9e7ef2003da8522c444f2c140bd25
51a40de8d0b0b8b0258c4a991d08b7fd3faba92e
34260 F20101119_AACOZR yeruva_s_Page_074.pro
a4d4941e91180eb2c422699b0703db8e
9a391f00c436f276bfdffdb743700e3cb7881cb5
1584 F20101119_AACPGB yeruva_s_Page_011.txt
cd568cedc7b90487007ed96431705956
3979ad4b7e0c41200aea69d670620625eb405d83
1032566 F20101119_AACPFM yeruva_s_Page_014.jp2
a1f400cb2b5cc74b9b81f01cdaae3007
65e813b5da4d924c2369ab96c04ff1ed12a5bcc1
F20101119_AACPEY yeruva_s_Page_044.tif
a465acbddec49f9847c3a867bf171955
c534073558f1fa60657747ea6755224288933795
69181 F20101119_AACOZS yeruva_s_Page_056.jpg
46dc057061360bbf6a41dcb56fec5caf
c2015535c61068a946a4c322c0fbae722014a11f
105250 F20101119_AACPGC yeruva_s_Page_051.jp2
6f74abb58698f481cabcef90e8389bb5
cb84f807a06c4be93cf7a9045d39f5cb6f3886b1
504 F20101119_AACPFN yeruva_s_Page_080.txt
e6f70a387c755aeffadc178f1681f61a
51afcf6c002bb568f2ade8d1535ae8adacbb0ae1
790169 F20101119_AACPEZ yeruva_s_Page_082.jp2
676687a1411186df48373e74e1d0eca8
aef143006581adab597f66898a0760f6c00f9386
5839 F20101119_AACOZT yeruva_s_Page_076thm.jpg
ff496c5a9a6ec2221daff0ce641bed0e
df6f5e3ba98defe6a122120c715a40b1dcb09df4
31749 F20101119_AACPGD yeruva_s_Page_016.pro
f0db82306bd20bfee5ce89dd019c55a6
7491376cc7d99bf3f9359415fdd5b5f0499aec24
53240 F20101119_AACPFO yeruva_s_Page_111.pro
74c5d4194eeec4f2da933cdddb529caf
434786b02c349cb32caea086be26a3c19556c44f
6209 F20101119_AACOZU yeruva_s_Page_116thm.jpg
8f8ada173e7628f1387a1dc79326606e
e2dcee49a168be547b45d72b59322d7b18caef38
52144 F20101119_AACPGE yeruva_s_Page_129.jp2
b92a79d3e0fff6370d16088bd6ba7992
aba643dbb89c3e2e06818a2799b6af3306cff9cb
2765 F20101119_AACPFP yeruva_s_Page_009.txt
4433983d7299bf0c28113cc2fe2f0ad7
5f6e1cb47c09231aecba032110766b76f2888659
13651 F20101119_AACOZV yeruva_s_Page_012.QC.jpg
78f6b3105c6512522939895ab7fab847
94cc2898c83bd32a7c9e0cc79cce3b1b96b2c99e
72371 F20101119_AACPFQ yeruva_s_Page_065.jp2
fb80cc8b498d4854114b02b3d138b1de
e8688c265a4b8001926bb2a8e65be54e5e8472e8
34191 F20101119_AACOZW yeruva_s_Page_095.pro
d2c2804b3167bb6e03af32b990f5b8cb
d8f270bbd912ab0056cf4aaaf1d9b3859027c4e9
32216 F20101119_AACPFR yeruva_s_Page_067.pro
f68cbde8509838496302a7bfff9ac8b5
520b3131c46850e3e5cb10b2c77f03001f7104af
133942 F20101119_AACOZX yeruva_s_Page_126.jp2
b7e8302feeafd5d44d03886f32f405d8
1d22f1e04ff41db16367c26907156d1e6f65721c
5397 F20101119_AACPGF yeruva_s_Page_094thm.jpg
c7dfe20a9305c8c8058154d46bacc54f
0f4ca466481ccbb51fcc94d9d3ce88a670406521
25271604 F20101119_AACPFS yeruva_s_Page_058.tif
271768dda2ccccf66e35626572107789
998c5b3203f17bce8e860c0ccb41b207a1c9cc0c
71914 F20101119_AACOZY yeruva_s_Page_053.jpg
2d0b39a0c9cb080b0e17bd691cad2ada
cfeea18b0af6479a74557f08cecfaebed7d61afb
17029 F20101119_AACPGG yeruva_s_Page_082.QC.jpg
9e76373185ca316743b50a48f26ca1a7
45a97b53f4f8ef8c8cce6686ed79534779a4221d
6134 F20101119_AACPFT yeruva_s_Page_015thm.jpg
4496dae753a7879d43fb4a7c2f256196
7c6b8c7404f6992a07026ddf75fd00aae24918a0
1051985 F20101119_AACPGH yeruva_s_Page_036.jp2
36bf07e057018a8ce85f8c39f670467d
186b21d3aae61b8ca7dfd21488f31c80b167e787
64427 F20101119_AACPFU yeruva_s_Page_099.jpg
bf2ffffa9c943b1c52f62e082990fa73
abab4696aae29ec053c64537bb59ce18ab39876b
108481 F20101119_AACOZZ yeruva_s_Page_081.jp2
c0ac98c2af02ba1db2c84f6aece80b37
53f36dad1328a58e710a33969aa6b9c1cc0e8fe8
23626 F20101119_AACPGI yeruva_s_Page_054.QC.jpg
75f8cc3d5115aebcdd47c118176e074c
583288e068878669803272f0c57cbe3037884471
23860 F20101119_AACPFV yeruva_s_Page_114.QC.jpg
e56996ced8662711682a9b2c74bc0b1e
7f5cd783ebd928d89a26da6f096684b7493e202e
56091 F20101119_AACPGJ yeruva_s_Page_119.pro
6508a85acd5bb2945a6d38d2810a7383
c205c4bbf80f22c35a5cda6e59fc4569020582e3
1813 F20101119_AACPFW yeruva_s_Page_113.txt
2af24a42242611a1db427c2c291172ed
8d43423c330b2f575380e4ec77d0f17da639a0b1
1051978 F20101119_AACPGK yeruva_s_Page_119.jp2
40f389c12ed6c03bc7e211540842120e
b74e259285bf2dae2d9a5e6cb74ecab4a51b462d
F20101119_AACPFX yeruva_s_Page_037.tif
73594ded6f110050f7006d67cfdc7915
9bb6f1e4c29a137e3c55ebd3f209b6dd576ec79c
1051972 F20101119_AACPHA yeruva_s_Page_029.jp2
317ac36d9324dd1e6f55089bc589a913
8b4e3297b8b78265fd44a1c2ac352f1123469139
22382 F20101119_AACPGL yeruva_s_Page_083.QC.jpg
ed5cc5b184f655e7fc6e45ee09a05591
8d97d35c30ca580e52ecd371181b96f2dd9ca837
53098 F20101119_AACPFY yeruva_s_Page_078.pro
27f7e13e946bcb59197e0928e49f083c
a92f93b3dbc79a0b1297dd2147a80fa877edbfc2
1630 F20101119_AACPHB yeruva_s_Page_031.txt
a71851fb6190ec1c4480f967f311c5c0
40937c4117cdb392e4ed455330bf197a0c8c4dfa
F20101119_AACPGM yeruva_s_Page_120.tif
6b03bf848cd3a5c5d1f9d6ce34835cef
b79081b7f72473fcaee864c42635bdd71c562d74
108065 F20101119_AACPFZ yeruva_s_Page_050.jp2
e91c949b8a85989937e837c0c3186d02
7c13dc4b0120a928738eceb7d68bdf00f4057fab
F20101119_AACPHC yeruva_s_Page_050.tif
eb4b021c98733dbe9d6f2c1ff51f8f16
5fe612a26575bb5e228373d7911f653ec178f361
6373 F20101119_AACPGN yeruva_s_Page_021thm.jpg
b3cf6019c048aa83d6899632a9bbca97
b3ac02f59a400096910e01a34a023521083a16a2
2078 F20101119_AACPHD yeruva_s_Page_020.txt
bbcc6a1dfdef6f6fed3d0bb87cc4a212
ee80f53bdd56c1215859891169244d7e9b918663
F20101119_AACPGO yeruva_s_Page_086.tif
4dbd13625aa15d33fc8bd5bda79f195b
18812e7df8cde7dd02f06698ca7c6ca1548fdf3b
87399 F20101119_AACPHE yeruva_s_Page_066.jp2
7c1daaa996979a9a2cca3b58ef3c1d44
e55f21d8aa46ae95139a96faa39cb80edb228433
2341 F20101119_AACPGP yeruva_s_Page_119.txt
cd71ac1bbf6e4d65a57c8d73b2044869
bd6cfe2c589ff4b5c6bfd9a4742c27fc35470ffc
52897 F20101119_AACPHF yeruva_s_Page_109.pro
41ec9b144b08b4963b9f75187c71b3ef
26adeff981458f158ab1d3fd0a74b9864bf83c83
22364 F20101119_AACPGQ yeruva_s_Page_098.QC.jpg
621858363118793c6b480c8013dc4c1b
bcd8957fad410167575adc558ce0212ff758774d
66616 F20101119_AACPGR yeruva_s_Page_127.pro
22b7522e017cb0f2bad381c576096a90
ee21ffefec80c8dda534a82c38fefe7ca5ed5ce1
56283 F20101119_AACPHG yeruva_s_Page_088.jpg
5d62d736587c0730fad3f54465e949e1
e7d81ba27515298818d29389c70bb7dbfb8e7dd2
43544 F20101119_AACPGS yeruva_s_Page_021.pro
e87e3b1f3bc506107d11b1819ee04e4d
fba19542906099670ed4f6fab7367857da3f21d7
2094 F20101119_AACPHH yeruva_s_Page_111.txt
23a0c04ba51a912da3fdeb73f291f02a
d952286b37c02307cae014ca00f728d220610af0
318024 F20101119_AACPGT yeruva_s_Page_010.jp2
5dc9383295629a312941fd0a192f3ca3
9d9d51159898fcf7c4ca43e8736878de614a1231
47824 F20101119_AACPHI yeruva_s_Page_068.pro
87d0a34fa79dc6dd46459f0ac6b69a9b
9a59b20f37625e1780746f7e9b9ecaecdb28d4fb
23392 F20101119_AACPGU yeruva_s_Page_081.QC.jpg
a609f754cc59c0066e8c88113ade0009
acec73d42656c243e6bfd3d5e1f795350765d38c
45196 F20101119_AACPHJ yeruva_s_Page_063.jpg
9bb4ba1658abd1cd1b36e44d0f3c9868
600a45033f69d9d1e09e77dedd2b557d8520893b
989590 F20101119_AACPGV yeruva_s_Page_021.jp2
1293c69336a865f3236ff64508de0794
0f8109693b6a9ae599d20850a4993331a6ff896a
33662 F20101119_AACPHK yeruva_s_Page_029.pro
e97ae760a0893ae0480ac7673f980c0e
0c571aa3179b2842c992435c285df73d43d34575
1982 F20101119_AACPGW yeruva_s_Page_086.txt
03c1dc84cf7c88584f385722abbacd5c
be5eb4030550f55b404456dc3a44c716be056de4
642487 F20101119_AACPIA yeruva_s_Page_084.jp2
caeaf16f9785d69f5f940cf7e4d0c0d7
9c10c4f3835ea1831d9c2d9a6966df8006835ba3
72485 F20101119_AACPHL yeruva_s_Page_054.jpg
f7a06fd2b6be37cfc3bb2c7eff1d8eff
156e781d68787ee3d59e0386aa0fd35677dc2b02
77073 F20101119_AACPGX yeruva_s_Page_017.jpg
518ae5d3a1533f57d483260046350a6b
80a3914b9bb24bade7fc29b66dc07a7775272a71
4574 F20101119_AACPIB yeruva_s_Page_058thm.jpg
12efbe82f276e7def15e5fc5206ee6e7
72f971635ebfde678a0791050317e0f2db92ca16
71048 F20101119_AACPHM yeruva_s_Page_086.jpg
807cd1e1c5a9b1063dcb0c772013a643
76f24c7170b372e0aa792bf6d9514be451c7f5dc
1703 F20101119_AACPGY yeruva_s_Page_004.txt
306ec235b6de2db594035f7458337647
f4f7e0a01229f4fb9a368c442979791403e9f437
817812 F20101119_AACPIC yeruva_s_Page_090.jp2
ebf7b96818960df197e4efb3da954077
e9ce5f5aba62abe2722ea6cdf31aca35ac2be8be
48582 F20101119_AACPHN yeruva_s_Page_051.pro
8e09880a592a22fc6e7582ba7e907949
ea591fd685982fabe0ca1ce5f9af661a34950589
7373 F20101119_AACPGZ yeruva_s_Page_070.pro
990afd537c697fa8ff603ce66f8660da
ee828540716d9f57ab1122db60569bf76d5d8915
50486 F20101119_AACPID yeruva_s_Page_055.pro
99431346b600162daf18a610cca28b9d
fa75f138d10b2c7d6301f732318cb2a7424edef7
50016 F20101119_AACPHO yeruva_s_Page_081.pro
8842d4e3793f59028e62dfe76d5e9144
ef1ded5186f4df080fe74fc54aa8a2d55c91b752
4551 F20101119_AACPIE yeruva_s_Page_096thm.jpg
acfe7eeefb6cbe8e2f44ffdfe07a2778
2996a18d4edba6a1ca226c33181c5298d3cc5205
136942 F20101119_AACPHP yeruva_s_Page_125.jp2
bfebc52414fcc57c54258b940195f7aa
5e8e293740c9838080771254cf6400f166c94a36
19555 F20101119_AACPIF yeruva_s_Page_013.QC.jpg
fc23e269da174e1609ecd12bc0da7674
2c78a150c725f328afe1d0a1c9729af411540ed0
18838 F20101119_AACPHQ yeruva_s_Page_071.QC.jpg
7b2427d470ca46e2c25c8b188978ab80
c78ddd5e317d379be792d77ee05bd24969061a1e
940 F20101119_AACPIG yeruva_s_Page_082.txt
8cba3768ffe67c3acd8b49c7e9105e2b
282efe5807ca2398c65f162d6f5f72db8ef00c2b
F20101119_AACPHR yeruva_s_Page_011.tif
c9d8c7e6868ef35060c1883fbe3835b9
941936c46d9d90b89281c2509a299ee8edc12410
F20101119_AACPHS yeruva_s_Page_045.tif
73b033399d351ea857ad2d1287e508d4
c9c62a78d5b4f6dd079fdb403402e5f10a9eeb4c
57641 F20101119_AACPIH yeruva_s_Page_062.jpg
7148ea92f03f4939b67d3c9c05854a94
112de28bb0143b81c381e980e53d266263b6313f
F20101119_AACPHT yeruva_s_Page_105.tif
373d3e117601a944c84c42d1975ece89
35bc95cf45c07bb655f38a82300940441df8d02a
81281 F20101119_AACPII yeruva_s_Page_036.jpg
9546d425dd33642195d10870cf8c3871
93a6f20c5af4367606667c149b5d0f9eed7b4696
21447 F20101119_AACPHU yeruva_s_Page_074.QC.jpg
764d144987d6af6e7e78259886d2a074
1c5ac6ae8054f208383bc71a0cb6d3901dae14d3
5727 F20101119_AACPIJ yeruva_s_Page_062thm.jpg
2ccb5495f5481ef0ae97177cc78bd072
c9d8d9b6b16c75dd165fc8772cdb5ff77653932e
49938 F20101119_AACPHV yeruva_s_Page_035.pro
9a15807a78b96739df1f83f6bda4591b
ced37aa4a125fba538edcd5c3cba1187c0ca7f1b
6881 F20101119_AACPIK yeruva_s_Page_040thm.jpg
47f6ab92babd7fe7197d6a50227a3a06
6b4ad3154d5bac19b5b3452b2da669b1b5c7d1ac
6503 F20101119_AACPHW yeruva_s_Page_086thm.jpg
9794e113c69426135de535a766450c56
a00b9c2c3fa69302f7ac7c37d709c613b72d6bc7
25847 F20101119_AACPIL yeruva_s_Page_001.jp2
fa210d430deea1402e313ddd931a35f5
98ce816dd51da4a2fcf4009ec433d97d5a9369cb
12479 F20101119_AACPHX yeruva_s_Page_105.pro
d69c513d26efa2c606eb4a188b304d1e
4fe7ac16721a9f011e2b7c3012efc5c7102fe3e7
5685 F20101119_AACPJA yeruva_s_Page_090thm.jpg
950a9a7256247842de8148f05b8989e5
f423d467c6270f5f9327f1291073baf6c378a69b
F20101119_AACPIM yeruva_s_Page_119.tif
971abdc01423d5c4c3d733249ec78209
1809710ace22611a55284a4422801209c672c3d4
5141 F20101119_AACPHY yeruva_s_Page_102thm.jpg
1223ee6ce0f8b56e70a5a8526d72239e
193eb20d88d0d026f73feed0c39427c7b9f21f7c
1513 F20101119_AACPJB yeruva_s_Page_023.txt
94b6fad272dd1260616423f1c70bd08f
165b27433c3b8ee38f9c8cf5332c27e0bb9b35c5
132878 F20101119_AACPIN yeruva_s_Page_120.jp2
e7b231477381a714cc8f881802d2602e
1187c039a002dd026d8a94b948bacb1eafe0d95c
75334 F20101119_AACPHZ yeruva_s_Page_109.jpg
6d5c2271b3ce1362d6a3b0de6a24ec19
983ebb2155d450e04e6c3f2eb1df291567275269
F20101119_AACPJC yeruva_s_Page_098.tif
584be053851f98029228b155d00a0175
3c016aa63639be82fd23e8f2b6eb34877fee1387
43260 F20101119_AACPIO yeruva_s_Page_064.pro
b0704c594312d9de3526af8433e34ef3
c72400bd1abe86aa5f02fcedb1d4471adf61c1fc
19179 F20101119_AACPJD yeruva_s_Page_103.QC.jpg
a38550187b2c5d21886749ce48a6ec3d
c7c04bd5f9cb2d08d75f3150b69fd5da14660831
15975 F20101119_AACPIP yeruva_s_Page_069.QC.jpg
8f7b0a9b25c37f64e5e280c221b614fd
c33c36aa2642db28a59018465cf68dd61994794d
4626 F20101119_AACPJE yeruva_s_Page_063thm.jpg
1cac3bac8f6952046429354f1aead841
5eb526ca18cef12e140d19a6d5c858b43d3d4269
140634 F20101119_AACPIQ yeruva_s_Page_127.jp2
29a992f10bb5e8f17d7bb28a966c4bba
9330d4914ba9136fa25365f26a6f506d4d44784e
57840 F20101119_AACPJF yeruva_s_Page_076.jpg
00ca92033d6d032a3e0ae063ff5beed6
652f21c8d398d83e60a5e6602e94b07697246a1a
6947 F20101119_AACPIR yeruva_s_Page_120thm.jpg
f7f4e624e6d1bff0fed1be21680de5ae
fee77316a0e226ea3bf6b44c8f887e2f3a487a00
1618 F20101119_AACPJG yeruva_s_Page_065.txt
d2cd31128fe3bb91a5cd8fedd6a33c7e
6eb85be5e04c7e32d9d702dd37251e3998e0c9de
1051803 F20101119_AACPIS yeruva_s_Page_034.jp2
786a9cfa31fe91945217f10e0e89b10b
bf321fdc86821bff9f7bf5bcdfc8bc1487d7b4f5
63145 F20101119_AACPJH yeruva_s_Page_042.jpg
05ddc93f80001a8780bca11deb048b44
f55c0c0a1cfd39df3d567bc79935aa2a544c5120
65210 F20101119_AACPIT yeruva_s_Page_113.jpg
1bc3694227c28f96ce9de94bd0a45fbc
6f5f5ebe6ceeb51bfdc1abe8fbd9097a57d5a9c3
20177 F20101119_AACPIU yeruva_s_Page_110.pro
a25eaa4456c51a39c7c6b28637671849
28d7bf348ee14d9a3a64d37c445013681066df69
11358 F20101119_AACPJI yeruva_s_Page_130.pro
ae191e4a8587a5ac8d0bf7b928827d55
bfa97dd93b56aac01cb950cd80d4d4de74a45b7b
6104 F20101119_AACPIV yeruva_s_Page_085thm.jpg
4a8654612622a7bcdd626daf73f4f735
66dd37a9d4f104e4c90bc5384cc908734bacd79f
15696 F20101119_AACPJJ yeruva_s_Page_045.pro
5bbf81e0d3d81fa08113035018ea01fe
cfea7c73e6fba42044e2dc6ade9a71c7bc3252bd
59610 F20101119_AACPIW yeruva_s_Page_064.jpg
43e150fee8be1b76cc300e26ec25ac6c
aa6f10c5ae916dcc0461f754c7492bcdb56c8990
57988 F20101119_AACPJK yeruva_s_Page_049.jpg
a32d66797675c0ee999a36406cefc670
32f13d3d52e98da43df19908f4e531a9a6d37d5d
F20101119_AACPIX yeruva_s_Page_008.jp2
d879995792f31a535206dd25a8f94bed
7e3550f2a74a24ccf280114579e3743f8dce8e18
F20101119_AACPKA yeruva_s_Page_109.tif
b04a9773b3db29cad96df70804b6b497
851024c7f95a3477502729809950ed64dcc6018a
48875 F20101119_AACPJL yeruva_s_Page_043.pro
7489702e259db7f659987ea0112c5f33
0cdc880cfec178355e08bcb48519763b535bb8e5
112472 F20101119_AACPIY yeruva_s_Page_109.jp2
3bcd4831a7617b2bb6140dad4b822e76
afea3311a8847ded35fc005e3a9698b07f705713
F20101119_AACPKB yeruva_s_Page_056.tif
1549132739e3db5f515f6c04368c3564
030e4c02c474e3d5e631e3a350740f99edf0ff55
5310 F20101119_AACPJM yeruva_s_Page_097thm.jpg
c64c08d89a4a2c3ced4aa89cf7ae8010
108c51aa4e5d808f8b2ace8bdb4439d1ac8391ed
1390 F20101119_AACPIZ yeruva_s_Page_002thm.jpg
5bf7b0019256fc5fa258cdb358e382e3
5957788d00bcc5c7e323654de82517056e5ddea5
6421 F20101119_AACPKC yeruva_s_Page_057thm.jpg
e2a8abed0561dc4e8c286d106bcca991
1593804eb9c5c1fc9f3ad5047c5d75aeda17b1bd
2686 F20101119_AACPJN yeruva_s_Page_124.txt
8da0e05e3975db4da456a3a8de6e559f
aaf0542168c452d161d17878ed8d9b79a9cbd046
92525 F20101119_AACPKD yeruva_s_Page_125.jpg
646c1cf96088ba02138c76d4ed59b63e
66ac7797c769906327ae4d931d2c0345c2ad4e08
1692 F20101119_AACPJO yeruva_s_Page_100.txt
92d3eb445ba3d9ca5fc108979e6792d4
369cbcde261a1ed7e136a8602ff1532a84cb21ec
816224 F20101119_AACPKE yeruva_s_Page_058.jp2
ade13e3dec70146549c50a099abf3e11
343f00e3a55b88cad9991a1f4964e87a59c35d14
86833 F20101119_AACPJP yeruva_s_Page_119.jpg
6e77e154993e68bcf806e366b7c08c00
7cdcf1035c521c31ed44ffdae0c73b6417179c09
19423 F20101119_AACPKF yeruva_s_Page_064.QC.jpg
c454b99b572a350aff93f36c3cb5725d
5f3ee5b9afcd8cdf2ac0a1f9aac3f79da7a2db9f
51952 F20101119_AACPJQ yeruva_s_Page_114.pro
6b0febe7e5bbca1e56e2d0c2e7188eb3
6699f85b074900f408901573882de628d7653e39
73244 F20101119_AACPKG yeruva_s_Page_032.jpg
bf90dc53ec9a9769f1b7f01ae3c8c809
8d6d6e839bda3422fd817da4f15cc97eb2f54880
6962 F20101119_AACPJR yeruva_s_Page_125thm.jpg
d1e69b66f971016d9fd1459478565076
fcf20756c6ea51e347cb960badba23bb7948b013
18878 F20101119_AACPKH yeruva_s_Page_049.QC.jpg
c59e6defdc71c6de296eafc6e0f1be4f
e165c9ddf6ba2a8614e9563a84d438ae49af39cb
1051973 F20101119_AACPJS yeruva_s_Page_026.jp2
2fba2e4bf52c3181bd59f16168fa7f91
9d6223f642feda8d0e690b42882ad1aa8f1b1e93
35933 F20101119_AACPKI yeruva_s_Page_093.pro
34a3e4bb519ae49562cd68254f6eb3d4
47ec0ffde8c067b1f63dcabf19270e5cf3cd13f1
7066 F20101119_AACPJT yeruva_s_Page_128thm.jpg
f55322ee952ceb4c2e468677afe5677e
1dedf06476b0e3b0d267963cc6cf998fce7b646a
68544 F20101119_AACPJU yeruva_s_Page_067.jp2
805caeb960c62c88d3675a1ea40dc007
b835fa7e5448a9a11b88b013c6f4ed9883d94946
1697 F20101119_AACPKJ yeruva_s_Page_013.txt
40a860142615395928e95a8d8caa0cb5
24fcdd1e6de489e59a1edd8f39080be501962ebe
47739 F20101119_AACPJV yeruva_s_Page_101.jpg
36da7963c3a86ce42984ddab1cc2abfd
c827a5cb7c2a75dcbfb7cbc550d0cb0d72083233
7632 F20101119_AACPKK yeruva_s_Page_041.QC.jpg
949ae9771d53e7a4d8f1777ba91f2f74
645b6ced89db51b1bdef2b6df2c016299efae2f0
71858 F20101119_AACPJW yeruva_s_Page_095.jp2
ed8ffb2565921038442b2ade4fe8b26c
04d74b57ad4a4475f1b4945223f030fb99060caf
F20101119_AACPLA yeruva_s_Page_032.tif
86490552d6f8f0e8f10e5742ac1a27ed
1ff799bf55299e2937ba0aab9a778e6aed89d9c1
5631 F20101119_AACPKL yeruva_s_Page_052thm.jpg
89464886c6cca928fc28d581a905185b
4bd8c5e909cb0f61764fe6d396486ef5c8a9d669
57520 F20101119_AACPJX yeruva_s_Page_022.jpg
e78f22bbc709b622e2a52afc76d6ab25
1ef9958b894c07806a01aace6ab62106f668f15e
47250 F20101119_AACPLB yeruva_s_Page_073.pro
c7b754857d2c18a7dae3d188b68fc82d
40ce342e9c268850d2dacea9127ff9efdcfbadc2
1051949 F20101119_AACPKM yeruva_s_Page_030.jp2
863259064ea45ed880177097da4762f7
35f8c81444aa86d66fbbe3a8e228d4fda43e3cdf
62235 F20101119_AACPJY yeruva_s_Page_090.jpg
a6009bac8e297cfda856d869fba7499d
d8c58e827bc213e643b8eaad66c0efb0ba5c9896
450249 F20101119_AACPKN yeruva_s_Page_080.jp2
1ee3e0e4f6a042f47f554df3f630d345
eee82832696b9c76be473ecc009f5963610fb760
60220 F20101119_AACPJZ yeruva_s_Page_013.jpg
fde17d48e96f01ff0d20faa345282a00
143db23d24d55caae2197ae5e97441c99eca2129
6982 F20101119_AACPLC yeruva_s_Page_127thm.jpg
010599856bf77db14618efdb064bf41e
b7328009c76ba054eb77a1b834030cd8e6fdb99a
2340 F20101119_AACPKO yeruva_s_Page_003.pro
e85261024b87ec72fe35a702f09a0c79
a575df19df9c87710498eabaad1d6d4ca785384a
89225 F20101119_AACPLD yeruva_s_Page_064.jp2
2628e4be41fb8234ed8fa9668b0f3f29
00e3dd5a9827dbaa4695a11a523e2ed4bd59e1d5
18902 F20101119_AACPKP yeruva_s_Page_029.QC.jpg
43b45167161e0569677d9b2c883f9e49
61a0f4bbe92c7daa0e68007d04cf879e82c0ae45
F20101119_AACPLE yeruva_s_Page_115.tif
3d5cbcc841fb088e6b182225105fb598
852e0ea492ba4484a70b00beb2df889aa74d5cb7
2122 F20101119_AACPKQ yeruva_s_Page_022.txt
1b70bcc1c1e48728226e98aea2c0b2c2
3c864138fbee9bff4367a54b5c4cead677110dcb
F20101119_AACPLF yeruva_s_Page_054.tif
70c25be8a842614bd8ddb254338d6793
705267608ed61f51f5497d4f540f843dd562810d
F20101119_AACPKR yeruva_s_Page_061.tif
6ed62d0ad48872ae78df7c2bd7a70e41
9279d9c60affd3c424c7ca41b48592d15887335d
6392 F20101119_AACPLG yeruva_s_Page_107thm.jpg
ce34277424f69fbfe0394f308fd9e53c
5fc36acf5532c2840ff2fe84e95d124ea444c5d5
107517 F20101119_AACPKS yeruva_s_Page_057.jp2
3691ebbb6e1a1f77aed5b847871062c9
780172e76e617ec7a3ee91b6d9eacd7e09d2eea6
50863 F20101119_AACPLH yeruva_s_Page_039.pro
c8a78e8df35bf79b9aa7fee8be8f890f
0f37ebdef24f7d053c6f345498e30d3db2277dfb
111570 F20101119_AACPKT yeruva_s_Page_114.jp2
8560429fd70f7d1d0eb3459b48865d18
e19f2724b7de31bb9e3e1794509940dfdffc0dd5
35265 F20101119_AACPLI yeruva_s_Page_019.pro
c74cdd57649c891564461718fbaf49a8
010cdb92dccb4a0319d8005661908afac7c16c77
1190 F20101119_AACPKU yeruva_s_Page_018.txt
9ee124e2de7fc865378d7bc6785a24e5
b408a76c4bd26dff1e274c0d7de9c21f621e3160
70288 F20101119_AACPLJ yeruva_s_Page_051.jpg
033f83bea47f6c09e14ce04420920322
ed7728fd20fe4d840f18d0ba06d0806acf56e545
54119 F20101119_AACPKV yeruva_s_Page_102.jpg
39a4e3c577c61af8cb3ccab85ca43858
10d748ced62565d07ce8f48dc19f995bb478aafa
67149 F20101119_AACPKW yeruva_s_Page_031.jpg
bdcf84b49409b9e2328f9172448ea43d
ac56c53523593a8d384ebcb37a33ecca56bf8324
66174 F20101119_AACPLK yeruva_s_Page_019.jpg
fc768d952d9fc061ca3e8e8201209fbb
888676d8a6adb7cea55f5009e77ffa10425bc346
F20101119_AACPKX yeruva_s_Page_112.tif
d8d96fdbdea26aa131ed436f95a19568
9397abbf9b434cd10ddc2ea18af2e7d88d71c8de
F20101119_AACPMA yeruva_s_Page_087.tif
137b413a73d1d4998867410dc9fa0496
d3e500d21a57373b9bf45a44bf9643933dca56a7
6626 F20101119_AACPLL yeruva_s_Page_016thm.jpg
6665f4a1ff065be573539d21a5de79d0
bf8d4802d4300afbe6adca4abb26a0ca6978783b
10440 F20101119_AACPKY yeruva_s_Page_002.jpg
55a63d5748165f6b7fd53c8e625eee0c
e4600391b8d57f11e5c0de3ad0dad4fdf2755762
89968 F20101119_AACPMB yeruva_s_Page_013.jp2
ac2eabb5e7e369f84f239727a9e2b3bf
d8dc78d14be15235135a937b86da8c7aeaf503e4
4561 F20101119_AACPLM yeruva_s_Page_101thm.jpg
818e05778c064a9a725c4dd9efc5cf06
ce67162bc3fe8bcefff285e297d684672b8a91f5
114143 F20101119_AACPKZ yeruva_s_Page_020.jp2
3724fc7f1b867a5dbb55b4b816f1ca09
51ef68b566e0b869142f98163495ed3545b4d7da
51701 F20101119_AACPMC yeruva_s_Page_024.pro
2e508f80c88760b414e76c44da34f204
3ac190296a46c227c5b6cefd7f78aad27749738d
2619 F20101119_AACPLN yeruva_s_Page_123.txt
ce1441982fd77a964de5a44abbef38cc
68c009f97e293004924a205b71b64f7c62016cdc
5810 F20101119_AACPMD yeruva_s_Page_029thm.jpg
c8a4cfd9c505af8a52f520992005242b
bf2a2cf510a4f663d87ca5f004b60ba6d13b18dd
F20101119_AACPLO yeruva_s_Page_026.tif
52dbae249fe134eff77a172a99625166
452f6fbc7c288b65744211bc8aab90e1e010c7d7
F20101119_AACPME yeruva_s_Page_031.tif
a969505c2357d94ff30d8ef0188587ca
5f1d32cdfa83667c0ff981d7404c4e492843032d
51177 F20101119_AACPLP yeruva_s_Page_065.jpg
491334717b28e7864639236b2326cb2a
f73917e77bcf19b253d0ca5f4f46263b2bb56ca3
15492 F20101119_AACPMF yeruva_s_Page_117.QC.jpg
420f801203209c0e47503bf83cbee87f
f93927f976eaa34bbd44606b00780c93d3f8b7a8
F20101119_AACPLQ yeruva_s_Page_071.tif
59df066176b26f880a27fe75d49bc11a
7c0eab186a8c423933012c0bb8161b4f6de6138d
63602 F20101119_AACPMG yeruva_s_Page_004.jpg
18dbc6802a1c5fa14c64eadf5deddc67
e7a3de7575447271ee0381fa3aa8e96c3bef81bc
62896 F20101119_AACPLR yeruva_s_Page_121.pro
6a9f3001a2f0b2dc6f9a9c00333c98dc
da1f122166eb9796f068c9a3dadba2dbadb51e21
51596 F20101119_AACPMH yeruva_s_Page_036.pro
d169779ae894561cbcc85d78e512b5f1
4379f2d1064b4624e67863cff6903e17de2d2786
1533 F20101119_AACPLS yeruva_s_Page_076.txt
216cc97d86d55f9df48c58d2bb3684cf
7340edcd3c9ad2f45ae70031d6a5aa3c4222687e
953335 F20101119_AACPMI yeruva_s_Page_023.jp2
ac0dc08120d273921fc79dbfdb223427
2006f5a97fffd7ba128297a3fd9f6814b28a87cb
F20101119_AACPLT yeruva_s_Page_030.jpg
5e57ba51fda5be15ee86cf3fe13fec8f
99162113190fa8d16c2974fe66e1bdba05433ade
1051952 F20101119_AACPMJ yeruva_s_Page_017.jp2
a5a85d0eaa6c12ecfde400a616261903
80548a4a5ba39e1ac69083090564156846cc9d88
F20101119_AACPLU yeruva_s_Page_094.tif
a3ce154ebdc27aafde7a666fbebd67f2
3e6adba9efac142a4261cdad0d3f7468b2215a9e
895826 F20101119_AACPMK yeruva_s_Page_031.jp2
89114ecc726895ef58d5692e242b4f29
f72d0c2755a733bf1c18599b3a82de09b7a7ebc1
24370 F20101119_AACPLV yeruva_s_Page_072.QC.jpg
4fd89e50c975e1e07b088739add8ee96
ab6d091d10e70eae3206c1c65300de2986b9a309
F20101119_AACPLW yeruva_s_Page_104.tif
7ee0a30cadda35259ca063333767027f
7283ea86e4729ccc7d8de047c9762db788619b8b
F20101119_AACPNA yeruva_s_Page_022.tif
df422ae7ed9346b38a19b37acbf7f38b
b07674456423085b4fb8683d849d082892632735
826492 F20101119_AACPML yeruva_s_Page_092.jp2
1c0de9882e69a0ee9c0a63795246169a
a690ba03005300d84b6a129fd927808efc648c79
5196 F20101119_AACPLX yeruva_s_Page_093thm.jpg
2f4465c370665173f45d423520b0faa6
ba132c265a2feb80c33cd7e6548e397e24c8e027
21237 F20101119_AACPNB yeruva_s_Page_004.QC.jpg
b4261cbddffdc91e356c42d469ec5194
8c53a122b7b881a9870639e1bfccc91ac7196a0f
68628 F20101119_AACPMM yeruva_s_Page_098.jpg
d337ef4eed3e2be726d7257183bedab8
30250d58ffcaea07bb367c0c135bbe574a8e9d1d
85759 F20101119_AACPLY yeruva_s_Page_062.jp2
76c8ea9f59d2a9a8a8d0e4260b1478ab
133ece8cf279c06614b362a140fd6c7bf6c09a47
71004 F20101119_AACPNC yeruva_s_Page_057.jpg
2a13dbb9a40acba97760c34e6de5cd35
4eb3e0fb7ecf856591b2fdc0d004459d7c362851
1920 F20101119_AACPMN yeruva_s_Page_098.txt
84bcfe166436cbd77352716bd7720a02
b626030ec25ca0c52ba440ed55b130fef76a4c07
52493 F20101119_AACPLZ yeruva_s_Page_072.pro
9a0368b2805b522afb5c7fed19d7f4af
c0441e0c5683ec4e35499ba97b694abe3df59fb1
71789 F20101119_AACPND yeruva_s_Page_016.jpg
fd947eb8970d7ae4938dd0aa43d6522b
6f23c0bcc79955c92fcdc13268933c076f88fe8b
2018 F20101119_AACPMO yeruva_s_Page_050.txt
05df1b80634303e5430009e2af4cbf5b
64a49c15d3ce857891fd934e78ea48e88d09f001
1643690 F20101119_AACPNE yeruva_s.pdf
f87b1f6a007566ff658b2e36f69beb0c
dd413c6661130475ad9f14c955eae3ea73249529
38968 F20101119_AACPMP yeruva_s_Page_094.pro
1bc3c4f1bb538286fcbe756ba35ee991
3b6a943813dc199f7ab9588fabdaab404c23b834
64773 F20101119_AACPNF yeruva_s_Page_124.pro
73785e17584a915761082aa81b0ea097
2ec47320a2bd5ab7859562f73e3e120f7a557e96
2029 F20101119_AACPMQ yeruva_s_Page_039.txt
65f5d65beb1b63805ec010f6a9aeebce
02e2cc146ea1c1b1b9ecc23bb2b42038d995e33c
18829 F20101119_AACPNG yeruva_s_Page_062.QC.jpg
ccbf1db0727f934d769cd8cb76d4d9a2
c34234c1188306b1beef8e0d6e1dd74cea49f676
1051955 F20101119_AACPMR yeruva_s_Page_040.jp2
3285a3e51eadca0bfc86a8117e95dc01
dd9faf08a87d5062b6e7fb3e9b54f9702deab765
F20101119_AACPNH yeruva_s_Page_023.tif
33aac82b54ca48f596b29874e0730a1d
e0a9a8a29e0ca428790fd663ffed018b25461b01
1916 F20101119_AACPMS yeruva_s_Page_048.txt
e49630660ab5f96a0da7e89ea135fd41
fd39984715d3768353d4d186ac50731b6fd79b77
F20101119_AACPNI yeruva_s_Page_062.tif
ef61829bfc47225ad2ae52f19b348777
e84745755331bbcb8d20df51d452e420a9d721c3
F20101119_AACPMT yeruva_s_Page_029.tif
9b76c9bb7b918819ed28a9679aba9227
9f1fbab7ecd92aaf3a02704873b12d8f7991b97e
69596 F20101119_AACPNJ yeruva_s_Page_044.jpg
df55f23feef89d1ea4084d1315fd8279
18e2d99dabf6a050d4bb637d3fed39bab4acbf11
103670 F20101119_AACPMU yeruva_s_Page_116.jp2
f0777afc1c75e3d61f75bd2317c09c6e
7042b065b43787591e8e1c6a741ec45d880bd5af
5215 F20101119_AACPNK yeruva_s_Page_092thm.jpg
e1f3cadf32060326bbf90277a44937e7
9dde17301b7c444cb4dc54569776c41a0b777cfd
2485 F20101119_AACPMV yeruva_s_Page_130thm.jpg
b1b2d24e9f235005caca37db6542f83b
102d9e5ea48c7f53cdc84e38ed39b2feb158024f
22366 F20101119_AACPNL yeruva_s_Page_116.QC.jpg
71b9620c1727bc49e7ead787f14cab8f
2a79d54e54457fe2b1cd9217410675baa02e62c6
15495 F20101119_AACPMW yeruva_s_Page_034.pro
3eae56856dc1c9d8004de1e7ce4d7895
8e34452df66e9dcc8c90a0c774507bc54039ed95
5375 F20101119_AACPMX yeruva_s_Page_082thm.jpg
5ec5fd4fa9b298081205fabb4ef4db4e
1712687e516d44d26c1e7dd4772b4c433d50856c
F20101119_AACPOA yeruva_s_Page_077.tif
4b3f19e5ea9c876d47a9dcb82cc86560
46713eced62efef08af6779993da4e65c8a26f70
10096 F20101119_AACPNM yeruva_s_Page_080.pro
73da92408f7459552cf9203b75748e89
bc300a0817403197b93a6b229080e97990850b84
25089 F20101119_AACPMY yeruva_s_Page_012.pro
b74e6c34f118f4f6dd60795b6bb44a54
b8ec985782d104ddb3b27513e08e8548d2173510
8196 F20101119_AACPOB yeruva_s_Page_010.pro
c77b8cf435b5b31cd76a4f3b9a70aebf
e0588faa4d6e8939a0900f5e46566409244bddcd
5674 F20101119_AACPNN yeruva_s_Page_103thm.jpg
b34d64b675c74b68ecf7193d00da9d6c
7dbd5aaf2539932ab02bc3fb10cc1988fd4d13ef
5344 F20101119_AACPMZ yeruva_s_Page_010.QC.jpg
04881b22e584d409cdc0176882e11ca1
fd4c58de6317cae13ad929a5539e1baa909d4954
740 F20101119_AACPOC yeruva_s_Page_079.txt
bae73c6885e551d2dd7fc4a68e9bb3bc
0ee8ed1bf7713d127d430440c5094ea26fdb1ee3
13715 F20101119_AACPNO yeruva_s_Page_080.QC.jpg
65e8eff7c9076597363bba9d3442dd42
d6dd4abe7611c2223495091fc9161528a1f4a3fd
16156 F20101119_AACPOD yeruva_s_Page_058.pro
25c005345815fda046db8f9f89cdd819
e8f2d821ddd33395e8931d890a93326a405f78a6
2048 F20101119_AACPNP yeruva_s_Page_061.txt
12ae53a84b370786315a78bd27325617
a80d77fc0e659aff4ffeb9f9cbc138dafa23fe36
59657 F20101119_AACPOE yeruva_s_Page_029.jpg
467cbbfcdb477e5f42b9c2108adc5311
92cc2e5221324fab544a2b3932b02539526e16ed
20039 F20101119_AACPNQ yeruva_s_Page_090.QC.jpg
dc9d8b91f3548488bbecc3788edc46d4
96aea0482995af47f3ffc3885a72d35ee90a73c7
34385 F20101119_AACPOF yeruva_s_Page_023.pro
a9834b8190dfa5b7cc0b522bd4b8a202
2cb3aa48fd3047ce8f800c3cee5ba46dd10097b1
5844 F20101119_AACPNR yeruva_s_Page_066thm.jpg
84b5464f71a9abe7af92c7eeb57cf7f7
8f3ca545368c525922a78e760c0effc4ec4b4fd5
63358 F20101119_AACPOG yeruva_s_Page_123.pro
2e4f0e9138ddc96def1e2a21160ec9d7
7e33485bcc1db1d9ae7cc4ba3bc7b9aa966cf21e
950775 F20101119_AACPNS yeruva_s_Page_015.jp2
dda678c5dc3ecb6ea47998ec53203495
26ef47a3a523cfd4c82c668b65636c74e10c384e
6329 F20101119_AACPOH yeruva_s_Page_044thm.jpg
407f2b3f75dbd569da94d5f442ad5a9c
5513a648b8463667a912bab28e8017a532c16f9f
2073 F20101119_AACPNT yeruva_s_Page_109.txt
2e5003c2a7d9ab345f22d4119644228e
82b415fcb64463fe0f2807b643b2594b2aa0d8f3
809 F20101119_AACPOI yeruva_s_Page_112.txt
eb0e901dbff63d383c297125d20fd857
6dcacef830b77cd2afe761c5f1261d32d1293afb
3578 F20101119_AACPNU yeruva_s_Page_006.txt
21b17ba9998e6ee20b0cbc4acff8c432
70d69ce5c48a2ba58f9f47f3305ccb0024917f8e
F20101119_AACPOJ yeruva_s_Page_101.tif
542e6ac57caa87ffe390907af1aba5d7
ef0c82c386cdfe7086969faa6856b686660e49c4
6847 F20101119_AACPNV yeruva_s_Page_020thm.jpg
fd08240471a59cb32da51c0d8c4ff822
accda86600bcd4a83d7d88800f2bcd5261c4c4e0
23496 F20101119_AACPOK yeruva_s_Page_027.QC.jpg
27821959aa7eeb49c90bb7db04385c94
dc7f28c777ddebe467cfcc477bb7cf2dd3537741
F20101119_AACPNW yeruva_s_Page_055.tif
b3b01aa0faef03636e47eff85567a656
c163d659a64ca95c4c8abf062752de657b5950b3
60846 F20101119_AACPOL yeruva_s_Page_100.jpg
be8ccb867aefe0a01138ba6003962064
0e01b6c43b10ccf52bcec727987d1701821f6e0e
48646 F20101119_AACPNX yeruva_s_Page_056.pro
ea0f5c3d03284992c222d559fe63750c
325b0ceb7c2a3a6ad7f37d22a3abfbff876c04c5
23328 F20101119_AACPPA yeruva_s_Page_014.QC.jpg
acb5e6efa0155ddff356cdf33baf727d
edb887dd90a15cb6b9019dfea70829d62295ab02
70673 F20101119_AACPOM yeruva_s_Page_050.jpg
af3af5cab919a8a920283536add465d9
480610d1dd70b55d1ce95c617799d5c01b3a9605
F20101119_AACPNY yeruva_s_Page_107.tif
1c442fe710696a1c9f6f2c0dc5464304
3fd639d132b603d86650f992a9c60f2b9aebd25e
24101 F20101119_AACPPB yeruva_s_Page_032.QC.jpg
b16cca380ad23b732fd7ed79dad21467
f504432254f47c6f9f16cdd306814a169ab29017
F20101119_AACPNZ yeruva_s_Page_076.tif
47be63f88e5163b64b0d0f3b70f56d06
72bc1192692a2bf1605e4008775748c41e585384
921444 F20101119_AACPPC yeruva_s_Page_075.jp2
9f5db148705c910e51da0487eac7448a
cb48ff2bbc8f324205116fa4ef75efe39cba541c
9751 F20101119_AACPON yeruva_s_Page_070.QC.jpg
b1e42c5e1137dfa710049048bf19ee07
990d33ebe2403fc4f6d7bbf85f2db86d3fb5ec67
35628 F20101119_AACPPD yeruva_s_Page_065.pro
b6f27d5b42f4755a8d1589a1395b6d52
a26d789613b63945f3a7d1c5a47cccad731ca9b8
17374 F20101119_AACPOO yeruva_s_Page_011.QC.jpg
dc85216ef40a14140e736ad38b907412
d5683c94714aef0c14768b1e0625472b7f3d40de
41962 F20101119_AACPPE yeruva_s_Page_004.pro
c7631426edc010182686b10b9f973a15
808719e3e2cc0ae84ca10d10097dcc390324a46f
109540 F20101119_AACPOP yeruva_s_Page_032.jp2
090bbe5dd22936d97e81df774266b086
65a52600ec5edd9073204d841922b6d77af18572
44098 F20101119_AACPPF yeruva_s_Page_049.pro
82816ed327b3e13edb2b5c04656f2f60
911451c5205a5961bbeae36b3f007c7973fbe804
744455 F20101119_AACPOQ yeruva_s_Page_103.jp2
6980acedee62f94467ea7fcec39dbfca
0fd447739bb78b5376d220b617afdc3819fa69fb
23475 F20101119_AACPPG yeruva_s_Page_107.QC.jpg
0d3034faf920d258dd414eae72dd6a15
22d125bc83c40d97f2eabd3f9dfdd8a16908fbcb
8444 F20101119_AACPOR yeruva_s_Page_003.jp2
54ab195899592b5933b4ed68059f84c0
f7cb5174208947c08639e84ccd6f2327019357dc
1788 F20101119_AACPPH yeruva_s_Page_059.txt
949556730b20aa24ae994120863112f2
8bb43d93b6b676314e2f42b8120ca1a6a2111517
23848 F20101119_AACPOS yeruva_s_Page_033.QC.jpg
280d8082feec702cb2aedb3aeae50654
fa53039cb4733aa7e28d8f31bca75f7416e1a57a
1315 F20101119_AACPPI yeruva_s_Page_102.txt
d0b0cd618b76fabee79fbe87fc966750
4fc426d6b8607730cfcb0a6895aa1669966b7098
6082 F20101119_AACPOT yeruva_s_Page_047thm.jpg
9694e64c9aedc4e9d2bfe12aa77d36c0
9ef592408aaed987534f3238aa90866bd35bc312
59047 F20101119_AACPPJ yeruva_s_Page_103.jpg
7d329cfc7a0943879d1957f064da0c4b
86b17704254d933ba5e9b5dbbfc2e8dcc2240b21
19895 F20101119_AACPOU yeruva_s_Page_100.QC.jpg
1459afa3cdc9d91ffda063ab3ed38bcd
e71397d4b8c7b42d93e1569b1221a9cfedd492a8
3445 F20101119_AACPPK yeruva_s_Page_105thm.jpg
b38fe5828cd38ff9625c1c783ea1eee2
a5682fe938d482ea1e1a2c23f4fd6dbe37fbbc5e
58154 F20101119_AACPOV yeruva_s_Page_071.jpg
9a710c4fef8416e7c5b19412fe622525
76402db96e9fbda43aa748b78526f5d20bca9913
17496 F20101119_AACPPL yeruva_s_Page_102.QC.jpg
dce8918eb59fc07b5cf560db5996a688
797518d45f3d0439155451ca21112a0f7707a908
52344 F20101119_AACPOW yeruva_s_Page_018.jpg
48fd0e0b309db5fa4e53fb4b0e659be0
2b889b1739f78f23643131ed572a9081fc505d39
55709 F20101119_AACPPM yeruva_s_Page_092.jpg
2bfcb4445e13655dafb75315a73febdb
9c9a8ead3a4462a314253ce922bbac56ac7f2779
72390 F20101119_AACPOX yeruva_s_Page_055.jpg
b967b40c2c414e1fd9981333a8d13d2b
2f9a2a10ef0385c87dddbba3e940fa45ddb63685
8590 F20101119_AACPQA yeruva_s_Page_001.pro
2f6873ceb296f46c35a8b16e02a35b25
8ba1b36c0c1ab79ba6bd0baa21f567cf4acf95d7
51142 F20101119_AACPPN yeruva_s_Page_033.pro
0738667d8ddc62409c6da97d31e1f327
e097d30ecbd68027c7f8c03d478401df800919b4
59677 F20101119_AACPOY yeruva_s_Page_046.jpg
8e42470005d91647b8b96af6e65b8e6b
acf826809511e1449fbf511429a9fe8ef2959142
574265 F20101119_AACPQB yeruva_s_Page_063.jp2
2e8a0a08d249d2f491b1aed94a90680c
5c140f12c69cb30c85d0c6fe4227b37989a6fcc3
847000 F20101119_AACPOZ yeruva_s_Page_060.jp2
ef15f56ae64d8fbce7bc194700758694
5b4ee73a388517f475d4d6375c9a5ab61486d082
48717 F20101119_AACPQC yeruva_s_Page_098.pro
d8ac7c0c7ef11530c632c285febb8716
5b0db5391752e51e167fb7417e7a5dbb872231ca
20263 F20101119_AACPPO yeruva_s_Page_034.QC.jpg
2745de44208acab53afa8cf13f3efc9a
c5caaad4c4036d6bdedb882f756952d2c001e6e8
4835 F20101119_AACPQD yeruva_s_Page_108thm.jpg
2f2820df3576f5631c2ad16e00f81b86
dca471d718cda7130b9b970b2a20374f537f2b03
25912 F20101119_AACPPP yeruva_s_Page_063.pro
cf85daab51a35228e6e51c36c0fa1fa5
e7b1d1149682f503119b10ca6276cb5aa3d7238f
73166 F20101119_AACPQE yeruva_s_Page_114.jpg
7d05c8e61bd847c2806560b523e89588
fa0e6853a197ab48e5978ef6794c5cf25463457f
1919 F20101119_AACPPQ yeruva_s_Page_047.txt
a9757d8d2d4ce67b97dfb9cc27545637
572f3dee46ac4a8d4d16326d93734c50a67b7ec5
F20101119_AACPQF yeruva_s_Page_074.tif
9c83a6f4728a723cf59ac8b2ef3ddd41
cf61c97106a93b1aa5b65b01e06cb3461dd7b044
109325 F20101119_AACPPR yeruva_s_Page_035.jp2
974361a3823879ab9fc2aeec46577d2f
4410316b1be66cfb04f492fb4b19815353447d51
F20101119_AACPQG yeruva_s_Page_047.tif
d6a2492d437ea00d318c6e7912de30cb
4300e5bb33c5fffbcdb946034bb9c873dea03154
14439 F20101119_AACPPS yeruva_s_Page_112.QC.jpg
9bf8297a8ceae7b108c7f6976c363211
6f4c467b053bbe7275adcfce72d78eaef8ef1727
68334 F20101119_AACPQH yeruva_s_Page_008.jpg
53a50da94a52f0e60d009a018ea8d10a
657d56b8c791154399a6df6db1b3b26db60c69c0
73354 F20101119_AACPPT yeruva_s_Page_039.jpg
3c51bac54a47824d5c1a0e24b8f3348e
596e935b430d9354e601799cc55b19e3180c712e
45067 F20101119_AACPQI yeruva_s_Page_022.pro
3ed45544ae40ae17f06d85d78e1d4415
1f03d4ddf0016dd687e188fa4fff2b0fbbd1b3d8
34444 F20101119_AACPPU yeruva_s_Page_099.pro
b5c32ed8789a082161478abe61b07bc5
c808ba0564ac16943628bc4679042b8639c67cb7
2011 F20101119_AACPQJ yeruva_s_Page_027.txt
97569396480a66f8243998609d6bd819
fe99f2e481d6653d3f796f2317cd54cf407f69b9
F20101119_AACPPV yeruva_s_Page_036.txt
27a79057f18d046cf6dd509e4d17e3d7
6244bebb27559eede95e7119276703138a170599
108927 F20101119_AACPQK yeruva_s_Page_027.jp2
5f4351decc9f67d4448bc4b77afe3b10
68bb7fb08b23cd66efdaddf2b95af60865297e74
1229 F20101119_AACPPW yeruva_s_Page_025.txt
e6e916c31092cbdafa7ca3695d5af8b3
fe4cd64b81f89d8659f0a85b06ec53621cbeef72
2429 F20101119_AACPQL yeruva_s_Page_041thm.jpg
60e6d1715b32253d5cb6b82319bb2221
c22e3596f597530e3a470aaae545eb86b7b1b25d
F20101119_AACPPX yeruva_s_Page_124.tif
9b3681c1e5e85b3c9646c6e1d8cca7b3
b8e58eebefb9b2f288310e21cd8065ac93a55da3
1423 F20101119_AACPRA yeruva_s_Page_063.txt
88a9514f12b946c2d021cd6149a7a681
b7e673ea57d82f09a1de15a62e8b5e77e195cbfe
144 F20101119_AACPQM yeruva_s_Page_003.txt
d4388fe639890b10d61e051c6d6c306e
8c4470576a754901a22f26817fcd7e0d439f0ac1
23086 F20101119_AACPPY yeruva_s_Page_056.QC.jpg
3a856077fd34e41c82149781383e7100
513a9edc97ac5bc64cfc0dee468916b887f000b0
5169 F20101119_AACPRB yeruva_s_Page_006thm.jpg
7498624ad54887d324e8be92001fd572
99e57740f429c038da668759d3c3626dd0f7b626
F20101119_AACPQN yeruva_s_Page_117.tif
a6ac6c9776bcff780bb20f98335d8f1c
c1282bdceff444276a86d7601ab72c411239760e
15195 F20101119_AACPPZ yeruva_s_Page_108.QC.jpg
b2bc77f916cd1dc21ced0d09109e3ecd
096c0cc9d85f6816fb3de1bb0dcc60c67cdbf66a
66389 F20101119_AACPRC yeruva_s_Page_048.jpg
2b05cc761c09203c3167f60bcb054b9d
713c9d64fd8ede08096d963e4df5b3d4ae070b6d
19259 F20101119_AACPQO yeruva_s_Page_052.QC.jpg
b13a2f415e5667a8abb1b3202fbddb79
f58836cd0d1c4c37cb3f9fabe508b0a626fdb105
23486 F20101119_AACPRD yeruva_s_Page_053.QC.jpg
da279b2209848ebcad9aa8fca5e67313
ebee0949860a27337cfd04fbb66f7a5f38e6b100
1671 F20101119_AACPRE yeruva_s_Page_093.txt
c4ad672a3643bc5f4d35ea4bb3adb369
1f620c2a6d43577a10c75285d28dc4cc7937e993
106946 F20101119_AACPQP yeruva_s_Page_043.jp2
7a1a1b2df38a9ff3aa4670c24fb69bae
73a826cd71a8bb807185da76e484ad9279af6935
F20101119_AACPRF yeruva_s_Page_060.tif
783f1ec6aa41523abd66ad3b6829f513
f27edfc4c75b82d3720d10e651aa63d04a095039
F20101119_AACPQQ yeruva_s_Page_116.tif
fb289db174913879be817ec689a34238
5237cc75463bde7d054e775e221bd67e16980a50
23528 F20101119_AACPRG yeruva_s_Page_118.QC.jpg
b96d74abfa36590497b6440aed2511fe
22e09593e258badd0f266ad37f96b5e7789a1506
6636 F20101119_AACPQR yeruva_s_Page_054thm.jpg
e1eebc06cdb1823a0e4ceaba5312b4c9
ca9d08a1d695f9b42f7633a2731d6c6a20dd7e22
137156 F20101119_AACPRH yeruva_s_Page_124.jp2
b09939b9fa2cd1c6c301affde9076f9b
a00381c8c0522891c37295a1d219ea4a4499a278
2743 F20101119_AACPQS yeruva_s_Page_127.txt
01ac7ee483da22085b4ccd9263118b56
b045497f1184856dc7e98ce81dfcbfd783a946d9
F20101119_AACPRI yeruva_s_Page_053.tif
f4c7cc1f8779946efad0025aaafe3a87
e9ce82e039c5da4bb30dbac3efa698a65e31e816
305974 F20101119_AACPQT yeruva_s_Page_105.jp2
4b14deed0529a78f80fefd2aa577980d
409b6f8306283faeae337fd9b05f3a7ba9f0a19b
F20101119_AACPRJ yeruva_s_Page_126.tif
47abec2d349ba699b5ce10fab99c139e
9a1c6918c42ca53eb656a268ec294f81fa98252c
21727 F20101119_AACPQU yeruva_s_Page_015.QC.jpg
51036649f3730df1af6dff97bd18681b
e4836078b7533bddf78610b67c1486559c85de32
1763 F20101119_AACPRK yeruva_s_Page_042.txt
d405edc84829257d063a0921e10bc438
5e78f2f70dab72f953fb1abda89e727f4a6b8d04
36565 F20101119_AACPQV yeruva_s_Page_083.pro
c22d8d75471878e059bfb1032e78ee46
ca1c2c7b5b07c63fa9796fca906455461a9a4989
25287 F20101119_AACPRL yeruva_s_Page_128.QC.jpg
4c2d72a19bfc3f884dc4b886fedc145f
bcaeb62f9df658500262871de77087f552d0492a
21821 F20101119_AACPQW yeruva_s_Page_048.QC.jpg
69e2405c79e7b7779ccdfb74d09ad2ea
f5cef335b102000a0752022f5b750baa9035398c
642 F20101119_AACPSA yeruva_s_Page_084.txt
86e8e8b4a5dfddb4691a0e1246f62529
c227eb013f7fb460902943c565d85a7dc671a20b
F20101119_AACPRM yeruva_s_Page_051.tif
5024c55abf97ea073c0ce8523671989f
568a4b92d1ad385853343dd2c465b59f563de910
896 F20101119_AACPQX yeruva_s_Page_069.txt
942f1c87dfad7dcb9ae35e609d37cc63
ccb0d0ef5d1e0af4ef36ce03494c722ee1aa3394
5850 F20101119_AACPSB yeruva_s_Page_091thm.jpg
b876b667068e84d7948c4ebafb00794d
0827389dec33893fc8a83b2b26db4adb560b0825
2617 F20101119_AACPRN yeruva_s_Page_122.txt
29e3442f08646d125529d1a769716ebf
7582385804e2d3f19ba7d5f163e33beafc250859
F20101119_AACPQY yeruva_s_Page_066.tif
0a3eaf0e0c3fee66fbbf7986febe0202
221e75c64cdd98d143efccc7d61bb340ab5d5b8f
24164 F20101119_AACPSC yeruva_s_Page_130.jpg
4f50acfc5abbc4fa90cfb11145c4f0cf
41729f7788d8be024ab8e76b0585843cc5da1768
6827 F20101119_AACPRO yeruva_s_Page_024thm.jpg
84516d9fcd6b6f2d59f6a266e0c14f31
94755822032e713db17f22096d62d00607419597
24406 F20101119_AACPQZ yeruva_s_Page_038.QC.jpg
caa184ccc666b34d4e0f071a209a9fe5
8459c6cf66dfe5c78aad35f5ccaee450edbcb3f9
34833 F20101119_AACPSD yeruva_s_Page_088.pro
e1f078c24300ac1f893751b7cac264ee
3b3ae09aa19afe06bcd2db374af5e1a274d3ca5b
21175 F20101119_AACPRP yeruva_s_Page_113.QC.jpg
ab470e67126cf28d4397f102ebf1bf1f
566f0e745b2361794da1d1274afa9b4f4e5cc42a
4780 F20101119_AACPSE yeruva_s_Page_080thm.jpg
b0f2d5935caa52d89fa3d088b0fa8b69
16cd9ade287c2f7ebfb958014806920c3ee2d59b
24485 F20101119_AACPSF yeruva_s_Page_078.QC.jpg
0367504c80ec384ac8c802284e47a121
3a98c2c360070dcb8d31627f2c61c07d7dc9a381
696 F20101119_AACPRQ yeruva_s_Page_007.txt
0fcd93bde256f706772afbc6d477e158
a2885b6cdcef64eb4d04eb1245108bac05aa31ad
F20101119_AACPSG yeruva_s_Page_114.tif
69be3c5d4d2d70662e17a2d0b22d7aad
7d225fc593d938646fcfc72eb3e2179468319339
F20101119_AACPRR yeruva_s_Page_081.tif
1b8d089aa156fb2276c2a8a7f1feacd6
cd92d0429a1ed40ee15600f6b5f0051a6a7aca10
58305 F20101119_AACPSH yeruva_s_Page_052.jpg
749bfa2ef52b2c3f9001e0e2d8f3014a
7ab97621c2d33cc076523b24fc2abf41eef62e2b
74400 F20101119_AACPRS yeruva_s_Page_093.jp2
07775fc13484555990c48aedba603f27
6e2b0fd9b53596d6806f52a94f1ed5688b7a74be
6712 F20101119_AACPSI yeruva_s_Page_111thm.jpg
86f791dd7a21be1e9af93213c243d41e
fb16abc257db33aa779d8600f630163dab8ed40d
88985 F20101119_AACPRT yeruva_s_Page_046.jp2
b24bc9832b881f51e11a7f87899c179c
ffae968e9235fedcb3544186d84aaf3ca8d452f1
1971 F20101119_AACPSJ yeruva_s_Page_035.txt
6bc7ad822128a9180b829079bec0b19a
3cd41fb46038f0430fb80ad7d4e0584628385552
13031 F20101119_AACPRU yeruva_s_Page_084.QC.jpg
49872039981815a1ac0fe083a8e523d7
e30088c7064d1f2127dea16485095ffb560f1163
110254 F20101119_AACPSK yeruva_s_Page_033.jp2
a94de78dcce658270f96b394b3479984
d7c242578b2522498bd472aab0f61d44eb422cce
1043425 F20101119_AACPRV yeruva_s_Page_068.jp2
fe55182c633a6a44979ed0c0e96ec4ab
52be294444d95650c7fd269531bc3ce13637acdf
1955 F20101119_AACPSL yeruva_s_Page_056.txt
1ef1674166ef5e745e3f05e334398e57
b742cb8039e3fa5133fc1eb8d08ed36f2f23f94c
5732 F20101119_AACPRW yeruva_s_Page_042thm.jpg
e32a0cb98d85b2563e9823220709bb6e
12add422dc7a93242a3e72f298fabee8328f7a9a
660516 F20101119_AACPSM yeruva_s_Page_115.jp2
c0447dec1a72f7c38d3c4d9ed011a5e1
8b24be527106174a90a3ca1baebf8bed049e4d88
110895 F20101119_AACPRX yeruva_s_Page_039.jp2
caf8ab0b7457fb57a6e9b540bfa9f835
b3120aa67f45226e070fb7c66ae1f0df6b465938
51606 F20101119_AACPTA yeruva_s_Page_053.pro
e668e073cfba25df6ea2f7a11a021f08
0416a9830895c2797317b56f0b61b82d7e6498e8
1909 F20101119_AACPSN yeruva_s_Page_049.txt
66a82c7c6982cd4a7b3642b297ed5631
421945d8381ebc7956f6d1014bd4a4e95b90190c
22914 F20101119_AACPRY yeruva_s_Page_073.QC.jpg
eb4e38286dc0291f0f4248885c168db0
4680c173bbe9f29c30931acc53b38af31faef7ca
24110 F20101119_AACPTB yeruva_s_Page_030.QC.jpg
88d6823e24dc2a8d9a6fde01196b5ee7
37ccf93ec5f28899623b880f0a4b9d07f9efc17e
51082 F20101119_AACPSO yeruva_s_Page_026.pro
29093afc808348746854949ff6108322
63c97ef3681be395fcf8918503f6d0bc95573362
21833 F20101119_AACPRZ yeruva_s_Page_085.QC.jpg
8f748e90cf77c54d4904ff163b3d39c9
1111690f0bc4f4a88c10e9faed6ecbe64d3fe448
72260 F20101119_AACPTC yeruva_s_Page_035.jpg
e7c609f443c2a90ffeef326074694e99
0bdcb212088f1ac7396be43698272cdb9c606b49
F20101119_AACPSP yeruva_s_Page_004.tif
105bd112b579f0f05d5864dd40cd668b
83d20fadee3acf81f0d25a2cb53fbf62c2b54c55
F20101119_AACPTD yeruva_s_Page_121.tif
2f8efe8ef8b484baa6915b37c7ea79e4
9f69a268e63414293e77277dc43b299cbed021d8
6966 F20101119_AACPSQ yeruva_s_Page_036thm.jpg
f94a64a68c6dbc06b6064cc2e1c17877
234e747479149ce9b5f2ca67ab68179abd23e084
985713 F20101119_AACPTE yeruva_s_Page_077.jp2
1b679b099cf9b74ef1bd081d00f19c96
7479ff015f3a92fa832dd6b932d0c73f5872bcff
92276 F20101119_AACPTF yeruva_s_Page_127.jpg
9c1b892a3c7f7e252cbf6d44ab796b48
46f51e68aa893bfaced04871970fe3b8af9aca65
71148 F20101119_AACPSR yeruva_s_Page_021.jpg
c8b0f994d75f591050f3a65f28ccd29a
3ffe1b8866c4e6103cbe7f22bf615c2dc84137f1
1989 F20101119_AACPTG yeruva_s_Page_054.txt
b0799c0e824deb8f4c05c67efc6a8471
910f80ed4ab67e978d85e809fa74de66a82f8131
F20101119_AACPSS yeruva_s_Page_014.tif
43f5dd4d5083229f90a0e343f396b227
4ec8770fcef57bbce21b6303bc8924a96fc260c7
3561 F20101119_AACPTH yeruva_s_Page_003.QC.jpg
c1740b22a82524e319b8fcc278aa3d14
d94d29a1800251cfd89bd743ec8ee113ce9ff5f1
1821 F20101119_AACPST yeruva_s_Page_085.txt
40e8428abf9bbe0e000a2884d06bfc35
b71b0b8f596c6116604786eba949be784bdbda25
6445 F20101119_AACPTI yeruva_s_Page_073thm.jpg
ed6467b4749245e35e8713a31e6ecaa7
fb864e031eebd6633d0155e10b63b5c8d1ebd6f3
832976 F20101119_AACPSU yeruva_s_Page_099.jp2
d8f5e2d802bfe3922fded0e7794d097a
0e277087cd308da48a93a6bbc2169ada79b9cad7
F20101119_AACPTJ yeruva_s_Page_073.tif
b8c9664c1357ea699e4255a94cdc7721
7130855d2537b94ea71018706d1a822f62a1204f
980 F20101119_AACPSV yeruva_s_Page_129.txt
7c57795e93ecd1d14858ce44f3c09b03
6e8bb40c67df746aeed48d1bb78b4bb7a9c56d7e
23520 F20101119_AACPTK yeruva_s_Page_050.QC.jpg
7cffd250318f07cfc40540f0f067e9f8
22724ac237c6a2ed5796d9069eea89118bc849a6
17472 F20101119_AACPSW yeruva_s_Page_065.QC.jpg
c1466b1a01f835e430720306f9a19808
f9b6f0191784cecb920f200b1a7b0ca9239760ba
20631 F20101119_AACPTL yeruva_s_Page_042.QC.jpg
18b571d7bbf4f6089d3ddfc1ebfbfb52
139978a9674cd5911baef995f52a47875a86dc10
24562 F20101119_AACPUA yeruva_s_Page_115.pro
3553e56fc2a8cba284b4ccfe8b89b9cc
a1574e30720c8d58fcf7d4509860b92c4c59624d
554418 F20101119_AACPTM yeruva_s_Page_106.jp2
a8f9d8188e429d3b2a94b17de0027f3c
e58a800f3e99d30e76960816d352ef41adac509f
16475 F20101119_AACPSX yeruva_s_Page_095.QC.jpg
6d0305453df0fbb593cb6e11600d0a5a
f6afad10b0d2eab41a0a68a2271e7a82a13111ff
18266 F20101119_AACPUB yeruva_s_Page_097.QC.jpg
e11674f83153daa74b5fd8e48c2ce1ec
64a3277bde6c90e1f3c3e274854fdd7def93bed8
45876 F20101119_AACPTN yeruva_s_Page_047.pro
d816d693e58cf595cb2e3f06ca8fb09a
203f922b980d9927faee1a1fd5846a809a6b9f38
F20101119_AACPSY yeruva_s_Page_035.tif
6983934fa2ac382651a8c446b58a8fca
5d2446724193cb3c97129c2e7c6f07e5c26b214c
88374 F20101119_AACPUC yeruva_s_Page_049.jp2
5f620a42d28c1124e4b5e896671c0eb2
7550691530de4c9a752738c71bc1b836fbc5a658
5521 F20101119_AACPTO yeruva_s_Page_100thm.jpg
e742b78df09c8118143b7ec2c3160f15
a6001f52b7964cba756525b061a1562d6be9fc45
93658 F20101119_AACPSZ yeruva_s_Page_124.jpg
331369dcb88ef7972de0e4e06e86457e
5bdb8fcb9af7d19b2ce205e903c72e5c2149aea1
64073 F20101119_AACPUD yeruva_s_Page_128.pro
45f93b786d34b54ece3a2a8717df0b57
5614b1a9ce505371005229c35604e10e5f1b58c2
4853 F20101119_AACPTP yeruva_s_Page_067thm.jpg
bfc034e3bc0dece626b9d236b42151eb
89d110c9eaf47ece49523872a7d8272d990af5ee
1802 F20101119_AACPUE yeruva_s_Page_090.txt
00ceb657bfe4da9d01dcbb945aed823f
de6ea0f903d446c34a13f4374773ce2155754bea
5754 F20101119_AACPTQ yeruva_s_Page_046thm.jpg
cce96c8acea50b1aa9d994a0ee2fcc80
efbc9266265b487c1aa3e6882d38de302da44a7f
1801 F20101119_AACPUF yeruva_s_Page_060.txt
74d32bd2976da8d0f45b91fdfdd3e711
978e13223df6b88da485fa58f2e2caadb999b4a8
71845 F20101119_AACPTR yeruva_s_Page_027.jpg
7212b1f46152c52f597ed92e7ee35ee1
625416bcfc653bbb4991db60f256772c3bf79126
6500 F20101119_AACPUG yeruva_s_Page_050thm.jpg
9bf348cffb7c0650c8d5e5d266b4cd21
10aed4f155f14638b378ad6aa0c75500a021a3df
F20101119_AACQAA yeruva_s_Page_063.tif
9d75d279d1a401f9be57818f69f4f611
0f576687387f1c8e6d100458c39c66e8db1f1b2b
1014 F20101119_AACPUH yeruva_s_Page_012.txt
fe32cde42713f023d03623197c07dbb6
4b5df08479ee1ab48b5e0b5c7b4a5fb116759d7d
F20101119_AACPTS yeruva_s_Page_106.tif
ac1d10c16c15fc4561df7af64fb07ceb
b692e0fc4c64a23b7115212f09cea6fb173cdce1
97366 F20101119_AACQAB yeruva_s_Page_047.jp2
331cd64b45f82be8b4278b113dc810a7
11660b53ef2c46922156077b6b4d1061a9659482
74738 F20101119_AACPUI yeruva_s_Page_072.jpg
04d71128619959ff431c0b5b71d049fe
b2c66778bdd60c4e06e8a610494581ea9ffb600b
F20101119_AACPTT yeruva_s_Page_095.tif
9254933586d4fe6fe4a1506e060d9da6
1b685f1d5f45cce1562bc99e924929dc1e0f28ef
5711 F20101119_AACQAC yeruva_s_Page_064thm.jpg
8e69a7b50976cde7305a807fd4361aab
45da92b64f8944c43f20117fc790e6312a3cd4cc
F20101119_AACPUJ yeruva_s_Page_038.tif
4c9662380e53fb0f75a5a32efc248fd3
f76a972e6d732bbae853aa4dae7bf8753ec6c248
1591 F20101119_AACPTU yeruva_s_Page_099.txt
fa82aeab0d3b5498bc847db10813751e
a7347c6c0530cd1f6263c4cd23f4b97c1aeb8c4b
F20101119_AACQAD yeruva_s_Page_123.tif
821082e0eb84bd27687b3916d392c32e
8eb4564ea3ab29bfae9296ba5bec4968daa08668
47650 F20101119_AACPUK yeruva_s_Page_030.pro
4d37c257e9bb029547e8b30f596afa7e
ea4abd8f6548d551505dceffd134e0729395ba33
F20101119_AACPTV yeruva_s_Page_077.txt
f4d931dac33e0824ef25e17a85d94f64
1cc1db6c39f56bc368251d8a409168f552786145
24206 F20101119_AACQAE yeruva_s_Page_068.QC.jpg
c7217341b947aeaa4b8aa3b58f45d318
72bd0c1d1bdd54e15ab876289441a367d83db2d0
1915 F20101119_AACPUL yeruva_s_Page_068.txt
f959d466838c0efa208ecdd4cc90c409
efb76e2eb7b2488e47cc082dea51d825e7ecc181
91282 F20101119_AACPTW yeruva_s_Page_123.jpg
70574fd870ef02db120e624b4e5e7bb8
786e0c4ba6cba4c7c4480d8f4b5fb586ce259ef1
105037 F20101119_AACQAF yeruva_s_Page_044.jp2
f3ece3f9790cf4496165dd4090a1dac9
c90cd09924899ac53fecd173821a13eb38107144
116 F20101119_AACPUM yeruva_s_Page_002.txt
ff4345583f9c2f71028729a1733d3f76
05a933384a221634caa5d0170089fbf9b78540c8
F20101119_AACPTX yeruva_s_Page_096.tif
14aabc017c980bb95def2ced705f0965
03f24443c54bcca122a15f080c7b6e5834289aa0
48009 F20101119_AACQAG yeruva_s_Page_038.pro
cfde7a6f0322cad3d5de529f68a334fe
9377b366021d884a81a144240a814bd1014d3c91
54191 F20101119_AACPVA yeruva_s_Page_087.jpg
51939a456efc9ce2a36c6d3bd97e95d3
639b2e3ae42ea765d6747f41453d9e65b986c63d
F20101119_AACPUN yeruva_s_Page_130.tif
377264a8181a699862e26fb9e04cf829
66d258d22963734d72682ae081b2fc606cca0329
40663 F20101119_AACPTY yeruva_s_Page_012.jpg
7ccfe24a228177d121442c67dd5e6f49
7a58e0bf756725a90f9b1cfc2a2cf65fc209a420
86969 F20101119_AACQAH yeruva_s_Page_006.pro
a332007e0b7d3548b1bf0f876dda34e0
3b64efcc555422e644ceee2c5ea6a896ef368d5c
2021 F20101119_AACPVB yeruva_s_Page_032.txt
6429ec6cf5ac9b5e5bce0e6ebb033b0a
5b4de26aa4928b08d80fb30c12699162b84bc934
57610 F20101119_AACPUO yeruva_s_Page_012.jp2
6a8db9a0c51e89ff8e6c76465d7da399
b46a96a2876639ba0599e1905a70a64b8d825cf9
1958 F20101119_AACPTZ yeruva_s_Page_010thm.jpg
f6a6263d4be798670f4e5bb5d24e13ab
006af88597bfff7226f2c1490aadfe32b13fec81
41267 F20101119_AACQAI yeruva_s_Page_066.pro
322085b3421f53dd6aea220c67905137
b33b02ea1cded3463d4e108e95987f95d5f5c046
29603 F20101119_AACPVC yeruva_s_Page_087.pro
06189e6ff99c55ef924c8677a72f0c08
8fc8c1551bbbd5b77a658fe7926bd2cabbcc6b0a
6443 F20101119_AACPUP yeruva_s_Page_081thm.jpg
e8520ed4aacae9d2d29de4e0417ca990
fbb7e0e733fc3c32284bd35c67ab2019738a046c
24142 F20101119_AACQAJ yeruva_s_Page_017.QC.jpg
034493e968dad2d708aed225d2ecff04
a9c13c3f47ca277e6019f37010fcc72a5c866482
64347 F20101119_AACPVD yeruva_s_Page_125.pro
3fe703d513e979e63764fce79a0b5210
11f674c18ea89a4f55745570f9fe1b410ef28914
6391 F20101119_AACPUQ yeruva_s_Page_118thm.jpg
38c866d179f9231eafbd45032bebfeb3
27145fb1743d65d1b4f593cdf0aeeb157e95f58b
F20101119_AACQAK yeruva_s_Page_016.tif
fa0c5f5d1592cac499834102a4be9d17
312fc201949134d21fbfe33f3a12b421c08396a0
19543 F20101119_AACPVE yeruva_s_Page_066.QC.jpg
91a9368f3f62fc19940a398369fa4d85
2bb73e6f95ea9d33eb20de0216b47b254380ede2
F20101119_AACPUR yeruva_s_Page_091.tif
8fffddbd85b7b548ddc85acaf8bdd8bb
4a6ae6233363a76052b40700c6b976e6567967b6
63958 F20101119_AACQAL yeruva_s_Page_059.jpg
5372f724ce400645beaa57fa49bdfa55
61d625927d13f233bfa895930f68a20f035a3e67
48095 F20101119_AACPVF yeruva_s_Page_116.pro
e3375cc7c2402ef7cb148875d7bafa08
3f48d3972b7afd54895217597e82ae4207dc843c
24577 F20101119_AACPUS yeruva_s_Page_109.QC.jpg
099417b7cb1cbcbc45fc631cacd40bda
0296066ed85316ca26c44c811f633be40545cbaf
108284 F20101119_AACQBA yeruva_s_Page_055.jp2
11507e1112e737f1522d75050429f30d
29f56c7772e421546b517524a5919a5c12216fc9
41793 F20101119_AACQAM yeruva_s_Page_062.pro
69321f8ab1b5a97489ca3227189f4b0e
84f6c478593cf1ae29e6c39cc6f58b82f125a9e6
F20101119_AACPVG yeruva_s_Page_097.tif
839ffdefe1c48f4bc37c629d94eae783
c0b1609c325ef3c84fba8c3536b411c9e6faad9d
F20101119_AACQBB yeruva_s_Page_067.tif
16ffd48631f58a5b3fa567e395b2a32b
948efd6fbb536cc18dfaa9340461c72f33d2b1dd
21118 F20101119_AACQAN yeruva_s_Page_006.QC.jpg
fcb5a9bd8350a7b0f1fbe8e9fad5a685
a7628cae2873cec126ca2d51557ee4c4a567a662
7812 F20101119_AACPVH yeruva_s_Page_130.QC.jpg
f5baadc656e17ceab53954ebfaab758d
f1e0a2ced0f0372dbc32a9cdb526de1a6179cf02
19707 F20101119_AACPUT yeruva_s_Page_046.QC.jpg
997af5736c60e7aa3a8b18b8013341e3
029c760296a1b8fcbdbc55720e323b6a690bf488
84318 F20101119_AACQBC yeruva_s_Page_022.jp2
d53b89f73aad70a665f895f53c56f760
596094250ebdeeecb81842cc4f7088626fbd0e0b
F20101119_AACQAO yeruva_s_Page_012.tif
b58a8ebeb91740d7e2a664be330720fd
8ad080763276f0482df7d9ee10d4914128089e66
27534 F20101119_AACPVI yeruva_s_Page_122.QC.jpg
0de89a6853f9466da5222975d2e7fa1a
343655637750d2efe7df16b6ff91104462a27f4a
6960 F20101119_AACPUU yeruva_s_Page_017thm.jpg
3e98684114f48833063beb70557195ad
7b22a327170a2c2e3371305980d632c553945372
25012 F20101119_AACQBD yeruva_s_Page_020.QC.jpg
1e022c760a97a7dbd422f138b425d4f7
efb7cabac7a50dc2bfaebcd7ac8ca406f9252397
F20101119_AACQAP yeruva_s_Page_088.tif
4cfc7ccd20cea8a7b890472cc006cdd3
12584d30bbaf2950969e37c3c33231d6fd429651
6688 F20101119_AACPVJ yeruva_s_Page_027thm.jpg
787f72dc301d9f874599679acf789be8
45d94ee72a93bce9e1e203d15ae2297eb18860e2
5099 F20101119_AACPUV yeruva_s_Page_069thm.jpg
1194a3ea5a1536c75a2b30515b4832dd
3d0e80aa046f3c3d6aba63ce2f59df533c744883
1343 F20101119_AACQBE yeruva_s_Page_096.txt
2d7387b4851d682daeb73d0423ef1840
5c8fce24480e7065f78915a9ff44effae3616591
26164 F20101119_AACQAQ yeruva_s_Page_075.pro
e7aece3c544e866f9509a81f0843fcb1
95b47d96c2c5776e62ae8ce945fcc2486febdfcc
51377 F20101119_AACPVK yeruva_s_Page_112.jp2
4537bdfe5514a5b0c90a8c2e36ac1a8c
d9fdaa1b24eb84cc4b932f3f8aa8efd5a6efb865
5494 F20101119_AACPUW yeruva_s_Page_008thm.jpg
ec981e5f62556a6a54bbed2106e1327b
05903dc895096905b9f3d5cfab75631e29862d19
1685 F20101119_AACQBF yeruva_s_Page_088.txt
6c9af295c4fc0853de625bd082eae878
a7163d75b5b7b6a2da7056d0ef5b85cdc0164981
4977 F20101119_AACQAR yeruva_s_Page_022thm.jpg
9651d7c9013bf438d1450b76e040b25c
922abac0c207973dd0fafb4dcd72c36d1e1e2df0
75818 F20101119_AACPVL yeruva_s_Page_111.jpg
7ff297df821220552d5bead3a9086023
13a5b9c100b7361193f9a53c8cb4ca0ec86dcfd1
F20101119_AACPUX yeruva_s_Page_065.tif
301141e4b88cbf79d6b7bcebaa8ce137
f0eb930b7d19db7796f2a01e791a6b45a5e810fe
F20101119_AACQBG yeruva_s_Page_108.tif
2aa4d5c6727b9f5eb9fed1602b468638
e26a2b0ca72d90c1c3a1f0c45f811f57712e6f7d
F20101119_AACPWA yeruva_s_Page_102.tif
076fb055aeda2fe81e0c7bacd4211cf5
9447d0a1e13907631b262cc7562aabf5f7cc4a23
F20101119_AACQAS yeruva_s_Page_117.txt
3aacff61790d42c28cd9d0612cabd78a
e094a559666c08cd3320ed07dde9de7fa2d90128
700 F20101119_AACPVM yeruva_s_Page_034.txt
775a8b4fe15408b98fb3c97c4318441c
bc8feda96d1ffef761369fb8d4dadf613a2431b1
2609 F20101119_AACPUY yeruva_s_Page_120.txt
bdefe2d2233f232025c9deb771dbe39f
9094dcea3f1fefab83057a7f51bb5b2dcbf64d49
2086 F20101119_AACQBH yeruva_s_Page_037.txt
9fea233f575023df5d1808082aba94c5
e52dc24a2f86528a62e53d135d8cb9c08724d34f
4635 F20101119_AACPWB yeruva_s_Page_117thm.jpg
33f8b315516276196fe9eecef2895977
89e909979e42b4a31cfff58b8a8d93bfb44230cd
74912 F20101119_AACQAT yeruva_s_Page_107.jpg
76c6ba404b672301bc5a0c62cb00994c
6ff5aa5fc7fba72d512704c1a4bce4eb2ad6e6cf
818170 F20101119_AACPVN yeruva_s_Page_025.jp2
44cc2d60442560eb1a6155fca0481fcc
03d6a5ed5286be39c085978ea7f1b13eeca33377
79618 F20101119_AACPUZ yeruva_s_Page_094.jp2
325551a3821adcdf2f9cdde9bfe20031
c6448a2c829895927e4373da9fb1c5c66afa7765
23703 F20101119_AACQBI yeruva_s_Page_035.QC.jpg
08968710f7b2abcbc267d176a35a471b
0952c4b61e9fd62d26a9efddcef5724804e2dbbb
6523 F20101119_AACPWC yeruva_s_Page_083thm.jpg
9368f71217c88e7acaf5cb9c613b04c3
7dd56e9b53a45aa063b2b11b5bd6de98e7cd58e3
F20101119_AACQAU yeruva_s_Page_033.tif
dd12cc06ff4933ba695a2895d2761fcc
c3d5842870a881bc2323adeb55257830c407493c
41499 F20101119_AACPVO yeruva_s_Page_052.pro
6b57acb3d70184f0d1f165f087c94a8a
8d4202b89f489dee13ca1b134bf962581e44a8e4
49207 F20101119_AACQBJ yeruva_s_Page_089.jpg
a80594b6c1e3d67f50f29ba1a1907135
91d6cf6d0b2558700f1b21fb6a43f71518a659bc
22077 F20101119_AACPWD yeruva_s_Page_019.QC.jpg
0cc0370c176a07e2a603bb1d93e2c29b
660109fcd0f65d8cf6555ae05ffbca18ea41774c
80472 F20101119_AACQAV yeruva_s_Page_024.jpg
f1b23befa6aef7988c25eb426c114c8d
5dfd360edd52fd860ee8af8671c9ba35fb601be6
5999 F20101119_AACPVP yeruva_s_Page_059thm.jpg
7d8c806a07ac670ad1a182349db8046f
b94b444e940a0f7da1d97dc5cbdde6421d562658
3503 F20101119_AACQBK yeruva_s_Page_005.txt
fcb04e118f2d5e7fb080f86dfb9f4191
82987dbb11e175d422b6fe7e2798ee7a3d83abe2
74673 F20101119_AACPWE yeruva_s_Page_014.jpg
e43e24d368f723b955277ce9f2aa7607
944abedfdd87bba45b309b84a0382771e40370aa
28586 F20101119_AACQAW yeruva_s_Page_130.jp2
9d2cec01a6fae09247d29487887ac4bd
137b4fa9f83836726d4d324f388e00ca054ffe65
1862 F20101119_AACPVQ yeruva_s_Page_073.txt
84daa78c0ebcd5e11d14d43f1f956d4b
3e19b27c6b9b26f7b8c6140c1322840741404499
6709 F20101119_AACQBL yeruva_s_Page_078thm.jpg
dd5af72c1f9c7f3bb02326d09ca40311
6515af4a896b6251f912cc3d8997282aa61ec2db
F20101119_AACPWF yeruva_s_Page_015.tif
b536657b9793e748df1ae110719a443b
4c1c6d80f7fdaaada8c236604a64fb1901ae4bcb
23981 F20101119_AACQAX yeruva_s_Page_018.pro
c87d7a7afa23f190a6ac26b1609529ea
0745eb7e71cb5fc2e9a8181a70037a28d0662018
46375 F20101119_AACPVR yeruva_s_Page_106.jpg
9e6e053e33b78c562054a8a5b9f319a1
919710fbbe5c1e9e371036004d7ca88cece88f4e
26040 F20101119_AACQBM yeruva_s_Page_125.QC.jpg
0e6559bf8a250b2a97403d55226a6f16
1d97bdff648612f14062275d533447c5eb258136
761288 F20101119_AACPWG yeruva_s_Page_018.jp2
5ab51543580bbdd09f32465d3e6df5da
d1e6a0da7ad05b18660c05f3a29f410a0f9e221f
30980 F20101119_AACQAY yeruva_s_Page_105.jpg
c09fccbc2b23221203faff979d36a4ca
49a6ef967dd6454abdf9d940178b3a03787c2033
45764 F20101119_AACPVS yeruva_s_Page_067.jpg
c9cb545032f67fe1bc2ba2466dde0e78
07fe77b46f4b59b30ef0b80b705af8728c30043d
16924 F20101119_AACQCA yeruva_s_Page_112.pro
4668a4ee71feb770b24f7bf5fec0a175
40cabe2ee39717dac05ef0898368de7f68dddd58
6267 F20101119_AACQBN yeruva_s_Page_056thm.jpg
932457ca2ca1bb0eb4b59347e84172f9
90bbca228ddc204bd4a7b74b4d2fc13c6fcc4506
F20101119_AACPWH yeruva_s_Page_080.tif
e111de727526d6809fd6b8610d7211b4
6a4d793f80644fd04797400b1a0c3f1ddc195c6b
49432 F20101119_AACQAZ yeruva_s_Page_104.jpg
283bbdc26a0282b6f7de222eace5d31a
a7bc16194bb6900cf7d38b601cf3503e43864308
F20101119_AACPVT yeruva_s_Page_025.tif
95e0a8b6446d0ca2f3a9aaf61e56f879
410a85c3e8053cd7ad91d2cb5c078da0c0821c06
6447 F20101119_AACQCB yeruva_s_Page_077thm.jpg
25ea6987c2ce98285b6a3d19960c6553
e82833553a6847b53fb603ca2a6b797236541e8d
39784 F20101119_AACQBO yeruva_s_Page_080.jpg
93310f6e78ee13ec2de7b6338daf72aa
60ef6c08723062798bf375e15d8ab75e14a385c4
1083 F20101119_AACPWI yeruva_s_Page_101.txt
3256aba27627a69b9739d93c546d069b
742174f733aa106e87705d276dfabd20ff133d6c
F20101119_AACQCC yeruva_s_Page_008.tif
5c18031de2ef48462ada9a5946e7e393
26a7cecbb60030bd6373bff3086dd102ce99e012
68918 F20101119_AACQBP yeruva_s_Page_037.jpg
706fc59b0c69f7b81507ac0cd0317ee6
a75de75cd74bb7e7fc15011f043cc3f6b7614024
38922 F20101119_AACPWJ yeruva_s_Page_084.jpg
20f7103362290d7f8f8231c6452e61ab
96d7689f112b18c8b5ca0092fce9c24cbaae5bd0
11575 F20101119_AACPVU yeruva_s_Page_041.pro
48b92f4c6501b34efb128e1ec298b8b6
1a82ce57552e20862e401ae1ad4c5076966e94f2
4928 F20101119_AACQCD yeruva_s_Page_079thm.jpg
0da5e4084f3df01481573b93e49cbb9a
2161fdd93e3b8b8950223765ad29a004b055d7ec
5283 F20101119_AACQBQ yeruva_s_Page_087thm.jpg
a2d823a3bb2f4c3489c28e5109fd2baa
1ab0f748bd5073871e466807cd92992451e9933b
22297 F20101119_AACPWK yeruva_s_Page_077.QC.jpg
ac94c8c4605014eaf1187d5391e561f4
7625723d8e03658d49a687452884244e4579530c
47440 F20101119_AACPVV yeruva_s_Page_015.pro
3f8fb5d2db6bd05afeee9dfbdbb467b9
e0a2ad5dfc77b7d4861311fb8a2c8943a1d65063
33821 F20101119_AACQCE yeruva_s_Page_076.pro
b70d5b4037e3fa5f450a39c7ab79f64a
355fbc1acd43c9720937962e3615e3d9fd5efab0
F20101119_AACQBR yeruva_s_Page_070.tif
edefffdb85126060d48ad7fb9fbbdfc4
bba12d48d6046b23500ad6e81a4549fbaf0aea6f
88851 F20101119_AACPWL yeruva_s_Page_121.jpg
da095c64fe2e75e2fdd1aa8fae765acc
04ef457d82fba1e4acd5646b0565301629ca14f1
789620 F20101119_AACPVW yeruva_s_Page_100.jp2
b5ed007248ce4c5c2a1612ba12551a66
e36db31905d20c5a1297de66bd3b7d040fdec559
30049 F20101119_AACQCF yeruva_s_Page_102.pro
c31707612b173d434e10e7a58d8bfde6
1a7f8ea958a35791a36fe9a4a8ab519d8f5e8181
25974 F20101119_AACPXA yeruva_s_Page_123.QC.jpg
13fd5bfee7d055650226447be4e5ea19
d9654e39b402bc76b6781606008d626f6e0376b0
10987 F20101119_AACQBS yeruva_s_Page_129.QC.jpg
e0213f9930c4e9b1d24f13f11f6846ae
5f27f4928d755ea6c6af578769c052127b152be3
27278 F20101119_AACPWM yeruva_s_Page_104.pro
2e0d46fd3f235e634dfb7f4d34a680e3
783034eab275d8efba111279e98b413550f07870
6587 F20101119_AACPVX yeruva_s_Page_035thm.jpg
d7882249b4eff7df49d7e52193088232
844b5be1eff3f9567ba839ce57c9b8c9679b5c79
48332 F20101119_AACQCG yeruva_s_Page_079.jpg
63047cd012e77811d9bfde566a43d66e
8a5e05fe7122da92c27eec45c35478375dea87f7
82249 F20101119_AACPXB yeruva_s_Page_097.jp2
4e14446bc15da764e68a573516770b48
d5565ab7c9e6ab789e6968802f60fc2f8df2b0d1
68702 F20101119_AACQBT yeruva_s_Page_117.jp2
ede82ff566c20752c9964eea47e35467
a44ac3a73d58661294f405b9239d2afc44965913
29199 F20101119_AACPWN yeruva_s_Page_070.jpg
8d64648c8ab8bef17db0f37819d40d64
d7b6b312e963f446ca81ed99f69ce85b3c307487
F20101119_AACPVY yeruva_s_Page_111.tif
6966612a6db9ae44f3981917da7d62dc
65d2c75a522885e5fbc4b49c4ffc107e5f839c5f
25098 F20101119_AACQCH yeruva_s_Page_007.jpg
71622d368303a26909c050d3c0d0ef58
b2e339936d1128858fdb0da75af55ad9bd512f39
16929 F20101119_AACPXC yeruva_s_Page_093.QC.jpg
600d26b868f382c9951461c40721dfb9
23ddde34177ee987fdb0da37fa1b6c739cf4bdf6
39998 F20101119_AACQBU yeruva_s_Page_090.pro
a116c0f619e2907fe9989bb4a2e15061
44737fbbb2aa60026678c092636145a11b3e26ea
26087 F20101119_AACPWO yeruva_s_Page_026.QC.jpg
6ee9edea9ba53e0e38d4a18c4963031c
798d77287a4284c756f2512ba2eb8618119fb223
929517 F20101119_AACPVZ yeruva_s_Page_085.jp2
8484b20f4b848e1b6a0e7f7013a9cbfc
1790f39c255c53e8ed8e1dd5a7c3ecdf412c0701
F20101119_AACQCI yeruva_s_Page_034.tif
4180209e0f6be7717a2bebfd772906fa
3399f9f371415b8df076e0e9d6be54951efbef0b
6119 F20101119_AACPXD yeruva_s_Page_098thm.jpg
da4d23c11e71bd009ae08ac654cb525d
ff78a321aa6ad8850032463e4f9e33bff7e91a56
2146 F20101119_AACQBV yeruva_s_Page_118.txt
759e6b764ebcd7e8ac90a27a80173da3
bd0a1fb50f52225c3e570f77bdfecf379e385863
427 F20101119_AACPWP yeruva_s_Page_070.txt
e19c2f7865384526e3e68b789c6da506
d7ef83c29de89352f2a3da8c6b31f1e932d657d1
110239 F20101119_AACQCJ yeruva_s_Page_061.jp2
ce6ebc04928e38591793638934242596
a2843602156266b8146b60890c1e24d1aa29a301
F20101119_AACPXE yeruva_s_Page_125.tif
9380cc5e9e6f36fd4988e7886a5e0020
ad091740af8e21d98a29b3e3077c7e71aef3fe4d
1886 F20101119_AACQBW yeruva_s_Page_030.txt
9e0ada7ee1756fac334aada67610df51
af014784e7355036f490b1572ca023f9f579b8c9
6652 F20101119_AACPWQ yeruva_s_Page_072thm.jpg
8786d1d35b05eb3577fb97d0efda715d
71360e3a7af5ecf98856ae54299018fc56610e46
80931 F20101119_AACQCK yeruva_s_Page_005.pro
4008006ddbcf002dbcea0670b1ca3a48
5eb9f092f82534d965b00469a3801f8e6dd0e9c9
18572 F20101119_AACPXF yeruva_s_Page_075.QC.jpg
d835a556f82834f58b320ee87239469a
490f242c833c842cd98b69a926801fc5b31629ce
1808 F20101119_AACQBX yeruva_s_Page_028.txt
62a3f08df24f09f9e6354a605e19b2d1
ce6dfd9fcee72c0554312aba980fa3eb3e678c63
19954 F20101119_AACPWR yeruva_s_Page_106.pro
d40e71e9803ac8a89f34e03175509362
3082630bb41e6e775af6e23d570b994fc505cc49
75465 F20101119_AACQDA yeruva_s_Page_020.jpg
5c468a55156618f70c1c390a15034275
78aa2b9652f1e2f694d63f259ab8842dd8f41a9b
6621 F20101119_AACQCL yeruva_s_Page_061thm.jpg
8bdd227cfb92acad23d0bfe83fd2c918
b640384a10469f10ddc6df1bea6bd7a212222217
39931 F20101119_AACPXG yeruva_s_Page_060.pro
12f38759e2784c727428c5f0a368bb41
eb3395591468ae8c07d4e5e268f4efe93a93a05d
52043 F20101119_AACQBY yeruva_s_Page_118.pro
08c9bbe82bc58c43abcb88b60f2f252b
a9627b9660f6c1441f50b99b47189b159e2f81be
112903 F20101119_AACPWS yeruva_s_Page_111.jp2
3c9e0921ef70e21309d986c49e310585
8e0273005f72d86efaaf94634aa176ba269306a9
F20101119_AACQCM yeruva_s_Page_006.tif
aa4c381c34732fe69f5c2460eb213a95
c8aae9e5f28fb20b8104f43e53fd2471896d5fe1
70655 F20101119_AACPXH yeruva_s_Page_009.pro
365e8bec2609653c3e725719499254a8
9feb64b53d371f87c780440658689f5937ed5be0
F20101119_AACQBZ yeruva_s_Page_018.tif
e4478dc7959906fc11ea038c897486bf
4df63ed4fd4f96694849300452c3723ed0895d8a
1051926 F20101119_AACPWT yeruva_s_Page_009.jp2
0896dabd3f85fdcffd66bce5c278c872
96815702371403160f6bc82d52cfde98f53ccffc
67101 F20101119_AACQDB yeruva_s_Page_023.jpg
43c87294e30a2fa8cb09d0a093b6705b
b03241396e1c5fced395b314c6d7fe8c9583f6a2
87912 F20101119_AACQCN yeruva_s_Page_052.jp2
dd809ac0bde72b5947b25c8eb5f7dac3
626a1b3ef3a2d5812b09009d5fea8de4582e6c51
58986 F20101119_AACQDC yeruva_s_Page_025.jpg
a378d9467132c6f8715cf22214327236
5c40c317a33114030d088f255600e933d8312698
2059 F20101119_AACPXI yeruva_s_Page_072.txt
a6767c4763493c107366796be6e12432
8a555abe93a6c1415416b23933678544713f0c3e
F20101119_AACPWU yeruva_s_Page_052.tif
0860ca20aab8f35b8d1bb50230c303e0
df6840cfe3cafa64b8e25ca11170c9147b71f51e
55550 F20101119_AACPAA yeruva_s_Page_115.jpg
73e18c52538ac12c5568c6ec0c0e0512
232fb71eef00fa65798e5f83da95b4513ba8991d
47035 F20101119_AACQCO yeruva_s_Page_014.pro
c33e4ce656d4431cee273c0fd5f4ba45
af3555b095db02286d6287583e800003f37d82b0
65583 F20101119_AACQDD yeruva_s_Page_028.jpg
8c97d374c10c2e57f6bb4f5dd010fb51
39d165ea2aad4afd138a8e9fbd034b9582585a6f
991692 F20101119_AACPXJ yeruva_s_Page_019.jp2
7a5278eaa7219f6471061ac1790919ed
0ba6f222018334d6111d52bb4775ab79d57f1ba5
2031 F20101119_AACPAB yeruva_s_Page_024.txt
5f62ab61dad3ba9ab1ee009cb83fbfab
593cd30625b86d30a81d3bce4aca1b43e5a9aef9
2080 F20101119_AACQCP yeruva_s_Page_078.txt
23dcfd0f913b67e7ca093ddf57d8367f
cb940b5a65b4cca892b12e8c22bc25f3662d1e47
72917 F20101119_AACQDE yeruva_s_Page_033.jpg
ca8aaa9e2678f4b736d654769cb08364
c02ce54e73b979e0439081dd1d19b31126b011c3
F20101119_AACPXK yeruva_s_Page_042.tif
ee480f50d68d10e96cce266d14f28acf
5c0ca64f41dabbf566e29578c3f61698f60e902c
56973 F20101119_AACPWV yeruva_s_Page_097.jpg
fa0c6fa8210b96a0b9e04b841d6a09e5
0d1dd27a45dcc91271c7955bbfffe60b7ac8608f
60254 F20101119_AACPAC yeruva_s_Page_066.jpg
2495f6527e773dcb3a20c16e6cce784c
258a92a6269237fa8e1a177b12442eb71363af7d
20038 F20101119_AACQCQ yeruva_s_Page_091.QC.jpg
a8775ffd100be0e5d93f9228882e5db7
3be120fc1a49d65203d3384b8d496d4794104a01
78304 F20101119_AACQDF yeruva_s_Page_040.jpg
74cec8b9dd3a72f1cac83965894991c5
1bfb938c60c0f7d3f02f468f15993ceb14039aeb
F20101119_AACPXL yeruva_s_Page_001.tif
48fbd8fb3449617ec615b7853e9828c4
4c33018cde70d2fa82c4d73d357dde2d92492caa
2614 F20101119_AACPWW yeruva_s_Page_121.txt
911275aef59859dbe46a478bfc175707
b371c9733ce24eee1f5342aa8d2f86397de64690
56292 F20101119_AACPAD yeruva_s_Page_011.jpg
4449a0ddf2869940541f9c768a67414b
e24c62e9e4756d19e5754297dcb6c8f8eb2a1592
19638 F20101119_AACQCR yeruva_s_Page_025.QC.jpg
2311c11af9aa3d2bedad60d87c918ab1
2501423dade2a1fef9724d19196fc5b5f900b0c8
69884 F20101119_AACQDG yeruva_s_Page_043.jpg
5ffd29ffe19594372440e576cdfbd4d1
13a0dacfa5611aaec6a63414eacc91c3de59030f
57747 F20101119_AACPXM yeruva_s_Page_045.jpg
debcb197133672bfc77cc07677687961
6aa427fea1575140a92bf3d22f78bfe44d87409a
F20101119_AACPWX yeruva_s_Page_075.tif
4e6a8bfcad35731cccba6788ea66135c
44da188b09f815bb7e7496d69866dbc404786e1b
23211 F20101119_AACPAE yeruva_s_Page_041.jpg
f7f952a223e89776759da89e8bf3fe4e
4e49112e739b0486f8d24657e68bcc48921c8eb1
30605 F20101119_AACPYA yeruva_s_Page_117.pro
1d6d75ab12261c0246aff0ca47a7361b
2c9beb34ac8a78aaf6152ce0df31d5176dc10996
F20101119_AACQCS yeruva_s_Page_083.tif
2096f81c6dff668588e23b95c2bed4e8
63d86bf520f0e7d388506519d4ea67f177f5f488
64255 F20101119_AACQDH yeruva_s_Page_047.jpg
b9f67dce869e53f0ebfd946717c2110c
34bdbdab722631a76e95b5e12c3db03c905969fb
70006 F20101119_AACPXN yeruva_s_Page_085.jpg
61cfa9aacd98ba987fcca8644bf00202
1d8ee1dafe07314d12a982da354f1f4cc8a1824a
2306 F20101119_AACPWY yeruva_s_Page_107.txt
4775eae58029f6f144da2110e2715388
f67f560e6e645c9fce1cdc31e18efe6301b4eed7
F20101119_AACPAF yeruva_s_Page_059.tif
c3130507353914ec2f8b82ab3e69a89c
fb41b2da38f0f3fe5739122d6e25117d1263a541
F20101119_AACPYB yeruva_s_Page_093.tif
06d99be69ff949113bb5088b137833a0
cd49b3167af05d15682f31e1174e0d8fd3d24f98
194867 F20101119_AACQCT UFE0012201_00001.xml FULL
730507e63f1757310f85a49d14f87b09
ce22f20bf8124d395b4eeb18ae6f927af181aca6
45349 F20101119_AACQDI yeruva_s_Page_069.jpg
0b6c42a5fc6d175cb48cabd40479cdf0
657010a96f2cd536b52a727fa1b277fa70508ea0
1359 F20101119_AACPXO yeruva_s_Page_016.txt
c0140800b88ddb635631a2f921ef925a
08e5949cf55a7df78ae6c06559c04d6b4dfd91bd
50904 F20101119_AACPWZ yeruva_s_Page_093.jpg
d461626fc8446e5b3b09ec3fe4f2705a
dcfb25b2103bb36ebfe0f8a18796d6f09a78a628
6569 F20101119_AACPAG yeruva_s_Page_109thm.jpg
3b7e1fde6a3ebd09a2ef2e8498e50c63
6c76b878310ecef394543ebf8258db8b1c9638b8
54995 F20101119_AACPYC yeruva_s_Page_108.jp2
0821ab7b46dbb55ab3453806c63d66b9
36ce1d9a7eb286e792db35d5e778a82828442d1e
69896 F20101119_AACQDJ yeruva_s_Page_077.jpg
a38f526388a32b4adb240a1ae49d65cc
8860e3faf8c1374d19059bb1f5ef987c9e6d91cf
1310 F20101119_AACPXP yeruva_s_Page_104.txt
50e4ca50e0815e1c0d63979e02ad1a47
279b2596b5b72347a0a9161463e5617e7b232df0
1440 F20101119_AACPAH yeruva_s_Page_029.txt
263affec33e973e5546cab70ec6eeb94
17d8b198025dde9aeb44cbd6fa55b5a71282a02a
6800 F20101119_AACPYD yeruva_s_Page_039thm.jpg
e9dd43df8717b7ab81915bc010c90ef6
73876b29caec4db584fd727769a43b0a192e9cc1
53842 F20101119_AACQDK yeruva_s_Page_094.jpg
cce17d81f172ff84902ffe9d68ffbe7c
89045f908d06e8cb6ab71250f44070248d50dcab
100102 F20101119_AACPXQ yeruva_s_Page_107.jp2
a5f5b656145337018fd3a091049103af
102bf8ebe615e4b9226a8d476c95cb28cbd6b895
2076 F20101119_AACPAI yeruva_s_Page_053.txt
b415224569988589f26ac13011aa3e5b
9bd002758c5e9978f7d9c1bca9068dd63ddada6b
17708 F20101119_AACPYE yeruva_s_Page_087.QC.jpg
596fd668956c4914cdde0dc496d23115
38cbd7f33e58aeb434c58cbbf258906a15cf9244
22847 F20101119_AACQCW yeruva_s_Page_001.jpg
a134d812cc0855c0cc41838f8f1541bd
973897301810a255ab14139bc1ba458cebbf2510
860826 F20101119_AACQEA yeruva_s_Page_059.jp2
54591933d1336d8a20f02a9dc58af07f
0ec7af6216e5c611226e88fbbff405f00475c932
49035 F20101119_AACQDL yeruva_s_Page_095.jpg
5b15270e1acc9e0f803f6d1b028de68b
edb76fbc8c3126e611c606eefe4e174fcc5c607e
7625 F20101119_AACPXR yeruva_s_Page_007.QC.jpg
97dec40a16ae13fccd2543cbace05b57
c2e9ba1e2ffd165ed7008df38b6fa52770c5a624
984 F20101119_AACPAJ yeruva_s_Page_105.txt
ad9580b560be911fdb21a7659e2b32f6
c25b925578810caf908f87f1d8888d041f20d9c5
F20101119_AACPYF yeruva_s_Page_072.tif
315362693d607a68f58a70a5b2003c05
4030efd05010a5697ba6966a3f12dd7cd308de27
70293 F20101119_AACQCX yeruva_s_Page_005.jpg
c34474cb2d17f5d6b64efcb85dd60259
992e58f9a08ea66ffed4b70b6ee6eb3eeb1237cf
332337 F20101119_AACQEB yeruva_s_Page_070.jp2
0084caa4fb0525d81f4258da532f21a5
b4d54a13b5faee0caeb264c517b60e65f9082e88
43802 F20101119_AACQDM yeruva_s_Page_096.jpg
8ce12f9041e3aa75ccc27b60d688c834
a82b57a378a9822aac8df9fa97c4920421f16dff
26092 F20101119_AACPXS yeruva_s_Page_124.QC.jpg
45ab209fe671290f9813e0fe0bf1b0af
041a237e83ceb5c2987e98255b4f7f41e11d5f55
6541 F20101119_AACPAK yeruva_s_Page_019thm.jpg
1995cdec93d6bac58a89e2485432d6b3
345fa0b98d6edcaaf1f7567aa2bbc6cf332b712e
52189 F20101119_AACPYG yeruva_s_Page_061.pro
cf3328df238f68a290dcdb5179d24f72
fd0af8182141b64c12ec0488071cce1fb759a5cd
17474 F20101119_AACQCY yeruva_s_Page_010.jpg
5304d3c9dd34c4774bde9eb7015cf2f7
9ec10908b51b36f2515d830d762526d7edda691a
44442 F20101119_AACQDN yeruva_s_Page_108.jpg
77a6329199a774e4883fdee96d883172
4bf26c93941d9dc213051df70649bca6dfcb36d5
F20101119_AACPXT yeruva_s_Page_005.tif
aab024d395b145ad4ea6117350219d88
3cd64029af5ba1a0e550f7cc7d55ec7ea3e758b6
35880 F20101119_AACPAL yeruva_s_Page_100.pro
1434bee1e3a4b661fdf12f2ed66e13c3
5e7016420add7871beb243f151aff71122cfd343
17413 F20101119_AACPYH yeruva_s_Page_092.QC.jpg
aa24cc15f292284a5b962b17c37ea40a
64e8a690c7889814921c83242a3939f3e4ff0be0
73385 F20101119_AACQCZ yeruva_s_Page_015.jpg
46523852ac10955879a426e9461a15e2
461ff459cc4a03170c2522844e67b60a48a7e5a2
113357 F20101119_AACQEC yeruva_s_Page_072.jp2
687e8cfcf50e6115fcea1fce17550fea
7b69670c2e7cc7f3e81036b2999188b1ba223b6f
43037 F20101119_AACQDO yeruva_s_Page_110.jpg
b6e838c6d8cb2fd560f21a52cdb3998f
6123b1bbdfb99d9afcce4e29db46edc269605dee
25886 F20101119_AACPXU yeruva_s_Page_036.QC.jpg
550c77a4fd50af7e2b127a291b5aaf4c
4c21fd550e2d0a691622f86dc56bb41c023afe60
6414 F20101119_AACPBA yeruva_s_Page_048thm.jpg
1de371f023df5c8715a850e575913dbc
cc316acd4271d4d5e36e232f50bd1ef9c926b238
51246 F20101119_AACPAM yeruva_s_Page_037.pro
da4e6dd7c7087ebeedc52c550b1461d0
13e6c553d63e9abcc1d49ebbca48d6d81f093b9a
61833 F20101119_AACPYI yeruva_s_Page_091.jpg
ec66e78bf4a5bebaf81c8c1cf8c9b52a
320706fcce575810dde9b4dce6564bd3c090f6b9
877679 F20101119_AACQED yeruva_s_Page_076.jp2
11f837da545414e5a7083c1276dca8dd
2909e3f5a639629052067988f264d56ab028d565
42204 F20101119_AACQDP yeruva_s_Page_112.jpg
e740838f9077bb723781198d7cd60c35
dabc1fb206490b79f8ced438a40f955897c08806
7257 F20101119_AACPBB yeruva_s_Page_122thm.jpg
3a87fe6018cbbe92720abeefd3335a87
a0c9f9182cfe8f8eb965260e5d15e0a335041973
52839 F20101119_AACPAN yeruva_s_Page_020.pro
4ff811895cdafa3af55db61c486d2db6
b965aa0ea9f56fcdda8631c0fcab8f185bfa9a89
24680 F20101119_AACPYJ yeruva_s_Page_040.QC.jpg
516f48c6ad79359051c1e1f3bb4cd08d
c28b9b2534884902ca27621d51632a37ad839d49
70432 F20101119_AACPXV yeruva_s_Page_083.jpg
1a9db47cb2d65714bc7bdc4378142117
9a248bf1922cf014474f279c9189e2a42829360c
611769 F20101119_AACQEE yeruva_s_Page_079.jp2
c62a8a81e9b670228d28aafc07893702
f70b200184fb425ee6e67c8b2d0a506a397c2793
47458 F20101119_AACQDQ yeruva_s_Page_117.jpg
949678fc22a7773fbbed917ecff4a955
90e43b573b772fc7e5bc29c76a27034b0eeeb68d
F20101119_AACPBC yeruva_s_Page_043.tif
bb5da3bb12ba90396f135676df796bb4
2dc2d767492da358b621afcb406c67352921c8c4
113014 F20101119_AACPAO yeruva_s_Page_078.jp2
e69c1c10e594d283b3bc95e0af7dcf8a
ff4bb406c03b9cfdb3a3aaaeb117944517c5f775
623966 F20101119_AACPYK yeruva_s_Page_104.jp2
819f7e2366026bfd5b028848af5edeed
ad432bfd78a9cc97bd7e027783ea2640811be671
704211 F20101119_AACQEF yeruva_s_Page_087.jp2
d77e68cfe50eb1dbb10c53a552a5df32
224810964906a35300e0968c40eb576ba6ada14d
101597 F20101119_AACQDR yeruva_s_Page_122.jpg
d7beae173917440d5fdfe64bc5727f2f
87fd8412a58c8dbdaa2c3e4f93390eef0abb4cfc
1830 F20101119_AACPBD yeruva_s_Page_097.txt
fb4af4bf7baddb7c0f30b5e6821c4f43
2a85d964c3f81051cd6ed691c93714ac0e2451b1
F20101119_AACPAP yeruva_s_Page_048.tif
9328b28856a326df002a5ed00dca2175
f9c727441b063849b5f4c254a8bdd1b3014791f2
2433 F20101119_AACPYL yeruva_s_Page_001thm.jpg
13fd7fbc1f0acd235ea02dea82625491
4b81ceb2d3ac44fe0feae66b0bbf9612b4664aef
5762 F20101119_AACPXW yeruva_s_Page_049thm.jpg
86e45e9b2a91929a577c4c9ec97b1ec0
ea1285ed97040609b92781019169a95738834192
93270 F20101119_AACQEG yeruva_s_Page_091.jp2
66259280383031cdca68c810a6613a03
2b55e2489a554d5158c913b43ba1c4da5b898144
37311 F20101119_AACQDS yeruva_s_Page_129.jpg
d3f189078197c5bd740fbfafad2875a9
3f909feafdedd3a2b75872183c60d738191edb30
F20101119_AACPBE yeruva_s_Page_127.tif
417860924cbfbcbca5bc9efdec1090f5
8949e22cd65059dc11513539698c181b5d5d396f
6891 F20101119_AACPAQ yeruva_s_Page_126thm.jpg
0f827b345878613685396aa12e8cb8d6
29d21f02fca8f794b15d1d5ee10134b0a012d507
5016 F20101119_AACPZA yeruva_s_Page_065thm.jpg
ff06be9eae7cbe12d3eab44bdb71a4cd
aebb15f6e9bde8c2505cc46cf545d898ee8f95e9
73186 F20101119_AACPYM yeruva_s_Page_061.jpg
a4d795e86cf3ce3ad9569c0891c3abb4
c73a0dc9e70dbc0fd6bd22ff8c360ef21ac3d2a0
86703 F20101119_AACPXX yeruva_s_Page_126.jpg
08b923b80ffbc8fe6a088ad6e8ec5dec
1ee9be9f7478535aedf4eba77128dd2e4d4c7d73
104926 F20101119_AACQEH yeruva_s_Page_098.jp2
b975360452773b2be10bd90cdf432e0a
d14e9c5f1578d7016033914277b59295b8f3df95
5897 F20101119_AACQDT yeruva_s_Page_002.jp2
22c78e65d7c81cb0cb2eb3a7eb1d699d
33a3ab55910ad93b41ecf303f5ee4b690b5ec6f7
48692 F20101119_AACPBF yeruva_s_Page_044.pro
beacf4082d75ccbf289780d7b04bc093
80fa87f1633df761459ec447d4edf7f6a518ecf1
5275 F20101119_AACPAR yeruva_s_Page_045thm.jpg
f6f16c75d30a96b06432232aaad5ac08
0f1fc3510918b6744ba266893fdcc456f1724bbd
1051951 F20101119_AACPZB yeruva_s_Page_005.jp2
e3d3bae049c72963a7c7379964bfcf2e
a21df88d509ba68221c0656f5a0937f18e672c20
5261 F20101119_AACPYN yeruva_s_Page_088thm.jpg
46187599d3a15759b9b1f5b43ff65d5d
0e72b0040ceb6a86a002a4838b7aa69362074f86
F20101119_AACPXY yeruva_s_Page_100.tif
dc2e29113dd6d49c7fd35055329e7573
ab7a6bb008823d1d405a857af36dd09a65267686
676650 F20101119_AACQEI yeruva_s_Page_101.jp2
b7ea07840a7554d6ed957f2a9801957f
6092258a96126e10888e8c80cda9e6f44af0204b
94311 F20101119_AACQDU yeruva_s_Page_004.jp2
6e7eed12b64b76e282f812d182c9c79a
d6dc3bf402a33dee8b445486b3e7bfc8d1296f01
1568 F20101119_AACPBG yeruva_s_Page_083.txt
3dcb3461d7306787907f249b9a8032d1
b3d5d83ea9f252bc16825a01c765d62c714b7fcb
1469 F20101119_AACPAS yeruva_s_Page_067.txt
4381bdd053e8e57edd73f770d84c1d6d
342ad2af643311c76b8ec5eb0ede99167c537d92
44546 F20101119_AACPZC yeruva_s_Page_113.pro
5ecd6aaa21aecfdeef5259a9e7d1e22d
2718a61627ca0794c67120cfc3b873d06e2790f8
F20101119_AACPYO yeruva_s_Page_046.tif
c8730201b75126720c38a466faeaca10
2129e89c308ab9545d8ecbd7360b9f2dfb655118
17498 F20101119_AACPXZ yeruva_s_Page_115.QC.jpg
b2fdcf3a1dad50657032c1f3f378399a
67788317420ce3d282e03b2eb3a0b94750127a1d
663267 F20101119_AACQEJ yeruva_s_Page_102.jp2
f77b34191cbf1423c6991d51fe8a8bee
270ce946f0d2af96bb28ef2e6e2fce10f0962bd6
1051958 F20101119_AACQDV yeruva_s_Page_006.jp2
98666f309bf0acc42afe7fb44f61d261
5de83a8efb4b1be29203a213fcada01ab699b40c
6821 F20101119_AACPAT yeruva_s_Page_038thm.jpg
4d602a78b50bfa9a8ec63e48cffac28c
5dfd216764c52ccfaca1f8b9ef849877a98d587d
5734 F20101119_AACPZD yeruva_s_Page_115thm.jpg
90e81b57715855dc919d908952b4b5fe
d274a43d4a6e047a47d19df3e1ca497727255f4c
1051979 F20101119_AACPYP yeruva_s_Page_038.jp2
0c5716b9b0c67206c2876adf68412361
3b503a87df2aba7106be5b6b39d3aef08890648e
F20101119_AACPBH yeruva_s_Page_002.tif
0617744f246dc5bd76294f39d6528c2a
04177aceb0e71878fe0256980e7c843b9f0eda40
50922 F20101119_AACQEK yeruva_s_Page_110.jp2
da879dea3c60907f554244498f4ccfa8
c4ce81ea05bb08d027294cfb53f93074bdeed1ac
502564 F20101119_AACQDW yeruva_s_Page_007.jp2
a454a040509a5e9bb760998c946a2359
334929069b11394e3ede8cb9a714c9bd3d0febbd
14457 F20101119_AACPAU yeruva_s_Page_110.QC.jpg
75a68b12cb38e2becc37389eb3b999f9
f5dcac11cbcb879202272a4878455bce2eee89de
1627 F20101119_AACPZE yeruva_s_Page_071.txt
3e310ecf468c548cf07ca27e9ab5466b
bf2e21f49b6e5d37e310112e81216f3f1f86b855
18973 F20101119_AACPYQ yeruva_s_Page_076.QC.jpg
a296d6cc03890999e1f46c0c86481462
a21b5d10ea3a2763b6da42ef2e72264e7d71d30b
38111 F20101119_AACPBI yeruva_s_Page_097.pro
6ba0caa556eb0d6010cc2f6510e54c8c
0d27427009f9d694883f0bffcde725e0a343a3da
F20101119_AACQFA yeruva_s_Page_089.tif
c6927b474ba5be43693693e3b1b68964
409c98d8373b0c260791a2af208fbbc09599da31
97364 F20101119_AACQEL yeruva_s_Page_113.jp2
1492ea3a20841fb77fa418e1a0e68f76
6f90c76dd6bbbed6c350c24593d3e9f5e63743bf
28243 F20101119_AACQDX yeruva_s_Page_041.jp2
404ed66b34b4121da0bcdbc4a963c115
82c73b5bd6cfc441ae530192835a3debbf9bb302
5776 F20101119_AACPAV yeruva_s_Page_034thm.jpg
72d72cf1bd1fb0421fa24e04ab564b33
42411f93b261befee1e56db7013493a06cc1940c
35637 F20101119_AACPZF yeruva_s_Page_011.pro
51a172e944a49ea63104cf6df0f3fabf
8c0e0fcb23def36fc13e564b2ae35c57451a89cb
F20101119_AACPYR yeruva_s_Page_010.tif
0c3cb297006a4ff67ec4c2c44e89d22d
1a1655f1118801e3a40de040c42d4d5cd40b049b
51069 F20101119_AACPBJ yeruva_s_Page_027.pro
bc0df5307b89759e16ddbbc142251bb8
5f3f36bfdaa08cc0c683acd408c454d1ab72edb3
F20101119_AACQFB yeruva_s_Page_090.tif
ad107f30b838e978b6a5a81268208156
edc226b367e36a96b5b1058d90ef1275bf7c6108
1051983 F20101119_AACQEM yeruva_s_Page_118.jp2
e47da6972249318335aa6a8d4b500473
b6a4aa9c4065b92d1cd4b927ae46f532d9272059
F20101119_AACQDY yeruva_s_Page_045.jp2
e2c3476737c2d251f922dd3652b88f1f
0364679952408fbb276a7b2329cc96e3acb384bb
75260 F20101119_AACPAW yeruva_s_Page_078.jpg
3810fd3bebc389242f984bea55b00a3f
00b25c1c111e1f792f157d6003e0a1b3f4aff2c3
6816 F20101119_AACPZG yeruva_s_Page_121thm.jpg
e1ecf6f19e83f096189ee2450e5d3e6b
b9763eb14f6f8fb368326044928b39b81f282c40
1461 F20101119_AACPYS yeruva_s_Page_092.txt
2af10dc78acdd67d2693e8a0497c4fcc
a5c7d6523e9cad0a76c1438f1f33ae0b0660b020
15165 F20101119_AACPBK yeruva_s_Page_067.QC.jpg
ed503995cb433fbdb46b2e6f64751b0d
2d4f181440ee5de3e9ab001ea7821d5224a39e3e
F20101119_AACQFC yeruva_s_Page_110.tif
a52580e436ee66510ea873db09ddf06a
05aa5baec5358271b81b8ec4fb315550e0932d3a
134681 F20101119_AACQEN yeruva_s_Page_128.jp2
ce2c05e01ebcebd88dd095fb8d1919a0
cd5cc87b2c48b28c3967f27c8e6e73c6a4d987d9
104968 F20101119_AACQDZ yeruva_s_Page_056.jp2
f8df5a64bb4272752d5395d1eff233d4
245949cd4ee4051f1447aa1bcb2e327d3ee31c67
6489 F20101119_AACPAX yeruva_s_Page_032thm.jpg
c4a932f5bb5f79f0180d9ac64f9cc96b
4030c089b747f04b0ef52378175023049c546c7f
31869 F20101119_AACPZH yeruva_s_Page_103.pro
35a318e8d936b3beb68ce3e02c97b5ae
f0c9ce9c60b25c1388070ee2b28e103dc618fc27
11985 F20101119_AACPYT yeruva_s_Page_003.jpg
ca4c4c5c51800b9b790fbaf770b4d8a5
5475a082797a2251a552f00d243055184ba58a8b
913004 F20101119_AACPCA yeruva_s_Page_083.jp2
246b16d35ee4556ad18ecea47c9889e7
ddcda5dceee5a52e78326c656e4aaef0e7d31ced
68805 F20101119_AACPBL yeruva_s_Page_116.jpg
9c2e451afb1c4d2b1f1fbb5b38d163f4
276d4845bc6a875cc164f1be4f8129044b66d0ed
F20101119_AACQEO yeruva_s_Page_007.tif
24d835f86afcb8ea61c9f395f2a86006
b5b8e6f7791330e1e68e8454c8f254ed8dad1264
51572 F20101119_AACPAY yeruva_s_Page_082.jpg
8dcfaaa768025a494fdcd73e87845400
50799d10b1281fe22f45ecd4dd9d0856dfb02f05
F20101119_AACPZI yeruva_s_Page_028.tif
2810b10d4bc8656174d589748170136e
398c772217ac0d2c928eb8569d315f768b4b3491
F20101119_AACPYU yeruva_s_Page_009.tif
899904c50cdce186ba73837a0f127a21
edbdbb6185ba0ad0be1ad2227878fd884bb46380
29083 F20101119_AACPBM yeruva_s_Page_025.pro
a7e8f89335d7b4a26a518922b8f32344
6085acefa78bfb20b6d36d0a1eb5394d182687c5
F20101119_AACQFD yeruva_s_Page_128.tif
25e263eb3832954d5115c9babc9d0277
36511074cf2f1ff807e195f47dea34f8b1f55d3c
F20101119_AACQEP yeruva_s_Page_013.tif
ba1e60d30fed7674261df95a7fbe2e74
e5cc8451cf76ea845451473b0f2a048969f5e95f
1991 F20101119_AACPAZ yeruva_s_Page_055.txt
e9a678569cb4570856a2f1e3c483cf1c
4758d17252825a48229d10e91c4451264f9a8855
498 F20101119_AACPZJ yeruva_s_Page_130.txt
450ae16df72b013841f3d8688bc9393b
13d2da87652398eaf7b8009361ac7348b41ec65a
F20101119_AACPYV yeruva_s_Page_020.tif
9eceb8fcafdf55fd9f28420f0208e75e
73e5fa752f55e000ec60de26c448965b1dce6739
5699 F20101119_AACPCB yeruva_s_Page_025thm.jpg
d43e96e73d1fcf245b166a076f2703c6
14b907b9dd93f9734f1a1fc7efcd0f8fa426c6f7
25148 F20101119_AACPBN yeruva_s_Page_119.QC.jpg
fbd28805d0ec0f290e621badeb631233
2d98e0f41982780a445a7499a68252f273714c81
F20101119_AACQFE yeruva_s_Page_129.tif
d65fda3394db205959ecc091490c5c8d
705b52d2f4c9f9892fff7f36bddc29ca52e623d9
F20101119_AACQEQ yeruva_s_Page_017.tif
22b8d2e2e066eab5462f953ded340910
8ba952e93073ce63c5798e0facc69cb92693be2e
5977 F20101119_AACPZK yeruva_s_Page_113thm.jpg
7d10a2c03c0524b35b633b4e5eade879
b48441ed81ad5809d9fb6f4abe5197fb1a8fa41b
5012 F20101119_AACPYW yeruva_s_Page_104thm.jpg
14afdacefb6970da6c046c69d6ee0d03
87aa37a5a8e5e87e405a70162250ddea3687ee5c
6905 F20101119_AACPCC yeruva_s_Page_119thm.jpg
f717f7eb83f4972f7b4581afa54a82d0
441c0747ae6dcc8629f00cb3fc60cb12af4bd857
10222 F20101119_AACPBO yeruva_s_Page_105.QC.jpg
fcc3afb6f61f101e0a89a46f501b3133
278b5e7ee440e9e97bd02748afdfad3753260f83
57940 F20101119_AACQFF yeruva_s_Page_008.pro
80be309285c64428dd7356c143c649db
478f58ab3f6e39aee981621d14f2d3945d252f06
F20101119_AACQER yeruva_s_Page_019.tif
11413142620c3ddd22bbe7c857ea96f9
a510d6318cae8f5b3dc955f14fe11529406bc271
49668 F20101119_AACPZL yeruva_s_Page_040.pro
fb02fc0e81fa885b94e668051ed8c332
d747f51c455319ea765c5d492143fc93ebf72171
1748 F20101119_AACPCD yeruva_s_Page_052.txt
6101cbc8acc3843f98b5a93fd5c0950a
7299513be425cb3b2fe8acae43f49d852a163640
F20101119_AACPBP yeruva_s_Page_099.tif
b29a5b250b26720ac19586bda74d022d
1e9a101bdde36dd40a5581c53b6e47e650d9b86f
40910 F20101119_AACQFG yeruva_s_Page_013.pro
2a2db5d9ee96ef4b2d574dfb362ab32a
65218aa2cf1ddc625966509d57b5989485addc6e
F20101119_AACQES yeruva_s_Page_021.tif
0246191930235bdf4ccf2cdc3e87b3b8
a8dd9d411bc094170b98c3438f915f4e8178f34f
50327 F20101119_AACPZM yeruva_s_Page_054.pro
9751ea2120439eca46523783bc63b395
97766b3368621d2b58d84e9722922804e999f0f4
22209 F20101119_AACPYX yeruva_s_Page_021.QC.jpg
442a84f2d34435dca8406ced55aab9ce
b747d69f9ec924163ae379430f4584be8eeea4d9
17306 F20101119_AACPCE yeruva_s_Page_018.QC.jpg
d7d3017bb34960907e67354838a2c008
62c1b6ebc2051a7fc217db855c07a672d9c8a0a0
22463 F20101119_AACPBQ yeruva_s_Page_016.QC.jpg
45ba7da30fedaead653d9e353dd30ba5
981091ecaf4bca9435a532c8c46875558bb55872
44877 F20101119_AACQFH yeruva_s_Page_028.pro
ed3ccaf2d62c5c6a4310814fde1fb9a7
33f73e890fe174ed6948621e118210faba314173
F20101119_AACQET yeruva_s_Page_024.tif
922bf054b6644b6b0b6a7aa83121f6ff
80354cf17a8ae0e3f6034c17c60407f75831d632
2037 F20101119_AACPZN yeruva_s_Page_114.txt
87bab5c7e1f92db2ea4d1fcb17bed866
538cbd5325838ee3a683b9d534f7f784e2d75555
93537 F20101119_AACPYY yeruva_s_Page_042.jp2
27e3777657f5bb5344bbe6779b9cf692
034c46fcd70001e3960674c52a77826732659a9b
F20101119_AACPCF yeruva_s_Page_041.tif
f43ebe2fa39d92951768997ea112719c
21574736fc265347f0ad0c98958d93a52866afed
6940 F20101119_AACPBR yeruva_s_Page_001.QC.jpg
aed34b20a9f4b801133a52d29ea3e79a
edff72816a6db559773d588b1b40419df9c7e180
42352 F20101119_AACQFI yeruva_s_Page_046.pro
721f0d8462c62fde5363c9c40d97ce59
ff832f3e56a037819c88c8c1da5a1ebbd96a5bd7
F20101119_AACQEU yeruva_s_Page_036.tif
e55ec7160b4c5ab5ec5d581074844de8
6a340d8668ea59174f28c6d9059ec805e1885b1b
84686 F20101119_AACPZO yeruva_s_Page_006.jpg
8447f4b2b6bc75c6f61b937bfb1b4df0
d6751aeb66493d30f98a9748b339051a606a69ff
64576 F20101119_AACPYZ yeruva_s_Page_096.jp2
94d9751d083b9122a19ed1ec8c2707a7
a148e69db281b607635e36f081fcf6104a7818b0
6701 F20101119_AACPCG yeruva_s_Page_124thm.jpg
4c7c4ebd9918db98f846c2c2988aa532
6b41b3dfbb7a328283d8471c764231eb054e8f5f
63019 F20101119_AACPBS yeruva_s_Page_120.pro
262a3cc5bcb726db59a7911733d66f6c
041669144d44e0bb2d1d81e89b8007898bf7b958
47528 F20101119_AACQFJ yeruva_s_Page_048.pro
2dc10cce8a789be234cb9d5b6e0ee3ad
370b4113aab0fbd39d65efac9f9f6267605465b7
F20101119_AACQEV yeruva_s_Page_040.tif
16f2b773be05aa8d576fe9ffd25dcd2c
5ad6045266f7a2d1b3a6286a05d3951d6aa7aaa1
88291 F20101119_AACPZP yeruva_s_Page_120.jpg
324ce0353f05a205fd36870876b5e019
7f2274b6a16842530be304338e3463f1fe906957
1112 F20101119_AACPCH yeruva_s_Page_108.txt
97bc969d9c5b1045985d99a2f6c9c020
102991b980dda9d5da861c13acfede3022ab1e09
3351 F20101119_AACPBT yeruva_s_Page_129thm.jpg
2afb78552772e0beeafad3de0dbe43e1
c2cbbd33196d8d83ca76dab20330f9f35b1c76a1
50503 F20101119_AACQFK yeruva_s_Page_050.pro
6e361d9be103ccf408e074162e37f2a5
575012fc63d403ef488f484624b201343bcd3715
F20101119_AACQEW yeruva_s_Page_057.tif
6f457c593427bd4a44be74acceaebc1d
74728d2d5e80ca97ac5c3368816071d33831785b
15205 F20101119_AACPZQ yeruva_s_Page_096.QC.jpg
0385ddf880f8b79c20be230e12284153
ca9944c55cbf6077049c0b810ede199cd9122461
15330 F20101119_AACPCI yeruva_s_Page_079.QC.jpg
d7e34fdc3400656a2783aabbb7f7ed03
d6a6a72433b3ab65841024db61be5ed68c682a7c
99871 F20101119_AACPBU yeruva_s_Page_028.jp2
323c61582235bbe2a8bc3b29d523eb78
f7ddbcbf7e62010923d190d9df05d77666a7cb20
2007 F20101119_AACQGA yeruva_s_Page_026.txt
e3a0c42d4388c2cd8acdcafce36bbebc
db707e272b01ae8bfd41ee7613463d3b88e1f1fc
38273 F20101119_AACQFL yeruva_s_Page_077.pro
651731232d9fc9571b7d02b5f17611ad
110a716fb6fbbec97ac0b56438e94dad642e9d81
F20101119_AACQEX yeruva_s_Page_064.tif
fbeb1a9500163d47427e0df36766b50b
a97a1da67bb11190ac3c5d758f5225c90473d85f
F20101119_AACPZR yeruva_s_Page_008.txt
fe5a1246765025ff8b378d2f69a27d09
fdb3f5b633bcba9aa2a62f37b81c35ba812955e8
24178 F20101119_AACPCJ yeruva_s_Page_039.QC.jpg
37f16c4ce4e45df905bfdcd538722cb5
491ffbbd355bd7b35be47b7ea27620d37f7d0cff
20105 F20101119_AACPBV yeruva_s_Page_008.QC.jpg
d41c7a4d4d79196cf09877ae68a770e4
e2e463a326a812280a321c15721ec84708dc38cb
2010 F20101119_AACQGB yeruva_s_Page_033.txt
c01399de99a11c5dd9ac9589d68fd0ef
f1da5fff060804b7d0857fc9059ae76cf4a6f958
13955 F20101119_AACQFM yeruva_s_Page_079.pro
5299782ca95272c78402630bcb9888a0
294a1731465c20ec001172d1b9df9b3edb5d373c
F20101119_AACQEY yeruva_s_Page_079.tif
5fec0e9319d699911597f6ae5c39111a
7005bb6486e0dd1856f0836b66853e4ffe72397d
F20101119_AACPZS yeruva_s_Page_092.tif
60268a0d0dfbe8b9985f05ff64ccc16b
34bc09d4c8908be7dcab3d081da31bb619bbafa2
F20101119_AACPCK yeruva_s_Page_084.tif
17e1e1a21f5b608d9ba89ee015bbb9fa
f938642f6ae119d0c8b2302f36fefe6d77d5b55d
2251 F20101119_AACPBW yeruva_s_Page_015.txt
98a1c86316bfa721ba94e4c53edefef5
14f6917e5fbc5e0f689b49580f5be23bb8962298
1893 F20101119_AACQGC yeruva_s_Page_038.txt
b529a4a8098dfb2538b8a0c357656ec9
632df1cc1f8cbafab59775c7a123a63618cf21e8
21944 F20101119_AACQFN yeruva_s_Page_082.pro
a7684076f094c10c4b2ac40c555ff9c7
11765d136fb040a18b458d4283733d75d42b233f
F20101119_AACQEZ yeruva_s_Page_082.tif
1b6bb5ee852de516f21733b04c9a1ad4
5a250ea0356c49d1eb79ec4ebf05645c1753fb86
F20101119_AACPZT yeruva_s_Page_103.tif
ddf419d221eafb315ad943451be9da5a
3c4a5f6feb1e64d21c15f9f7fce25bf80757c2bd
62893 F20101119_AACPDA yeruva_s_Page_060.jpg
6930f8af587ff6964a6e8b7b0854beac
d852932cd4fb04c18754c9e0959100ca24473e6f
1798 F20101119_AACPCL yeruva_s_Page_062.txt
0b656802aedf0626fda8c6eaaa86457f
0be2f383ed4c9ce2a5fc1c79d3cad3bbf8b6ef2c
68164 F20101119_AACPBX yeruva_s_Page_074.jpg
a66844236ed17a65291b8e59383a67f3
4527c6565a17c938700a77470a2a02887aaad2a2
1985 F20101119_AACQGD yeruva_s_Page_040.txt
b359c91137cb3c2a967dfbce1f3c0928
4e995e8d4ea7902dedf5251a02ee846d05c142f6
40532 F20101119_AACQFO yeruva_s_Page_085.pro
e97193d965a84a81ebd6ace753396730
fdcb2ac4bf552d329df1da52ad849bfb80e6f99e
1988 F20101119_AACPZU yeruva_s_Page_057.txt
5d04e69bf5785d3357d79f504a5c9f10
b565e70009fe38ab01220106c587fbee7db64b19
108042 F20101119_AACPDB yeruva_s_Page_053.jp2
504a284cbff6a32bcf3ff67da0808329
72f456b0d7551de0811f6d8ee146a3f29218b7ed
83334 F20101119_AACPCM yeruva_s_Page_071.jp2
06e52420908fbf619b1c41c68752ede8
3a73464049fe80620548e72a63c141054b91b3ca
F20101119_AACPBY yeruva_s_Page_016.jp2
989b4f7368fe42230537e5cc77e95c8c
098a88a84fad4485b7667ac941b807f1c5f23117
50452 F20101119_AACQFP yeruva_s_Page_086.pro
a57d498ef126eda08e7098b320a28bca
1d7a472f29c13f26044ff50aa900e05a9065c4b8
132433 F20101119_AACPZV yeruva_s_Page_123.jp2
663308a4940aa8ccca43a57d3191f2d9
bb248e426768dc78d8108c1f54120422b3105148
466 F20101119_AACPCN yeruva_s_Page_001.txt
415681565b39f39a907efa52cc8840de
42ee90fd229e994f61c61363a229938eed2dfe46
102374 F20101119_AACPBZ yeruva_s_Page_048.jp2
50f71bd77ed856226d9c379ca11a3582
3c4017c2b884d4f8325e3957651b4a7e70cc4c6e
501 F20101119_AACQGE yeruva_s_Page_041.txt
0777a2ba38ef73b4b7190328298c8c18
97f1a4434375c874c25f6dfc76ee9b9101cf9578
43375 F20101119_AACQFQ yeruva_s_Page_091.pro
1858973ae329a383160992348c410cbc
73d2daef7739d7c8be1351daf808cbf3817c0a12
80856 F20101119_AACPZW yeruva_s_Page_026.jpg
f23b3515f6d31586a41039ce5c785b32
c3f1a6cf519bedf8ec4b89be92dd3c565c4a7cd0
936631 F20101119_AACPDC yeruva_s_Page_037.jp2
9c54c79d73a25b581d08c335daaabb37
fca5d99c016c9be397c964cdd7c5d8dc9b0e716f
F20101119_AACPCO yeruva_s_Page_085.tif
30ca6caa49dd6d9e9dba442a104548c5
5669716f63d782befbf3a8e4cdcad82193bf13f0
1964 F20101119_AACQGF yeruva_s_Page_043.txt
c6c38b369c72cebcbe97c054a61deb17
fe43bf40903fdd7fd4dfd9ecef6f8ab244c7ca17
22210 F20101119_AACQFR yeruva_s_Page_101.pro
cb9fa754ff82fc855f24c52afc02b016
1a599b1148c83806ade6074af0b1fafeea397f62
133410 F20101119_AACPZX yeruva_s_Page_121.jp2
6a06bfc4b89f6ba986e41f12ef27efcc
a29c5bd4ecba0274fd4d761ac56565b1a8369253
1974 F20101119_AACPDD yeruva_s_Page_081.txt
be92f03ca32f9ce3f6a6655072f6e1d1
97f2dcf430ee850c31a12b0057cd065bfa595a12
56159 F20101119_AACPCP yeruva_s_Page_075.jpg
2601ba398f67b6f3cf4a86d12aacec4f
2a679e201795f417968b8c8ac954e0a654406abf
1922 F20101119_AACQGG yeruva_s_Page_044.txt
8dbe934854bc4bb66a19a9deb06ec461
f79e37eb9923a89229520892d24bc2730f752db3
49919 F20101119_AACQFS yeruva_s_Page_107.pro
7044a33710c7d276964b638399912526
8d04b724d8e53bb152c69095b50bfc4dcd41d797
41545 F20101119_AACPDE yeruva_s_Page_059.pro
1bb82fce6c42a4ecb8142d56233b4d3a
bf1a8353e1e88a24cb7ba5d1213292ec0cab19ea
1732 F20101119_AACPCQ yeruva_s_Page_021.txt
b1fcd7ef2d41f576a58636d8fddfc189
dc90bf3f5e404f38c3ab808a3088a6e5587af1e2
758 F20101119_AACQGH yeruva_s_Page_045.txt
d4e192391e3d25eca4553e5c0da76df4
3bf7b7fde94e017c29b3c0516744999200754831
21977 F20101119_AACQFT yeruva_s_Page_108.pro
240493a3203e85d4e99202184f1c62ca
a5c16f72e27bc42dcc0ae846ac49d57287d1c307
80801 F20101119_AACPZY yeruva_s_Page_011.jp2
e2a8f434b5416beb77e6028c5aee9fe0
11939815f6bde25e3a9668c15effc25d834765bd
23316 F20101119_AACPDF yeruva_s_Page_043.QC.jpg
fefcf9cc697d3ece58a03c6d3ad70514
35d93af52d0fc5174bdc7589eabb0fd9fbbfa935
4754 F20101119_AACPCR yeruva_s_Page_110thm.jpg
78926dc010f3c4f86f15260ddac0100d
8c9cbee7a03b60fd9f2aed26d60c4951b03893cf
F20101119_AACQGI yeruva_s_Page_058.txt
413652c8094b33a1d63c485ce626b16f
bcdc714e32e3f2b42476aa31f37c28bca847ddf2
62352 F20101119_AACQFU yeruva_s_Page_126.pro
0746ec4b2b117c0e5d51a66314dcf61e
b53673f1ab15c267925ebb04796b661b49c17eeb
F20101119_AACPZZ yeruva_s_Page_003.tif
6f14233b55901fed4652d6aeff741388
b65d9f2ee5eb07e828f5e6973b4fb559989a95ac
1787 F20101119_AACPDG yeruva_s_Page_064.txt
ae28d3f51d844c30de5810a43aecf9c6
f72e7bea128ccb6159002287a3c8fd06b68ef979
17960 F20101119_AACPCS yeruva_s_Page_022.QC.jpg
4d02de1bfa9e9289dd679904c708e14e
ec926e6501e5ae8d3cb9d9abc1ce7e2c20fd5138
1447 F20101119_AACQGJ yeruva_s_Page_074.txt
80a2626e7f0e95ded5f08e1991ab1273
038be47773d78ba096d9cf3d3c86e23d7dfa160c
23206 F20101119_AACQFV yeruva_s_Page_129.pro
c57cc928d3b91cb4946b7a2ba113f1cf
5a6f8edb9de978180ade97db08909dc654b37582
19990 F20101119_AACPDH yeruva_s_Page_069.pro
053f45d67e6accc30e0aecf7852d2c0d
e1e6cec736360cdd880ac5b324516dc9485216cd
6041 F20101119_AACPCT yeruva_s_Page_099thm.jpg
b744ddbe1a9e4fdec9d8aed2c3d6485e
9f41c119e0223ade536491f1a66a41d0cfafaf86
1313 F20101119_AACQGK yeruva_s_Page_075.txt
143269cbe15b88ee14da4614925b0f1e
56f8204cde3b8a7b04d1e4a8c317f95c49e28096
327 F20101119_AACQFW yeruva_s_Page_010.txt
e5e1e4fb2696e24dc37cd41e39cc0066
82cc1141b6299316aed49fc3db556c155d242ccc
6258 F20101119_AACPDI yeruva_s_Page_009thm.jpg
2f4de31b218fe847c3e30aea7ea075ae
72226965014e62c446fb4e44aee91ea080b8de96
1477 F20101119_AACPCU yeruva_s_Page_003thm.jpg
bb98dbb5baa732ebe455a8c6abcad8e9
9a2901d6fe7aa6f84af85c69003f9c346cafa0a2
6278 F20101119_AACQHA yeruva_s_Page_028thm.jpg
1db3d5364e977087a78b9c0f3d1a16dd
c1657ef3de1335ba03fcc4f4895123b4a98b7b2f
1076 F20101119_AACQGL yeruva_s_Page_089.txt
6b37f1e20c78b60253a1a016fb1995f7
f05ea3862853539c7752e7303f236e5abf58780c
1930 F20101119_AACQFX yeruva_s_Page_014.txt
41d588c3cc4080983077d4a673d5115f
a188b9600cbc93c8e9da44de70f226203a48806b
1051957 F20101119_AACPDJ yeruva_s_Page_024.jp2
5c50c2f4a5e711611a95022f6593ca8d
f6fc34b015a6575fc935711d2a5501267c8c0461
5857 F20101119_AACPCV yeruva_s_Page_060thm.jpg
ea5e2f89ba8ff5d8f2b3d575c9de8c80
c07a53ec0d20fa23fd230648c86135a6aa3c395e
21216 F20101119_AACQHB yeruva_s_Page_031.QC.jpg
333b56a5be2e6d6165d7e5994b5361c4
988f1ac453a6d9571c812874846262b1583e34b0
1754 F20101119_AACQGM yeruva_s_Page_094.txt
150e01f682ea44d0ae74364ad9faa2be
eae647ee2d874a76401e6e6b1f665124e3e6ba11
1564 F20101119_AACQFY yeruva_s_Page_017.txt
faeb875c16f60408c87d4efeee8af300
cf00ade78d62aab71f6541a0c8ac64d7681a5594
71262 F20101119_AACPDK yeruva_s_Page_081.jpg
3ff67705ec9fc735f9e6ade445a438ba
b0e5b037456310eef3b9793dc0d4ae3adc0f2bd7
15536 F20101119_AACPCW yeruva_s_Page_007.pro
d9c2a03a8473adfee0766ee363122098
7e18047a0a0aadb911d5ac2a14344e9fce506025
6288 F20101119_AACQHC yeruva_s_Page_031thm.jpg
d76bdd2c998d6e5336d0481df2376c85
f5d7e108205fc2bfe86aa3be893e3f3e51fa5d7c
921 F20101119_AACQGN yeruva_s_Page_106.txt
7b97ba9d72027134858f5395c473ef05
bf00eb00f3d82976bea83aab85c5fddd061cf58e
1550 F20101119_AACQFZ yeruva_s_Page_019.txt
d5143df904d2d01ce3ab68daf05a3ebf
cd72f86946ff63b267d9fd78def29f92309a0279
1780 F20101119_AACPDL yeruva_s_Page_046.txt
805826fb203ff60b1a5376ea214f5942
e96b557134616049692262170b3c957649fb05be
1237 F20101119_AACPCX yeruva_s_Page_115.txt
dc1f3ef74590125ec808d78dff2388f5
fec849f3d066dddc9bd8e4ae1d288ae0c0686a23
6525 F20101119_AACPEA yeruva_s_Page_043thm.jpg
f6201d63914f9b56caeeeda42fcc47a6
aadc5e6997e016366f78c2e2d258a2b543c59e29
F20101119_AACQHD yeruva_s_Page_033thm.jpg
3823fe2ac5f7bba8d27825f20122b7de
f891bdb89de7d37d85c4f87595f70fe5e0bbc490
1939 F20101119_AACQGO yeruva_s_Page_116.txt
9be5c1cbab02c1cf5b9fed45caf014b2
de540c88319cf3bd4eac424c20d8c13b85cac647
62796 F20101119_AACPDM yeruva_s_Page_122.pro
60b7566595fbe95daa044c281c36ae4f
39e27c98f00d54d04442edd0b037028d43fcf986
5007 F20101119_AACPCY yeruva_s_Page_011thm.jpg
bc293284cf6a4c344317eea94432eb88
e7ccf4cf1de0ac99fcf172b720eaed629dda0d84
1252 F20101119_AACPEB yeruva_s_Page_002.pro
2f8cddc54e1a49c919a59cd995398012
a76176b9045b92a6ca044a98c2723691e3fdfe9e
6117 F20101119_AACQHE yeruva_s_Page_037thm.jpg
ad989ae51c856ecccf30829d388e4764
2cb17d8b175841bfd615a62640b2d0133579d61a
2643 F20101119_AACQGP yeruva_s_Page_128.txt
f481d7d9effa176e3c6ad7ca779b7976
ff8fcb3af0b65dc3cd44d39ab6769c0a504e2fb7
1914 F20101119_AACPDN yeruva_s_Page_051.txt
8aca391abaa9df0db277325666907492
d1fe4446a5a6cabd7894dae835c711c87756e5d3
F20101119_AACPCZ yeruva_s_Page_122.tif
cfce072b2b96b7358a98b5da5057dda4
9cfed81ff42c2b3a17442c2cc06358bbb4693af5
107925 F20101119_AACPEC yeruva_s_Page_054.jp2
6cd197e0efbb27e56a1684cef7481f3c
2999e8ec313f63cff0fc7174aafb4a4d9775b122
3342 F20101119_AACQGQ yeruva_s_Page_002.QC.jpg
fd39f54d253bbad20f6b81d958e19e13
8baa0c8f89a1c8b3e3127184c3894614b2f2f2c6
82796 F20101119_AACPDO yeruva_s_Page_118.jpg
bb48ea7ad867c66b1ce221039d102679
2b08fa1f19e3184071eceadb9861dc3adf04cce2
22404 F20101119_AACQHF yeruva_s_Page_044.QC.jpg
7792b2a46535d8ebf932af9b95687b1d
f7b74d5d78d1194b4af1fd2320117aeaa939b42a
18020 F20101119_AACQGR yeruva_s_Page_005.QC.jpg
a7af73dbe43f1f04f64e5e8b58f31161
fbd266fa5c41c965db2690edb26fc708768f03e5
23977 F20101119_AACPDP yeruva_s_Page_061.QC.jpg
521c764609ed3ca0e2d692d1f89ba0d6
47c39aff0d966caf6d410088c498ecb9d3917a25
7059 F20101119_AACPED yeruva_s_Page_123thm.jpg
ce6c6c8b4f1c5f3bbbc00716070edfc2
089ae65305ec8097fdf8d82d520b7fb918532a05
17097 F20101119_AACQHG yeruva_s_Page_045.QC.jpg
4967b8c95a521dd58c3759a5e72d0953
9dc9443f18995d70220dbb1c837d185dee62c6cc
4903 F20101119_AACQGS yeruva_s_Page_005thm.jpg
a109c0fbbeb637a28eea8027dd00be6f
ac6eeae0057a1822c0cb1e035ba4730fac6abb67
6594 F20101119_AACPDQ yeruva_s_Page_114thm.jpg
f58a0b6c2f0b5982b8c318f29ed806d4
5e9184f44edde6e7f4509b60d04d641e0ea3bbad
15880 F20101119_AACPEE yeruva_s_Page_104.QC.jpg
04f848bf1f22bdc90d5ec3d63c20d8b6
f19284366e8d33fdaa446a4a6d3d41d152aecd4e
22167 F20101119_AACQHH yeruva_s_Page_047.QC.jpg
cbbbd8836374381d75157ee8e3d7af5c
8f0ede8a3cd50995a25a627d9723a5084f5082fe
2533 F20101119_AACQGT yeruva_s_Page_007thm.jpg
4790f4011beb3b1b2f3d7384b2e09537
c0944355d576f67ebbfa0fea6095a949c6a10ece
19860 F20101119_AACPDR yeruva_s_Page_060.QC.jpg
95d5f7d886a614378146086ffb124d8b
cc1577fd3e56ea70454c21502b10d0b24c3f07da
75796 F20101119_AACPEF yeruva_s_Page_068.jpg
66ffb86ff456f91669b487331714a571
eef353c591cd26986b5087f9eb3b50e4bc71b9c4
23241 F20101119_AACQHI yeruva_s_Page_055.QC.jpg
df1fe2e2287d45b0d03691bb24048ece
401f719d7e521cbfe54fd60fa499350d6118bdc2
3966 F20101119_AACQGU yeruva_s_Page_012thm.jpg
7d012370bf0c5be7232dbad0ec41671c
80a4f45016190d53942f2e2ea00a7808c960262b
7235 F20101119_AACOZA yeruva_s_Page_026thm.jpg
0ec0f35a600c73a19271719a631ddf0a
1a019eb487ebeca475ac4c5b6eb82a1fc313290d
36145 F20101119_AACPDS yeruva_s_Page_031.pro
c2469b1d507a15a9af8bbe8dab301048
d44d0b3ae6281e7858571c7d4d0b4f4c0b03b54c
51311 F20101119_AACPEG yeruva_s_Page_032.pro
3bac99a3dda6eeb9a43ae9dc4cb5c1da
fd455a055c5fa084fd2107d7266a1a128dc9d3c7
23383 F20101119_AACQHJ yeruva_s_Page_057.QC.jpg
9215adebef3a22d2ea1eb0214055732d
11d4ac55f12e6809f2229c8606c1618993f97935
5472 F20101119_AACQGV yeruva_s_Page_013thm.jpg
fa6ba800d71f123b8638d3b833eb6d89
da7338bb8219c511c1c7cf632021dcd7d1b5ac4c
5248 F20101119_AACOZB yeruva_s_Page_071thm.jpg
7c1e44e01afe5fc794251721a539f9cc
4102c612e585351fe01aef4405a4209cbf10d43f
66885 F20101119_AACPDT yeruva_s_Page_073.jpg
8e16d634449a5e5bee4dccec21c3ddfb
46c04de5a8fa5ae7ebb808607a7da87d790f0833
20037 F20101119_AACPEH yeruva_s_Page_059.QC.jpg
c3537f8af76b5c318ae989a1ffaf4869
75b468e43f7ca34da505fa80f8889e90aa6e3e26
F20101119_AACQHK yeruva_s_Page_058.QC.jpg
08c90eeb70850e569763097a224efd53
0d7e4bb4ca19e2e2a521c0ea820e4407e7c1887a
6554 F20101119_AACQGW yeruva_s_Page_014thm.jpg
6307d8e355f0f6501e3ce10ca34b7fc3
54aaaf4bccbd617c450020b088a7aeadfb1325f4
14193 F20101119_AACOZC yeruva_s_Page_089.QC.jpg
a226a672b34a014ad322bc63452e258f
cabc4c2fa006a47b0b06300f9c4b3c6ddf1575de
F20101119_AACPDU yeruva_s_Page_039.tif
1a18b927ec616ee64357828aab8631a3
3644a31d3101c6e41440a5b1465d50fd5c5bca23
F20101119_AACPEI yeruva_s_Page_122.jp2
8d79c7a4c62d0af0f6cb920798b2dc11
3c34e817f53829482eee9c5df5ebe60c726c52fa
150532 F20101119_AACQIA UFE0012201_00001.mets
30df8721b75cd0c5a0eb7b2e436bcc84
bab96bf93441b3d3d249333b2f201a0fe10bec24
13809 F20101119_AACQHL yeruva_s_Page_063.QC.jpg
17cd8483d213897c753f23b251d16248
1fee3a78476b43b6dc4008fd03555b0d8ee7f388
5256 F20101119_AACQGX yeruva_s_Page_018thm.jpg
6d2f1795d25d4ecbb4ed6f6cafcdd09c
33bd360b4c714c7b8babec1959cbf8b216e530a2
2572 F20101119_AACOZD yeruva_s_Page_126.txt
b791168904bfa5ac2d4b58df34cc31ab
83f3b7428af798c89a41d4b107e416b736968247
560784 F20101119_AACPDV yeruva_s_Page_069.jp2
22cc7958c15fc6c890e69987c59469b4
c1921ed9c80ccc9fdef562968d8ca06ed35b54d9
82721 F20101119_AACPEJ yeruva_s_Page_009.jpg
3d9a1f6cc185696939e4c60a1ab5b20d
e089d121bb972872151d713dba7d81ac739a2a9c
6330 F20101119_AACQHM yeruva_s_Page_074thm.jpg
25fd5814307f3911531f35d339660133
b13eddd29530bad41d124923c72eadb86620ce5d
21154 F20101119_AACQGY yeruva_s_Page_023.QC.jpg
b79ab354e2d248f203b045b53dc2745c
97f1cb69c4f6d3ef95ef1ec7f9c2b1c4cd5cfc8d
24839 F20101119_AACOZE yeruva_s_Page_024.QC.jpg
8348738efe99d7c24c489feec9993f0d
1e5a74c207ac9d3ae29e3e0995902d869c4241ec
43075 F20101119_AACPDW yeruva_s_Page_042.pro
3afe4ba75d3660c73ff14cfd1e7a065e
a251d39af84b5aa5d808e8940ba1ee1f4e2dff78
65266 F20101119_AACPEK yeruva_s_Page_034.jpg
74e13d9ce95bb9fd537e3289754d623d
a0a572fa55f4dee4857e4d01d0838a30e7bdee8c
5731 F20101119_AACQHN yeruva_s_Page_075thm.jpg
f8a3dc0e9379d1435b000cc2d27047bd
dc8f0cd1372da94d07654b62303be10df107efdc
6203 F20101119_AACQGZ yeruva_s_Page_023thm.jpg
7fea690bebd3bd2e16bc0b2400a9f768
464175fe174125f64b7e492bc21476b5bc1b5738
21598 F20101119_AACOZF yeruva_s_Page_028.QC.jpg
63514106b03e2c7ad3b35204fc662862
3e822f6a14f2c0441f90ea74c635928b04418288
6257 F20101119_AACPDX yeruva_s_Page_051thm.jpg
074cdb71841d8b56540737b7bb03cc5e
11525a47ffd4b62562e29d651dcd6a2fa4f4678c
23951 F20101119_AACPFA yeruva_s_Page_089.pro
1d1e8591b82e14fd43331abcdf1a51ea
42c31b1ca2b8c395ede5280f44871293f14e63b6
F20101119_AACPEL yeruva_s_Page_057.pro
4f0ad7cd88398dd5646d4fe37a0ddfa2
8a19fae0f216777b249f08a069c4bf19145ff362
23696 F20101119_AACQHO yeruva_s_Page_086.QC.jpg
a04ee75c8b25ce3d6411f0ffa5209e52
5f9e2e443b623a2a8cb5d5e70644b45a79e567e0
F20101119_AACOZG yeruva_s_Page_078.tif
088d7b798472a91f9b86a0b8c568a0bb
1aa3640e6c164c32eb3175809e52cc4b15c4e6de
6790 F20101119_AACPDY yeruva_s_Page_030thm.jpg
bdfdee0723529c52f0aaf6ad1b5c6a79
a87b01f5b05f4683b1e58be06cbb81bb03f6f7b0
F20101119_AACPFB yeruva_s_Page_027.tif
f2ba695e00426d668133f3e1deabde71
62247d1d2fc7072018add989db6d80dfc4d3425d
23002 F20101119_AACPEM yeruva_s_Page_051.QC.jpg
48f52807b2ac615253db229e9e69e0de
6537e3712173daf1c6a91df02259bb8d5274bd11
17543 F20101119_AACQHP yeruva_s_Page_088.QC.jpg
0093110b310dfcf6849cc0b0371ed723
983b1d3d33d2612405bc192dc14af3064f1c6dfb
F20101119_AACPDZ yeruva_s_Page_068.tif
88376b52e53b7856906d7b1b0bc7498b
7bd7399af3a874825ef4c48f34fc3b822dcd7be8
24603 F20101119_AACPFC yeruva_s_Page_009.QC.jpg
dc687f1ba790f4501a46d52e55b252cf
73f8f9e275aeaabbb565344c5868b611b8dc896e
617141 F20101119_AACPEN yeruva_s_Page_089.jp2
f77bf8b1a5d6a889acec09c708eee627
fc215ecbd89405b1a89ffb569a64c9a48372ed68
90284 F20101119_AACOZH yeruva_s_Page_128.jpg
81e50f4a2f6a69c7533b0fef7c96419f
391e2d7bf4f1722711162b213acfe206ab5ca0e0
17990 F20101119_AACQHQ yeruva_s_Page_094.QC.jpg
51b0d10c4058f26501605a5f6950c234
869adee1db2ad03d7f3cb79e2074ae352bc3ae88
6841 F20101119_AACPFD yeruva_s_Page_068thm.jpg
41c0b73afb1ddd0dfba5a0bad679bb99
a041c8e7d9c03ebedebfe6a52b3addbd0d00a463
31876 F20101119_AACPEO yeruva_s_Page_092.pro
286b3e14b337dc2da08cf84686a45daa
b144be6c4676ec9fa16586b4c9d8cbb7cfd37945
76739 F20101119_AACOZI yeruva_s_Page_038.jpg
f28c03025f4b135c2f86cc7e8cbd5694
fb36c25fbb35de2ab3750d34324a390213dd88f4
4975 F20101119_AACQHR yeruva_s_Page_095thm.jpg
506f67654f6eb53568d60917573d8bf1
95ed03993889af36c310045c6e1497752d2a61da
1776 F20101119_AACPEP yeruva_s_Page_091.txt
70710b076f7442002660d98b0bcbd91f
6e9d0120f3ff93728c7af5892618d45c6b8d2dc3
49552 F20101119_AACOZJ yeruva_s_Page_058.jpg
87b3f4ee8edefda0d3b202e802b7ef43
a4ad1f853a4f7b4cd3c07b1e754fcd390a55db98
20327 F20101119_AACQHS yeruva_s_Page_099.QC.jpg
e203a8a6b1384093a2c5ba08b446fd92
b43f2725722c1182ed6a3a35099af040a9201f8a
4283 F20101119_AACOYW yeruva_s_Page_084thm.jpg
c411a74b2ffc756fa9ae7c933a66b80c
0fe37eb70e634a75ade470aef18cb63d67f153b1
3394 F20101119_AACPFE yeruva_s_Page_070thm.jpg
4dddc31f8d3294a95ebb478f3d5f9b66
e40163ba258dc8ffc470b9740f012e4c5692842d
4578 F20101119_AACPEQ yeruva_s_Page_089thm.jpg
83bdfb75d656a33fc6cca0f5179bcab2
85eb7a3c97ce1ec49c684a2b9148633b3679db6a
F20101119_AACOZK yeruva_s_Page_069.tif
c0582c9166142cf1d8494b209492103e
67960ac4a18a0d5fd2b48634430522bc8ee672d5
15320 F20101119_AACQHT yeruva_s_Page_106.QC.jpg
3e85f31c53f99a3e479bfd364deecd27
69af66f066015e350ba1f8993456fdef2df8a359
28912 F20101119_AACOYX yeruva_s_Page_096.pro
b097e2865147aa347a9eae4cb75ce063
0ad09f3265aad50e53f1d6796c771a62686e3538
24522 F20101119_AACPFF yeruva_s_Page_111.QC.jpg
adbdd8e85d878d7ea65c7af4e3bd512b
17ee2d90b8cc53e3db5ec7775369df63176be9ff
1051976 F20101119_AACPER yeruva_s_Page_074.jp2
0e2e673e1f5682b2ad329055afd56ab9
da312804c703a9bac13d0d5e42bcb23fcbcbfe49
6567 F20101119_AACOZL yeruva_s_Page_055thm.jpg
3106654864e9a694489c5f6c14c15f91
8057bcd6aa0449274a4dd02f2ddfaa12d874c212
4421 F20101119_AACQHU yeruva_s_Page_106thm.jpg
37eb7a5d42098308d932dc7e03cf56a3
b5901a0b299af83ac512b7c660915356e00c6165
1311 F20101119_AACPFG yeruva_s_Page_087.txt
b1c65298858c2086a60945dfc2fd3fa7
1f6a24c208c9d4dfea1a385d77f7f69b03b4bdbe
F20101119_AACPES yeruva_s_Page_066.txt
fcab54d5e83f77f2ca4eb2ccbfb14286
1dc8d63e5b899a47ed78b7a4fafbe6931e790646
1219 F20101119_AACOZM yeruva_s_Page_110.txt
d032c3d5dc068eb925136ece80afd581
942d29f8282c02545fcbada436073b6563528b6d
4816 F20101119_AACQHV yeruva_s_Page_112thm.jpg
c4f973f21bbc36f49e5bcfb9eb76d67c
1174dc0b202addc19d5a042344f2fa71fa626096
F20101119_AACOYY yeruva_s_Page_118.tif
3179e506711d15ccb6721ee99e5671f9
5fed8bb11cd1f00b5b44f497f1fef0ce6d885455
38326 F20101119_AACPFH yeruva_s_Page_071.pro
4c98bd98e196412c13fa498f2e17af92
cbdb8c68fbdbac254b8ef0a1678f891f2f12af89
1378 F20101119_AACPET yeruva_s_Page_103.txt
40ecf49fbaedd40e2d04b16216551f87
4063b9ca085d7aa72770f0b5c31e8501a8cfde44
F20101119_AACOZN yeruva_s_Page_030.tif
078d6933f5e96097a043426d68fb2561
5c0d3b66584e1bd6da3fc92cf04a683b24082a1c
25052 F20101119_AACQHW yeruva_s_Page_120.QC.jpg
75c7bf168cb3af40bc7053b238f2b0d5
c04629cec69ebc729d25480816d8eb67652a026b
107385 F20101119_AACOYZ yeruva_s_Page_086.jp2
2caaa34501a2430567e949ff21c954a7
a004e29ee1936b861f864e8efeef08a6e1161650
13940 F20101119_AACPFI yeruva_s_Page_084.pro
3d1c6536a94b8b98539cafac9da304d7
75969ad9034aa9379e5ea57b8875e66701466b03
F20101119_AACPEU yeruva_s_Page_049.tif
977160bc88e48f140a6ed1d63348c425
eb1aa60c1f3b9a32be5aca13e3f259eaa90aff3b
104281 F20101119_AACOZO yeruva_s_Page_073.jp2
47599c6704fcd3913291c6c6f630fef3
5bda160351d3102277cbe2cd7d5b4d5b514a7cf7



PAGE 1

PARTICLE SCALE MODELING OF MATERIAL REMOVAL AND SURFACE ROUGHNESS IN CHEMICAL MECHANICAL POLISHING By SURESH BABU YERUVA A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Suresh Babu Yeruva

PAGE 3

This document is dedicated to Sri Parama hansa Yogananda, my parents and sister.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my gratitude a nd appreciation to my advisor, Dr. Brij Moudgil, for his valuable guidance and support throughout this study. His sincere dedication towards his students encouraged me to perform my best and expand my potential. Sincere thanks are also due to Dr Chang-Won Park, for his valuable guidance and support throughout the study. I would also like to acknowledge the other members of my advisory committee, Dr. Rajiv Singh, Dr. Wolfgang Sigmund, Dr. Hassan El-Shall, Dr. Susan Sinnott and Dr. Dinesh Shah, for thei r time, helpful discussions and guidance. I would like to thank Dr. Yakov Rabinovich fo r help with atomic force microscope (AFM) and Fourier transform in frared spectroscopy (FTIR) an alysis, and Gerald Bourne from Major Analytical Instrumentation Center (MAIC) for help with focused ion beam (FIB) and nanoindentation data. Furthermore, I sincerely acknowledge the guidance and support given by Kuide Qin at Praxair Inc. I gratefully acknowledge th e National Science Foundatio ns Particle Engineering Research Center (PERC) for financially suppor ting this research. Special thanks are due to PERC staff members, Gary Schieffele Gill Brubaker, Mike Beasley, and John Henderson who made this work possible. My colleagues, Bahar Basim, Jeremiah Abiade, Su-Ho Jung, Vijay Krishna, Madhavan Esayanur, Scott Brown, Parvesh Sharma, Kyoung-Ho Bu, Pankaj Singh, Debamitra Dutta and Ivan Vakarelski, who ha ve contributed to this research by their valuable discussions and friendship, are also gratefully acknowledged.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................viii ABSTRACT xi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Multilevel Me tallization...............................................................................................2 Need for Planarization..................................................................................................4 Planarization Techniques..............................................................................................5 Overview of the Chemical M echanical Polishing Process...........................................7 History...................................................................................................................7 Advantages and Disadvantages of Ch emical Mechanical Planarization...............8 General CMP applications.....................................................................................9 Cmp Output Parameters........................................................................................9 Removal rate................................................................................................10 Global planarization.....................................................................................12 Selectivity.....................................................................................................13 Measurement Techniques....................................................................................14 End Point Detection.............................................................................................15 CMP Consumables.....................................................................................................16 CMP Slurry..........................................................................................................18 Rate of surface reaction................................................................................18 Slurry agglomeration....................................................................................19 Chemical Mechanical Polishing Pads.................................................................20 Effect of pad grooves...................................................................................23 Physical and chemical cha nges in pad during polishing..............................23 Effect of temperature change on polishing pad............................................26 Non-uniformity of the polishing pad............................................................27 CMP process in the future..........................................................................................27 Scope of Dissertation..................................................................................................28 2 CMP MODELING: OVERVIEW OF PERC I...........................................................30 Literature Review.......................................................................................................31

PAGE 6

vi Preston Equation..................................................................................................31 Modifications to Preston Equation......................................................................34 Slurry Erosion......................................................................................................36 Pad Considerations in CMP Models....................................................................39 Slurry Considerations in CMP Models................................................................42 PERC I CMP Model...................................................................................................44 Model Development............................................................................................45 Estimation of the Overall Removal Rate.............................................................54 3 PERC II CMP MODEL..............................................................................................59 Assumption Validation...............................................................................................59 Pad-wafer Contact Area......................................................................................59 Optical microscopy......................................................................................61 Fourier transform infrar ed spectroscopy (FTIR)..........................................64 Pad Asperity Height Distribution........................................................................73 Abrasive Particle Size Distribution.....................................................................74 PERC II Model Development.....................................................................................75 Plastic Deformation of Wafer Surface................................................................79 Slurry Characteristics Part icle Size Distribution..............................................79 Material Removal by Single Particle...................................................................79 Number of Active Ab rasive Particles..................................................................82 Estimation of the Overall Removal Rate....................................................................83 4 MODEL ASSESSMENT............................................................................................85 Model Validation........................................................................................................85 Silica CMP: Micron Sized Slurries.....................................................................86 Silica CMP: Nanosilica slurries...........................................................................87 Copper CMP........................................................................................................91 Tungsten CMP.....................................................................................................92 Model Predictions.......................................................................................................94 Removal Rate as a Function of Partic le Size for a Given Solids Loading:.........95 Effect of Modified Layer Thickness....................................................................96 Effect of Modified Layer Hardness.....................................................................99 5 SUMMARY AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK.................................101 LIST OF REFERENCES .................................................................................................106 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH........................................................................................... 118

PAGE 7

vii LIST OF TABLES Table page 1-1. Interconnection delay (RC) in silicon VLSI chip.........................................................3 1-2. Chemical mechanical polishing applications.............................................................10 4-1. Parameters included in the revised PERC model.......................................................85 4-2. Parameter values used for comparing PERC I and II models....................................95 5-1. Process parameter ranges used in sensitivity analysis..............................................103

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1. Future trends in interconnects ......................................................................................4 1-2. Schematic of a device fabricated using multilevel metallization.................................5 1-3. Different degrees of local and global surface planarity................................................6 1-4. Schematic of chemical mechanical polishing process..................................................7 1-5. Surface layer formation on Cu w ith various slurry chemistries.................................11 1-6. Micro and nanoscale phenomena during CMP ..........................................................13 1-7. Parameters involved in CMP process.........................................................................17 1-8. Chronoamperometry meas urements for tungsten ......................................................19 1-9. Type I CMP pad.........................................................................................................22 1-10. Type II CMP pad......................................................................................................22 1-11 The absorbance spectra of used a nd dry IC 1000 pad along with dried silica slurry.........................................................................................................................25 2-1. Polished wafer surfaces showing nanoscratch surfaces.............................................33 2-2 Pad consideration in PERC I.......................................................................................46 2-3. Schematic of single particle abra sion showing the removal of chemically modified surface layer..............................................................................................51 2-4. Schematic of PERC I predictions for increasing particle size....................................57 2-5. Polishing of silica by nanoslurr y showing optimal particle size................................57 2-6. Polishing of silica at various pressure, velocity and particle sizes showing optimal particle size...............................................................................................................58 3-1. Schematic of the fixture used in measuring pad-wafer (dry) contact area.................62

PAGE 9

ix 3-2. Pad asperity contact spots s een through optical microscope......................................63 3-3. Pad asperity contact area dependence on applied load. Each legend represents a selected asperity contact...........................................................................................63 3-4. Pad contact area as a f unction of applied load............................................................64 3-5 Schematic of the FTIR-ATR technique used to measure padwafer contact area.......65 3-6. Analysis of the FTIR-ATR spectra.............................................................................67 3-7. Absorbance spectra of pad (in pH 4) at different applied pressures...........................67 3-8. Contact area variation with applie d load in dry and wet conditions..........................68 3-9. Contact area in dry and wet sy stems in various pH conditions..................................68 3-10. Colloidal probe AFM tip..........................................................................................70 3-11. Force-distance curve indicating softer modified layer on the pad surface...........71 3-12. Force-indentation curves from AFM for different conditions..................................72 3-13. Schematic of pad surface as deduced from AFM data.............................................72 3-14. Schematic of polishing pads.....................................................................................73 3-15. Particle size distribu tion of silica slurry...................................................................75 3-16. Schematic of pad, slurry and wafer in PERC I model..............................................76 3-17. Schematic of pad, slurry and wafer in PERC II model............................................77 4-1. Slurries used in oxide polishing..................................................................................87 4-2. Silica polishing by slurri es in the micron range.........................................................88 4-3. Silica polishing by colloidal nanosilica......................................................................89 4-4. Silica polishing by nanosized slurries. .....................................................................90 4-5 Copper CMP as a functi on of particle size..................................................................92 4-6. Alumina slurry si ze distributions................................................................................93 4-7. Effect of particle size on tungsten CMP.....................................................................94 4-8. Comparison between PERC I and PERC II mode ls with constant solids loading of different particle sizes..............................................................................................96

PAGE 10

x 4-9. Model comparison with varyin g modified layer thickness........................................98 4-10. CMP performance comparison with varying modified layer hardness..................100 5-1. Sensitivity analysis of silica CMP system................................................................103

PAGE 11

xi Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy PARTICLE SCALE MODELING OF MATERIAL REMOVAL AND SURFACE ROUGHNESS IN CHEMICAL MECHANICAL POLISHING By Suresh Babu Yeruva December 2005 Chair: Brij M. Moudgil Cochair: Chang-Won Park Major Department: Materials Science and Engineering Chemical mechanical polis hing (CMP) is widely adopt ed in producing excellent local and global planarization of microelectronic devices. It has been demonstrated experimentally that the polishing performance is a result of the syne rgistic effect of both the chemicals and the particle s involved in CMP. However, the fundamental mechanisms of material removal and the in teractions of the chemical and mechanical effects are not well understood. A comprehensive model for CM P was developed taking into account both the chemical and mechanical effects for slurries with a given particle size distribution. The model developed (PERC II) is based on a previously developed model (PERC I). The chemical aspect is attributed to the chemical modification of the surface layer due to slurry chemistry, whereas th e mechanical aspect is incorporated by indentation of particles into the modified layer and the substr ate depending on the

PAGE 12

xii operating conditions. In this study, the eff ects of particle size and pad asperity distributions are included in the model. The contact area of pad with wafer was measured in dry and wet conditions in different pH solutions using optical mi croscopy and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy respectively. Pad surface mechanical properties in dry and wet states were also investigated using atomic force micr oscopy. The contact area results obtained were utilized in modeling to estim ate the pad modulus leading to pad-wafer contact stress distribution. The predictions of the mode l show a reasonable agreement with the experimental data. The model is validated for oxide a nd metal CMP systems. The PERC II model not only predicts the overall removal rate, but also the surface roughness of the polished wafer in selected systems. The developed model can be used to optimize the current CMP systems and provide insights into future CMP endeavors.

PAGE 13

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The past three decades have witnessed rapid growth of the electronics industry and its impact on human lifestyle. Ultra-largescale integrated (ULS I) circuits, with 108 or more devices on a chip, can now be fabricat ed on semiconductor wafers, reducing cost and increasing the performance of electroni c products. The number of components on a memory chip has approximately doubled ever y two years over the past two decades, following the famous Moores law [1]. Th e advancement in fabrication technology shrinks the minimum dimension of the device -feature by about 13% per year. This trend is expected to continue in the future even as 65 and 45 nm processes are set for production in 2005 [2] and near future. The relentless competitor and customer driven demand for increased circuit density, functionality and versat ility has led to revolutionary advances in the front end of the chip manufacturing line where the circuit elements ar e fabricated, and the back end where these elements are appropriately wi red within the integrat ed circuit (IC) [3]. Chip interconnections, or interconnects, serve as local and gl obal wiring, connecting circuit elements and distributing power [4]. To incorporate and accommodate the improvements such as decreased feature size, increased device speed and more intricate designs, research in the back end of line (BEOL) processes has become equally important as the development of the front end of line (FEOL) processes to reduce gate oxide thickness and channel length.

PAGE 14

2 While recent path breaking innovations [5-7] in the field of lithography and patterning have brought progressive de vice scaling, the development of a planar BEOL approach, which incorporates the use of chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) to planarize inter-level dielectrics and meta l stud levels, represents a significant advancement in BEOL processes. Innovation in BEOL technology is required in each technology generation, since only part of the de nsity increase could be achieved with improvements in lithography. Multilevel Metallization In earlier stages, the complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) device structure had multiple isolated devices conne cted by a single level of interconnect wiring. Scaling down of the devices was very effectiv e in achieving the goals of increased device density, functional complexity and performa nce. However, device scaling became less profitable, and speed and complexity we re dependant on the characteristics of interconnects that wired them [8]. With the single level metallization scheme, the total area occupied by the wiring on the chip signifi cantly increased with the increase in the active density on the chip. The interconnect delay is usually measured as RC time delay, which is the total time taken by the voltage at one end of the me tal line to reach 63% of the total value of the step input applied at the other end. Th is reduction is due to resistance of the interconnect wiring metal (R) and the interlay er dielectric capacitance (C) [9]. The resistance of the line is given by R = l/wd (1.1) where is the resistivity of the wiring material l, w, and d are the length, width, and thickness of the wiring material respectivel y. The capacitance of the line is given by

PAGE 15

3 C = wl/t (1.2) where is the relative permittivity and t is the thickness of the insulator. The total RC delay can be given by RC = l/wd wl/t = l2/td (1.3) Thus, it can be seen from Eq. (1.3) that RC delay is independent of the line width and further scaling of line width translates into reduction of IC line thickness which in turn increases the RC delay. Othe r factors such as parasitic capacitances and cross-talk become dominant for sub 0.5 m integrated circuits. One approach to decrease the RC delay is by incorporating metals of low resist ivity, and interlayer dielectrics of lower dielectric constant. Table 1-1 gives the simple RC time constants calculated for a few metals of given Rs (sheet resistance) and 1 mm length on 1 m thick SiO2 [9] The other approach implemented widely in the industr y is forming multileve l metallization schemes where different levels of metal interconnections are isolated by dielectrics and are connected by vertical vias. Table 1-1. Interconnection delay (RC) in silicon VLSI chip. Metal Bulk resistivity ( cm) Polycrystalline film resistivity ( cm) Film thickness () Rs ( /square) Delayi (ps/mm) Polysilicon ~1000 5000 20 690 CoSi2 10 15 2500 0.6 21 MoSi2 ~35 ~100 2500 4 138 TaSi2 45 55 2500 2.2 76 TiSi2 13 15 2500 0.6 21 WSi2 ~25 70 2500 2.8 97 W 5.65 8-10 2500 0.32-0.4 11-14 Mo 5.2 8-10 2500 0.32-0.4 11-14 Al 2.65 2.7 2500 0.11 4 Cu 1.67 2.0 2500 0.08 3 iDelay=RC=34.5 Rs (ps/mm) for 1 mm length conductor on 1 m thick SiO2 [10].

PAGE 16

4 The increase in the levels of the metallization lines implies that packing density need not keep pace with the device density and the minimum metal line feature does not have to scale at the same pace as the gate width. The foremost reason behind the implementation of multilevel metallization sc hemes is the reduction in the length of the metal lines, thereby reducing the RC delay sizably ( Eq. 1.3 ), and allowing direct routing of the active devices. In places where metal wiring length cannot be reduced, routing can be done at the upper levels without reducing the metal line width, thus reducing the RC delay due to the higher surface area. Starting wi th two levels of me tallization, the levels of metallization have increased up to 8 by 2001 [11]. The future trends in the levels of metallization can be seen in Fig. 1-1 [12]. Fig. 1-1. Future trends in interconnects [12] Need for Planarization Deposition of multiple layers leads to conformation of deposited layer on the substrate features or already deposited pattern. When multilevel metallization is carried out without any planarization step, non-planarized surface topography (Fig. 1-2a) results

PAGE 17

5 in several processing difficulties. The irregul ar surface causes a hindrance in conformal coating of the photoresist and efficient pattern transfer with contact lithography. The anomalies in the surface cause the variation of the thickness in fine line widths (sub 0.5 m) depending on photoresist thickness. Fig. 1-2 shows a comparison between planarized and non-planarized surface topography. Effectivel y planarized surfaces have a number of benefits such as (a) higher photolithography an d dry etch yields, (b) elimination of step coverage concerns, (c) minimi zation of prior level defects, (d) elimination of contact interruption, undesired contact s and electro-migration eff ects, (e) reduction of high contact resistance and inhomogeneous metallization layer thickness, and (f) limitation in the stacking height of metalliz ation layers. Thus the demand for developing devices with enhanced performance nece ssitates planarization. Fig. 1-2. Schematic of a device fabricated using multilevel meta llization. (a) Nonplanarized structure. (b) Pl anarized structure [8, 13] Planarization Techniques Techniques such a spin on deposition (S OD), reflow of boron phosphorous silicate glass (BPSG), spin etch plan arization (SEP), reactive ion etching and etch back (RIE EB), SOD + EB and chemical mechanical polishing (or chemical mechanical planarization) (CMP) are the most prominent of several competing technologies available

PAGE 18

6 to achieve local and global planarization (Fi g. 1-3). The plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposited oxides have limited capability of gap filling and are restricted in their gap filling ability below patterns having 0.3m feature size. High-density plasma deposited oxides have acceptable gap filling capabiliti es; however, they produce variation in surface topography at local as well as global level. Even though spin-on deposited (SOD) doped and undoped oxides and polymeric materi als have acceptable ability for gap filling, CMP is the only technique whic h produces excellent local and global planarization of microe lectronic materials. Fig. 1-3. Different degrees of local and global surface planarity [14].

PAGE 19

7 Overview of the Chemical Mechanical Polishing Process Current semiconductor fabrication tec hnology for logic and memory devices requires CMP to achieve the required multilevel interconnection densities. Indeed, each silicon wafer can be exposed to 15 or more CMP steps before final device assembly. A schematic diagram of the CMP process is shown in Fig. 1-4 In CMP, the wafer is pressed face down against a rotating polishing pad, while a chemical and physically abrasive slurry fed between pa d and wafer planarizes the wafe r. The material removal in simplest terms takes place by synergistic mechanism between chemical reaction on the wafer surface due to the slurry, and physical re moval of the reacted material by the slurry abrasives. The various mechanisms between pa d, slurry and wafer are tailored to enhance material removal, planariza tion, surface finish and higher selectivity compared to the underneath layer. Fig. 1-4. Schematic of chemical mechanical polishing process. History The modern day application of the CMP pr ocess in the semiconductor industry was for polishing the raw silicon wafers to ach ieve a global flatness. One of the most widespread applications of CMP outside th e semiconductor industry is in optical lens

PAGE 20

8 polishing. In fact, the first semiconductor CM P machine was an innovation of the lens polishing industry. The first wafers polished us ing CMP were commercially available in the early 1960s [15]. There was wide spread industrial implementation of the different variants of the CMP by companies such as NEC, National Semiconductor, Hitachi, etc. [10]. This led to the introduction of the firs t commercial polisher designed specifically for CMP by Cybeg, Japan in 1988. Later, Interna tional Sematech identified CMP as a technology critical for the future of IC ma nufacturing and launched a project to develop competitive and advanced CMP tools in th e US [16]. Once the technology and required equipment were available, CMP was used beyond polishing of inter-level dielectric layers to polishing of tungsten, which was deposited in via openings between metal layers. Copper was not used for interconnects until th e availability of CMP even though it has lower resistivity than aluminum [17], as it could not easily be etched by reactive ion etching. This enabling polishing technology has sp read to several othe r applications, the significant one being in shallow trench isolation (STI) [18]. Advantages and Disadvantages of Ch emical Mechanical Planarization The advantages of CMP are (a) it achieves global planarization, (b ) a wide range of materials can be planarized, sometimes in th e same polishing step, (c) it reduces severe topography to allow fabrication with tighter design rules, (d) it provides an alternate means of patterning metal, eliminating the need to plasma etch, (e) it improves metal step coverage due to reduction in topography a nd (f) it does not use hazardous gasses common in dry etch processes. Conversely, the disadvantages of the CM P process are (a) poo r control over the process with narrow latitude in process vari ables, (b) new types of defects introduced by the CMP process itself (scratch es, particle residue, etc.), (c) difficult end-point detection

PAGE 21

9 for desired thickness and (d) expensive to operate because of costly equipment and consumables. General CMP applications The process of CMP was initially develope d and implemented for planarization of SiO2 which is used as an interlayer dielec tric in a multilevel metallization scheme. Tungsten is used as an interconnect plug to the source, drain, and gates of transistors in Si microprocessor chips. Initially Ti and Ti N barrier layers are deposited, followed by chemical vapor deposition of W to fill the contact vias. Proceeding from achieving local and global planarization of SiO2, removal of excessive tung sten from the horizontal surfaces on the wafer pattern proved to be an asset for subsequent Al metallization. Hence CMP was developed with a two-fold a pproach of (a) planar izing oxide and (b) removing the via fill metal from the horizontal surfaces. Along with its successful implementation for the achievement of th e above-mentioned objectives, CMP is now extended to (a) polishing of different metals like Al, Cu, Pt, Au, Ti, Ta, etc., (b) polishing of different insulators like SiO2, Si3N4, various low-k dielectrics, doped and undoped oxides of silicon, (c) polysilicon, (d) ceramic s like SiC, TiN, TaN, etc., (e) multichip modules, (f) packaging; (g) optoelectronic components, (h) flat panel displays, (i) microelectromechanical systems (MEMS), and (j) magnetic recording heads and CD read write drives [19]. The major applic ations of CMP are summarized in Table 1-2 Cmp Output Parameters The critical output parameters of CM P are described below. Depending on the application, different output parameters are optimized.

PAGE 22

10 Table 1-2. Chemical mechanic al polishing applications. Materials Application Metal Al Cu Ta Ti TiN, TiNxCy W Dielectric Cu-alloys Al-alloys Polysilicon SiO2 BPSG PSG Polymers Si3N4 or SiOxNy Other Aerogels ITO High k dielectrics High Tc superconductors Optoelectronic materials Plastics, ceramics Silicon on Insulator (SOI) Interconnection Interconnection Diffusion barrier/adhesion promoter Diffusion barrier/adhesion promoter Diffusion barrier/adhesion promoter Interconnection e-emitter Interconnection Interconnection Gate/interconnect ILD ILD ILD ILD Passivation layer, hard mask ILD Flat panel Packaging Interconnection/packaging Optoelectronics Packaging Advanced device/circuits Ref. [19] Removal rate The polishing steps involving CMP of STI and metal mainly emphasize removing an overburden of one material and stop on another material leaving a planar surface. A high material removal rate is one of the ke y outputs desired from such CMP processes. The removal rate of the material being polishe d is strongly influenced by slurry chemistry and pressure distribution, i.e., chemical ac tion of the slurry chemicals on the material, interplay of the different complexing agents, oxidizers and corrosi on inhibitors and the mechanical abrasion of the particles on the wafer. Chemicals such as oxidizers and corrosion inhibitors vastly affect the reaction rate of the slurry with similar particle nature, size and distributions.

PAGE 23

11 Fig. 1-5. Surface layer formation on Cu with various slurry chemistries. [20] Fig. 1-5 shows the variation of the reaction rate of the different slurry components on Cu when the reaction kinetics were studi ed using electrochemical chronoamperometry [20]. It can be seen from the figure that the surface rate kinetics reach approximately 60 /s when Cu is immersed in distilled wate r. The reaction rate in creases to around 120 /s when 5% H2O2 is added. However upon addition of 10 mM BTA, the reaction rate decreased considerably. Therefore, the chemi cal contribution is very important in the CMP process. The other important factor is the down pressure used. However, for effective CMP of materials, the enhancem ent of removal rate by increasing the down force should not be at the cost of surface quali ty (for example, increase in wafer to wafer and within wafer non-uniformity, delamination, dishing, erosion, etc.) [21, 22] of the wafer. For this reason, the process throughput is compromised to polish the wafers at lower applied load, thereby achieving globa l planarization and be tter surface quality.

PAGE 24

12 Global planarization In contrast to glass or si licon wafer polishing, the objective of the CMP process in interlayer dielectric (ILD) polishing is to planarize the topogra phy created by previous semiconductor processing steps. The pad and slurry play key roles in achieving global planarization, concurrently maintaining the removal rate and producing a defect free wafer surface. If mechanical removal predominates, hi gh frictional forces are produced which result in surface defectivity. Also variation in local polishing pressure leads to variable removal rates within the wafer, which seri ously compromises globa l planarization [20], whereas, if chemical removal dominates, etch ing and corrosion [23] can occur. The key to a good polishing process is dependent on synergy between chemical etching and mechanical planarization. For this purpose, a passivation layer is created on the wafer surface by reaction with slurry a nd removal of this passivation (or modified) layer occurs due to mechanical abrasi on of slurry particles ( Fig. 1-6) For example, in Cu polishing, the formation of the passivation layer is achieved by oxidizers such as hydrogen peroxide, potassium ferricynate, ferric chlo ride, and ferric iodate. Corrosion damage to the surface is prevented by adding corrosion inhi bitors such as benzotriazole (BTA). In tungsten polishing, a rapid formation of surf ace passivation layer is due to the use of peroxygen compounds and stabilizing agents [24] The purpose of the passivation layer in the case of silica polishing is to soften the surface, which is inherently hard resulting in minimal material removal. For this purpose, maintenance of alkaline pH is sufficient in most cases [25, 26]. During Ta polishing, formation of stable Ta2O5 helps in uniform removal of material from the surface [27] To achieve optimal CMP performance, the time to form the passivation layer of desired thickness should be minimized.

PAGE 25

13 Fig. 1-6. Micro and nanoscale phenomena during CMP [20] Selectivity The difference in the removal rate of one material versus another in a given system represents the measure of the slurry selec tivity for these two materials. The higher the slurry selectivity, the more e ffective the end point detection is for the given CMP process. This is due to a marked change between the tribological properties of the material being polished, and the underlayer. The difference in tribological properties can be monitored in-situ using techniques such as motor curren t, force or acoustic emission for better end point detection. Selectivity is a very impor tant criterion in designing any slurry for multilevel metallization. For STI, the slurry must affect the oxide that is being planarized, and not the underlying nitride laye r. For polishing Cu, the slurry needs to react selectively on Cu and spare the barrier la yer Ta and underlying layers of silica or low-k dielectric material. Typically slurry se lectivity of 10 has been repo rted for Cu polishing [20].

PAGE 26

14 The selectivity could be cons iderably improved up to 1000 by introducing a particle free slurry [28, 29]. The reduction in mechanical component due to lack of abrasive implies that the majority of material removal occurs due to the solution ch emistry which can be made highly selective. Addition of specialized chem icals that can act as catalysts in the chemical interaction between slurry and the polished ma terial thereby increasing the rate of the chemical reaction considerably is a co mmon approach for improving the slurry selectivity. Tetramethyl ammoni um hydrate can be added to Cu slurries to considerably decrease the silica polishing rate [30]. An increase in the polishing rate of TaN with addition of phosphoric acid in alumina and colloi dal silica slurry is also observed. Mixed abrasive slurries (MAS) contai ning alumina/silica and alumin a/ceria particles have been developed to improve the sele ctivity of the CMP slurry. Th e details of the experiments with these novel mixed abrasive slurries have been published by Jindal et al. [31, 32]. Though highly selective slurries might help in avoiding defects such as erosion of sub layers, planar defects such as dishing s till exist causing waferto-wafer nonuniformity (WTWNU) due to the differential polishing pressures in the process. Measurement Techniques The outputs of the CMP process are quantif ied by a host of metrics. Material removal rate (e.g., nm/min) is commonly measur ed in terms of thic kness loss per time or weight loss per time. In terms of global planar ization at the wafer scale, film thickness is measured at points across the wafer surf ace and used to calculate within-wafer-nonuniformity (WIWNU). Most commonly, a 49-point measurement grid is used to determine the WIWNU, which is the variation of those measurements with respect to the average thickness. Similarly, a within-die nonuniformity (WIDNU) calculates a similar

PAGE 27

15 variation but just across the area of one die. At the feature-scale of the process, metrics such as step height reduction are used to indicate efficiency of the CMP process. Selectivity of the slurry is more often char acterized by estimating the erosion or polishing of the underneath layer. End Point Detection Theoretically, the end of a polishing step can be realized by setting a time limit to the process. However, this is only a rough estimate because varia tions of polishing pad surface property, fluctuations in slurry chemis try, particle size dist ribution, feeding rate, pad conditioning issues, and other potential variables can cause ove ror under-polishing. Therefore, in-line monitoring or automatic e nd-point detection of CM P is needed. Initial oxide CMP relied on process times and control of removal rate stability to achieve target thicknesses. As the CMP environment is hostile for in-situ metrology, the earlier endpoint techniques relied on indirect methods. One of the commercialized indirect methods monitors the motor current cha nge [33] while driving the carr ier or platen rotation. This technique measures changes in friction forces between the pad and the wafer surface. It is mostly successful for tungsten CMP than for copper or STI CMP processes, because the frictional forces between the polishing pad and exposed films do not differ significantly in the case of copper or STI scenarios. The method sufficiently sensitive for STI, dielectric and metal CMP processes is the vibration monitoring me thod [34]. Vibrations during the CMP process are det ected using an acceleromete r on the carrier behind the wafer. This method is used to detect delami nation of low-k dielectric films in copper dual damascene process [35]. Optical reflectometry is the preferred method for endpoint detection. But, the method is highly intrusive, requiring extens ive polisher modifications. Various other

PAGE 28

16 endpoint techniques have been developed in recent years, many of which are currently adapted to the high volume production stage [35]. CMP Consumables The CMP market in the year 2003 was $1.7B with slurry (24%) and pad (15%) amounting to 40%. The CMP equipment was estimated to comprise 55% with the remaining 6% accounting for conditioner and othe r consumables. The market is expected to grow to $3.3B in the year 2008. The rapi d growth of CMP and its application for polishing various materials, necessitated deve lopment of a variety of slurries, pads, complex process recipes, more complex slur ry mixing and distribution systems. Polishing of different materials and customized n eeds of the various semiconductor industries resulted in more complex CMP equipment with different process dynamics such as linear, orbital and fixed head machines [ 35]. The process of CMP has gone through a lot of evolution from first being used just for s ilicon dioxide planariza tion to the present day planarization applications in pre-metal dielectric (PMD), ILD, STI, metal and gate oxide, etc. While the CMP process seems fundament ally easy to understand, there are a staggering number of process variables (F ig. 1-7) that complicate the underlying interaction between the pad, slurry and wa fer, preventing full comprehension of the process. The most widely accepted mechanis m for the material removal is that the chemicals in the slurry react with the surface of the wafer (e.g., oxide, copper, etc.) and create a modified layer that can be removed easily. The mechanical action of the abrasives trapped in pad asperities then physically abrade and remove the modified material [24, 36, 37].

PAGE 29

17 In terms of the CMP input parameters the process variab les are generally categorized into chemical and mechanical parameters. The chemical nature of the CMP process typically relates to the constituent makeup of the slurry and how those chemicals react with the wafer surface to create a passivated or modified layer, keeping the particles well suspended in the slurry. The chemicals in the slurry are highly dependent upon the type of CMP being used. For example, in oxi de polishing, an alkali ne solution is used along with various buffering and oxidizing agents, whereas for metal CMP as in Cu CMP, acidic slurry can be used. The mechan ical aspects of CMP largely depend on the polishing pad, wafer pattern, and process condi tions like pressure and relative pad-wafer velocity. Fig. 1-7. Parameters involved in CMP process.

PAGE 30

18 Polishing in its simplest sense is controll ed chemo-mechanical material removal to produce a globally flat, defect free surface. The main components of CMP are the CMP slurry and the pad. The complexity of thes e CMP components and their interactions are discussed further in the following sections. CMP Slurry CMP slurry consists of two major co mponents: abrasives and chemicals. Depending on the material of the wafer, the chemistry of the slurry, and the synergy between them, each kind of slurry behaves diffe rently [38]. CMP is influenced to a great extent by numerous slurry parameters such as pH, solution chemistry, particle charge type, concentration and particle size dist ribution of abrasives, complexing agents, oxidizers, buffering agents, surfactants, corros ion inhibitors, etc.[19, 39]. An ideal CMP slurry should be well suspended with good slur ry stability, and be able to achieve high removal rate, excellent global planarizati on, prevent corrosion (in case of metal, especially Cu), and result in good surface fi nish, low defectivity and high selectivity. Rate of surface reaction The reaction between the wafer and slurry chemicals to form a modified layer of desired thickness should be fast enough to avoid material removal by mechanical indentation of the bare wafer. The time scal e in which the passivation layer is formed should be less than the average time of successive particle indentations into the wafer for abrasion to achieve optimal CMP performance. Fig. 1-8 shows the electrochemical chronoamperometry (potentiostatic) analysis of Tungsten by first keeping the samples at cathodic potential to avoid surf ace oxidation and then anodi zing them. The generation of current, which corresponds to surface reac tion rate, is monitored on a millisecond scale

PAGE 31

19 as shown. It can be seen form the figure that Tungsten surface quickly passivates which is conducive for mechanical removal of the material. Fig. 1-8. Chronoamperometry measurements for tungsten [20] For selectivity purposes, the reaction of slurry chemical s with the underneath layer should be significantly low compared to the su rface layer. In terms of operational hazard, the chemicals used in the slurry should not make it hostile for the operators performing CMP and the post-CMP chemicals should be treated to avoid environmental damage. Slurry agglomeration The ideal slurry will have abrasives behavi ng as discrete single particles during the CMP process. However, particles in a real CM P slurry apart from being discrete can also exist in the form of agglomerates [38, 40] An agglomerate is a collection of particles that come together into packed clumps due to phys ical or chemical inte ractions and act as a single entity. Although CMP slurries are compos ed of very fine particles up to 200 nm (0.2 m), large particles of 1 m and greater are often obs erved during the process. Such particles can be due to agglomerati on or contamination from foreign material. These are not desirable for CMP as they can cause micro scratches and pits due to deep

PAGE 32

20 indentation or non-uniformity due to varyi ng polishing pressure. Even minimal and undetectable concentration of larger sized particles are shown to produce surface defects in CMP [41]. The agglomeration of slurry can be prevented by proper slurry design, which includes appropriate use of chemicals, and/or surfactants and the suitable order of their addition to design the slur ry [42]. Other than adding chem icals, the particle surfaces can also be altered to make the suspen sion stable during the CMP process [42, 43]. In order to prevent the particle aggl omeration during the distribution stage, dispense filters are used which filter out the agglomerated particles before slurry delivery. Care is taken so that the filtration of th e agglomerated particles does not change the particle distribution and slurry composition. Th e drop in slurry pressure and flow due to filtration is minimized by using a series of filters instead of a single filter. Chemical Mechanical Polishing Pads The pad traps the slurry particles on its asperities, and executes the polishing action by transmitting the normal and shear forces fo r polishing, thereby playing a very crucial role in process optimization [19]. The pol ymeric polishing pad must have sufficient mechanical integrity and chemical resistance to be effective for numerous polishing runs through its life. The pad must be able to with stand the aggressive sl urry chemistries used in CMP without degrading, delaminating, warpi ng or blistering. Slurry chemistries range from highly alkaline near pH 11 used for po lishing of inter-layer dielectric to highly acidic near pH 2 used for metal polishing. Slur ries also contain oxidi zing agents such as hydrogen peroxide and potassium iodate. The pa d material should be resistant to such environments. As the polishing slurries ar e aqueous based, pad s hould be hydrophilic to allow circulation of slurry to whole wafer during polishing.

PAGE 33

21 The polishing pad is made up of a matrix of cast polyurethane foam with filler material to tailor the hardne ss of the polyurethane impregna ted felts for the specific CMP process. Polyurethanes have a unique prope rty of combining high strength to resist tearing during polishing a nd, an acceptable level of hardness and good abrasion resistance to prevent excessive pad w ear during polishing. The CMP pads can be categorized into four types differentiated by th eir microstructure [44] They are: Polymer impregnated felts (type 1), Poromerics (t ype 2), Filled polymer sheets (type 3), and Unfilled textured polymer sheets (type 4). Pa ds of type 1 and 2 are shown in Figs. 1-9 and 1-10. The figures indicate the variety of pad surface textures or asperities involved in CMP. The polyurethane polymer consists of two major components/blocks of alternating hard organic isocyanates and soft polyols. Each of these segments has different properties, the characteristic properties of a given pad de pend on the relative ratios of these hard and soft segments. Isocyanates, th e more rigid blocks, influence the hardness, modulus, tear strength and stab ility, specifically at elevated temperatures. Polyols on the other hand tend to affect the elasticit y, toughness, abrasion re sistance and the low temperature stability of polymer. For uniform polishing, the pad needs to be in contact with the whole wafer surface with the same contact pressure and relative ve locity between pad and wafer in all contact regions. But wafers are not fl at and typically have some degree of curvature due to stresses induced during manu facture process or differing coefficients of thermal expansion of the various deposited oxide a nd metal layers on the substrate. This necessitates the polishing pad to be flexib le enough to conform to the wafer-scale flatness. This is achieved by laminating a sti ff polishing pad to a fl exible underlying base

PAGE 34

22 pad, which is typically a more compressible material. This improves polishing uniformity across the wafer without unduly compromising th e stiffness of the top polishing pad. A stacked pad consisting of an IC 1000 top la yer on a Suba IV sub-pad (Rodel Inc., Newark, DE) is currently the pad system of choice to obtain both good global wafer uniformity and high removal rate for various CMP systems. (a) (b) Fig. 1-9. Type I CMP pad. (a) Surf ace. (b) Cross-section [44]. (a) (b) Fig. 1-10. Type II CMP pad. (a) Surface. (b) Cross-section [44].

PAGE 35

23 Effect of pad grooves Polishing pads have macrostructure, which can be either perf orations through the pad thickness or surface groove designs. The motivation behind designing pad grooves is to prevent hydroplani ng of the wafer, ensure uniform distribution of slurry over the wafer, and to remove the polishing debris from the pad surface through these chemicals [44]. The groove designs can be circular with either concentric or spiral grooves, crosshatched patterns arranged as an X-Y grid across the pad surface, other regular design such as hexagons, triangles and tire-tread t ype patterns, or irregul ar designs such as fractal patterns, or their combinations. The effect of pad textur e on tribological and kinetic properties of polishing pad has been studied by Philipossian and Olsen [45]. Real time monitoring of coefficien t of friction (COF) was done to estimate the normal shear forces originating during a particular CMP processes fo r a given pad. Frictional and removal rate data were taken on Rodel IC 1000 flat, perforated, XYand K-grooved pads. The Somerfeld number, COF, a new parameter called tribological mechanism indicator (TMI) and materials removal rate were some of the parameters monitored during the experiments. Philipossian and Ol sen [45] reported that flat and XY-grooved pads begin in boundary lubrication and migrat e to partial lubrica tion as Sommerfeld numbers increase. Thus different pad surface te xtures showed different material removal mechanisms. However, the variation of the mechanical properties need to be studied further on a microscale to gage its impact on the CMP process and material removal mechanism. Physical and chemical chan ges in pad during polishing Since polishing is a wet process, the mechan ical properties of the pad must not vary considerably when the pad is wet during CM P. However, the hydrophilic pad material

PAGE 36

24 looses modulus and hardness and gains ductility because water acts as a plasticizer. These changes are reversible [44] and pad properties revert to the dr y values, when the pad is in dry state, indicating that the chemical at tack is minimal [46]. The surface of the polyurethane pad has been studi ed and reported in literature [47] The quantitative analysis of the physical and chemical cha nges that occur in th e polishing pad during polishing was performed by Lu et al. [48]. In thei r research, Lu et al. studied the effect of polishing cycles on the pore size and shape of the commercially available IC 1000/Suba IV polishing pad. It was reported that the por e size and shape distri bution were modified by polishing cycles. Polishing induced a perman ent distortion in the radial direction due to the oscillatory motion of the wafer, while no change was seen in pad pore size in the transverse direction (direction of pad motion). The change wa s attributed to pore closure by surface reflow of the polymer during polishing or conditioning and not due to debris filling. The surface profiles gene rated using white light interferomery showed that the overall micro roughness of the pad decreases with polishing and there is a smoothening effect over a period of time due to polishing cycles. Along with physical changes, the pad undergoes surface chemical modification and degradation due to polishing slurry chemicals. No pad degradation of the bulk ma terial of the polishing pad was observed. The change in spectrum (Fig. 1-11) and shifting of the peaks of the used pad as compared to the new one has been attributed to the realignment of the molecules of the damaged pad surface layer. The porous structure of the polishing pad encourages water seepage. The presence of water in the polymer pore significantly affects the mechanical properties of the polishing pad. Li et al. [47] studied the effect of pad soaking time on the mechanical

PAGE 37

25 properties of the polishing pad using dynami c mechanical analysis (DMA). The dynamic shear modulus decreased to two thirds of its original value when th e pad is soaked for 5 h. Further, the rate of decrease in dynami c shear modulus decreases at around 14 h but does not reach a steady state. No significan t change in the rem oval rate was observed when pads with different soaking time are used in oxide polishing. This shows that removal rate is more of a surface characteristic of the pad and is not affected by the bulk material. Fig. 1-11 The absorbance spectra of used and dry IC 1000 pad along with dried silica slurry. [48] Modification of the pad-wafer contact m echanics can directly impact the CMP process performance. The modified surface can even change the mechanism of material removal during a polishing process [49]. During polishing, the pad surf ace layer degrades decreasing the pad surface roughness. The pad surface which is flattened or glazed needs to be rejuvenated to bring the polishi ng performance back to the original value. The roughening of the pad by a diamond condition er is known to resu lt in pad revival. Along with wafer polishing, the conditioner made of diamond grit considerably alters the surface of the polishing pad. The process of conditioning essentially removes some amount of top pad surface and is performed eith er in-situ (during the polishing run) or ex-

PAGE 38

26 situ in between two polishing runs. The pad damage due to insufficient conditioning is termed as glazing. Experiments were performed on the CMP pad by Lawing [49] at different conditioning levels of aggressiveness (expressed as low, medium and high). The change in polishing rate corre lated better with the predicte d surface contact area rather than the average surface roughness. Effect of temperature change on polishing pad The polishing pad might be subjected to el evated temperatures during the course of the CMP process [19]. The heating is due to the frictional forces generated by solidsolid contact between pad and wafer during polishin g. There is some alle viation of heating when the polishing is done in hydrodynamic c ontact mode [48]. However, there is an overall increase in the pad temperature ir respective of the mech anism of polishing. The effects of pad heating are compounded if the chemical reaction between slurry and pad is exothermic [38]. The mechanical, physical and chemical properties of the polyurethane material can be permanently or temporar ily altered if the pad is heated beyond a particular temperature [50]. DMA, th ermomechanical analysis (TMA) and thermogravimeteric analysis have been used for material characterization of the polishing pad [47, 48]. The applicability for DMA for polishing pads has been elaborately studied by Lu et al. [48]. Based on the results of previous experiments performed by Li et al., [47], DMA was performed to evaluate the structurepr operty relationship of polyurethane pads. The glass transition temperature is the temper ature at which the macromolecules of the polyurethane break away from entanglem ents and undergo micro-Brownian motion. Investigation of glass transition temperature of the polyurethane pa d is important as it

PAGE 39

27 corresponds to a sharp decrease in the hardness and modulus of the pad which in turn affects the removal rate a nd global planarization. Non-uniformity of the polishing pad The pad might be directly responsible for several process defects like WTWNU where there is non-homogeneity of polishing wh en one wafer is compared to another or WIWNU where there is non-homogeneity of pol ishing at different areas of the same wafer. The scanning ultrasound transmissi on (UST) is a nondes tructive technique developed that works on the principle of ultrasound permeability through absorbing visco-elastic medium [51, 52]. The difference in the ultrasound absorption in the areas of varying density and viscoelasticity is used to determine the non-uniformity within a single pad there by giving an in-depth idea of the physical characteristics of the given pad. In order to improve the yield of the CMP process and, to get a highly planar, defect free uniform wafer surface with reduced overall manufacturing costs involved, there is a need to extensively study the fundamental properties of the CMP pads on the whole. CMP process in the future The semiconductor industry has effectiv ely adapted its CMP technology for the 300 mm wafer [53]. Beyond the adoption of coppe r interconnects, several technologies are necessary to continue the sh rinkage of device dimensions and the increase of packing density in ULSI manufacturing. The use of ultr a low-k materials as in terlayer dielectrics has been at the forefront for decreasing the C part of the RC delay. However, polishing of ultra low-k dielectr ics which are mechanically weak (soft) is a daunting task. The single and dual damascene structures comp rising of ultra low-k porous or polymeric materials are more prone to buckling and cr ushing failures due to significantly lower hardness and Youngs modulus as compared to silicon dioxide. Acco rding to the ITRS

PAGE 40

28 roadmap [12] materials with dielectric constant 2.2 will be integrated in the IC by year 2007. Also, there needs to be a marked improvement in slurry selectivity for accurate end point detection when the constituent layers of the damascene structure namely, metal, hard mask, cap layer, barrier layer and di electric are polished. Furthermore, it is necessary to explore the niche of the CMP process in STI and other applications such as backside polishing and the fabrication of micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS). Here, the CMP process must be integrated ho rizontally and vertical ly to achieve high throughput and performance. In MEMS app lications, horizontal integration ensures reliability and good performance of a specifi c CMP process run. The development of new polishing pads and pad architectures, novel slurries, new metrology techniques, etc. comes within the scope of horizontal CMP integration. Vertical integration ensures success of every successive CMP operation. This includes the integration of the upstream processes such as Cu/barrier deposition, et ching and downstream processes such as ILD deposition and lithography. This opens a wide scope of research for further optimization and development in Cu CMP process. Due to intricate interactions of the processes involved in any CMP process, modeling e fforts are needed to get a systematic understanding of the process and pr edictability of the CMP outputs. Scope of Dissertation The importance of polishing and the vari ous available planarization techniques with emphasis on CMP have been discussed in Chapter 1. A general overview of the parameters involved in CMP are discussed w ith prominent interactions between them. Chapter 2 gives an overview of the CMP m odeling efforts and the framework of the PERC I CMP model. The models challenges are described, which necessitated the

PAGE 41

29 development of the PERC II model. The assump tions of the PERC I model are refined as necessary in chapter 3. Model development is also delineated with critical differences between PERC I and II models. Chapter 4 va lidates the PERC II model comparing to experimental literature data and comments on the predictive capability of the model. Chapter 5 summarizes the findings of the st udy along with the suggestions for future work.

PAGE 42

30 CHAPTER 2 CMP MODELING: OVERVIEW OF PERC I Like most semiconductor manufacturi ng processes, simultaneous tuning of process variables is a formidable task due to many varying parameters. Unfortunately, much of the commercial CMP process deve lopment cycle is based on nearly blind design-of-experiment (DOE) testing. While these empirical tests help to optimize parameters in a very small range, the overall approach does not necessarily facilitate a deeper understanding of the process. Thus, CMP research has focused on developing process models in order to gain further insi ght on the process mechanics for better control over the CMP outputs. The ultimate goal is to model at three scales of CMP, namely, the particle, die and wafer scales. The models at the particle scale are needed to understand the mechanisms involved in interactions between slurry pa rticles, chemicals, polishing pad and wafer during blanket wafer polishing. The models at the feature or die scale are needed to address the topography evolution of integrated circuit (IC) chips as a function of pattern density, line width, pitc h width and polishing time. The wa fer-scale models also need to address the issues related to the material removal non-uniformity over the entire wafer surface. To satisfy the manufacturability requi rements in the sub-micron IC fabrication, the margin of the profile non-uniformity is us ually limited in the range of several hundred nanometers. The material removal non-uniformity across the wafer is rooted in the nonuniform distributions of pressure and veloci ty over the wafer surface, which in a large

PAGE 43

31 degree, are determined by the configurations of CMP equipment. A mo del at this scale, therefore, needs to consider the e quipment configurati ons appropriately. Literature Review In the last decade, various kinds of m odels have been proposed by researchers, concentrating on different aspects of CMP cove ring the particle, die and wafer scales. But the effectiveness of die and wafer scale mode ls depends strongly on the robustness of the particle scale models, as the die and wa fer-scale models are developed based on the particle scale models. Therefore, in order to understand and predic t the performance of CMP in wafer scale, the current study aims to understand the behavior of CMP at particle scale. As the current work focuses mainly on particle scale modeling, only related models will be reviewed here. Preston Equation The Preston equation [54] as an empirica l relation for optical glass polishing was substantiated by Cook [24] who co nsidered that the interacti on between abrasive particles and wafer surface leads to removal of atomic clusters due to bond breakage. Preston provided a simple model of material remova l in glass polishing tools which is often adopted for CMP processes also. But, experime ntal results have shown that slurry and pad properties also significantly influence the process along with down pressure and platen speed [55, 56]. In or der to explain the non-Prest onian behavior, many modeling efforts have been carried out in the past decade and is still a topic of considerable interest. The three most important elements in the CMP material removal process are the wafer being polished, slurry and polishi ng pad. Researchers adopted two main approaches in modeling the CMP proce ss. One approach is based on fluid hydrodynamics, where material removal is cons idered to be caused mainly by slurry

PAGE 44

32 erosion. Slurry film thickness, hydrodynamic pressure and removal rate are generally calculated by solving Reynolds or Navier-S tokes equation [57-62]. The other approach uses the theory of contact mechanics, which assumes that the material removal occurs by particle indentation into the wafer su rface. Pad surface roughness and hardness are generally used to calculate th e particle indentation into the wafer thereby calculating the removal rate [27, 63-67]. Finite element modeli ng (FEM) has also been used to determine the pad asperity mechanical properties recently [68, 69]. It is generally agreed that the typica l CMP process conditions lead to major material removal by particle abrasion rather than by slurry erosi on [70]. Experimental observations of polished surfaces have revealed that material removal in CMP occurs as a consequence of a combination of chemical reac tion of the slurry chemicals with the wafer surface and ploughing (repeated sliding, rolling, or indentation) of the abrasive particles against the wafer surface that is already m odified. The chemical reaction results in formation of a thin layer on surface whic h is of different modulus than the substrate/wafer, aiding in material removal [71]. When particles are introduced between w earing surfaces, the wear is due to the particles embedded in one of the sliding surf aces. This process is referred to as threebody abrasion. In the CMP process, the particle s acting as single point cutting tools, dig into the wafer and plow a series of groove s in it. Therefore, the CMP process is essentially a three-body abrasive wear. The an alysis of the texture of polished surfaces also supports this observation. Fig. 2-1 illust rates typical post CMP surfaces as examined via an optical surface profiler. The surface texture consists of a number of randomly

PAGE 45

33 oriented nano-grooves (Fig. 21). The width and depth of the grooves are determined by the penetration depth of the abrasive particles into the wafer surface. (a) (b) Fig. 2-1. Polished wafer surfaces showing nanoscr atch surfaces. (a) Si lica wafer [72]. (b) Si wafer [73]. The material removal process in CMP can be considered as sliding of the indented slurry particles over a chemically influen ced thin layer over the wafer surface. The

PAGE 46

34 knowledge of critical factors that effect the CMP proce ss and the interactions among them is critical to select the respective parameters and de sign an enhanced CMP process, predicting material removal rate, and surface quality (roughness, defects, etc.). The most popular material removal equation is the Pr estons Equation [54], which was initially introduced for glass polishing, MRR= KePV, (2 1) where MRR is the material removal rate, Ke an all-purpose coefficient, P the down pressure and V the relative velocity over the wafer-pad inteface. It demonstrates a linear dependency of material removal rate on the pr essure and velocity. Not all experimental MRR data in CMP, especially in metal CM P, support the linear dependency between material removal and the product of pressure and velocity. Modifications to Preston Equation In order to explain the non-Prestonian behavior of the CMP process, revised Prestons equations were proposed by several researchers. For example, considering that the material removal rate does not extrapolat e to zero, Maury et al. [74] introduced a fitting parameter MRR0 into Prestons equation MRR= KePV + MRR0 (2.2) Later, the nonlinear equation MRR= KeP V, (2.3) where and are two fitting parameters, was proposed by Wrschka et al. [75] to get a better fit for the experimental data. The major problem with Prestons equati on and its revisions are that they are empirical modeling efforts. Therefore, they do not shed any light on gaining insight into

PAGE 47

35 the process especially regard ing other process variables. By extending Browns model [76] of the metal polishing to the silic on polishing, Cook [24] developed a physical model to address this limitati on. The interactions between th e abrasive particles and the wafer surface is proposed as a Hertzian elastic penetration [77] of a spherical particle under uniform pressure P into the wafer surface, sliding along the surface with a velocity V and removing material volume proportional to the penetration. The MRR formulation was proposed was MRR= PV/(2E) (2.4) where E is the Youngs modulus of the wafer material. This model can be taken as a theoretical equivalent to the Prestons equation since it suppo rts the linear dependency of MRR on pressure and velocity. The relati onship between the wafer surface roughness Ra the down pressure P, and abrasive size can also be obtained based on this model Ra=3/4 b (P/2k1E)2/3 (2 5) where k1 is the particle concentration, which is unity for a filled close hexagonal packing [24] and b the diameter of th e slurry particles. A similar model was developed by Liu et al [78] based on the statistical method and He rtzian elastic penetra tion. Besides the wafer material properties including wafer hardness Hw and wafer Youngs modulus Ew this model included pad hardness Hp and abrasive Youngs modulus Es resulting in V P E E E E H H H C MRRw s w s p w w e (2.6) where Ce is a coefficient to account for the effects of slurry chemicals and other consumable parameters. This model, similar to Cooks model, suggests that the material removal is proportional to the appl ied pressure and relative speed

PAGE 48

36 The advantages of Cooks and Lius mode ls over Prestons equation are that they provide more insights into the roles of the consumable parameters. The contributions of the slurry abrasives and pad, fo r example, have been attributed to their size and hardness. An additional benefit is that not only material removal rate, but also surface quality issues such as roughness (Eq. 2.5) can be addressed using these models. Slurry Erosion In Cooks and Lius models, the mechanic al removal by abrasive particles was assumed to be the dominant mechanism. However, some researchers instead assumed the material removal to be by slurry erosion approach, i.e., due to mechanical-enhanced erosion. Runnels et al. [79-81] developed an erosion-based model for CMP. They assumed that a fluid film exists between th e wafer and pad interface, which affects the erosion/material removal rates at each si ngle point through the fluid stress tensors. Motivated by observations at feature scal e, modification to Prestons equation was proposed, with relative velocity V, replaced by the tangential stress on the wafer surface; MRR=Cetn (2.7) where Ce is an all purpose coefficient, t is the shear stress due to the slurry flow and n the normal stress. The model uses a steady state incompressi ble Navier-Stokes equation to model the slurry flow at the wafer-polishing pad interface. The wafer surface is assumed to be smooth and spherical with a large radius of curvature. The fluid layer thickness and the angle of attack between the pad and the wa fer are obtained through an iterative procedure satisfying force and momentum balance. Runnels model has been integrated into several particle-scale models by researchers in cluding Tseng and Wang [82] and Zhang and

PAGE 49

37 Busnaina [83]. Tseng and Wang attributed the normal stress at the pa rticle-wafer contact to the elastic indentation of th e particle into the wafer surf ace, which is similar to that proposed by Cook and calculated the normal stress over the wafer-particle interface as 2 c nr F (2.8) where F is the force acting on the spherical part icles, which is proporti onal to the pressure P. The radius of particle-wafer contact, rc is given by E E F d rc 2 2 31 1 8 3 (2.9) where d is the diameter of particles, and the Poissons ratios of wafer surface and the particle and E and E the elastic modulii of the wafer and particles, respectively. The shear stress due to the slurry flow can be approximated as 0VPA Ce t (2.10) where is the dynamic viscosity of the slurry and A0 the area of wafer surface respectively. Substitution of equations (2 8) and (2 10) into (2 7) yields MRR=KeP5/6V1/2 (2 11) where Ke is the parameter to account for ma terial properties, slurry abrasive concentration and chemical processes. This model demonstrated a nonlinear relationship between the material removal and the product of pressure and velocity. Tsengs model attempted to connect the elastic indentation to the erosion rate, whereas Cooks and Lius models connect it to the mechanical ab rasion. While the down pressure dependency (P5/6) is quite close to linear depe ndency, the velocity dependency (V) however, is quite nonlinear. This is because the contribution of velocity has been attributed to the slurry

PAGE 50

38 flow instead of abrasive sliding. Due to pad porosity and surface asperities, such a slurry film is bound to be interrupted by solid-s olid contact. Thus hydrodynamic lubrication may be responsible for distributing the slurr y, while the material removal occurs mainly through solid-solid contact. Cooks, Lius and Tseng and Wangs models attributed the penetration of the abrasive particles to Hertzian elastic contact. Zhang and Busnaina [83] estimated the contact pressure between the particle and the contact surface in their model and found that it is larger than the yi eld stress of the polished materi als. Therefore, they proposed that plastic deformation is a more likely deformation mechanism in polishing. The contact pressure over the particle-wafer interfaces is sugge sted to be equal to the hardness Hw of the wafer materials. Replacing the nor mal stress (Eq 2 8) in Tseng and Wangs model with the hardness Hw yields the following material removal rate formulation MRR= Ke(PV)1/2 (2 .12) where Ke is the parameter to account for ma terials properties, slurry abrasive concentration and chemical processes. Both Tseng and Wang; and Zhang and Busnamas models suggest a nonlinear pressure times velo city dependency of material removal rate. Moreover, it is noted that besides the external force applied on the particles from the pad, Zhang and Busnaina also proposed that an a dhesion force, either va n der Waals force or electrostatic force depending on the separa tion distance between the particle and the wafer, contributes to the indent ation. This has been integrated into another particle-scale model by Zhang et al. [84]. In a series of articles by Ahmadi and Xia [85], and Mazaheri and Ahmadi [86, 87], a thermodynamic work parameter Wa of adhesion was added to account for its effects on the indentation of ab rasive particles. Mazaheri and Ahmadi [86]

PAGE 51

39 introduced a double layer (dl) force into the indentation force, whose magnitude is a function of the zeta pote ntial of the abrasives and the wa fer. Beside the abrasive wear, Ahmadi and Xia [85] also considered the a dhesion wear of the wafer in their model. Moreover, while most of the models treated the abrasives as having a spherical shape, Mazaheri and Ahmadi represented them as spheres with a number of hemispherical bumps around their surface. The penetrations of slurry abrasives are modeled using the penetrations of the bumps. The above models imply that the abrasives are embedded in the pad and indent into the wafer surface. It should be noted that some modeling efforts also assume that the abrasive particles float in the slurry and impact the wafer surface from time to time causing material removal [88]. Pad Considerations in CMP Models The pad is assumed to be smooth in the earl ier particle-wafer interaction models. It has been observed that the pad topography and pad material play an important role in material removal processes. For example, the material removal rate has been reported to increase with the pad surface roughness [55] Without conditioning of the polishing pad surface, the material removal rate decreases exponentially with polishing time [89]. In consideration of this, Yu et al. [63] developed a pad-based model. They approximated the peaks on the pad surface by hemisphe rical asperities with consta nt radius and the asperity heights to follow Gaussian distribution. Base d on the model, the real contact area is smaller than the nominal (apparent) contact area and linearly proportional to the down pressure. Steigerwald et al. [19] proposed that the material re moval rate is proportional to the number of abrasive partic les over the contact area. Combining this argument with

PAGE 52

40 Yus model yields a linear dependency of the material removal rate on the down pressure, which agrees with Prestons equation. Zhao and Shi [90] also proposed a model based on the wafer-asperity contact. Unlike Yus model [63], this model does not consider the Gaussian distribution of the asperity heights. The contact area between an asperity and the wafer is given by Aa P2/3 based on Hertz elastic contact theory. By comb ining Steigerwalds argument, the material removal rate formulation can be obtained as MRR= K(V)P(2/3) (2.13) where K(V) is a function of the relative ve locity V and other CM P parameters. It is further considered by Zhao and Shi [90] that when the particles are rolling against the wafer surface, their contribution to material re moval will be negligible. They argued that whether the particle is rolling or not is determined by the surface friction between the particles and the wafer, and only when the dow n pressure P is larger than a threshold down pressure Pth, the pure rol1ing can be avoided. Th e material removal rate is given as: MRR = K(V)(P2/3 Pth 2/3) for P Pth (2.14a) and MRR = 0 for P< Pth (2.14b) The fundamental difference between the a bove pad-based models and the particlebased models by Cook and others is that pad-based models a ttribute the material removal rate to the number of abrasive particle s captured by the polishi ng pad while the later attributes the material removal rate to the interaction between a si ngle abrasive and the wafer.

PAGE 53

41 A particle-pad interaction is critical to th e particle scale models considering that the function of the pad is to trap the abrasive par ticles and transmit load to the particle-wafer interface. Cooks model [24]suggested a clos e-packing of spherical abrasives onto the pad. It is assumed that the wafer and pad ar e separated completely by the abrasives and no direct pad-wafer contact exists. The for ce applied on a single abrasive under these assumptions is given by 1 2Pr 3 2 k F (2 15) where P is the polishing pressure, r the abrasive size and k1 the particle fill fraction on the pad. This particle-pad interaction model has been integrated into the material removal model of Cook. It is also used by Ahmadi and Xia [85] to evaluate the force on a particle in their case of a hard-pad and a larger con centration of abrasive particles. Later, Zhao and Shi [90] proposed that when the pad is soft enough, the abrasive particles will be embedded deeply into the pad and the force from the wafer is supported by the pad and abrasives together. This idea has been applied by Luo and Dornfeld [27, 91, 92] and Fu et al. [93] in their model. Luo and Dornfelds m odel [27, 91, 92] suggested that this force is proportional to the contact pressure multiplied by the abrasive size by assuming that the abrasives are closely packed to each othe r and these closely packed abrasives are enclosed by the pads so that the effective co ntact area between wafer and pad is equal to that without abrasives. More over, the size of the abrasive s that may be captured by the pad is assumed to be a function of abrasive size distribution and pad properties. Their model, however, neglects the lower sizes of the particle size distribution in material removal calculation. Fu et al. [93] later assu med that the abrasives are dispersed evenly over the pad surface and used a beam model to evaluate the wafer-pad direct contact

PAGE 54

42 between two single abrasives. The force s upported by a single abrasi ve can be obtained from the beam model and is a function of ab rasive size, down pressure and pad material properties [93]. Besides the force, the sec ond purpose of an abrasive-pad interaction model is to evaluate the number of abrasive s involved in the material removal process. Fu et al. [93] considered the number of trapped particles as an independent parameter in their model. This may be misleading considering that vari ous parameters, for example, the abrasive weight concentration and abrasive size, have an influence on the number [27, 72, 91, 92]. Luo and Dornleld considered more complex scenarios and suggested that only a portion of abrasives are involved in the material removal process, which is not reasonable. Slurry Considerations in CMP Models The contribution of slurry chemicals to the material removal is either neglected in earlier models or represented by an all-pu rpose coefficient. Cook [24] suggested a complete but complicated scenario of the chemical effects. Besides the mechanical removal, it is proposed that the surface re moval during polishing include the following five chemical processes (i) the slurry chemi cal diffusion into the wafer surface, (ii) the subsequent wafer material dissolution under th e load imposed by the abrasive particles, (iii) the adsorption of the dissolution product on to the surface of the polishing grain, (iv) the re-deposition of the polishing materials back onto the wafer surface, and (v) the corrosion rate between particle impacts. Thes e steps are not considered in most of the early models as they are complex to model quantitatively. The major contribution of slurry chemi cals on the material removal process has been attributed to the formation of a surf ace layer. This idea is well demonstrated by Kaufman et al. in their Tungsten CMP model [37].

PAGE 55

43 Kaufman et al. proposed that this passivat ion layer is removed by slurry abrasives and the fresh tungsten surface is exposed, whic h is subsequently passivated and removed. This mechanism of continued passivation and removal can be used to explain the copper, aluminum and other metal CMP systems as well. A similar mechanism is supposed to work in silicon, silica and low-k CMP system s. Paul [94] and Zhao et al. [95] have proposed detailed surface kinetics models to connect the slurry chem ical concentrations and fresh metal surface sites available to the formation rate of the surface layer. Their models can explain the material removal rate as a function of chemical and abrasive weight concentration. Borst et al. [62] have proposed a five-step model for CMP of SiLK dielectrics (i) mass transport of reactant from the slurry to the slurry /wafer interface, (ii) adsorption of reactant to available surface site (iii) reaction between adsorbed reactant and specific wafer surface to form an alte red wafer surface layers, (iv). mechanical removal of the altered wafer surface layer, a nd (v) mass transport of removed material to the bulk slurry. In their work, the mass trans portation, slurry chemical concentration and reaction rate to the formation of the surface layer were inco rporated. This detailed model was suggested to be able to be extended to the CMP of other materials. The idea of continuous surface modification and removal has been applied in the model developed by Qin and co-workers [96]. A similar approach has also been used in Luo and Dornfelds model [91]. They exte nded Kaufmans model by proposing that the surface layer is a bi-layer structure, though in reality there might be a gradual transition between the layers. They did not cover the details on how the formation rate of the surface layer is affected by the slurry chemi cals. But Luos model assumes that all the

PAGE 56

44 asperities contact the wafer and that the part icles fill the asperity-wafer contact spots, which is not necessarily true. The slurry chemicals affect not only the wafer but also the slurry abrasives and polishing pad. Their contribution to material removal is therefore not only reflected through surface kinetics, but also through alte ration of the abrasive and pad properties such as the abrasive shape, abrasive si ze and pad Youngs modulus. There are not many modeling efforts on these two interactions ye t. A recent model by Castillo-Mejia et al. [97] tried to explain the effect of water-pad interaction in CMP. The water is proposed to plasticize the polishing pad and reduce its elas tic modulus. A formulation on the ratio of the Youngs modulus of wet pad to the dry pad is suggested. This Youngs modulus is then used in a wafer-pad contact mode l to evaluate the material removal. Many of these models were also extended to patterned wafers along with other modeling concepts including combination of the solid-solid contact and slurry erosion approaches [98-109]. Polishing mechanisms we re also based on surface reaction kinetics [95, 110, 111] and modeled using mo lecular dynamics simulations [112-115]. PERC I CMP Model Most of the earlier models have concentr ated on one or two interactions of the CMP process parameters. They are useful fo r identifying the input parameters. However, they may not be sufficient for understanding the whole material removal process. The effects of the same input parameters may be contrary to each other when acting in different conditions. A comprehensive model of CMP integrating the main interactions together is therefore needed. For this purpos e, a model was develope d by Qin et al.[72], taking into consideration most critical CMP parameters. This section discusses the

PAGE 57

45 assumptions on which the model is built, its effectiveness in predicting the CMP process variables and the model limitations. Model Development The chemicals in a slurry alter the propertie s of the wafer surface that is in contact with them. Since the chemical influence is restricted to a thin region near the wafer surface, a thin surface layer w hose mechanical properties are different from those of the bulk wafer is assumed. This surface layer can be formed by chemical reactions at the surface or by the diffusion of slurry ionic speci es into the wafer. The surface layer is then removed by mechanical action of the slurry part icles and/or by dissolution into the slurry through a convective diffusion process. Alt hough there may be a few exceptional cases [Luo98], material removal by the di ssolution is small compared to that by the mechanical action of the slurry particles, and it is not c onsidered in this model. Fig. 2-2 describes schematically the physical situation that is considered in the present analysis. The pad asperities that are in contact with the wa fer surface act as the anchoring sites for the slurry particles. The anchor ed particles then gouge the ch emically altered wafer surface or the bulk wafer depending on th e indentation depth re sulting in material removal. In the following section, various parameters cons idered in the present analysis and the underlying assumptions are described followed by the details of the model development. Topology of a pad surface has been charac terized and described statistically by various researchers [63, 116] Their measurem ents indicated that pad asperity heights were in the order of tens of microns and appeared to have a normal (or Gaussian) distribution. In Fig. 2-2, the topology of the pad surface is shown schematically along with a statistical description characterizi ng the pad asperities. In this figure, is the

PAGE 58

46 mean radius of curvature of the tip of the pad asperities, is the distribu tion function for the height of the asperities, and the standard deviation of the pad asperity heights, respectively. P V Wafer Pad Asperity Mean Height z (z) h Asperity Height, z (a) (b) Fig. 2-2 Pad consideration in PERC I. (a) Sche matic of the pad surface that is in contact with the chemically modified laye r formed on the wafer surface; (b) Distribution of the pad aspe rity heights (When the height of an asperity is greater than the average gap h between th e pad and the wafer, that asperity is in contact with the wafer surface.) [72]

PAGE 59

47 Since the characteristic length scale fo r the roughness of the pad surface (e.g., ) is much larger than the feature sizes on the wa fer, it was assumed that the wafer surface is smooth and flat compared to the pad surface. This assumption makes it possible to use the Greenwood-Williamson model [117] th at describes the contact area, Areal, between a flat surface and a randomly rough surface under a normal force (or load), L : dz z h z NA Ah o real (2.16) dz z h z E NA Lh o 2 3 2 1 *3 4 (2.17) where N is the number density of the pad asperities (i.e., number of asperities per unit area), Ao is the total area of the flat wafer su rface, and h is the average gap between the smooth wafer and the rough pad under the give n conditions. Then, the down-pressure, P, applied to the wafer with an area Ao is L/Ao whereas the actual mean contact pressure, Pr, is L/Areal if the normal force applied to the wafer is entirely supported by the pad asperities in contact with the wafer. That is L = PAo = PrAreal (2.18) E* is the composite modulus between the two surfaces in contact, that is defined as w w p pE E E2 2 *1 1 1 (2.19) where E and are the Youngs modulus and the Po issons ratio, and the subscripts p and w represent the pad and the wafer, respectively. Equations 2.16, 2.17 and 2.18 provide an explicit relationship between the contact area ( Ar) and the down pressure ( P ) that is needed in modeling the CMP process. From Eqs. 2.16 and 2.17,

PAGE 60

48 dz z h z dz z h z E L Ah h real 2 / 3 2 / 14 3 (2.20) Following Yu et al.[63] the normal distribution function may be used for the distribution of the asperity height, When 2 22 z exp 2 1 zis substituted into Equation 2.20, the integral cannot be obtaine d in an explicit form. Instead, a numerical integration should be preformed. Johnson showed that the ratio of the two integrals in Eq. 2.20 is nearly a constant for a broad range of h / [77]. Thus, 2 / 1 1 2 / 1 1E PA C E L C Ao real (2.21) where C is a constant whose value is between 0.3 and 0.4 when h / is in the range of 0.5 and 3.0. Recalling that is the standard devi ation of the asperity height distribution, h / =3.0 represents a situation where only 0.13% of the pad as perities are in contact with the wafer whereas about 30.85% is in contact when h / =0.5. Practical situation in a typical CMP process is well within this range of h / value. From Eqs. 2.18 and 2.21, 2 / 1E C Pr (2.22) It should be noted that the contact area ( Ar) increases linearly with the downpressure whereas the contact pressure ( Pr) remains constant due to the linear increase of Ar with P The underlying assumption for Eq. 2.18 is that the applied normal force on the wafer is supported entirely by the pad asperities. As is mentioned previously, experimental measurement on the friction co efficient indicates that the hydrodynamic

PAGE 61

49 pressure is negligible under typical CMP operational conditions. Furthermore, commercial pads often have grooves or perf orations to prevent hydroplaning (i.e., to prevent a large pressure development due to a lubrication flow) a nd to ensure uniform slurry distribution. Thus, the assumption that the hydrodynamic pressure is negligible is justifiable. Small Plastic Deformation of the Thin Layer on the Wafer Surface Considering the fact that the deformation of the surface layer by the slurry particles under the contact pressure is ve ry small in the order of seve ral nanometers, the mode of deformation can be assumed to be plastic de formation. In the case of oxide CMP, it is known that the silica surface is softened when it is in contact with an aqueous solution. A surface layer (or so-called gel layer) is form ed due to the diffusion of water molecules into the silica surface alteri ng the surface properties. The situation may be different in the case of metal CMP. Since an oxidizer is added in most metal CMP processes, metal oxide is formed on the wafer surface creating a structure mismatch at the interface betw een the oxide layer and the bulk wafer underneath. Thus, delamination or microcrack ing of the oxide layer may occur at the interface during the metal CMP process. However, as evidenced in previous sections, it is likely that plastic deformati on is still the dominant mode of deformation because the indentation depth by the slurry particles is small (e.g., less than several nanometers). Furthermore, the oxide layer may be soft due to hydration in an aqueous environment. Thus, the assumption that the chemically alte red thin surface layer on the wafer exhibits plastic deformation is plausible. This assump tion enables us to apply the abrasive wear theory in deriving the expre ssion for the material removal rate. When the indentation depth is beyond the surface layer, the deformation of the unaltered wafer material may be

PAGE 62

50 either plastic or elastic depending on the hard ness of the wafer material and the slurry particles. Material Removal by a Single Particle In the present analysis, it is assumed that the slurry particles are monosized and of radius R. The overall material removal rate is assumed to be the multiple of the removal rate by a single particle and the number of particles in contact with the wafer: (RR) = n (RR)v/Ao (2.23) where n is the number of slurry particles anc hored in the region of the pad that is in contact with the wafer, and (RR)v is the volumetric removal rate by a single particle. The overall removal rate, (RR), is typically desc ribed in terms of the thickness removed per unit time; hence the division by the nominal wafer area Ao. Schematic illustration of single particle abra sion is given in Fig. 2-3. The material removal is viewed as a sliding-indentation process in which the volumetric removal rate by a particle is given as (RR)v = AiV (2.24) where Ai is the cross-sectional area of the part icle immersed in th e wafer under pressure (hashed area in Fig. 2-3a), and V is the relative velocity of the pad to the wafer. Assuming that the hard particle maintains its spherical shape, R a R R a Aiarcsin2 (2.25) where is the indentation depth and a the radius of the circular indentation on the wafer surface by the particle of radius R. Because is very small compared to R, a/R is also very small and Equation 2.25 can be linearized about a/R to give

PAGE 63

51 R O a Ai1 3 4 (2.26) Thus the volumetric removal rate is V a RRv 3 4 ) ( (2.27) (a) (b) F a F a Padt Wafer t R b Pad Wafer a Fig. 2-3. Schematic of single particle ab rasion showing the removal of chemically modified surface layer. (a). t. (b). > t with soft wafer materials. Because a2=(2R 2) and is much smaller than R, Equation 2.27 can be rewritten as R V a RRv3 2 ) (3 (2.28) Once the indentation depth (or a) is known, the volumetric removal rate by a single particle can be readily calculated from Eq. 2.28. Depending on the relative magnitude of the indentation depth ( ) to the surface layer thickness (t), the material removal may be classified into two different regimes as depicted in Fig. 2-3; (a) t and (b) > t.

PAGE 64

52 Indentation depth smaller than th e surface layer thickness (i.e., t) When the chemically modified surface la yer is thick enough, the indentation depth will be no greater than the surface layer thickness and only plastic deformation within the surface layer occurs. In this case, (or a ) can be obtained from the force balance imposed on the particle by the pad and the wafe r that depends on the indentation depth of the particle into the wafer su rface. The force imposed on a particle by the pad is given as r aP b F2 (2.29) where b is the radius of the circular indentation into the pad as described in Fig. 2-3a, and Pr is the contact pressure given by Eq. 2.22. The force on the particle by the deforming wafer can be given as e aB a F2 (2.30) where Be is the effective Brinell hardness of the chemically modified surface layer. The term effective is used because its value is influenced by the thickness of the chemically modified surface layer and the material prope rty of the underlying substrate. The pad is supposed to hold the particles in place th ereby transmitting the normal force to the particles that cause indentat ion of the wafer surface. The pad should be soft enough to provide stable anchoring of the particles on its surface. However, if it is too soft, the particles will be embedded too deeply into the pad diminishing the material removal capability of the particles. Thus, the pad shoul d be sufficiently hard to make the value of b in Fig. 2-3 to be close to the particle radius R. Then, from equations 2.29 and 2.30 with b=R,

PAGE 65

53 2 / 1 e rB P R a (2.31) This equation along with equations 2.22 a nd 2.28 gives the following expression for the volumetric removal rate by a single particle of radius R. V B E R C RRe v 2 3 4 3 2 2 33 2 ) ( (2.32) Indentation depth greater than the surface layer thickness (i.e., > t) When the bulk wafer material beyond the surface layer is relatively soft (e.g., copper) compared to the hardness of the particle s, it is possible for the particle to cause deformation into the wafer beyond the surface layer (Fig. 2-3b). As it was described in the previous section, the deformation is expe cted to be plastic for both the surface layer and the bulk wafer, and the force causi ng the deformation may be given as w e aB tR a tRB F) 2 ( 22 (2.33) where Bw and Be are the Brinell hardness of the bulk wafer material and the chemically modified surface layer, respectively. Because this force is equivalent to the one imposed on the particle by the down-pressure, Eq 2.33 is equated with Eq. 2.29 with b=R to give 2 / 1 2) ( 2 w e w rB Rt B B P R a (2.34) Then, Eq. 2.28 for the volumetric removal ra te by a single particle is reduced to R V Rt B B R B E C RRw e w v 2 3 2 2 11 2 3 2 ) ( (2.35)

PAGE 66

54 While equation 2.35 describes a situation where the deformation reaches into the bulk wafer beyond the surface layer, deformatio n of the bulk wafer may not occur if the bulk wafer material is very hard. This lim iting case corresponds to the situation of infinitely large Bw in equation 2.35 that is reduced to V t R RRv 2 / 3 2 / 13 2 4 ) ( (2.36) Equations 2.32, 2.35 and 2.36 indicate that the volumetric removal rate by a single slurry particle depends on the geometry of the pad and the particle (i.e., and R), the material properties (E*, Bw and Be), the thickness of the surface layer (t), and the relative velocity of the pad (thus the particle) to the wafer (V). It may be interesting to note that (RR)v is independent of the down pressure, P. It is due to the fact that the contact pressure, Pr, is independent of P. As equation 2.21 indicates, the contact area of the pad with the wafer (Ar) increases linearly with P. Consequently, the mean contact pressure, Pr, which is PAo/Ar, is independent of P. In the following section, the number of particles in contact with the wafer surface is estimat ed to determine the overall removal rate. Estimation of the Overall Removal Rate When the wafer is pressed against the pad and is in sliding motion relative to the pad, the particles can be entrapped onl y in the region where the local distance between the wafer and the pad asperity is smaller than the particle diameter, 2R. Thus, the number of particles that can be trappe d on the pad asperities is n = 2RAreal n (2.37)

PAGE 67

55 Here Ar is the real contact area between the wafer surface and the pad asperities as it was described in previous section. n is the number density of the particles in the slurry (i.e., number of particles per unit slurry volum e), that can be calculated from the solid loading Ca (wt%) of the slurry particles as a s a nR C 34 3 (2.38) where a and s are the densities of the particle a nd the slurry solution, respectively. Substitute of Eqs. 2.38 into 2.37 gives r a s aA R C n 22 3 (2.39) By combining Eqs. 2.39 and 2.18, the number of particles anchored on the pad asperities becomes 2 / 1 22 3 E PA R C C no a s a (2.40) Now that (RR)v and n are given in terms of various pr ocessing variables and material properties, the overall material removal rate in a CMP process can be estimated from Eqs. 2.32, 5.27 and 2.40 for the two different cases described above: Removal Rate: Indentation depth smaller than su rface layer thickness (i.e., t), PV B E C C RRe a s a 2 / 3 2 / 1 4 1) ( (2.41) Removal Rate: Indentati on depth larger than surface layer thickness (i.e., > t),

PAGE 68

56 PV R t B B B E C E C C RR/ w e w * a s a 2 3 2 1 2 11 2 1 1 (2.42) As Eq. 2.23 indicates, th e overall removal rate, (RR), is the thickness removal rate which is the volumetric removal rate divided by the nominal wafer area Ao. We may recall that C is a constant whose value is about 0.35 when h/ is between 0.5 and 3.0 [Joh85]. The overall removal rate given above is reminiscen t of Prestons equation in that the material removal rate is proportiona l to the down-pressure, P, and the relative velocity, V. It should be noted that the Prestons coefficient Kp, whose value relies on empiricism, is now given as a function of various proce ssing variables and material properties. The model predicts the removal rate as a f unction of pressure and velocity product (PV) very well [72]. The removal rate is usually only considered as a function of PV in many modeling efforts, ignoring other processing parameters. But the PERC I model considers the particle size effect, which is crucial for any CMP system. Equation 2.41 indicates that th e overall removal rate is inde pendent of the particle size R whereas Eq. 2.42 indicates a decrease in (RR) with increasing particle size. When the indentation-depth is smaller than the surface layer thickness (i.e., t), the volumetric removal rate by a single particle (RR)v is proportional to R2 (Eq. 2.32). The number of particles in contact, on the other hand, is inversely proportional to R2 as the Eq. 2.40 indicates. Consequently, the par ticle size effect is negated. Thus the model predicts as shown in Fig. 2-4 that the removal rate is either independent of particle size in the modified layer removal regime or decreases with particle size in the substrate indentation re gime. But, the reported literature has shown

PAGE 69

57 that removal rate also increases with particle size in a given range, and that there is an optimal particle size at which enhanced polis hing can take place as shown in Figs. 2-5 and 2-6. To overcome these limitations, a (PERC II) model is developed by analyzing the crucial assumptions in PERC I, and refining them when necessary. The following chapter deals with assumption validation and PERC II model development. Particle Size Removal Rate Wafer removal Modified layer removal Particle Size Removal Rate Wafer removal Modified layer removal Fig. 2-4. Schematic of PERC I predic tions for increasing particle size. 0 50 100 150 200 01020304050607080 Mean Particle Size (nm)Removal Rate (nm/min) Fig. 2-5. Polishing of silica by nanoslurry showing optimal particle size [118].

PAGE 70

58 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 256095130 Mean Particle Size (nm)Removal Rate (nm/min) 18 kPa, 0.4 m/s 32 kPa, 0.6 m/s 45 kPa, 0.9 m/s Fig. 2-6. Polishing of silica at various pr essure, velocity and pa rticle sizes showing optimal particle size [116].

PAGE 71

59 CHAPTER 3 PERC II CMP MODEL The previous chapter highlighted the basic concepts involved in PERC I model [96] development, along with various challenges faced by it. In this chapter, some of the critical model assumptions are verified a nd refined as necessary. The changes are incorporated into the basic framework of the PERC I model to develop the PERC II CMP model. Assumption Validation The critical components in the CMP proce ss are the wafer, pad and slurry. As the wafer is fixed in a given CMP process, th e contributions from pad and slurry are investigated to include their most crucial char acteristics into the model. The main role of the pad in CMP is to trap the abrasive partic les for material removal and transmit the load applied onto the trapped partic les. In particle scale modeli ng, the function of the pad in global planarization need not be considered. Pad-wafer Contact Area The pad-wafer contact area strongly influen ces the number of part icles that can be trapped under each pad asperity. The greater the contact area between pad and wafer, the higher the number of particles th at can be trapped resulting in enhanced material removal. The changes in pad properties during polishing are important to model the CMP process. Often dry properties of the pad are investigated [119], rather than the more appropriate wet properties. The pad charac terization investigations are also limited to the bulk [48,

PAGE 72

60 68, 120] of the material rather than the su rface. These bulk properties in dry state are usually employed in conventional CMP modelin g efforts [68]. Since, polishing involves the interfacial behavior of pa d, abrasive, and wafer, pad surface properties should be used rather than the bulk properties. Surface pr operties of the pad rapidly change due to immersion in slurry [121, 122], quickly reaching equilibrium values [46]. There is one fundamental question that n eeds to be answered. What is the real contact area between pad and wafer? A nd is the Greenwood-Williamson model [117], which states that contact area is linearly pr oportional to the applied load applicable in CMP systems? A basic assumption of the PERC I model is that removal rate is linearly dependant on the pad-wafer contact area. Abrasive particles trapped between pad asperities and wafer are considered to be re sponsible for material removal. As applied load on the wafer increases, the pressure at the pad asperity-wafer interface is supposed to remain constant due to elasticity of the pad, while the pad-wafer contact area increases. This behavior is predicted by the Green wood-Williamson model, which assumes that the pad asperity tips contact the wafer under Hertz elastic theory conditions. Although a number of CMP models have employed this concept [63, 109], no systematic attempts are reported that provide validity of this assumption. Similarly, some researchers have assumed the contact area to be proportional to the power of two-thirds [90] of pressure without any experimental basi s. In the past, pad-wafer c ontact area has been generally derived mathematically [27, 123]based on sta tistical surface roughness rather than actual experimental measurements. The pad-wafer c ontact area reported in literature including theoretical calculations varies from 0.0005% to 20% [27, 49, 63, 109, 124, 125]. Considering the importance of reliable valu e of the pad-wafer contact area and its

PAGE 73

61 dependence on applied load in CMP modeli ng, a systematic attempt was made to measure it under CMP conditions. Kim et al. [ 124] have measured the pad-wafer contact area using optical microscopy and have reported a value of 5%. On the other hand, Basim [125] has reported the value to be 0.3% in dry state based on FTIR measurements. To investigate the pad-wafer contact area, a relia ble technique is needed. To establish the reliability of optical microscopy and/or FT IR techniques, contact area measurements were performed on pad using optical microscopy. Optical microscopy The average pad asperity radius is around 30 m for a typical CMP pad and the RMS roughness around 5m. Therefore, an optical micros cope can be used to study the contact spots, the majority of which can be expected to be over a micron in size. To simulate the wafer, a microscope coverslip was used. To minimize the bending of the coverslip under applied load, a fixture was fabr icated as shown in Fig. 3-1 which enabled easy access to the microscope objective lens for translation in in-plane direction. The fixture consists of a base plate with a window hole of 10mm x 5mm to allow optical observation of the contact spots with mini mum bending of the coverslip under applied load. Optical measurements were performed in dry environment using Leika microscope equipped with frame grabber. One inch s quare coupons were punched out from IC1000 pad, which was used for polishing. The pad was ex-situ conditioned using a grid-abrade diamond pad conditioner. Minimal contrast be tween contact and non-contact regions was obtained, when the pad specimens were analyz ed under the given load. This was not even sufficient for qualitative anal ysis. Measurable distinction between contact and non-

PAGE 74

62 contact spots was achieved with coating of the pad surface with a 5-10 nm thick goldpalladium layer using the Denton sputter coater. The thin coated layer is not expected to affect the pad-wafer contact area results, as the attempt here is to measure the contact area under dry conditions. Fig. 3-1. Schematic of the fixture used in measuring pad-wafer (dry) contact area. Measurements were performed in two mode s. Mode I consisted of measuring the contact area of selected aspe rities as a function of applied load and mode II consisted of measuring various contact spots under appl ied load by translating the microscope objective to cover the entire sp ecimen in view. The optical micrographs were analyzed using Spot and Image-Pro softwares to calculate the percent contact area. The micrographs obtained in mode I are s hown in Fig. 3-2. The regions P and N indicate the pad asperities that are of interest in all three figures, though only Fig.32a is labeled for clarity. In P regions, the asperity contact increases with applied load, whereas, in N regions, new asperity contac ts are formed with applied load. The padwafer contact area values obtained from optical measurements are plotted in Fig. 3-3. The

PAGE 75

63 results indicate that the contact area of a given pad asperity increases linearly with applied load and more importantly the magnit ude of contact area obtained from optical technique is in the same range as obtained from the FTIR technique by Basim (Fig. 3-4). The discrepancy between this data and Kim s optical microscopy result [124] could be due to the possibility that some non-contact areas were counted as contact spots due to poor contrast, as no pad surface modification or coating was mentioned in their study. N P N P (a) (b) (c) Fig. 3-2. Pad asperity contact spots seen through optical mi croscope. (a) 0.75 psi. (b) 5 psi. (c) 8.8 psi. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1012345678 Applied pressure (psi)Pad asperity contact area (%) Fig. 3-3. Pad asperity contact area dependen ce on applied load. Each legend represents a selected asperity contact. Various as p erit y contacts at same p ressure

PAGE 76

64 Fig. 3-4. Pad contact area as a function of applied load [125]. The main motivation behind investigating contact area measurements is to get a realistic value of pad-wafer contact area unde r CMP conditions. The optical and FTIR techniques are used in dry conditions, whereas the actual CMP is a wet system. Combining optical data from this study and FT IR data from Basim [ 125], it is established that FTIR with attenuated total reflection (FTIR-ATR) method can be successfully used to estimate the pad-wafer contact area. The same technique was employed in the present investigation to measure the contact area in wet condition simulating the CMP environment. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) To investigate the pad-wafer contact area variation with applied load in various slurries, FTIR-ATR was used. The contact spot s contribute toward the absorbance signal resulting in quantitative estimation of th e pad-wafer contact area depending on signal

PAGE 77

65 intensity. Maximum signal intensity is obtai ned when the pad surf ace is in full contact with the wafer surface. The contact area is obtained by normalizing the measured signal intensity with the maximum signal intensit y [126]. The setup used for contact area measurements is shown in Fig. 3-5. IR Beam Pad Applied load ATR crystal IR Beam Pad Applied load ATR crystal Fig. 3-5 Schematic of the FTIR-ATR technique used to measure pad-wafer contact area. A silicon ATR crystal is used in contrast to the ZnSe crystal employed by Basim [125] to simulate the silica wafer sy stem. A nitrogen purged Nicolet Magna 760 spectrometer equipped with liqui d nitrogen chilled MCTA dete ctor was used to carry out FTIR analysis for better accura cy. All the spectra were the result of 512 co-added scans at a resolution of 4 cm 1. The background spectrum for all the experiments was the singlebeam spectrum of the dry silicon crystal. The intensities of the CH2 peaks of the polyurethane were recorded in the wavenumber range of 3000 cm 1. The asymmetric and symmetric stretches of CH2 at wavenumbers of 2927 and 2855 cm-1 respectively were analyzed. The contact area is expected not to depend on pad-wafer relative velocity, hence they are held stationary. The slurries were simulated by using solutions of varying pH with no other chemi cals (passivating agents) or particles added. This is valid especially in silica CMP as no passivating chemicals are generally added in

PAGE 78

66 slurry formulation. The absence of particle s reduces the errors due to scattering. The water FTIR/ATR signal is subtracted from pad spectrum (both at same pH) to get the desired signature spectrum (Fig 3-6). A representative piec e of pad sample (IC-1000) soaked in given solution for one hour was plac ed on the (Si) ATR crystal and loaded at 4, 7 and 10 psi in the wet state under solution. The solutions studied are nanopure water adjusted to pH 4, pH 9 and pH10.5 with either 0.5M HNO3 or 0.5M KOH. Silica CMP is generally performed at slur ry pH 10.5, as the silica solubility increases drastically after pH 10. Thus there should be minimum silica wafer modification or modified layer formation at pH 4 and pH 9. Whereas, pH10.5 should lead to considerable surface dissolution of s ilica. These conditions are chosen, as all CMP process variables except pad properties are suppose d to be constant in pH range of 4 to 9, and increased surface modification (dissolu tion) at pH10.5. The typical absorbance spectra obtained for a given specimen at different applied loads is shown in Fig. 3-7. The signal intensities at symmetric and asymmetric stretches are averaged to calculate the contact area. The results obtaine d for different pH and dry cond itions indicate that contact area increases linearly with applied pressure for all conditions (Fig. 3-8). The normalized plot shows the accuracy associated with the measurement technique, which is consistent for all the conditions used. The linear depende nce of pad-wafer cont act area on applied load validates the use of Greenwood-Williamson theory in the CMP model. Pad-wafer contact area in the wet state was measured to be around 2-3 times th e contact area in the dry state (Fig. 3-9). This implies that the re moval rate calculated w ould be 2-3 times less if the dry contact area is used in the model. There is no discernible change in pad-wafer contact area under different pH conditions due to data scatter, possibly due to uncertainity

PAGE 79

67 associated with subtraction of water spectru m. Utilizing the value of pad-wafer contact area obtained and the Greenwood-Williamson assumption, pad asperity modulus is derived which is used in calculation of pad asperity stress distribution. Fig. 3-6. Analysis of the FTIR-ATR spectra. Fig. 3-7. Absorbance spectra of pad (in pH 4) at different applied pressures.

PAGE 80

68 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 357911 Pressure (psi)Normalized Contact Area Dry pH 4 pH 9 pH 10.5 Fig. 3-8. Contact area vari ation with applied load in dry and wet conditions. Fig. 3-9. Contact area in dry and we t systems in various pH conditions.

PAGE 81

69 Atomic force microscopy (AFM) Contact area increase in the wet state is attributed to changes in the mechanical properties of the pad. Consequently, surf ace mechanical properties of pad were investigated using a colloidal probe atomic fo rce microscope (AFM), where a particle is attached to AFM tip to measure pad prope rties. A Digital Instruments Dimension 3100 AFM equipped with a liquid cell adapter was used. Particle indentation into pad was used to assess pad surface mechanical properties at pH levels of 4, 9 and 10.5. It was realized that a stiff can tilever is needed to probe the surface mechanical properties of the pad. Hence a tapping mode cantilever was modified by cutting the tip area with focused ion beam (FIB) yielding a cantile ver with a stiffness of 75 N/m as compared to 30 N/m before the modification. A 7m silica particle was attached to the tip of cantil ever for measuring mechanical properties of the pad. Nanoindentation measurements were carried out using the modified AFM tip shown in Fig. 3-10. The pad surface was scanned with the colloid probe to find a relatively flat surface before indentation data was measured. Th is is expected to minimize the effect of surface asperities or roughness on the surface mechanical analysis. Typical indentation data are shown in Fig. 3-11. Only the appro aching curve is used to investigate the pad surface mechanical properties. The results from AFM are summarized in Fig. 3-12. The indentation data presented in Fig. 3-12 indicates that the pad surface mechanical response is markedly different in dry and wet systems. In dry pad case, the force on AFM probe increases with indentat ion depth at a constant pace without any change in stiffness. Whereas, for wet cases at all pH levels employed, a dramatic change in slope is observed. The indentation data is not reproducible over en tire pad surface, as

PAGE 82

70 the pad surface is not perfectly smooth due to asperities. But all the indentation data in wet state showed the stiffness change in contrast to the dry data. When the indentation data is aligned such that all curves match th e dry pad behavior, it can be seen that the pad surface is affected by the solution pH which results in different mechanical response compared to the bulk material (Fig. 3-13). The moduli of pad surf ace and bulk shown in Fig. 3-12 were estimated utilizing Hertz theo ry. The modulus of dry pad is atleast 3-5 times the pad modulus in dry state indicating pad swelling. Attached Particle Attached Particle (a) Silica particle 7 m Silica particle 7 m (b) Fig. 3-10. Colloidal probe AFM tip (a) Mo dified tapping mode cantilever, dotted line shows the region of the cantilever remove d by FIB. (b) Silica particle attached to the modified cantilever.

PAGE 83

71 Fig. 3-11. Force-distance curve indicating softer modified layer on the pad surface. The surface modification of polyuretha ne is not entirely unexpected. The polyurethane polishing pads possess both -C OCand -COOCfuncti onal groups in the main chain structure which are susceptible to hydrolytic attack [50], especially in alkaline media [50]. Disruption of hydrogen bonding is re ported for pad samples immersed in DI water for 5minutes [97]. Schematic of hydr ogen bond disruption is shown in Fig. 3-14. This hydrolytic attack can explain the pa d surface mechanical property behavior. The presence of surface modification on pa d surface or pad swelling could impact the abrasive trapping ability of the pad aspe rities along with the load transmitted to the particles during polishing depending on part icle size. The change in contact area observed in wet state indicates that depending on slurry chem istry, the pad-wafer contact area could be effected, directly influencing the material rate. Hence, when different slurry chemistries are used in a CMP process, the CMP model needs to incorporate the slurry effect not only as a modified layer on wafe r surface, but also as change in pad-wafer

PAGE 84

72 contact area and abrasive tr appability, which has not been accounted for in past CMP modeling efforts. Fig. 3-12. Force-indentation curves from AFM for different conditions. All curves are offset such that they match in the top portions to clearly show the evidence of a softer layer on pad in wet systems. (a) (b) Fig. 3-13. Schematic of pad surface as dedu ced from AFM data. (a) Dry state. (b) Wet state.

PAGE 85

73 (a) (b) Fig. 3-14. Schematic of polishing pads (a ) Structure showing hydrogen bonding between neighboring polymer molecules, (b) Water can form hydrogen bonds with polymer molecule by disrupting hydr ogen bonds between the polyurethane molecules [127]. Pad Asperity Height Distribution A quantitative understanding of the padwafer and pad-particle interface is fundamental to a comprehensive CMP model. The pad asperities are assumed to remain constant through the planarization of each wafer. It is known that the asperities involved in polishing wear out changing in height over time, wh ile the shorter asperities, those that do not come into contact with the wafer, re tain their original height. Thus the pad roughness or the asperity height distribution changes with polishing, if pad conditioning is not performed properly. The surface r oughness of pad is known to be directly proportional to the polishing rate [128-130]. Di fferent types of pads have different asperity height distributions, though they might have similar average surface roughness. In PERC I, pad asperites were assumed to be s pherical and of same si ze with pad asperity height averaged out to obtain the pad asperi ty stress, and pad-wafer contact area. This implies that the pad asperities are not only assu med to be equal in size and shape, but also of equal height. This imposes the pad to have contact spots equal in size, experiencing

PAGE 86

74 same contact pressure. Thus, all the particle s trapped in these cont act spots have same indentation into the wafer surface leading to equivalent material removal under each asperity. Thus the previous PERC model was equivalent to having a single asperity model with no effect of aspe rity height distribution. De pending on the CMP system and desired planarization criteria, different pads are used in practice. Therefore, it was considered necessary to include the asperity height distribution in the revised model (PERC II). Due to constant asperity height only an average indentation depth was derived in the previous model (PERC I) to indicate surface roughness of the polished wafer. When asperity height di stribution is used, asperities at different heights lead to different indentation depth, resulting in information about distribution of scratches (indentation depths).This data can be used to estimate the surface roughness as root mean square roughness (RMS). To incorporate the asperity distribution, Gaussian distribution of asperities is assumed, as the reported literature cites Ga ussian distribution [ 116]. The pressure at contacting asperities were calcu lated individually to estima te the indentation depth of trapped particles. Abrasive Particle Size Distribution The role of slurry in CMP is two-fold. Th e chemicals in the slurry are needed to react with wafer surface resul ting in formation of a surface layer which is amenable to enhanced material removal. The abrasives in the slurry on the other hand, remove this modified surface layer causing material removal. The effect of chemicals is attributed to surface layer of different mechanical propertie s in PERC I model. Whereas, the effect of abrasives is considered by assuming average si ze of the particles. The monosized slurry assumed in the PERC I model is an ideal cas e, since real CMP slurries are seldom

PAGE 87

75 monosized (Fig. 3-15). Oxide po lishing slurries are commonly purchased in concentrated form and diluted on-site to minimize shi pping and labor costs. Some mult-component tungsten and copper polishing slurries must be combined shortly before use because of their short postmix lifetime. The slurry stabil ity can change after it is combined with the oxidizer or due to dilution leading to polydispersity. Fig. 3-15. Particle size distri bution of silica slurry [118] Sometimes mixed abrasive slurries are used [32], which invariably exhibit polydisperse particle size distribution. To acco unt for the particle size distribution effect, PERC I model was modified to incorporat e slurry abrasives with Gaussian size distribution PERC II Model Development Conceptually, the difference between the PERC I and PERC II models can be illustrated as shown in Figs. 3-16 and 3-17. The PERC I model assumes spherical pad asperities of equal height all over the pad (Fig. 3-16a). As the slurry is assumed to be

PAGE 88

76 monosized, each asperity traps equal number of particles in CMP resulting in equal removal rate by each asperity and each particle(Fig. 3-16b). (a) (b) Fig. 3-16. Schematic of pad, slurry and wa fer in PERC I model. (a)Before contact. (b) During CMP. Whereas in the PERC II model (Fig. 3-17a ), the spherical pad asperities are assumed to have a height distribution as obser ved experimentally [116]. As the slurry is assumed to be polydisperse, each asperity trap s different number of particles of different particle sizes in CMP according to pad asper ity height and particle distribution (Fig. 317b). Thus the PERC II model includes rea listic contributions of pad and wafer characteristics compared to the PERC I model. The model formulation is detailed in the following section.

PAGE 89

77 (a) (b) Fig. 3-17. Schematic of pad, slurry and wafer in PERC II model. (a) Before contact. (b)During CMP Real contact area (Areal) between pad and wafer due to applied load (L) is given by: dz z h z NA Ah o real (3.1) dz z h z E NA Lh o 2 3 2 1 *3 4 (3.2) 2 22 z exp 2 1 z (3.3) where N is the number density of the pad asperities (i.e., number of asperities per unit area), Ao is the total area of th e flat wafer surface, and h is the distance between wafer

PAGE 90

78 surface and the pad asperity averag e plane under the given conditions. E* is the composite modulus between the two surfaces in contact, defined as w w p pE E E2 2 *1 1 1 (3.4) where, E and are the Youngs modulus and the Po issons ratio, and the subscripts p and w represent the pad and the wafer, respectiv ely. Equations (3.1) and (3.2) are derived from Hertz theory as in Greenwood-Williams on model [77, 117], yielding contact area and load at a given asperity of height z to be: Areal(z)= (z-h) (3.5) L(z)=(4/3)E*1/2(z-h)3/2 (3.6) where h is calculated from Eq. 3.2, since applied load and pad properties are known. The underlying assumption for Eq. 3.2 is that the applied normal force on the wafer is supported entirely by the pad asperities. As was mentioned previously, experimental measurements indicate that the hydrodynamic pressure is negligible under typical CMP operational conditions [69]. From equations 3.5 and 3.6, contact pressu re and contact area at a given asperity height can be calculated assuming that the pa d asperity distributi on is known. The pad asperity distribution can be determined from routin e surface roughness measurement techniques like optical and force profilomet ers or atomic force microscopy (AFM). Contact pressure according to Hertz theory, on an asperity of height z is given by: 2 1 2 1 *3 ) ( 4 ) (h z E z P (3.7)

PAGE 91

79 Plastic Deformation of Wafer Surface When an abrasive particle is indented into the wafer surface, elastic and plastic deformation of wafer and abrasive particle occur. However, in CMP, slurries are designed such that the chemistry changes th e modulus of the wafer surface for enhanced material removal. In the current model, partic les are assumed to be rigid such that they do not deform during polishing. When the indent ation of abrasive particle is beyond the modified surface layer, the substrate indenta tion could yield either elastic or plastic response depending on the substrate, for exampl e in case of silica, the deformation will still remain plastic whereas for copper, it would be elastic deformation followed by plastic deformation. Therefore, in material removal calculation, indentation into ductile wafers is not considered to cause material re moval, as it leads to change in shape only, whereas in the case of brittle material like si lica, cracks are developed leading to material removal. Slurry Characteristics Particle Size Distribution The abrasive particles in the slurry are assumed to be spherical in shape with a given size distribution (r).As mentioned earlier, particle size distribution (r) was assumed to be Gaussian, given by:2 22 exp 2 1 ) (r r rr r (3.8) where r is the mean particle radius and r the standard deviation. Material Removal by Single Particle The overall material removal rate (RR) is assumed to be the multiple of the removal rate by a single part icle and the number of par ticles trapped between pad asperities and the wafer:

PAGE 92

80 RR = (1/A0) n(r,z) RRv(r,z)drdz (3.9) where n(r,z) is the number of slurry particles an chored between pad asperity and the wafer and RRv(r,z) is the volumetric removal rate by a single particle of radius r trapped by asperity of height z. The overall removal rate, RR is typically described in terms of the thickness of the wafer surface layer removed per unit time; hence the division by the nominal wafer area Ao. Schematic illustration of single particle abra sion is given in Fig. 3-18. The material removal is viewed as a sliding-indentation process in which the volumetric removal rate by a single abrasive particle is given by RRv(r,z) = Ai(r,z)V (3.10) Where Ai(r,z) is the cross-sectional area of the particle indented into the wafer under pressure (hashed area in Fig. 3-18), and V is the relative velocity between the pad asperity and the wafer. Fig. 3-18 Schematic of single particle ab rasion showing the removal of chemically modified surface layer, (a). t ; (b). > t with soft wafer materials.[72]

PAGE 93

81 Assuming that the hard particle maintains its spherical shape, r z r a r z r r z r a z r Ai) ( arcsin ) ( ) ( ) (2 (3.11) where r,z is the indentation depth and a(r,z) is the radius of the circular indentation on the wafer surface caused by the particle of radius r trapped under asperity of height z. Because r,z is very small compared to r, a (r,z)/r is also very small and Equation 3.11 can be linearized about a(r,z) /r as already discussed: r z r O z r z r a z r Ai) ( 1 ) ( ) ( 3 4 ) ( (3.12) Furthermore, since a2(r,z)=(2r (r,z) 2(r,z)) and r,z) is much smaller than r, Equation 3.12 can be rewritten as r z r a Ai3 ) ( 2 z) (r,3 (3.13) Once the indentation depth, r,z) (or a (r,z)) is known, the vol umetric removal rate by a single particle can be calculated fr om Eq. 3.13. It should be noted that and a are dependant on particle radius a nd height of the trapping asper ity. Removal rate per particle is given by: r z r a z r RRv3 ) ( 2 ) (3 V (3.14) Depending on the relative magnitude of the indentation depth ( (r,z)) as compared to the surface layer thickness (t), the material removal may be classified into two different regimes as depi cted in Fig. 3-18: (a) (r,z) t and (b) (r,z) > t and can be calculated using force balance as follows.

PAGE 94

82 Considering that the pad is sufficiently hard as compared to the modified layer, the value of b in Fig. 3-18 can be clos e to the particle radius R, 2 / 1) ( ) ( eB z P r z r a when (r,z) t (3.15) and 2 / 1 2) ( 2 ) ( ) ( w e wB rt B B z P r z r a when (r,z) > t (3.16) where, Be is the effective Brinell hardness of the chemically modified surface layer. In the following section, the number of part icles in contact with the wafer surface is estimated to determine the overall removal rate. Number of Active Abrasive Particles When the wafer is pressed against the pad and is in sliding motion relative to the pad, the slurry particles can be entrapped only in the region where the local distance between the wafer and the pad asperity is smaller than the particle diameter, 2 R For a slurry consisting of particles with Gaussi an distribution, mean particle size (Rm) is used to calculate the number of particles that can be trapped on the pad aspe rity of height z: N(z) = 2RmAreal(z) n (3.17) where Rm is the mean abrasive particle radius and Areal(z) is the real contact area between the wafer surface and the pad asperity as given by eq. 3.5. n is the number density of the particles in the slurry (i.e., number of pa rticles per unit slurry volume), that can be calculated from the solid loading Ca (wt%) of the slurry particles as dr r r Ca s a n) ( 4 33 (3.18)

PAGE 95

83 where a and s are the densities of the particle a nd the slurry soluti on, respectively and (r) the slurry particle size distribution. Substitution of Eq. 3.18 into 3.17 gives dr r r z A C R z Na real s a m) ( ) ( 2 3 ) (3 (3.19) From eq. (3.19), the number of trapped particles of radius R is given by, n(R,z)=N(z)* (R)= dr r r r z A C Ra real s a m) ( ) ( ) ( 2 33 (3.20) Estimation of the Overall Removal Rate The overall material removal rate can be determined by following these steps: h is calculated using eq. 3.2. Contact pressure P(z) at a given asperity is calcul ated along with the real contact area Areal(z) of that asperity with wafer. Total number of particles N(z), that are trapped are determined, from which number of particles of given radii, n(r,z) are derived. From P(z), removal rate by single abrasive of radius r is calculated which is multiplied with n(r,z) to give removal ra te by that particle size. This process is repeated to account for all the particles of diffe rent radii trapped on that asperity yielding material removal rate by particles trapped on a given asperity. It should be noted that there are (z)NA0 asperities at a given height which will each contribute the same material removal.

PAGE 96

84 The above step is repeated for all the pad asperities of va rious heights that are in contact with wafer (determined by h) to give overall removal rate by the following equation: RR = (1/A0) n(r,z) RRv(r,z)drdz RR= hr real r a s a mdz dr r z r a r z z A dr r r N C VR ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (3 3 (3.21) where, a(r,z) varies as given in eqs.3. 15 and 3.16 depending on particle radius and asperity height. The indentation depth, (r,z) is used to calculate the surface roughness RMS of the polished wafer according to the following equation: n RMSn i i1 2 (3.22) where i is the indentation depth. The overall removal rate predicted by Eq. 3.21 and surface roughness given by Eq. 3.22 depend on various parameters that represent the geometry of the pad and the particle (i.e., and R ), material properties ( E*, Bw and Be), thickness ( t ) of the modified surface layer on wafer, and the relative velocity of the pad (thus the particle) to the wafer ( V ). The PERC II model will be validated with re spect to critical CMP parameters in the next chapter.

PAGE 97

85 CHAPTER 4 MODEL ASSESSMENT The parameters governing the material removal calculation consist of CMP operating parameters, slurry parameters, pad and wafer parameters, as listed in Table 4-1. However, some of these parameters, especia lly the sub-nanometer thick modified layer hardness and thickness can not be determin ed experimentally due to equipment limitations. The remaining parameters are rela tively easy to investigate experimentally for many CMP systems. Hence, modified la yer hardness and thickne ss are used as the fitting parameters in the model. Table 4-1. Parameters incl uded in the revised PERC model. Model Validation In this section, PERC II model predictions are compared with experimentally measured values to assess the reliability of the proposed CMP model. The experimental literature data is also compared with PERC I predictions to assess the advantage of PERC II over PERC I. Though PERC II is a refined model compared to PERC I, the model is still a simplified version of real CMP, mainly in estimating the number of trapped Operating Parameters Pressure Velocity Slurry parameters Particle size distribution Solids loading Abrasive density Solvent density Pad properties Pad modulus Asperity height distribution Asperity radius Asperity density Wafer properties Modified layer thickness Modified layer hardness Wafer hardness

PAGE 98

86 particles and indentation dept h considering an abrupt tran sition between modified layer and wafer substrate. The removal rate values for both models are normalized by a constant to have reasonable modified layer thickness values. Surface roughness data is as produced by the models without any normalizi ng factor. The size distribution of slurries given in the respective literature are fit to the closest Gaussian distribution, which is used in the model. Silica CMP: Micron Sized Slurries The polishing results of silica by silica abra sives as reported by Choi et al. [131] are considered here. Micron sized CMP slurri es were formulated by dispersing sol-gel silica particles of different sizes from Ge ltech Corporation in deionized water and adjusting pH values to 10.5. The average diamet er of the slurry particles were 0.2, 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 m. The size distribution of the slurries is plotted in Fig. 4-1. A 2 m thick silica layer was deposited on p-type silic on wafer by plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition. 1.5 x 1.5 in silica samples were used to mimic the wafers. A Struers RotoPol31 tabletop polisher was used with IC 1000/Suba IV stacked pad. The following conditions were applied: down pressure of 3. 5 psi, slurry flow rate of 100 ml/min, and rotation speed of 150 rpm (110 cm/s). The pol ishing rates were determined by measuring oxide film thickness using variable angle sp ectrometry ellipsometry and surface quality was assessed by atomic force microscopy (AFM). The polishing rate was investigated as a function of particle size and solids loading. The removal rate decreased with increasing pa rticle size (Fig. 4-2). The parameters used are: wafer Hardness=8 GPa, modified la yer Hardness = 450 MPa, modified layer thickness = 7.2 and Normalization factor = 100. The PERC II model correlates well

PAGE 99

87 with the experimental values than the PERC I model. The reported literature belongs to the substrate indentation regime. The model pr ojects that enhanced removal rate can be obtained by using smaller sized slurries The surface roughness on the other hand, increases with particle size on an average for all the slurries consid ered (Fig. 4-2b). This is not surprising as the larger size particles have deeper indentati on depths increasing surface roughness. Both the models predict the average trend in surface roughness with increasing particle size. Fig. 4-1. Slurries used in oxide polishing [131]. Silica CMP: Nanosilica slurries The slurry sizes in the earlie r study spanned from 0.2 to 1.5 m, which is well above the normal slurry size range (<300 nm). Considering the nanosize slurries of 50150nm mean particle sizes, CMP behavior of silica polis hing by silica abrasives is investigated further [116]. Slurries with mean particle diameters of 50, 80, 110 and 140nm were used to polish 100mm diameter, p-type polished silicon wafers that contained a thickness of 1.3 m thermally grown oxide. The silica particles were

PAGE 100

88 precipitated from a collo idal solution. The polishing was done at three different levels of pressure and relative pad-wafer velocities : 18kPa, 0.4m/s; 32kPa 0.6m/s; and 45kPa, 0.9m/s. The parameters used in the model are: wafer Hardness=8 GPa, modified layer Hardness = 250 MPa, and modified layer thic kness = 9.3 The removal rates for the given set of pressure and velocity with differe nt particle sizes is s hown in Fig. 4-3. The material removal rates with slurry mean sizes of 10 and 20nm were ignored, as the authors [116] noticed considerable particle staining on the polishe d surfaces indicating agglomeration. The PERC II model corresponds with the experimental results better than the previous PERC I model. Each set of mode led removal rates for given pressure and velocity were normalized individually w ith normalizing factor ranging from 185-200. The discrepancy in the removal rate at particle size 50nm between experimentally observed values and modeled values can be attributed to agglomeration, which is suggested by the authors for that size [116]. (a) Fig. 4-2. Silica polishing by sl urries in the micron range. (a) Removal rate. (b) Surface quality

PAGE 101

89 (b) Fig. 4-2. Continued. Fig. 4-3. Silica polishing by colloidal nanosilica. The surface roughness of wafers polished wa s reported to be 6 on an average. The PERC II model predicts the surface roughness to be from 5.8 6.2 which is in good agreement with the experimental result s. The PERC I model predicts an average indentation depth of 5.5 to 6 wh ich is also in good correlation.

PAGE 102

90 As the model correlated well with th e micron and submicron sized slurries, nanosized slurries in the low-end regime ( 10-100nm) are considered further. Colloidal particles of size 12, 25,45, 75nm were used to polish thermal oxide (silica) wafers with potassium iodate (KIO3) in the slurry [118]. The remova l rate was reported to increase with particle size, r each an optimum and then decrease wi th particle size (Fig. 4-4). The parameters used are: wafer Hardness=8 GPa, modified layer Hardness = 200 MPa, modified layer thickness = 5.1 and No rmalizing factor=330. The PERC I model predicts the removal rate to remain consta nt with particle size, whereas the PERC II model predicts the optimal particle size at which enhanced material removal can take place. The surface roughness predicted is higher than the reported values. (a) Fig. 4-4. Silica polishing by nanosized slur ries. (a) Removal rate. (b) Surface quality.

PAGE 103

91 (b) Fig. 4-4. Continued. Copper CMP As the model is found to correlate well w ith the brittle wafer polishing, metal CMP process is now considered to review the comprehensive nature of the model. Copper wafers were polished with particles of size 100, 200 and 300 nm [132]. The chemicals used were 5 wt% H2O2 and 1 wt% glycine with pH adjusted to pH 4. The parameters used are: wafer Hardne ss=1.75 GPa, modified layer Hardness = 300 MPa, modified layer thickness = 15 a nd Normalizing factor=7. The PERC I model predicts removal rate independe nt of particle size, while th e PERC II correlates well with the observed values (Fig. 4-5). The opposing trend of surface roughness between experimental and observed values is surpri sing. The discrepancy in surface quality predictions could indicate pr esence of few bigger sized part icles or agglomeration which can result in high surf ace roughness than predicted [125] The presence of larger size particles or slurry agglomeration, is however not mentioned by the authors.

PAGE 104

92 Tungsten CMP Bielman et al., [133] have conducted CMP of tungsten with alumina slurries of size distributions shown in Fig. 4-6. The slurry contained K3Fe(CN)6 as the chemical additive with pH adjusted to pH 3. The rem oval rate at 15wt% solids loading is shown in Fig. 4-7. The parameters used are: wafer Hardness=6.5 GPa, modified layer Hardness = 1.5 GPa, modified layer thickness = 9 a nd normalization factor = 23. The PERC II model correlates well with the experimental removal rate values compared to the PERC I model (Fig. 4-7a). The surface roughness valu es predicted by PERC I and II are both higher compared to the observed values, but the surface roughness trend with particle size matches very well. 0 100 200 300 400 500 50100150200250300350400 Mean Particle size (nm)Removal Rate (nm/min) Experimental PERC II Model PERC I Model (a) Fig. 4-5 Copper CMP as a function of particle size. (a) Removal rate, (b) Surface quality.

PAGE 105

93 (b) Fig. 4-5 Continued. Fig. 4-6. Alumina slurry size distributions [133].

PAGE 106

94 0 200 400 600 800 1000 05001000150020002500 Mean Particle Size (nm)Removal Rate (nm/mi Experimental PERC II Model PERC I Model (a) 0 5 10 15 20 25 05001000150020002500 Mean Particle Size (nm)Surface Quality (Angstroms) Experimental PERC II Model PERC I Model (b) Fig. 4-7. Effect of particle size on tungst en CMP. (a) Removal rate, (b) Surface quality. Model Predictions The better match of PERC II model predictions than the PERC I model indicates that the refinements made to the PERC I model assumptions are indeed significant and add to the predictive capability of the model. In the following sections, predictive capability of PERC II model is explored, comparing with the PERC I model. The

PAGE 107

95 enhanced performance of the proposed m odel (PERC II) is compared with PERC I predictions considering the case of a brittle wafer as in Silica CMP. The parameters used for comparison are listed in Table 4-2. Table 4-2. Parameter values used for comparing PERC I and II models. Pad modulus 60 MPa Pad asperity density 2 x 108/m2 Mean pad asperity radius 50 m Pad asperity height distribution 6.7 m Pressure 6.5 psi Velocity 1 m/s Particle size 200 nm Particle size distribution r 16 nm Abrasive density 2.2 gm/cc Solids loading 10 wt% Wafer hardness 8 GPa Layer hardness 600 MPa Layer thickness 10 Removal Rate as a Function of Partic le Size for a Given Solids Loading: The comparison of the two models with varyin g particle size is shown in Fig. 4-8. As discussed earlier (in chapter 3), materi al removal rate as per PERC I model is independent of particle size. The PERC II model, however, predicts an increase in removal rate with particle size during modified layer re moval, and as the particle indentation proceeds into wafer substrate, the removal rate decr eases smoothly with particle size, as also observed experimentally. Decrease in re moval rate with particle size in wafer indentation is caused by the substr ate being harder compared to the modified layer. The PERC II model differs with the PERC I model mainly in estimation of the modified layer removal and transition regi mes and not considerably in the substrate removal regime. The smooth transition from mo dified layer removal regime to substrate removal regime is attributed by inclusion of pad asperity distribution into the model. Whereas, the removal rate increase with par ticle size in the modified layer removal

PAGE 108

96 regime is due to the inclusion of slurry pa rticle size distribution and strongly depends on it. Fig. 4-8. Comparison between PERC I and PERC II models with constant solids loading of different particle sizes. (a) Removal rate. (b) Surface roughness. The other feature of the PERC II model is the estimation of surface quality as root mean square surface roughness and maximum scratch depth. The PERC I model on the other hand, gave an estimation of surface roughness through average indentation depth. 0 100 200 300 400 500 0100200300400500 Mean Particle Size (nm)Removal Rate (nm/min ) PERC II Model PERC I Model (a) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0100200300400500 Mean Particle Size (nm)Surface Roughness RMS (Angstroms) PERC II Model PERC I Model ( b )

PAGE 109

97 The PERC II model, however gives the scra tch (indentation) depth under each contacting pad-asperity due to each trapped particle size. This information is used in calculation of the surface roughness (RMS) as de scribed in the previous chapter. The PERC I model yielded an average scratch depth whose de pendence on particle size suddenly changed when the particle was large enough to indent pa st the modified layer into the substrate. PERC II also reveals that particle indentation into the substrate takes place at a smaller mean particle size as compared to that predicted by PERC I model. This is expected, as some of the larger partic les in the slurry indent into the substrate, while most others indent into the modified layer alone keeping the average particle size lower. Indentation in to the wafer substrate below the modified layer is not a desirable feature, as it negates the purpose of CMP. But, as long as the substrate removal is minimal with low indentation depths, it can be tolerated. Effect of Modified Layer Thickness The chemical reaction between slurry chemicals and wafer surface leads to the modified layer, whose thickness and mechani cal properties are strongly dependent on the type of chemicals present in the slurry. The thickness of the modified layer in an optimized CMP process should be such that the particle indents completely into the modified layer and not into th e substrate below. However, in a slurry with particles of various sizes, not all particle sizes can indent/remove the entire modified layer. From Figs. 4-9 a and b, the transition from modifi ed layer to substrate indentation regime occurs around 8 which corresponds to 200nm pa rticle size. Therefore, as the modified layer thickness decreases below 8 keeping a ll the other parameters constant, the slurry particles indent into the substrate and the removal rate decreases. Whereas, when the modified layer thickness increases beyond 8 the indentation becomes more and more

PAGE 110

98 limited to modified layer alone. Thus, after a critical thickness, the removal rate remains constant, even if the modified layer thickness increases. This indicates that the chemical aggressiveness of the slurry should not focu s on forming a thicker layer, but on forming modified layer faster of desired thickness. 0 100 200 300 400 500 05101520 Modified Layer Thickness (Angstroms)Removal Rate (nm/min ) PERC II Model PERC I Model (a) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 05101520 Modified Layer Thickness (Angstroms)Surface Roughness RMS (Angstroms) PERC II Model PERC I Model (b) Fig. 4-9. Model comparison with varying modi fied layer thickness. (a) Removal rate, (b) Surface quality.

PAGE 111

99 Effect of Modified Layer Hardness As the modified layer hardness increases, less and less indentation of the particles take place, resulting in lower material removal rates (Fig.s 4-10 a and b). Thus, if there is no surface modification due to slurry chemicals in silica, minimal removal rate will be observed. As 200nm particle was in the transi tion region, with incr easing modified layer hardness, most of the particles indent onl y the modified layer. The transition from modified layer to substrate indentation is depicted more clea rly by the PERC II model than by the abrupt transition predicted by the PERC I model. Combining the model predictions and valid ation of metallic and dielectric CMP systems, the PERC II model can be used as a CMP parameter selection guide for emerging CMP systems and to optimize the current CMP processes. The fitting parameters, modified layer hardness and thicknes s are in the range of expected values for the respective CMP systems. The thickness of the modified layer determines the optimal particle size predicted, whereas the modifi ed layer hardness in comparison to wafer hardness determines the sharp decrease in re moval rate after transition from modified layer to substrate removal. The increase in re moval rate with particle size in the modified layer removal regime is influenced solely by the abrasive particle size distribution. The normalizing factor is found to be sp ecific to the CMP system and strongly dependent on the toolset used. The normalizing values of 185-200 for three sets of pressure and velocities used in silica CMP by nanosilica slurries [116], indicate that the normalizing value is influenced strongly by th e toolset used. This is expected, as the ability of pad to trap the pa rticles is strongly dependent on the toolset configuration. The normalizing factor is also e xpected to depend on type of wafer being polished and the slurry used. For example, if pa rticles are attracted to wafer due to electrostatic attraction,

PAGE 112

100 the number of trapped particles will be mu ch less compared to the system, where particles are repelled by the wafer surface charge. The next chapter summarizes the findings in this study and future work is s uggested based on the insights obtained through the study. 0 250 500 750 1000 00.250.50.751 Modified Layer Hardness (GPa)Removal Rate (nm/min ) PERC II Model PERC I Model (a) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 00.250.50.751 Modified Layer Hardness (GPa)Surface Roughness RMS (Angstroms) PERC II Model PERC I Model (b) Fig. 4-10. CMP performance comparison with varying modified layer hardness. (a) Removal rate, (b) Surface quality.

PAGE 113

101 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK The device shrinkage in microelectro nics industry nece ssitates chemical mechanical polishing and continues to de mand stringent performance of CMP. The material removal mechanism needs to be unders tood with the relative contributions from particle-wafer, pad-wafer, a nd pad-particle interfaces and the reaction of slurry with wafer and pad materials. In this study, a mode l is developed to predict process parameters for designing an optimal CMP process. Most of the CMP modeling efforts concentr ated mainly on explaining the Prestons equation. Therefore, most of them were focu sed on product of pressure and velocity (PV) as the operating parameter and not on other important parameters like slurry and pad variables. The PERC II model is devel oped based on PERC I model [72]. The assumptions in PERC I model were refined to include particle size distribution of slurry and pad asperity height dist ribution. Though recently a model developed by Luo [27] incorporated particle size di stribution, part of the distri bution was neglected and hence doesnt incorporate the proce ss variables appropriately. The pad-wafer contact area dependence on applied load is generally assumed in many CMP models with no basis of a systematic study. The material removal rate is directly proportional to the pad-wafer cont act area. Therefore, the magnitude of pad contact area is significant in modeling the process. The earlier studi es focused on contact area in dry state and the results reported were not consistent. The contact area was investigated in dry and wet states in the current study. Contact area in dry state was

PAGE 114

102 studied using optical microscopy. The change in contact area due to presence of aqueous environment and different pH conditions is i nvestigated using Fourie r transform infrared spectroscopy. The contact area was found to be 2-3 times the contact area in dry state. The pad surface mechanical properties were al so investigated at different pH conditions using Atomic force microscopy. The slurry was found to react with pad surface layer (~50nm thick), modifying its mechanical prope rties. Both the padwafer contact area and contact stresses are strongly dependent on pad asperity height distri bution. To incorporate the effects of contact area and contact stresse s, Gaussian asperity height distribution of asperities is incorporated into the PERC II model. The slurry used in commercial CMP is se ldom monosized. The size distribution of the particles can strongly aff ect the process. Hence, the slurry abrasive sizes were assumed to be Gaussian in distribution were incorporated into the PERC II model. The developed model correlates well with expe rimental data for oxide and metal CMP systems. The model can be used as a sele ction tool for choosin g the proper parameter values optimizing the CMP process. For optimizat ion of the process, a sensitivity analysis can be performed to narrow down the parame ters that are of utmost importance. An example is shown here of silica CMP system with the parameter ranges shown in table 51. SOBOL analysis was performed with 4608 data sets (using SimLab software) assuming particle size distributi on to be Gaussian with stan dard deviation equal to the one-fourth the mean particle size. The result s revealing the first order and interaction effects of parameters on removal rate are s hown in Fig. 5-1. The sensitivity analysis indicates that the particle size has the signifi cant effect on removal ra te compared to all the other parameters. The particle size dete rmines if the material removal will be in

PAGE 115

103 modified layer regime or will extend to s ubstrate indentation regime. Depending on the indentation regime, the hardness of the ma terial being removed strongly effects the material removal. Table 5-1. Process parameter ranges used in sensitivity analysis. Factor Limits Pressure 2-8 psi Mean Particle Size 10-500 nm Asperity Radius 20-100 m Asperity Height S.D 1-20 m Asperity Density 0.0220 x 109/m2 Pad Modulus 20-200 MPa Modified Layer Hardness 200-500 MPa Modified Layer Thickness 5-10 Fig. 5-1. Sensitivity analysis of silica CMP system. The reported findings in this study pr ovide insight into the fundamental understanding of the polishing mechanism and can give guidelines for optimizing any given CMP system.

PAGE 116

104 Suggestions for Future Work The insight provided by the current study in to the CMP process in general can be used to conduct further studies to bett er understand the process from various perspectives. The study focuses on slurry with ri gid abrasive particles. With the advent of low-k dielectric polishing, so fter abrasives are being us ed. Inclusion of non-rigid abrasives into the model will facilitate better exploitation of the process potential and faster adaptation of emerging CMP systems to the industry requirements. Recently, many commercial slurries are de signed with surfactants or particle surface modification for slurry stability. Add ition of these extra factors can significantly effect the CMP process. For example, it is shown by Basim [125] that polishing performance is degraded with addition of certain surfactant cocentration to the slurry. These steric effects or electro static effects due to ionic sp ecies in the slurry should be included in the model for comprehensiv e understanding of the effects involved. Similarly, effects of pH and ionic speci es on CMP processes [134-137] can also be included. The current model assumes that there are no stresses involved in the wafer, which could affect the CMP process. But, it has b een shown by McGarth et al. [138] that if the stresses induced in the wafer due to mate rial deposition and ot her processes are not relieved, the CMP process could be affected Inclusion of such a stressed wafer could help in understanding the e ffect of deposition process on CMP process performance. One of the experimental challenges faced in this study was the measurement of the modified layer properties. Nanoindentation and AFM were used to investigate the modified layer on the silica and copper surfaces. But, the instruments were not sensitive

PAGE 117

105 enough to detect the modified layer propertie s quantitatively. It is suggested that a diamond tipped AFM cantilever with a narrow ne edle type tip be used to sense the modified layer properties, wit hout any interference from the substrate. This data can be used to incorporate gradual transition between modified layer and substrate compared to the abrupt transition employed now. The current model assumes formation of a modified layer on the wafer surface which is critical in material removal pro cess. Based on the AFM data of pad surface, even a modified layer on the pad can be a ssumed to assess the trapping capability of abrasives and load transmittal of pad onto the wafer through the abrasives. Developing a model including such a layer on pad will re sult in better predictive capability when different slurry chemicals are used that effect pad properties. The model developed shows predictive capability in the particle scale. Therefore, it can be extended to die and wafer scales to predict the topogr aphy evolution during polishing. Such a model extension would also involve including the se lectivity aspect of the CMP slurry, dishing and erosion.

PAGE 118

106 LIST OF REFERENCES [1] Chang, C.Y., Sze, S. M., ULSI technology. New York: McGraw-Hill 1996. [2] News, E., "IBM, AMD to jointly de velop 65nm, 45nm chip processes." 2003, http://www.reed-electronics.com/e lectronicnews/article/CA269292.html August2005. [3] Ryan, J.G., Geffken, R. M., Poulin, J. R., Paraszczak, J.R., "The evolution of interconnection technology at IBM." IBM Journal of Research and Development 39(4): p. 371, 1995. [4] Borst, C.L., D.G. Thakurta, W.N. Gill, and R.J. Gutmann, "Chemical-mechanical planarization of low-k polymers for advanced IC structures." Journal of Electronic Packaging 124(4): p. 362-366, 2002. [5] Bates, A.K., Rothschild, M., Blomstein, T. M., Fedynyshyn, T. H., Kunz, R. R., Liberman, V., Switkes, M., "Review of technology for 157nm lithography." IBM Journal of Research and Development 45: p. 605, 2001. [6] Fay, B., "Advanced optical lithograp hy development, from UV to EUV." Microelectronic Engineering 61-62: p. 11-24, 2002. [7] Michel, B., A. Bernard, A. Bietsch, E. Delamarche, M. Geissler, D. Juncker, H. Kind, J.P. Renault, H. Rothuizen, H. Schmid, P. Schmidt-Winkel, R. Stutz, and H. Wolf, "Printing meets lithography: soft a pproaches to high-re solution printing." IBM Journal of Research and Development 45(5): p. 697-719, 2001. [8] Wolf, S., Tauber, R., Silicon processing for VLSI era. New York: McGraw Hill 1991. [9] Murarka, S.P., Metallization: Theory and practice for VLSI and ULSI. Stoneham, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann 1993. [10] Zantye, P.B., A. Kumar, and A.K. Sikde r, "Chemical mechanical planarization for microelectronics applications." Materials Science & E ngineering, R: Reports R45(3-6): p. 89-220, 2004. [11] Lee, J.A., Moinpour, M., Liou, H.-C., Abell, T. "Integration challenges for chemical mechanical polishing of cu/low-k interconnects." in Materials Research Society Proceedings San Francisco 2003. [12] ITRS, 2001, http://pub lic.itrs.net, August 2005.

PAGE 119

107 [13] Wolters, P., "Multi-l evel metallization." 2000, http://www.peterwolters.com/cmp/cmpmultilevel.htm August2005, [14] Shon-Roy, L., "Integrated circu it engineering cor poration handbook." 1998, http://smithsonianchips.si.e du/ice/cd/STATUS98/TOFC.PDF August 2005. [15] komatsu, "History of the company." 2003, http://www.komsil.co.jp/en/office/hist.htm August2005, [16] Sematech, "Sematech history." 2004, http://www.sematech.org/corporate/history.htm August2005, [17] Oliver, M.R., "Cmp technology." Springer Series in Materials Science 69(Chemical-Mechanical Planarization of Semiconductor Materials): p. 7-40, 2004. [18] Cooperman, S.S., A.I. Nasr, and G.J. Grula, "Optimization of a shallow trench isolation process for im proved planarization." Journal of the Electrochemical Society 142(9): p. 3180-5, 1995. [19] Steigerwald, J.M., Shyam, P., Gu tmann, M., Gutmann, R. J., Chemical mechanical planarization of microelectronic materials. New York: Wiley 1997. [20] Singh, R.K. and R. Bajaj, "Advances in chemical-mechanical planarization." MRS Bulletin 27(10): p. 743-747, 2002. [21] Patrick, W.J., W.L. Guthrie, C.L. St andley, and P.M. Schiable, "Application of chemical mechanical polishing to the fabrication of VLSI circuit interconnections." Journal of the Electrochemical Society 138(6): p. 1778-84, 1991. [22] Guthrie, W.L., W.J. Patrick, E. Levi ne, H.C. Jones, E.A. Mehter, T.F. Houghton, G.T. Chiu, and M.A. Mury, "A four-level vlsi bipolar metalization design with chemical-mechanical planarization." IBM Journal of Research and Development 36(5): p. 845-57, 1992. [23] Tsai, T.-H., Y.-F. Wu, and S.-C. Yen, "A study of copper chemical mechanical polishing in urea-hydrogen peroxide sl urry by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy." Applied Surface Science 214(1-4): p. 120-135, 2003. [24] Cook, L.M., "Chemical pr ocesses in glass polishing." Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids 120(1-3): p. 152-71, 1990. [25] Vijayakumar, A., T. Du, K.B. Sundaram, and V. Desai, "Polishing mechanism of tantalum films by sio2 particles." Microelectronic Engineering 70(1): p. 93-101, 2003.

PAGE 120

108 [26] Kourouklis, C., T. Kohlmeier, and H.H. Gatzen, "The application of chemicalmechanical polishing for planarizing a su -8/permalloy combination used in mems devices." Sensors and Actuators, A: Physical A106(1-3): p. 263-266, 2003. [27] Luo, J.F. and D.A. Dornfeld, "M aterial removal mechanism in chemical mechanical polishing: Theory and modeling." IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing 14(2): p. 112-133, 2001. [28] Kondo, S., N. Sakuma, Y. Homma, Y. Goto, N. Ohas hi, H. Yamaguchi, and N. Owada, "Abrasive-free polishing for copper damascene interconnection." Journal of the Electrochemical Society 147(10): p. 3907-3913, 2000. [29] Hanazono, M., J. Amanokura, and Y. Kamigata, "Development and application of an abrasive-free polishing solution for copper." MRS Bulletin 27(10): p. 772-775, 2002. [30] Kim, S.-Y., K.-J. Lee, and Y.-J. Seo, "In-situ end point dete ction of the sti-cmp process using a high se lectivity slurry." Microelectronic Engineering 66(1-4): p. 463-471, 2003. [31] Jindal, A., S. Hegde, and S.V. Babu, "C hemical mechanical polishing of dielectric films using mixed abrasive slurries." Journal of the Elect rochemical Society 150(5): p. G314-G318, 2003. [32] Jindal, A., S. Hegde, and S.V. Ba bu, "Chemical mechanical polishing using mixed abrasive slurries." Electrochemical and Solid-State Letters 5(7): p. G48G50, 2002. [33] Anon, "End point detection of mate rial removal in polishing processes." Research Disclosure 322: p. 102, 1991. [34] Fukuroda, A., K. Nakamura, and Y. Ar imoto, "In situ cmp monitoring technique for multi-layer interconnection." Technical Digest In ternational Electron Devices Meeting : p. 469-472, 1995. [35] Tucker, T., "Equipment used in cmp processes." Springer Series in Materials Science 69(Chemical-Mechanical Planarization of Semiconductor Materials): p. 133-165, 2004. [36] Sainio, C.A., D.J. Duquette, J. Steigerw ald, and S.P. Murarka, "Electrochemical effects in the chemical-mechanical polishi ng of copper for integrated circuits." Journal of Electronic Materials 25(10): p. 1593-1598, 1996. [37] Kaufman, F.B., D.B. Thompson, R.E. Broadie, M.A. Jaso, W.L. Guthrie, D.J. Pearson, and M.B. Small, "Chemical-mechanical polishing for fabricating patterned tungsten metal features as chip interconnects." Journal of the Electrochemical Society 138(11): p. 3460-5, 1991.

PAGE 121

109 [38] Li, S.H., R.O. Miller, and Editors, "Chemical mechanical polishing in silicon processing. [in: Semicond. Semimetals, 2000; 63]." 307 pp., 2000. [39] Tsai, T.-H. and S.-C. Yen, "Localiz ed corrosion effects and modifications of acidic and alkaline slurries on coppe r chemical mechanical polishing." Applied Surface Science 210(3-4): p. 190-205, 2003. [40] Iler, J., The chemistry of silica. New York: Wiley 1979. [41] Basim, G.B. and B.M. Moudgil, "Eff ect of soft agglomerates on cmp slurry performance." Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 256(1): p. 137-142, 2002. [42] Singh, P.K., "Dispersion of nanopart iculate suspensions using self-assembled surfactant aggregates.", in Materials Science and Engineering 2002, University of Florida: Gainesville, FL. [43] Kim, J., U. Paik, Y.-G. Jung, T. Kat oh, and J.-G. Park, "The stability of nano fumed silica particles and its influence on chemical mechanical planarization for interlayer dielectrics." Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Part 1: Regular Papers, Short Notes and Review Papers 41(7A): p. 4509-4512, 2002. [44] James, D.B., "Cmp polishing pads." Springer Series in Materials Science 69(Chemical-Mechanical Planarization of Semiconductor Materials): p. 167-213, 2004. [45] Philipossian, A. and S. Olsen, "Effect of pad surface texture and slurry abrasive concentration on tribological and kinetic attributes of ild cmp." Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings 767(Chemical-Mechanical Planarization): p. 119-125, 2003. [46] Krishnashree, A., "Evaluation a nd characterization of polyurethance cmp polishing pads." 1998, Clarkson University: Postdam, NY. [47] Li, I., K.M. Forsthoefel, K.A. Rich ardson, Y.S. Obeng, W.G. Easter, and A. Maury, "Dynamic mechanical analysis (dma) of cmp pad materials." Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings 613(Chemical-Mechanical Polishing 2000: Fundamentals and Materials Issues): p. E7.3.1-E7.3.10, 2001. [48] Lu, H., Y. Obeng, and K.A. Richar dson, "Applicability of dynamic mechanical analysis for cmp polyurethane pad studies." Materials Characterization 49(2): p. 177-186, 2002. [49] Lawing, A.S. "Pad conditioning a nd pad surface characterization in oxide chemical mechanical polishing." in Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings 2002. [50] Hepburn, C., Polyurethane elastomers. London: Applied Science 1982.

PAGE 122

110 [51] Zantye, P., S. Mudhivart hi, A.K. Sikder, A. Kumar, S. Ostapenko, and J. Harmon, "Investigation of mechanical integrity and its effect on polishing for novel polyurethane polishing pad." Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings 816(Advances in Chemical-Mechani cal Polishing): p. 113-118, 2004. [52] Belyaev, A., F. Diaz, W. Moreno, S. Os tapenko, F. Pachano, I. Tarasov, and D. Totzke, "Non-destructive evaluation of cmp pads using scanning ultrasonic technique." Proceedings Electrochemical Society 2000-26(Chemical Mechanical Planarizatio n IV): p. 94-101, 2001. [53] Mark, L., "Renesas to expand 300-mm fab in 90-, 65-nm push", 2004, http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/show Article.jhtml;jsessionid=IVTYDZ14NN JYUQSNDBCCKHSCJUMEKJVN?articleID=22101707 August2005, [54] Preston, F.W., "The theory and de sign of plate-glass polishing machines." Journal of the Society of Glass Technology 11: p. 214-56, 1927. [55] Moon, Y., "Mechanical as pects of the material rem oval mechanism in chemical mechanical polishing (cmp)." 1999, Univ ersity of California at Berkeley: Berkeley. [56] Pohl, M.C., Griffiths, D.A., "The impor tance of particle si ze to the performance of abrasive particles in the cmp process." Journal of Electronic Materials 25(10): p. 1612-1616, 1996. [57] Sundararajan, S., D.G. Thakurta, D.W. Schwendeman, S.P. Murarka, and W.N. Gill, "Two-dimensional wafer-scale chemical mechanical planarization models based on lubrication theory and mass transport." Journal of the Electrochemical Society 146(2): p. 761-766, 1999. [58] Thakurta, D.G., C.L. Borst, D.W. Sc hwendeman, R.J. Gutmann, and W.N. Gill, "Three-dimensional chemical mechanical planarization slurry flow model based on lubrication theory." Journal of the Electrochemical Society 148(4): p. G207G214, 2001. [59] Cho, C.H., Park, S.S., Ahn, Y., "Three-dimensional wafer scale hydrodynamic modeling for chemical mechanical polishing." Thin Solid Films 389: p. 254-260, 2001. [60] Subramanian, R.S., Zhang, L., Babu, S.V., "Transport phenomena in chemical mechanical polishing." Journal of The Electrochemical Society 146(11): p. 42634272, 1999. [61] Runnels, S.R., Miceli, F., Kim, I., "Va lidation of a large area three-dimensional erosion simulator for chemical mechanical polishing." Journal of The Electrochemical Society 146(12): p. 4619-4625, 1999.

PAGE 123

111 [62] Borst, C.L., D.G. Thakurta, W.N. Gill, and R.J. Gutmann, "Surface kinetics model for silk chemical mechanical polishing." Journal of the Electrochemical Society 149(2): p. G118-G127, 2002. [63] Yu, T.K., Yu, C. C., and Orlowski, M. "A statistical polishing pad model for chemical-mechanical polishing." in Proceedings of the 1993 IEEE International Electronic Devices Meeting 1994. [64] Zhao, Y.W. and L. Chang, "A micr o-contact and wear model for chemicalmechanical polishing of silicon wafers." Wear 252(3-4): p. 220-226, 2002. [65] Seok, J., C.P. Sukam, A.T. Kim, J.A. Tichy, and T.S. Cale, "Multiscale material removal modeling of chemical mechanical polishing." Wear 254(3-4): p. 307320, 2003. [66] Shi, F.G., Zhao, B., "Modeling of chem ical-mechanical polishing with soft pads." Applied Physics A-Materi als Science and Processing 67(2): p. 249-252, 1998. [67] Zhao, B., Shi, F.G., "Chemical mech anical polishing: Threshold pressure and mechanism." Electrochemical and Solid State Letters 2(3): p. 145-147, 1999. [68] Bastawros, A., A. Chandra, Y. Guo, and B. Yan, "Pad effects on material-removal rate in chemical-mechanical planarization." Journal of Electronic Materials 31(10): p. 1022-1031, 2002. [69] Seok, J., A.T. Kim, C.P. Sukam, A. Ji ndal, J.A. Tichy, R.J. Gutmann, and T.S. Cole, "Inverse analysis of material removal data using a multiscale cmp model." Microelectronic Engineering 70(2-4): p. 478-488, 2003. [70] Larsen-Basse, J., Liang, H., "Probabl e role of abrasion in chemo-mechanical polishing of tungsten." Wear 233-235: p. 647-654, 1999. [71] Trogolo, J.A., Rajan, K., "Near surfac e modification of silica structure induced by chemical/mechanical polishing." Journal of Materials Science 29: p. 4554-4558, 1994. [72] Qin, K., "Multi-scale modeling of the slurry flow and the material removal in chemical mechanical polishing.", in Chemical Engineering 2003, University of Florida: Gainesville. [73] Venkatesh, V.C., S. Izman, and S.C. Mahadevan, "Electro-chemical mechanical polishing of copper and chemical mechanical polishing of glass." Journal of Materials Processing Technology 149(1-3): p. 493-498, 2004. [74] Maury, D., Ouma, D., Boning, D., Chung, J. "A modification to preston's equation and impact on pattern density effect modeling." in Advanced Metallization and Interconnect Sy stems for ULSI Applications 1997.

PAGE 124

112 [75] Wrschka, P., J. Hernandez, Y. Hsu, T. S. Kuan, G.S. Oehrlein, H.J. Sun, D.A. Hansen, J. King, and M.A. Fury, "Po lishing parameter dependencies and surface oxidation of chemical mechanical polishing of al thin films." Journal of the Electrochemical Society 146(7): p. 2689-2696, 1999. [76] Brown, N.J., P.C. Baker, and R.T. Maney, "Optical polishing of metals." Proceedings of SPIE-The International Society for Optical Engineering 306: p. 42-57, 1981. [77] Johnson, K.L., Contact mechanics. Ca mridge: Cambridge University Press 1985. [78] Liu, C.-W., B.-T. Dai, W.-T. Tseng, and C.-F. Yeh, "Modeling of the wear mechanism during chemical-mechanical polishing." Journal of the Electrochemical Society 143(2): p. 716-21, 1996. [79] Runnels, S.R., "Feature-scale flui d-based erosion modeling for chemicalmechanical polishing." Journal of the Electrochemical Society 141(7): p. 1900-4, 1994. [80] Runnels, S.R. and L.M. Eyman, "T ribology analysis of chemical-mechanical polishing." Journal of the Electrochemical Society 141(6): p. 1698-701, 1994. [81] Runnels, S.R. and P. Renteln, "Mode ling the effect of polish pad deformation on wafer surface stress distributions during chemical-mechanical polishing." Proceedings Electrochemical Society 93-25(Interconnects, Contact Metallization, and Multil evel Metallization/Reli ability for Semiconductor Devices, Interconnects, and Thin Insu lator Materials): p. 110-21, 1993. [82] Tseng, W.-T. and Y.-L. Wang, "Re-examination of pressure and speed dependences of removal rate during ch emical-mechanical polishing processes." Journal of the Elect rochemical Society 144(2): p. L15-L17, 1997. [83] Zhang, F. and A. Busnaina, "The role of particle adhesion and surface deformation in chemical mech anical polishing processes." Electrochemical and Solid-State Letters 1(4): p. 184-187, 1998. [84] Zhang, F., A.A. Busnaina, and G. Ah madi, "Particle adhesion and removal in chemical mechanical polishing and post-cmp cleaning." Journal of the Electrochemical Society 146(7): p. 2665-2669, 1999. [85] Ahmadi, G. and X. Xia, "A model for mechanical wear and abrasive particle adhesion during the chemical m echanical polishing process." Journal of the Electrochemical Society 148(3): p. G99-G109, 2001. [86] Mazaheri, A.R. and G. Ahmadi, "A model for effect of colloidal forces on chemical mechanical polishing." Journal of the Electrochemical Society 150(4): p. G233-G239, 2003.

PAGE 125

113 [87] Mazaheri, A.R. and G. Ahmadi, "Modeli ng the effect of bumpy abrasive particles on chemical mechanical polishing." Journal of the Electrochemical Society 149(7): p. G370-G375, 2002. [88] Su, Y.-T., "Investigation of removal rate properties of a floating polishing process." Journal of the Elect rochemical Society 147(6): p. 2290-2296, 2000. [89] Zhang, J.Z., Huang, S. K., Toh, W. S., Tay, W. S., Chen, F., Zhou, B. -B. "Optimization of pad conditioning for stable oxide cmp process." in CMP-MIC Conference Santa Clara 1997. [90] Zhao, B., and Shi, F.G. "Chemical m echanical polishing in ic processes: New fundamental insights." in Proceedings of the chemical-mechanical polish planarization for ULSI multilevel interconnection conference (CMP-MIC) Santa Clara, CA 1999. [91] Luo, J.F., Dornfeld, D. A., "Materia l removal regions in chemical mechanical planarization for submicron integrated circuit fabrication: Coupling effects of slurry chemicals, abrasive size distribution, and wafer-pad contact area." IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing 16(1): p. 45-56, 2003. [92] Luo, J.F., Dornfeld, D. A., "Effects of abrasive size distribution in chemical mechanical planarization: Modeling and verification." IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing 16(3): p. 469-476, 2003. [93] Fu, G.H., Chandra, A.,Guha, S., Subha sh, G., "A plasticity-based model of material removal in chemical-mechanical polishing (cmp)." IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing 14(4): p. 406-417, 2001. [94] Paul, E., "A model of ch emical mechanical polishing." Journal of the Electrochemical Society 148(6): p. G355-G358, 2001. [95] Zhao, Y.W., Chang, L., Kim, S.H., "A mathematical model for chemicalmechanical polishing based on forma tion and removal of weakly bonded molecular species." Wear 254: p. 332-339, 2003. [96] Qin, K., B. Moudgil, and C.-W. Park, "A chemical mechanical polishing model incorporating both the chemical and mechanical effects." Thin Solid Films 446(2): p. 277-286, 2004. [97] Castillo-Mejia, D., S. Gold, V. Bu rrows, and S. Beaudoin, "The effect of interactions between water and polishing pads on chemical mechanical polishing removal rates." Journal of the Electrochemical Society 150(2): p. G76-G82, 2003. [98] Ouma, D.O., D.S. Boning, J.E. Chung, W. G. Easter, V. Saxena, S. Misra, and A. Crevasse, "Characterization and mode ling of oxide chemical-mechanical

PAGE 126

114 polishing using planarization length and pattern density concepts." IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing 15(2): p. 232-244, 2002. [99] Warnock, J., "A 2-dimensional pr ocess model for chemimechanical polish planarization." Journal of the Electrochemical Society 138(8): p. 2398-2402, 1991. [100] Lin, Y.Y. and S.P. Lo, "A study of a finite element model for the chemical mechanical polishing process." International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 23(9-10): p. 644-650, 2004. [101] Gan, T., T. Tugbawa, B. Lee, D.S. Boning, and S. Jang, "Modeling of reverse tone etchback shallow trench isolation chemical mechanical polishing." Journal of the Electrochemical Society 148(3): p. G159-G165, 2001. [102] Chekina, O.G., Keer, L.M., Liang, H., "Wear-contact problems and modeling of chemical mechanical polishing." Journal of The Electrochemical Society 145(6): p. 2100-2106, 1998. [103] Jeng, Y.R. and H.J. Tsai, "Improved model of wafer/pad powder slurry for cmp." Journal of the Elect rochemical Society 150(6): p. G348-G354, 2003. [104] Thakurta, D.G., D.W. Schwendeman, R. J. Gutmann, S. Shankar, L. Jiang, and W.N. Gill, "Three-dimensional wafer-scale copper chemical-mechanical planarization model." Thin Solid Films 414(1): p. 78-90, 2002. [105] Kao, Y.C., C.C. Yu, and S.H. Sh en, "Robust operation of copper chemical mechanical polishing." Microelectronic Engineering 65(1-2): p. 61-75, 2003. [106] Lai, J.Y., Saka, N., Chun, J.H., "Evolu tion of copper-oxide damascene structures in chemical mechanical polishing I. Contact mechanics modeling." Journal of The Electrochemical Society 149(1): p. G31-G40, 2002. [107] Shaw, D., Chang, J., "A method to improve the efficiency of cmp process." IEEE Transactions on Components And Packaging Technologies 24(4): p. 661-666, 2001. [108] Fu, G.H. and A. Chandra, "A model fo r wafer scale variation of removal rate in chemical mechanical polishing based on elastic pad deformation." Journal of Electronic Materials 30(4): p. 400-408, 2001. [109] Xia, X. and G. Ahmadi, "Surface rem oval rate in chemical-mechanical polishing." Particulate Science and Technology 20(3): p. 187-196, 2002. [110] Paul, E., Brusic, Vlasta., Sun, Fred., Zhang, Jian., Vacassy, Robert., and Kaufman, Frank. "A model of cu-cmp." in Materials Research Society Symposia Proceedings 2004.

PAGE 127

115 [111] Chen, P.H., H.C. Shih, B.W. Huang, and J.W. Hsu, "Catalytic-pad chemical kinetics model of cmp." Electrochemical and Solid State Letters 6(12): p. G140G142, 2003. [112] Komanduri, R., Chandrasekaran, N., Ra ff, L.M., "Effect of tool geometry in nanometric cutting: A molecular dynamics simulation approach." Wear 219: p. 84-97, 1998. [113] Chagarov, E. and J.B. Adams, "Mol ecular dynamics simulations of mechanical deformation of amorphous silicon dioxide during chemical-mechanical polishing." Journal of Applied Physics 94(6): p. 3853-3861, 2003. [114] Ye, Y., Biswas, R., Morris, J.R., Bastaw ros, A., and Chandra, A. "Simulation of nanoscale polishing of copper with molecular dynamics." in Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings 2002. [115] Ju, S.P., Weng, C.I., Hwang, C. C., "Damascene process simulation using molecular dynamics." Journal of Applied Physics 92(12): p. 7062-7069, 2002. [116] Zhou, C.H., L. Shan, J.R. Hight, S. Danyluk, S.H. Ng, and A.J. Paszkowski, "Influence of colloidal abrasive size on ma terial removal rate and surface finish in sio2 chemical mechanical polishing." Tribology Transactions 45(2): p. 232-238, 2002. [117] Greenwood, J.A. and J.B.P. Williamson, "Contact of nominally flat surfaces." Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 295(1442): p. 300-19, 1966. [118] Bouvet, D., P. Beaud, P. Fazan, R. Sanjines, and E. Jacquinot, "Impact of the colloidal silica particle size on physical vapor deposition tungsten removal rate and surface roughness." Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology, B: Microelectronics and Nanometer Structures 20(4): p. 1556-1560, 2002. [119] Gouda, S.D., Bastawros, A., Chandra A.,. "Multi-scale characterization of pad role on material removal rate in cmp." in Materials Research Society Proceedings 2003. [120] Tregub, A., Ng, G., Moinpour, M. "Pad degradation during cmp process: Effect of soak in slurry and water on thermal and mechanical properties of the cmp pads." in Materials Research Society Proceedings 2003. [121] Tregub, A., Moinpour, M., and Sorooshi an, J. "Effect of cmp pad exposure to aqueous media on the pad properties. Part i. Dynamic mechanical and modulated dsc analysis." in Materials Research Society Proceedings 2002. [122] Obeng, Y.S., Forsthoefel, K.M., Richardson, K.A., Burton, R.H. "Mechanistic aspects of the relationship between cmp consumables and polishing characteristics." in Electrochemical Society Proceedings 1998.

PAGE 128

116 [123] Jeng, Y.-R., Huang, Pay-Yau., "A ma terial removal rate model considering interfacial micro-contact w ear behavior for chemical mechanical polishing." Journal of Tribology 127: p. 190-197, 2005. [124] Kim, H.J., H.Y. Kim, H.D. Jeong, E.S. Lee, and Y.J. Shin, "Friction and thermal phenomena in chemical mechanical polishing." Journal of Materials Processing Technology 130: p. 334-338, 2002. [125] Basim, G.B., "Formulation of engin eered particulate systems for chemical mechanical polishing applications", in Materials Science and Engineering 2002, University of Florida: Gainesville. [126] Basim, G.B., Vakarelski, I.U., Moudgil, B.M., "Role of interaction forces in controlling the stability and polishing performance of cmp slurries." Journal of Colloid And Interface Science 263(2): p. 506-515, 2003. [127] Hogan, J.M., C.J. Pearson, T.H. Roge rs, and J.R. White, "Humidity characteristics of hr [high resilient] and hot urethane foams." Journal of Cellular Plastics 9(5): p. 219-25, 1973. [128] Fukushima, D., Y. Tateyama, and H. Yano. "Impact of pad conditioning on cmp removal rate and planarity" Advanced Metallization Conf. Montreal, Canada, p. 699-704, 2002. [129] Oliver, M.R., R.E. Schmidt, and M. Robinson, "Cmp pad surface roughness and cmp removal rate." Proceedings Electrochemical Society 2000-26(Chemical Mechanical Planarizatio n IV): p. 77-83, 2001. [130] Moon, Y., I. Park, and D.A. Dornfeld "Mechanical properties and relationship to process performance of the polishing pad in chemical mechanical polishing (cmp) of silicon" Ph.D Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1998. [131] Choi, W., J. Abiade, S.-M. Lee, and R.K. Singh, "Effects of slurry particles on silicon dioxide cmp." Journal of the Electrochemical Society 151(8): p. G512G522, 2004. [132] Lu, Z., S.-H. Lee, S.V. Babu, and E. Matijevic, "The use of monodispersed colloids in the polishing of copper and tantalum." Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 261(1): p. 55-64, 2003. [133] Bielmann, M., U. Mahajan, and R.K. Singh, "Effect of particle size during tungsten chemical mechanical polishing." Electrochemical and Solid-State Letters 2(8): p. 401-403, 1999. [134] Jung, S.-H. and R.K. Singh, "Effect of nano-size silica abrasives in chemical mechanical polishing of copper." Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings 816(Advances in Chemical-Mechani cal Polishing): p. 49-52, 2004.

PAGE 129

117 [135] Abiade, J.T., S. Yeruva, B. M oudgil, D. Kumar, and R.K. Singh, "Characterization of the chem ical effects of ceria slurri es for chemical mechanical polishing." Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings 867(ChemicalMechanical Planarization--Integration, Technology and Reliability): p. 69-74, 2005. [136] Abiade, J.T., W. Choi, and R.K. Singh, "Effect of ph on ceria -silica interactions during chemical mechanical polishing." Journal of Materials Research 20(5): p. 1139-1145, 2005. [137] Choi, W., U. Mahajan, S.-M. Lee, J. Abiade, and R.K. Singh, "Effect of slurry ionic salts at dielectric silica cmp." Journal of the Electrochemical Society 151(3): p. G185-G189, 2004. [138] McGrath, J., Davis, C., McGrath, Jim., "The effect of thin film stress levels on cmp polish rate for peteos wafers." Journal of Materials Processing Technology 132: p. 16-20, 2003.

PAGE 130

118 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Suresh Babu Yeruva was born on Feb 18th, 1978, in Machilipatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India. He finished his undergradua te education at the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras (IITM), India. He pursued his Master of Science at Washington State University in the Department of Mate rials Science and Engineering. In 2001, he started his Ph.D. program with Professor Br ij Moudgil at the University of Florida.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0012201/00001

Material Information

Title: Particle Scale Modeling of Material Removal and Surface Roughness in Chemical Mechanical Polishing
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0012201:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0012201/00001

Material Information

Title: Particle Scale Modeling of Material Removal and Surface Roughness in Chemical Mechanical Polishing
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0012201:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











PARTICLE SCALE MODELING OF MATERIAL REMOVAL AND SURFACE
ROUGHNESS IN CHEMICAL MECHANICAL POLISHING















By

SURESH BABU YERUVA


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005

































Copyright 2005

by

Suresh Babu Yeruva

































This document is dedicated to Sri Paramahansa Yogananda, my parents and sister.














ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to my advisor, Dr. Brij

Moudgil, for his valuable guidance and support throughout this study. His sincere

dedication towards his students encouraged me to perform my best and expand my

potential. Sincere thanks are also due to Dr. Chang-Won Park, for his valuable guidance

and support throughout the study. I would also like to acknowledge the other members of

my advisory committee, Dr. Rajiv Singh, Dr. Wolfgang Sigmund, Dr. Hassan El-Shall,

Dr. Susan Sinnott and Dr. Dinesh Shah, for their time, helpful discussions and guidance.

I would like to thank Dr. Yakov Rabinovich for help with atomic force microscope

(AFM) and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) analysis, and Gerald Bourne

from Major Analytical Instrumentation Center (MAIC) for help with focused ion beam

(FIB) and nanoindentation data. Furthermore, I sincerely acknowledge the guidance and

support given by Kuide Qin at Praxair Inc.

I gratefully acknowledge the National Science Foundation's Particle Engineering

Research Center (PERC) for financially supporting this research. Special thanks are due

to PERC staff members, Gary Schieffele, Gill Brubaker, Mike Beasley, and John

Henderson who made this work possible.

My colleagues, Bahar Basim, Jeremiah Abiade, Su-Ho Jung, Vijay Krishna,

Madhavan Esayanur, Scott Brown, Parvesh Sharma, Kyoung-Ho Bu, Pankaj Singh,

Debamitra Dutta and Ivan Vakarelski, who have contributed to this research by their

valuable discussions and friendship, are also gratefully acknowledged.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

L IS T O F T A B L E S .............................................. ................................... .................. v ii

LIST OF FIGURES ................... ...................... .. ................... viii

ABSTRACT xi

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

M ultilevel M etallization ................................................................ ...................... 2
N eed fo r P lan arizatio n ............................................ ................................ ................. ........ 4
Planarization Techniques.................... ......... ............... ........ .......................
Overview of the Chemical Mechanical Polishing Process............... ..................7
H history ................... .. .. ..... .. ... ................ ... ... ............................ . 7
Advantages and Disadvantages of Chemical Mechanical Planarization............8
G general C M P applications.......................................................... ............... 9
C m p O utput Param eters ............................................................................ 9
R em ov al rate .............................................................10
Global planarization ............... .. .................... ........ .............. .. 12
S ele ctiv ity ................................ ...................1.........3
M easurem ent T techniques .......................................... ................. ... ............ 14
End Point D election ............................... .............. ......... ........ .... 15
CMP Consumables ............................... .......... ...... ............... 16
C M P S lu rry ............... ............................ ............................... 1 8
R ate of surface reaction ..................................................... ..................... 18
Slurry agglomeration...................... ....... ............................ 19
Chemical M echanical Polishing Pads ...................................... ............... 20
Effect of pad grooves ................................................. .......... .................. 23
Physical and chemical changes in pad during polishing ............................23
Effect of temperature change on polishing pad ..........................................26
Non-uniformity of the polishing pad............................ .................27
C M P process in the future ............................................................... .....................27
S cop e of D issertation ......................................................................... ...................2 8

2 CMP MODELING: OVERVIEW OF PERC I................................... ...............30

L iteratu re R ev iew ....................... ........................................ ........................ .. .3 1


v









Preston Equation ............................................. ........ ... .......... .... 31
Modifications to Preston Equation ........................................ ...............34
Slurry Erosion............................................. 36
Pad Considerations in CM P M odels......................................... ............... 39
Slurry Considerations in CM P M odels..................................... ............... 42
PER C I CM P M odel ........................ .......... ....... .............................44
M odel D evelopm ent ........... ................ .................... .................. 45
Estimation of the Overall Removal Rate.................................54

3 PER C II CM P M O D EL ............... ................................................... ............... 59

A ssum option V alidation ......... ........... ............... ....................... ...............59
P ad-w afer C contact A rea ........................................................... .....................59
Optical m icroscopy ................. .......................................... 61
Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR).........................................64
Pad Asperity Height Distribution ................... .................... ...............73
Abrasive Particle Size D distribution .......................................... ............... 74
PER C II M odel D evelopm ent.......................................................... ............... 75
Plastic Deformation of Wafer Surface .......................................... ..........79
Slurry Characteristics Particle Size Distribution.................. ..................79
M material Rem oval by Single Particle........................................ ............... 79
Number of Active Abrasive Particles ................... .....................82
Estimation of the Overall Removal Rate ..................................... ...............83

4 M O D E L A SSE SSM E N T ......................................... .............................................85

M odel Validation .............................. ....... .................................85
Silica C M P : M icron Sized Slurries ........................................ .....................86
Silica CM P: N anosilica slurries...................................... ......................... 87
Copper CMP ............. .. ........ ............. ......... 91
Tungsten CM P ......... ... .............. .. ....................... .... ........92
M odel P reductions ......... .. ............. .................. ............... .. .. ............ ......... ..........94
Removal Rate as a Function of Particle Size for a Given Solids Loading:.........95
Effect of Modified Layer Thickness ............... ......................................96
Effect of M odified Layer Hardness .............. .............................................. 99

5 SUMMARY AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK ........... .....................101

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ...................................................................... ..................... 106

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........................................................................118















LIST OF TABLES
Table p

1-1. Interconnection delay (RC) in silicon VLSI chip............................................ ............ 3

1-2. Chemical mechanical polishing applications. ................................. .................10

4-1. Parameters included in the revised PERC model................................................. 85

4-2. Parameter values used for comparing PERC I and II models. ..................................95

5-1. Process parameter ranges used in sensitivity analysis ................ ......... ..........103
















LIST OF FIGURES

Figure pge

1-1. Future trends in interconnects .................................. ...................................... 4

1-2. Schematic of a device fabricated using multilevel metallization. ..............................5

1-3. Different degrees of local and global surface planarity..................... .....................6

1-4. Schematic of chemical mechanical polishing process.............. ................................. 7

1-5. Surface layer formation on Cu with various slurry chemistries. ...........................11

1-6. M icro and nanoscale phenomena during CM P ....................................................13

1-7. Parameters involved in CMP process................................ ...............17

1-8. Chronoamperometry measurements for tungsten ............................................... 19

1-9. Type I C M P pad.. ................. ...... .......................... .. ...... .. ............. 22

1-10. Type II CM P pad. ............................................. .. .... ........ ......... 22

1-11 The absorbance spectra of used and dry IC 1000 pad along with dried silica
slu rry ................................................... ...................... ................ 2 5

2-1. Polished wafer surfaces showing nanoscratch surfaces. .........................................33

2-2 Pad consideration in PER C I. ........................................................... .....................46

2-3. Schematic of single particle abrasion showing the removal of chemically
m modified surface layer............ .. .................. ........ ...... .. .. ........ .... 51

2-4. Schematic of PERC I predictions for increasing particle size..............................57

2-5. Polishing of silica by nanoslurry showing optimal particle size.. ............................57

2-6. Polishing of silica at various pressure, velocity and particle sizes showing optimal
p article siz e .........................................................................5 8

3-1. Schematic of the fixture used in measuring pad-wafer (dry) contact area. ................62









3-2. Pad asperity contact spots seen through optical microscope................... ................63

3-3. Pad asperity contact area dependence on applied load. Each legend represents a
selected asperity contact .................. ........................... ....... .... ........ .... 63

3-4. Pad contact area as a function of applied load................................. ............... 64

3-5 Schematic of the FTIR-ATR technique used to measure pad-wafer contact area.......65

3-6. Analysis of the FTIR-A TR spectra................................................. ....... ........ 67

3-7. Absorbance spectra of pad (in pH 4) at different applied pressures...........................67

3-8. Contact area variation with applied load in dry and wet conditions ........................68

3-9. Contact area in dry and wet systems in various pH conditions................................68

3-10. C olloidal probe A FM tip ................................................ .............................. 70

3-11. Force-distance curve indicating softer "modified layer" on the pad surface. ..........71

3-12. Force-indentation curves from AFM for different conditions...............................72

3-13. Schematic of pad surface as deduced from AFM data. ............. ..............72

3-14. Schem atic of polishing pads. ........................................ ......................................73

3-15. Particle size distribution of silica slurry. ...................................... ............... 75

3-16. Schematic of pad, slurry and wafer in PERC I model.................... ..................76

3-17. Schematic of pad, slurry and wafer in PERC II model. ........................................77

4-1. Slurries used in oxide polishing................. ........................................ 87

4-2. Silica polishing by slurries in the micron range. .............................. ......... ...... .88

4-3. Silica polishing by colloidal nanosilica. .............................................................. 89

4-4. Silica polishing by nanosized slurries ...................................................................90

4-5 Copper CMP as a function of particle size...............................................................92

4-6. Alumina slurry size distributions..................... ...... ............................. 93

4-7. Effect of particle size on tungsten CMP .............. ......... ......... ...............94

4-8. Comparison between PERC I and PERC II models with constant solids loading of
different particle sizes.. ....................................... ................. ......... 96









4-9. Model comparison with varying modified layer thickness.. ...................................98

4-10. CMP performance comparison with varying modified layer hardness ................100

5-1. Sensitivity analysis of silica CM P system.............. .............................................. 103














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


PARTICLE SCALE MODELING OF MATERIAL REMOVAL AND SURFACE
ROUGHNESS IN CHEMICAL MECHANICAL POLISHING


By

Suresh Babu Yeruva

December 2005

Chair: Brij M. Moudgil
Cochair: Chang-Won Park
Major Department: Materials Science and Engineering

Chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) is widely adopted in producing excellent

local and global planarization of microelectronic devices. It has been demonstrated

experimentally that the polishing performance is a result of the synergistic effect of both

the chemicals and the particles involved in CMP. However, the fundamental mechanisms

of material removal and the interactions of the chemical and mechanical effects are not

well understood. A comprehensive model for CMP was developed taking into account

both the chemical and mechanical effects for slurries with a given particle size

distribution. The model developed (PERC II) is based on a previously developed model

(PERC I). The chemical aspect is attributed to the chemical modification of the surface

layer due to slurry chemistry, whereas the mechanical aspect is incorporated by

indentation of particles into the modified layer and the substrate depending on the









operating conditions. In this study, the effects of particle size and pad asperity

distributions are included in the model.

The contact area of pad with wafer was measured in dry and wet conditions in

different pH solutions using optical microscopy and Fourier transform infrared

spectroscopy respectively. Pad surface mechanical properties in dry and wet states were

also investigated using atomic force microscopy. The contact area results obtained were

utilized in modeling to estimate the pad modulus leading to pad-wafer contact stress

distribution.

The predictions of the model show a reasonable agreement with the experimental

data. The model is validated for oxide and metal CMP systems. The PERC II model not

only predicts the overall removal rate, but also the surface roughness of the polished

wafer in selected systems. The developed model can be used to optimize the current CMP

systems and provide insights into future CMP endeavors.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The past three decades have witnessed rapid growth of the electronics industry and

its impact on human lifestyle. Ultra-large-scale integrated (ULSI) circuits, with 108 or

more devices on a chip, can now be fabricated on semiconductor wafers, reducing cost

and increasing the performance of electronic products. The number of components on a

memory chip has approximately doubled every two years over the past two decades,

following the famous Moore's law [1]. The advancement in fabrication technology

shrinks the minimum dimension of the device-feature by about 13% per year. This trend

is expected to continue in the future even as 65 and 45 nm processes are set for

production in 2005 [2] and near future.

The relentless competitor and customer driven demand for increased circuit

density, functionality and versatility has led to revolutionary advances in the "front end"

of the chip manufacturing line where the circuit elements are fabricated, and the "back

end" where these elements are appropriately wired within the integrated circuit (IC) [3].

Chip interconnections, or "interconnects," serve as local and global wiring, connecting

circuit elements and distributing power [4]. To incorporate and accommodate the

improvements such as decreased feature size, increased device speed and more intricate

designs, research in the back end of line (BEOL) processes has become equally important

as the development of the front end of line (FEOL) processes to reduce gate oxide

thickness and channel length.









While recent path breaking innovations [5-7] in the field of lithography and

patterning have brought progressive device scaling, the development of a planar BEOL

approach, which incorporates the use of chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) to

planarize inter-level dielectrics and metal stud levels, represents a significant

advancement in BEOL processes. Innovation in BEOL technology is required in each

technology generation, since only part of the density increase could be achieved with

improvements in lithography.

Multilevel Metallization

In earlier stages, the complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) device

structure had multiple isolated devices connected by a single level of interconnect wiring.

Scaling down of the devices was very effective in achieving the goals of increased device

density, functional complexity and performance. However, device scaling became less

profitable, and speed and complexity were dependant on the characteristics of

interconnects that wired them [8]. With the single level metallization scheme, the total

area occupied by the wiring on the chip significantly increased with the increase in the

active density on the chip.

The interconnect delay is usually measured as RC time delay, which is the total

time taken by the voltage at one end of the metal line to reach 63% of the total value of

the step input applied at the other end. This reduction is due to resistance of the

interconnect wiring metal (R) and the interlayer dielectric capacitance (C) [9]. The

resistance of the line is given by

R =p l/wd (1.1)
where p is the resistivity of the wiring material, 1, w, and d are the length, width, and

thickness of the wiring material respectively. The capacitance of the line is given by









C = s wl/t (1.2)
where s is the relative permittivity and t is the thickness of the insulator. The total RC

delay can be given by

RC= p 1/wd s wl/t =ps 12/td (1.3)
Thus, it can be seen from Eq. (1.3) that RC delay is independent of the line width

and further scaling of line width translates into reduction of IC line thickness which in

turn increases the RC delay. Other factors such as parasitic capacitances and cross-talk

become dominant for sub 0.5 |tm integrated circuits. One approach to decrease the RC

delay is by incorporating metals of low resistivity, and interlayer dielectrics of lower

dielectric constant. Table 1-1 gives the simple RC time constants calculated for a few

metals of given Rs (sheet resistance) and 1 mm length on 1 tm thick SiO2 [9]. The other

approach implemented widely in the industry is forming multilevel metallization schemes

where different levels of metal interconnections are isolated by dielectrics and are

connected by vertical vias.

Table 1-1. Interconnection delay (RC) in silicon VLSI chip.
Metal Bulk Polycrystalline Film Rs Delay'
resistivity film resistivity thickness (Q /square) (ps/mm)
(l2 cm) (S2 cm) (A)
Polysilicon -1000 5000 20 690
CoSi2 10 15 2500 0.6 21
MoSi2 -35 -100 2500 4 138
TaSi2 45 55 2500 2.2 76
TiSi2 13 15 2500 0.6 21
WSi2 -25 70 2500 2.8 97
W 5.65 8-10 2500 0.32-0.4 11-14
Mo 5.2 8-10 2500 0.32-0.4 11-14
Al 2.65 2.7 2500 0.11 4
Cu 1.67 2.0 2500 0.08 3
'Delay=RC=34.5 Rs (ps/mm) for 1 mm length conductor on l[tm thick SiO2 [10].









The increase in the levels of the metallization lines implies that packing density

need not keep pace with the device density and the minimum metal line feature does not

have to scale at the same pace as the gate width. The foremost reason behind the

implementation of multilevel metallization schemes is the reduction in the length of the

metal lines, thereby reducing the RC delay sizably (Eq. 1.3), and allowing direct routing

of the active devices. In places where metal wiring length cannot be reduced, routing can

be done at the upper levels without reducing the metal line width, thus reducing the RC

delay due to the higher surface area. Starting with two levels of metallization, the levels

of metallization have increased up to 8 by 2001 [11]. The future trends in the levels of

metallization can be seen in Fig. 1-1 [12].




--III ..."














Fig. 1-1. Future trends in interconnects [12]

Need for Planarization

Deposition of multiple layers leads to conformation of deposited layer on the

substrate features or already deposited pattern. When multilevel metallization is carried

out without any planarization step, non-planarized surface topography (Fig. 1-2a) results









in several processing difficulties. The irregular surface causes a hindrance in conformal

coating of the photoresist and efficient pattern transfer with contact lithography. The

anomalies in the surface cause the variation of the thickness in fine line widths (sub 0.5

[tm) depending on photoresist thickness. Fig. 1-2 shows a comparison between planarized

and non-planarized surface topography. Effectively planarized surfaces have a number of

benefits such as (a) higher photolithography and dry etch yields, (b) elimination of step

coverage concerns, (c) minimization of prior level defects, (d) elimination of contact

interruption, undesired contacts and electro-migration effects, (e) reduction of high

contact resistance and inhomogeneous metallization layer thickness, and (f) limitation in

the stacking height of metallization layers. Thus the demand for developing devices with

enhanced performance necessitates planarization.














Fig. 1-2. Schematic of a device fabricated using multilevel metallization. (a) Non-
planarized structure. (b) Planarized structure [8, 13]

Planarization Techniques

Techniques such a spin on deposition (SOD), reflow of boron phosphorous silicate

glass (BPSG), spin etch planarization (SEP), reactive ion etching and etch back (RIE

EB), SOD + EB and chemical mechanical polishing (or chemical mechanical

planarization) (CMP) are the most prominent of several competing technologies available









to achieve local and global planarization (Fig. 1-3). The plasma enhanced chemical vapor

deposited oxides have limited capability of gap filling and are restricted in their gap

filling ability below patterns having 0.3-|jm feature size. High-density plasma deposited

oxides have acceptable gap filling capabilities; however, they produce variation in

surface topography at local as well as global level. Even though spin-on deposited (SOD)

doped and undoped oxides and polymeric materials have acceptable ability for gap

filling, CMP is the only technique which produces excellent local and global

planarization of microelectronic materials.

(a) 1.nplanarizecd Gap Fill
-- IJ t YC D | 1








b1 Sur'ace Smoathig SOD (FSGTPSG)




(c) Locallianarizadtni SODWEB (BPSG)
Resist Eth Back




(d) GIobal PH uizatiou CMP




s 10pm


Fig. 1-3. Different degrees of local and global surface planarity [14].









Overview of the Chemical Mechanical Polishing Process

Current semiconductor fabrication technology for logic and memory devices

requires CMP to achieve the required multilevel interconnection densities. Indeed, each

silicon wafer can be exposed to 15 or more CMP steps before final device assembly. A

schematic diagram of the CMP process is shown in Fig. 1-4. In CMP, the wafer is

pressed face down against a rotating polishing pad, while a chemical and physically

abrasive slurry fed between pad and wafer planarizes the wafer. The material removal in

simplest terms takes place by synergistic mechanism between chemical reaction on the

wafer surface due to the slurry, and physical removal of the reacted material by the slurry

abrasives. The various mechanisms between pad, slurry and wafer are tailored to enhance

material removal, planarization, surface finish and higher selectivity compared to the

underneath layer.




Wafer Carrier Slrry,-"


..... Polish Pad


Platen



Fig. 1-4. Schematic of chemical mechanical polishing process.

History

The modern day application of the CMP process in the semiconductor industry was

for polishing the raw silicon wafers to achieve a global flatness. One of the most

widespread applications of CMP outside the semiconductor industry is in optical lens









polishing. In fact, the first semiconductor CMP machine was an innovation of the lens

polishing industry. The first wafers polished using CMP were commercially available in

the early 1960s [15]. There was wide spread industrial implementation of the different

variants of the CMP by companies such as NEC, National Semiconductor, Hitachi, etc.

[10]. This led to the introduction of the first commercial polisher designed specifically for

CMP by Cybeg, Japan in 1988. Later, International Sematech identified CMP as a

technology critical for the future of IC manufacturing and launched a project to develop

competitive and advanced CMP tools in the US [16]. Once the technology and required

equipment were available, CMP was used beyond polishing of inter-level dielectric layers

to polishing of tungsten, which was deposited in via openings between metal layers.

Copper was not used for interconnects until the availability of CMP even though it has

lower resistivity than aluminum [17], as it could not easily be etched by reactive ion

etching. This enabling polishing technology has spread to several other applications, the

significant one being in shallow trench isolation (STI) [18].

Advantages and Disadvantages of Chemical Mechanical Planarization

The advantages of CMP are (a) it achieves global planarization, (b) a wide range of

materials can be planarized, sometimes in the same polishing step, (c) it reduces severe

topography to allow fabrication with tighter design rules, (d) it provides an alternate

means of patterning metal, eliminating the need to plasma etch, (e) it improves metal step

coverage due to reduction in topography and (f) it does not use hazardous gasses common

in dry etch processes.

Conversely, the disadvantages of the CMP process are (a) poor control over the

process with narrow latitude in process variables, (b) new types of defects introduced by

the CMP process itself (scratches, particle residue, etc.), (c) difficult end-point detection









for desired thickness and (d) expensive to operate because of costly equipment and

consumables.

General CMP applications

The process of CMP was initially developed and implemented for planarization of

SiO2 which is used as an interlayer dielectric in a multilevel metallization scheme.

Tungsten is used as an interconnect plug to the source, drain, and gates of transistors in Si

microprocessor chips. Initially Ti and TiN barrier layers are deposited, followed by

chemical vapor deposition of W to fill the contact vias. Proceeding from achieving local

and global planarization of SiO2, removal of excessive tungsten from the horizontal

surfaces on the wafer pattern proved to be an asset for subsequent Al metallization.

Hence CMP was developed with a two-fold approach of (a) planarizing oxide and (b)

removing the via fill metal from the horizontal surfaces. Along with its successful

implementation for the achievement of the above-mentioned objectives, CMP is now

extended to (a) polishing of different metals like Al, Cu, Pt, Au, Ti, Ta, etc., (b) polishing

of different insulators like SiO2, Si3N4, various low-k dielectrics, doped and undoped

oxides of silicon, (c) polysilicon, (d) ceramics like SiC, TiN, TaN, etc., (e) multichip

modules, (f) packaging; (g) optoelectronic components, (h) flat panel displays, (i)

microelectromechanical systems (MEMS), and (j) magnetic recording heads and CD read

write drives [19]. The major applications of CMP are summarized in Table 1-2.

Cmp Output Parameters

The critical output parameters of CMP are described below. Depending on the

application, different output parameters are optimized.









Table 1-2. Chemical mechanical polishing applications.
Materials Application
Metal
Al Interconnection
Cu Interconnection
Ta Diffusion barrier/adhesion promoter
Ti Diffusion barrier/adhesion promoter
TiN, TiNxCy Diffusion barrier/adhesion promoter
W Interconnection e-emitter
Dielectric
Cu-alloys Interconnection
Al-alloys Interconnection
Polysilicon Gate/interconnect
SiO2 ILD
BPSG ILD
PSG ILD
Polymers ILD
Si3N4 or SiOxNy Passivation layer, hard mask
Other
Aerogels ILD
ITO Flat panel
High k dielectrics Packaging
High To superconductors Interconnection/packaging
Optoelectronic materials Optoelectronics
Plastics, ceramics Packaging
Silicon on Insulator (SOI) Advanced device/circuits
Ref [19]

Removal rate

The polishing steps involving CMP of STI and metal mainly emphasize removing

an overburden of one material and stop on another material leaving a planar surface. A

high material removal rate is one of the key outputs desired from such CMP processes.

The removal rate of the material being polished is strongly influenced by slurry chemistry

and pressure distribution, i.e., chemical action of the slurry chemicals on the material,

interplay of the different completing agents, oxidizers and corrosion inhibitors and the

mechanical abrasion of the particles on the wafer. Chemicals such as oxidizers and

corrosion inhibitors vastly affect the reaction rate of the slurry with similar particle

nature, size and distributions.











1 0 5% H202, lOn1 M 0n

S8 BTA %

DI Water

2-
0 10mM BTA

0.00 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07
Time (sec)

Fig. 1-5. Surface layer formation on Cu with various slurry chemistries. [20]
Fig. 1-5 shows the variation of the reaction rate of the different slurry components

on Cu when the reaction kinetics were studied using electrochemical chronoamperometry

[20]. It can be seen from the figure that the surface rate kinetics reach approximately 60

A/s when Cu is immersed in distilled water. The reaction rate increases to around 120 A/s

when 5% H202 is added. However upon addition of 10 mM BTA, the reaction rate

decreased considerably. Therefore, the chemical contribution is very important in the

CMP process. The other important factor is the down pressure used. However, for

effective CMP of materials, the enhancement of removal rate by increasing the down

force should not be at the cost of surface quality (for example, increase in wafer to wafer

and within wafer non-uniformity, delamination, dishing, erosion, etc.) [21, 22] of the

wafer. For this reason, the process throughput is compromised to polish the wafers at

lower applied load, thereby achieving global planarization and better surface quality.









Global planarization

In contrast to glass or silicon wafer polishing, the objective of the CMP process in

interlayer dielectric (ILD) polishing is to planarize the topography created by previous

semiconductor processing steps. The pad and slurry play key roles in achieving global

planarization, concurrently maintaining the removal rate and producing a defect free

wafer surface.

If mechanical removal predominates, high frictional forces are produced which

result in surface defectivity. Also variation in local polishing pressure leads to variable

removal rates within the wafer, which seriously compromises global planarization [20],

whereas, if chemical removal dominates, etching and corrosion [23] can occur. The key

to a good polishing process is dependent on synergy between chemical etching and

mechanical planarization. For this purpose, a passivation layer is created on the wafer

surface by reaction with slurry and removal of this passivation (or modified) layer occurs

due to mechanical abrasion of slurry particles (Fig. 1-6). For example, in Cu polishing,

the formation of the passivation layer is achieved by oxidizers such as hydrogen

peroxide, potassium ferricynate, ferric chloride, and ferric iodate. Corrosion damage to

the surface is prevented by adding corrosion inhibitors such as benzotriazole (BTA). In

tungsten polishing, a rapid formation of surface passivation layer is due to the use of

peroxygen compounds and stabilizing agents [24]. The purpose of the passivation layer in

the case of silica polishing is to soften the surface, which is inherently hard resulting in

minimal material removal. For this purpose, maintenance of alkaline pH is sufficient in

most cases [25, 26]. During Ta polishing, formation of stable Ta205 helps in uniform

removal of material from the surface [27]. To achieve optimal CMP performance, the

time to form the passivation layer of desired thickness should be minimized.






























Abrasive partsic

Fig. 1-6. Micro and nanoscale phenomena during CMP [20]

Selectivity

The difference in the removal rate of one material versus another in a given system

represents the measure of the slurry selectivity for these two materials. The higher the

slurry selectivity, the more effective the end point detection is for the given CMP process.

This is due to a marked change between the tribological properties of the material being

polished, and the underlayer. The difference in tribological properties can be monitored

in-situ using techniques such as motor current, force or acoustic emission for better end

point detection. Selectivity is a very important criterion in designing any slurry for

multilevel metallization. For STI, the slurry must affect the oxide that is being planarized,

and not the underlying nitride layer. For polishing Cu, the slurry needs to react selectively

on Cu and spare the barrier layer Ta and underlying layers of silica or low-k dielectric

material. Typically slurry selectivity of 10-25 has been reported for Cu polishing [20].









The selectivity could be considerably improved up to 1000 by introducing a particle free

slurry [28, 29]. The reduction in mechanical component due to lack of abrasive implies

that the majority of material removal occurs due to the solution chemistry which can be

made highly selective.

Addition of specialized chemicals that can act as catalysts in the chemical

interaction between slurry and the polished material thereby increasing the rate of the

chemical reaction considerably is a common approach for improving the slurry

selectivity. Tetramethyl ammonium hydrate can be added to Cu slurries to considerably

decrease the silica polishing rate [30]. An increase in the polishing rate of TaN with

addition of phosphoric acid in alumina and colloidal silica slurry is also observed. Mixed

abrasive slurries (MAS) containing alumina/silica and alumina/ceria particles have been

developed to improve the selectivity of the CMP slurry. The details of the experiments

with these novel mixed abrasive slurries have been published by Jindal et al. [31, 32].

Though highly selective slurries might help in avoiding defects such as erosion of sub

layers, planar defects such as dishing still exist causing wafer-to-wafer nonuniformity

(WTWNU) due to the differential polishing pressures in the process.

Measurement Techniques

The outputs of the CMP process are quantified by a host of metrics. Material

removal rate (e.g., nm/min) is commonly measured in terms of thickness loss per time or

weight loss per time. In terms of global planarization at the wafer scale, film thickness is

measured at points across the wafer surface and used to calculate within-wafer-non-

uniformity (WIWNU). Most commonly, a 49-point measurement grid is used to

determine the WIWNU, which is the variation of those measurements with respect to the

average thickness. Similarly, a within-die non-uniformity (WIDNU) calculates a similar









variation but just across the area of one die. At the feature-scale of the process, metrics

such as step height reduction are used to indicate efficiency of the CMP process.

Selectivity of the slurry is more often characterized by estimating the erosion or polishing

of the underneath layer.

End Point Detection

Theoretically, the end of a polishing step can be realized by setting a time limit to

the process. However, this is only a rough estimate because variations of polishing pad

surface property, fluctuations in slurry chemistry, particle size distribution, feeding rate,

pad conditioning issues, and other potential variables can cause over- or under-polishing.

Therefore, in-line monitoring or automatic end-point detection of CMP is needed. Initial

oxide CMP relied on process times and control of removal rate stability to achieve target

thicknesses. As the CMP environment is hostile for in-situ metrology, the earlier endpoint

techniques relied on indirect methods. One of the commercialized indirect methods

monitors the motor current change [33] while driving the carrier or platen rotation. This

technique measures changes in friction forces between the pad and the wafer surface. It is

mostly successful for tungsten CMP than for copper or STI CMP processes, because the

frictional forces between the polishing pad and exposed films do not differ significantly

in the case of copper or STI scenarios. The method sufficiently sensitive for STI,

dielectric and metal CMP processes is the vibration monitoring method [34]. Vibrations

during the CMP process are detected using an accelerometer on the carrier behind the

wafer. This method is used to detect delamination of low-k dielectric films in copper dual

damascene process [35].

Optical reflectometry is the preferred method for endpoint detection. But, the

method is highly intrusive, requiring extensive polisher modifications. Various other









endpoint techniques have been developed in recent years, many of which are currently

adapted to the high volume production stage [35].

CMP Consumables

The CMP market in the year 2003 was $1.7B with slurry (24%) and pad (15%)

amounting to 40%. The CMP equipment was estimated to comprise 55% with the

remaining 6% accounting for conditioner and other consumables. The market is expected

to grow to $3.3B in the year 2008. The rapid growth of CMP and its application for

polishing various materials, necessitated development of a variety of slurries, pads,

complex process recipes, more complex slurry mixing and distribution systems. Polishing

of different materials and customized needs of the various semiconductor industries

resulted in more complex CMP equipment with different process dynamics such as

linear, orbital and fixed head machines [35]. The process of CMP has gone through a lot

of evolution from first being used just for silicon dioxide planarization to the present day

planarization applications in pre-metal dielectric (PMD), ILD, STI, metal and gate oxide,

etc.

While the CMP process seems fundamentally easy to understand, there are a

staggering number of process variables (Fig. 1-7) that complicate the underlying

interaction between the pad, slurry and wafer, preventing full comprehension of the

process. The most widely accepted mechanism for the material removal is that the

chemicals in the slurry react with the surface of the wafer (e.g., oxide, copper, etc.) and

create a "modified" layer that can be removed easily. The mechanical action of the

abrasives trapped in pad asperities then physically abrade and remove the modified

material [24, 36, 37].









In terms of the CMP input parameters, the process variables are generally

categorized into chemical and mechanical parameters. The chemical nature of the CMP

process typically relates to the constituent makeup of the slurry and how those chemicals

react with the wafer surface to create a passivated or modified layer, keeping the particles

well suspended in the slurry. The chemicals in the slurry are highly dependent upon the

type of CMP being used. For example, in oxide polishing, an alkaline solution is used

along with various buffering and oxidizing agents, whereas for metal CMP as in Cu

CMP, acidic slurry can be used. The mechanical aspects of CMP largely depend on the

polishing pad, wafer pattern, and process conditions like pressure and relative pad-wafer

velocity.


Slury

" Slurry chemistry
Oddizers

Compi exing agents

pH stabilizers

SPar licl e features

Size distribution

Mechanical strength

Slurry stabilizers

Shape

Slurry agglomeration

*Slurry theology


Wafer
* Wafex material properties

* Feature characteristics


Pad

* Padroughness

* Mechanical properties

* Conditioning technique


Tool

* Load distribution

* Platen rotation

* Wafer rotation

* Slurry flow rate


Fig. 1-7. Parameters involved in CMP process.


C









Polishing in its simplest sense is controlled chemo-mechanical material removal to

produce a globally flat, defect free surface. The main components of CMP are the CMP

slurry and the pad. The complexity of these CMP components and their interactions are

discussed further in the following sections.

CMP Slurry

CMP slurry consists of two major components: abrasives and chemicals.

Depending on the material of the wafer, the chemistry of the slurry, and the synergy

between them, each kind of slurry behaves differently [38]. CMP is influenced to a great

extent by numerous slurry parameters such as pH, solution chemistry, particle charge

type, concentration and particle size distribution of abrasives, completing agents,

oxidizers, buffering agents, surfactants, corrosion inhibitors, etc.[19, 39]. An ideal CMP

slurry should be well suspended with good slurry stability, and be able to achieve high

removal rate, excellent global planarization, prevent corrosion (in case of metal,

especially Cu), and result in good surface finish, low defectivity and high selectivity.

Rate of surface reaction

The reaction between the wafer and slurry chemicals to form a modified layer of

desired thickness should be fast enough to avoid material removal by mechanical

indentation of the bare wafer. The time scale in which the passivation layer is formed

should be less than the average time of successive particle indentations into the wafer for

abrasion to achieve optimal CMP performance. Fig. 1-8 shows the electrochemical

chronoamperometry (potentiostatic) analysis of Tungsten by first keeping the samples at

cathodic potential to avoid surface oxidation and then anodizingg" them. The generation

of current, which corresponds to surface reaction rate, is monitored on a millisecond scale









as shown. It can be seen form the figure that Tungsten surface quickly passivates which is

conducive for mechanical removal of the material.


r 10,000
+L.7V


1.v



I A
10 -0.2


0.Q0[ 0,001 0,01 0.1 1
Time (s)

Fig. 1-8. Chronoamperometry measurements for tungsten [20]

For selectivity purposes, the reaction of slurry chemicals with the underneath layer

should be significantly low compared to the surface layer. In terms of operational hazard,

the chemicals used in the slurry should not make it hostile for the operators performing

CMP and the post-CMP chemicals should be treated to avoid environmental damage.

Slurry agglomeration

The ideal slurry will have abrasives behaving as discrete single particles during the

CMP process. However, particles in a real CMP slurry apart from being discrete can also

exist in the form of agglomerates [38, 40]. An agglomerate is a collection of particles that

come together into packed clumps due to physical or chemical interactions and act as a

single entity. Although CMP slurries are composed of very fine particles up to 200 nm

(0.2 [tm), "large" particles of 1-3 |jm and greater are often observed during the process.

Such particles can be due to agglomeration or contamination from foreign material.

These are not desirable for CMP as they can cause micro scratches and pits due to deep









indentation or non-uniformity due to varying polishing pressure. Even minimal and

undetectable concentration of larger sized particles are shown to produce surface defects

in CMP [41]. The agglomeration of slurry can be prevented by proper slurry design,

which includes appropriate use of chemicals, and/or surfactants and the suitable order of

their addition to design the slurry [42]. Other than adding chemicals, the particle surfaces

can also be altered to make the suspension stable during the CMP process [42, 43].

In order to prevent the particle agglomeration during the distribution stage,

dispense filters are used which filter out the agglomerated particles before slurry delivery.

Care is taken so that the filtration of the agglomerated particles does not change the

particle distribution and slurry composition. The drop in slurry pressure and flow due to

filtration is minimized by using a series of filters instead of a single filter.

Chemical Mechanical Polishing Pads

The pad traps the slurry particles on its asperities, and executes the polishing action

by transmitting the normal and shear forces for polishing, thereby playing a very crucial

role in process optimization [19]. The polymeric polishing pad must have sufficient

mechanical integrity and chemical resistance to be effective for numerous polishing runs

through its life. The pad must be able to withstand the aggressive slurry chemistries used

in CMP without degrading, delaminating, warping or blistering. Slurry chemistries range

from highly alkaline near pH 11 used for polishing of inter-layer dielectric to highly

acidic near pH 2 used for metal polishing. Slurries also contain oxidizing agents such as

hydrogen peroxide and potassium iodate. The pad material should be resistant to such

environments. As the polishing slurries are aqueous based, pad should be hydrophilic to

allow circulation of slurry to whole wafer during polishing.









The polishing pad is made up of a matrix of cast polyurethane foam with filler

material to tailor the hardness of the polyurethane impregnated felts for the specific CMP

process. Polyurethanes have a unique property of combining high strength to resist

tearing during polishing and, an acceptable level of hardness and good abrasion

resistance to prevent excessive pad wear during polishing. The CMP pads can be

categorized into four types differentiated by their microstructure [44]. They are: Polymer

impregnated felts (type 1), Poromerics (type 2), Filled polymer sheets (type 3), and

Unfilled textured polymer sheets (type 4). Pads of type 1 and 2 are shown in Figs. 1-9

and 1-10. The figures indicate the variety of pad surface textures or asperities involved in

CMP. The polyurethane polymer consists of two major components/blocks of alternating

hard organic isocyanates and soft polyols. Each of these segments has different

properties, the characteristic properties of a given pad depend on the relative ratios of

these hard and soft segments. Isocyanates, the more rigid blocks, influence the hardness,

modulus, tear strength and stability, specifically at elevated temperatures. Polyols on the

other hand tend to affect the elasticity, toughness, abrasion resistance and the low

temperature stability of polymer.

For uniform polishing, the pad needs to be in contact with the whole wafer surface

with the same contact pressure and relative velocity between pad and wafer in all contact

regions. But wafers are not flat and typically have some degree of curvature due to

stresses induced during manufacture process or differing coefficients of thermal

expansion of the various deposited oxide and metal layers on the substrate. This

necessitates the polishing pad to be flexible enough to conform to the wafer-scale

flatness. This is achieved by laminating a stiff polishing pad to a flexible underlying base









pad, which is typically a more compressible material. This improves polishing uniformity

across the wafer without unduly compromising the stiffness of the top polishing pad. A

stacked pad consisting of an IC 1000 top layer on a Suba IV sub-pad (Rodel Inc.,

Newark, DE) is currently the pad system of choice to obtain both good global wafer

uniformity and high removal rate for various CMP systems.

















(a) (b)
Fig. 1-9. Type I CMP pad. (a) Surface. (b) Cross-section [44].


(a) (b)
Fig. 1-10. Type II CMP pad. (a) Surface. (b) Cross-section [44].









Effect of pad grooves

Polishing pads have macrostructure, which can be either perforations through the

pad thickness or surface groove designs. The motivation behind designing pad grooves is

to prevent hydroplaning of the wafer, ensure uniform distribution of slurry over the

wafer, and to remove the polishing debris from the pad surface through these chemicals

[44]. The groove designs can be circular with either concentric or spiral grooves, cross-

hatched patterns arranged as an X-Y grid across the pad surface, other regular design

such as hexagons, triangles and tire-tread type patterns, or irregular designs such as

fractal patterns, or their combinations. The effect of pad texture on tribological and

kinetic properties of polishing pad has been studied by Philipossian and Olsen [45]. Real

time monitoring of coefficient of friction (COF) was done to estimate the normal shear

forces originating during a particular CMP processes for a given pad. Frictional and

removal rate data were taken on Rodel IC 1000 flat, perforated, XY- and K-grooved

pads. The Somerfeld number, COF, a new parameter called tribological mechanism

indicator (TMI) and materials removal rate were some of the parameters monitored

during the experiments. Philipossian and Olsen [45] reported that flat and XY-grooved

pads begin in boundary lubrication and migrate to partial lubrication as Sommerfeld

numbers increase. Thus different pad surface textures showed different material removal

mechanisms. However, the variation of the mechanical properties need to be studied

further on a microscale to gage its impact on the CMP process and material removal

mechanism.

Physical and chemical changes in pad during polishing

Since polishing is a wet process, the mechanical properties of the pad must not vary

considerably when the pad is wet during CMP. However, the hydrophilic pad material









looses modulus and hardness and gains ductility because water acts as a plasticizer. These

changes are reversible [44] and pad properties revert to the dry values, when the pad is in

dry state, indicating that the chemical attack is minimal [46]. The surface of the

polyurethane pad has been studied and reported in literature [47]. The quantitative

analysis of the physical and chemical changes that occur in the polishing pad during

polishing was performed by Lu et al. [48]. In their research, Lu et al. studied the effect of

polishing cycles on the pore size and shape of the commercially available IC 1000/Suba

IV polishing pad. It was reported that the pore size and shape distribution were modified

by polishing cycles. Polishing induced a permanent distortion in the radial direction due

to the oscillatory motion of the wafer, while no change was seen in pad pore size in the

transverse direction (direction of pad motion). The change was attributed to pore closure

by surface reflow of the polymer during polishing or conditioning and not due to debris

filling. The surface profiles generated using white light interferomery showed that the

overall micro roughness of the pad decreases with polishing and there is a smoothening

effect over a period of time due to polishing cycles. Along with physical changes, the pad

undergoes surface chemical modification and degradation due to polishing slurry

chemicals. No pad degradation of the bulk material of the polishing pad was observed.

The change in spectrum (Fig. 1-11) and shifting of the peaks of the used pad as compared

to the new one has been attributed to the realignment of the molecules of the damaged

pad surface layer.

The porous structure of the polishing pad encourages water seepage. The presence

of water in the polymer pore significantly affects the mechanical properties of the

polishing pad. Li et al. [47] studied the effect of pad soaking time on the mechanical









properties of the polishing pad using dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA). The dynamic

shear modulus decreased to two thirds of its original value when the pad is soaked for 5

h. Further, the rate of decrease in dynamic shear modulus decreases at around 14 h but

does not reach a steady state. No significant change in the removal rate was observed

when pads with different soaking time are used in oxide polishing. This shows that

removal rate is more of a surface characteristic of the pad and is not affected by the bulk

material.
















slurry. [48]

Modification of the pad-wafer contact mechanics can directly impact the CMP

process performance. The modified surface can even change the mechanism of material

removal during a polishing process [49]. During polishing, the pad surface layer degrades

decreasing the pad surface roughness. The pad surface which is flattened or "glazed"

needs to be rejuvenated to bring the polishing performance back to the original value.
131)1.1) 12511 12(11 I 1 ) IlflO I [| ) I{H) W, I









Fig. 1-11 Troughening absorbancf the spectrad by a diamof used nditioner is known to result in pad revival.
slurry. [48]

Modification of the pad-wafer contact mechanics can directly impact the CMP

process performance. The modified surface can even change the mechanism of material

removal during a polishing process [49]. During polishing, the pad surface layer degrades

decreasing the pad surface roughness. The pad surface which is flattened or "glazed"

needs to be rejuvenated to bring the polishing performance back to the original value.

The roughening of the pad by a diamond conditioner is known to result in pad revival.

Along with wafer polishing, the conditioner made of diamond grit considerably alters the

surface of the polishing pad. The process of conditioning essentially removes some

amount of top pad surface and is performed either in-situ (during the polishing run) or ex-









situ in between two polishing runs. The pad damage due to insufficient conditioning is

termed as "glazing". Experiments were performed on the CMP pad by Lawing [49] at

different conditioning levels of aggressiveness (expressed as low, medium and high). The

change in polishing rate correlated better with the predicted surface contact area rather

than the average surface roughness.

Effect of temperature change on polishing pad

The polishing pad might be subjected to elevated temperatures during the course of

the CMP process [19]. The heating is due to the frictional forces generated by solid-solid

contact between pad and wafer during polishing. There is some alleviation of heating

when the polishing is done in hydrodynamic contact mode [48]. However, there is an

overall increase in the pad temperature irrespective of the mechanism of polishing. The

effects of pad heating are compounded if the chemical reaction between slurry and pad is

exothermic [38]. The mechanical, physical and chemical properties of the polyurethane

material can be permanently or temporarily altered if the pad is heated beyond a

particular temperature [50]. DMA, thermomechanical analysis (TMA) and

thermogravimeteric analysis have been used for material characterization of the polishing

pad [47, 48].

The applicability for DMA for polishing pads has been elaborately studied by Lu et

al. [48]. Based on the results of previous experiments performed by Li et al., [47], DMA

was performed to evaluate the structure-property relationship of polyurethane pads. The

glass transition temperature is the temperature at which the macromolecules of the

polyurethane break away from entanglements and undergo micro-Brownian motion.

Investigation of glass transition temperature of the polyurethane pad is important as it









corresponds to a sharp decrease in the hardness and modulus of the pad which in turn

affects the removal rate and global planarization.

Non-uniformity of the polishing pad

The pad might be directly responsible for several process defects like WTWNU

where there is non-homogeneity of polishing when one wafer is compared to another or

WIWNU where there is non-homogeneity of polishing at different areas of the same

wafer. The scanning ultrasound transmission (UST) is a nondestructive technique

developed that works on the principle of ultrasound permeability through absorbing

visco-elastic medium [51, 52]. The difference in the ultrasound absorption in the areas of

varying density and viscoelasticity is used to determine the non-uniformity within a

single pad there by giving an in-depth idea of the physical characteristics of the given

pad. In order to improve the yield of the CMP process and, to get a highly planar, defect

free uniform wafer surface with reduced overall manufacturing costs involved, there is a

need to extensively study the fundamental properties of the CMP pads on the whole.

CMP process in the future

The semiconductor industry has effectively adapted its CMP technology for the 300

mm wafer [53]. Beyond the adoption of copper interconnects, several technologies are

necessary to continue the shrinkage of device dimensions and the increase of packing

density in ULSI manufacturing. The use of ultra low-k materials as interlayer dielectrics

has been at the forefront for decreasing the "C" part of the "RC delay". However,

polishing of ultra low-k dielectrics which are mechanically weak (soft) is a daunting task.

The single and dual damascene structures comprising of ultra low-k porous or polymeric

materials are more prone to buckling and crushing failures due to significantly lower

hardness and Young's modulus as compared to silicon dioxide. According to the ITRS









roadmap [12] materials with dielectric constant 2.2 will be integrated in the IC by year

2007.

Also, there needs to be a marked improvement in slurry selectivity for accurate end

point detection when the constituent layers of the damascene structure namely, metal,

hard mask, cap layer, barrier layer and dielectric are polished. Furthermore, it is

necessary to explore the niche of the CMP process in STI and other applications such as

backside polishing and the fabrication of micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS).

Here, the CMP process must be integrated horizontally and vertically to achieve high

throughput and performance. In MEMS applications, horizontal integration ensures

reliability and good performance of a specific CMP process run. The development of new

polishing pads and pad architectures, novel slurries, new metrology techniques, etc.

comes within the scope of horizontal CMP integration. Vertical integration ensures

success of every successive CMP operation. This includes the integration of the upstream

processes such as Cu/barrier deposition, etching and downstream processes such as ILD

deposition and lithography. This opens a wide scope of research for further optimization

and development in Cu CMP process. Due to intricate interactions of the processes

involved in any CMP process, modeling efforts are needed to get a systematic

understanding of the process and predictability of the CMP outputs.

Scope of Dissertation

The importance of polishing and the various available planarization techniques

with emphasis on CMP have been discussed in Chapter 1. A general overview of the

parameters involved in CMP are discussed with prominent interactions between them.

Chapter 2 gives an overview of the CMP modeling efforts and the framework of the

PERC I CMP model. The model's challenges are described, which necessitated the






29


development of the PERC II model. The assumptions of the PERC I model are refined as

necessary in chapter 3. Model development is also delineated with critical differences

between PERC I and II models. Chapter 4 validates the PERC II model comparing to

experimental literature data and comments on the predictive capability of the model.

Chapter 5 summarizes the findings of the study along with the suggestions for future

work.














CHAPTER 2
CMP MODELING: OVERVIEW OF PERC I

Like most semiconductor manufacturing processes, simultaneous tuning of

process variables is a formidable task due to many varying parameters. Unfortunately,

much of the commercial CMP process development cycle is based on nearly blind

design-of-experiment (DOE) testing. While these empirical tests help to optimize

parameters in a very small range, the overall approach does not necessarily facilitate a

deeper understanding of the process. Thus, CMP research has focused on developing

process models in order to gain further insight on the process mechanics for better control

over the CMP outputs.

The ultimate goal is to model at three scales of CMP, namely, the particle, die and

wafer scales. The models at the particle scale are needed to understand the mechanisms

involved in interactions between slurry particles, chemicals, polishing pad and wafer

during blanket wafer polishing. The models at the feature or die scale are needed to

address the topography evolution of integrated circuit (IC) chips as a function of pattern

density, line width, pitch width and polishing time. The wafer-scale models also need to

address the issues related to the material removal non-uniformity over the entire wafer

surface. To satisfy the manufacturability requirements in the sub-micron IC fabrication,

the margin of the profile non-uniformity is usually limited in the range of several hundred

nanometers. The material removal non-uniformity across the wafer is rooted in the non-

uniform distributions of pressure and velocity over the wafer surface, which in a large









degree, are determined by the configurations of CMP equipment. A model at this scale,

therefore, needs to consider the equipment configurations appropriately.

Literature Review

In the last decade, various kinds of models have been proposed by researchers,

concentrating on different aspects of CMP covering the particle, die and wafer scales. But

the effectiveness of die and wafer scale models depends strongly on the robustness of the

particle scale models, as the die and wafer-scale models are developed based on the

particle scale models. Therefore, in order to understand and predict the performance of

CMP in wafer scale, the current study aims to understand the behavior of CMP at particle

scale. As the current work focuses mainly on particle scale modeling, only related models

will be reviewed here.

Preston Equation

The Preston equation [54] as an empirical relation for optical glass polishing was

substantiated by Cook [24] who considered that the interaction between abrasive particles

and wafer surface leads to removal of atomic clusters due to bond breakage. Preston

provided a simple model of material removal in glass polishing tools which is often

adopted for CMP processes also. But, experimental results have shown that slurry and

pad properties also significantly influence the process along with down pressure and

platen speed [55, 56]. In order to explain the non-Prestonian behavior, many modeling

efforts have been carried out in the past decade and is still a topic of considerable interest.

The three most important elements in the CMP material removal process are the

wafer being polished, slurry and polishing pad. Researchers adopted two main

approaches in modeling the CMP process. One approach is based on fluid

hydrodynamics, where material removal is considered to be caused mainly by slurry









erosion. Slurry film thickness, hydrodynamic pressure and removal rate are generally

calculated by solving Reynolds or Navier-Stokes equation [57-62]. The other approach

uses the theory of contact mechanics, which assumes that the material removal occurs by

particle indentation into the wafer surface. Pad surface roughness and hardness are

generally used to calculate the particle indentation into the wafer thereby calculating the

removal rate [27, 63-67]. Finite element modeling (FEM) has also been used to determine

the pad asperity mechanical properties recently [68, 69].

It is generally agreed that the typical CMP process conditions lead to major

material removal by particle abrasion rather than by slurry erosion [70]. Experimental

observations of polished surfaces have revealed that material removal in CMP occurs as a

consequence of a combination of chemical reaction of the slurry chemicals with the wafer

surface and ploughing (repeated sliding, rolling, or indentation) of the abrasive particles

against the wafer surface that is already modified. The chemical reaction results in

formation of a thin layer on surface which is of different modulus than the

substrate/wafer, aiding in material removal [71].

When particles are introduced between wearing surfaces, the wear is due to the

particles embedded in one of the sliding surfaces. This process is referred to as three-

body abrasion. In the CMP process, the particles acting as single point cutting tools, dig

into the wafer and plow a series of grooves in it. Therefore, the CMP process is

essentially a three-body abrasive wear. The analysis of the texture of polished surfaces

also supports this observation. Fig. 2-1 illustrates typical post CMP surfaces as examined

via an optical surface profiler. The surface texture consists of a number of randomly










oriented nano-grooves (Fig. 2-1). The width and depth of the grooves are determined by

the penetration depth of the abrasive particles into the wafer surface.


301


' 75,00


S2,5

f-


5.0 nm



2.5 nrm



0.0 nm


111111111-- -.. -
0 2,50 5.t
C1m
(b)
Fig. 2-1. Polished wafer surfaces showing nanoscratch surfaces. (a) Silica wafer [72]. (b)
Si wafer [73].

The material removal process in CMP can be considered as sliding of the indented

slurry particles over a chemically influenced thin layer over the wafer surface. The









knowledge of critical factors that effect the CMP process and the interactions among

them is critical to select the respective parameters and design an enhanced CMP process,

predicting material removal rate, and surface quality (roughness, defects, etc.). The most

popular material removal equation is the Preston's Equation [54], which was initially

introduced for glass polishing,

MRR= KePV, (2 1)

where MRR is the material removal rate, Ke an all-purpose coefficient, P the down

pressure and V the relative velocity over the wafer-pad inteface. It demonstrates a linear

dependency of material removal rate on the pressure and velocity. Not all experimental

MRR data in CMP, especially in metal CMP, support the linear dependency between

material removal and the product of pressure and velocity.

Modifications to Preston Equation

In order to explain the non-Prestonian behavior of the CMP process, revised

Preston's equations were proposed by several researchers. For example, considering that

the material removal rate does not extrapolate to zero, Maury et al. [74] introduced a

fitting parameter MRRo into Preston's equation

MRR= KePV + MRRo (2.2)

Later, the nonlinear equation

MRR= KePu VO, (2.3)

where ac and P are two fitting parameters, was proposed by Wrschka et al. [75] to get a

better fit for the experimental data.

The major problem with Preston's equation and its revisions are that they are

empirical modeling efforts. Therefore, they do not shed any light on gaining insight into









the process especially regarding other process variables. By extending Brown's model

[76] of the metal polishing to the silicon polishing, Cook [24] developed a physical

model to address this limitation. The interactions between the abrasive particles and the

wafer surface is proposed as a Hertzian elastic penetration [77] of a spherical particle

under uniform pressure P into the wafer surface, sliding along the surface with a velocity

V and removing material volume proportional to the penetration. The MRR formulation

was proposed was

MRR= PV/(2E) (2.4)

where E is the Young's modulus of the wafer material. This model can be taken as a

theoretical equivalent to the Preston's equation since it supports the linear dependency of

MRR on pressure and velocity. The relationship between the wafer surface roughness Ra

the down pressure P, and abrasive size can also be obtained based on this model

Ra=3/4 b (P/2klE)2/3 (2 5)

where kl is the particle concentration, which is unity for a filled close hexagonal packing

[24] and b the diameter of the slurry particles. A similar model was developed by Liu et

al [78] based on the statistical method and Hertzian elastic penetration. Besides the wafer

material properties including wafer hardness Hw and wafer Young's modulus Ew, this

model included pad hardness Hp and abrasive Young's modulus Es resulting in


MRR = C, H,- E, + E PV (2.6)
H +H, P Es Ew

where Ce is a coefficient to account for the effects of slurry chemicals and other

consumable parameters. This model, similar to Cook's model, suggests that the material

removal is proportional to the applied pressure and relative speed









The advantages of Cook's and Liu's models over Preston's equation are that they

provide more insights into the roles of the consumable parameters. The contributions of

the slurry abrasives and pad, for example, have been attributed to their size and hardness.

An additional benefit is that not only material removal rate, but also surface quality issues

such as roughness (Eq. 2.5) can be addressed using these models.

Slurry Erosion

In Cook's and Liu's models, the mechanical removal by abrasive particles was

assumed to be the dominant mechanism. However, some researchers instead assumed the

material removal to be by "slurry erosion" approach, i.e., due to mechanical-enhanced

erosion. Runnels et al. [79-81] developed an erosion-based model for CMP. They

assumed that a fluid film exists between the wafer and pad interface, which affects the

erosion/material removal rates at each single point through the fluid stress tensors.

Motivated by observations at feature scale, modification to Preston's equation was

proposed, with relative velocity V, replaced by the tangential stress on the wafer surface;

MRR=Ceoton (2.7)

where Ce is an all purpose coefficient, ot is the shear stress due to the slurry flow and on

the normal stress.

The model uses a steady state incompressible Navier-Stokes equation to model the

slurry flow at the wafer-polishing pad interface. The wafer surface is assumed to be

smooth and spherical with a large radius of curvature. The fluid layer thickness and the

angle of attack between the pad and the wafer are obtained through an iterative procedure

satisfying force and momentum balance. Runnels' model has been integrated into several

particle-scale models by researchers including Tseng and Wang [82] and Zhang and









Busnaina [83]. Tseng and Wang attributed the normal stress at the particle-wafer contact

to the elastic indentation of the particle into the wafer surface, which is similar to that

proposed by Cook and calculated the normal stress over the wafer-particle interface as

F
n (2.8)


where F is the force acting on the spherical particles, which is proportional to the pressure

P. The radius of particle-wafer contact, re is given by

r3 3d 1 2 1 v '2
r 8 F+ Er- (2.9)
8 E E'

where d is the diameter of particles, v and v' the Poisson's ratios of wafer surface and the

particle and E and E' the elastic modulii of the wafer and particles, respectively. The

shear stress due to the slurry flow can be approximated as

t =CeIVPA, (2.10)

where |t is the dynamic viscosity of the slurry and Ao the area of wafer surface

respectively. Substitution of equations (2 8) and (2 10) into (2 7) yields

MRR=KeP5/6V1/2 (211)

where Ke is the parameter to account for material properties, slurry abrasive

concentration and chemical processes. This model demonstrated a nonlinear relationship

between the material removal and the product of pressure and velocity. Tseng's model

attempted to connect the elastic indentation to the erosion rate, whereas Cook's and Liu's

models connect it to the mechanical abrasion. While the down pressure dependency (P5/6)

is quite close to linear dependency, the velocity dependency (V2) however, is quite

nonlinear. This is because the contribution of velocity has been attributed to the slurry









flow instead of abrasive sliding. Due to pad porosity and surface asperities, such a slurry

film is bound to be interrupted by solid-solid contact. Thus hydrodynamic lubrication

may be responsible for distributing the slurry, while the material removal occurs mainly

through solid-solid contact.

Cook's, Liu's and Tseng and Wang's models attributed the penetration of the

abrasive particles to Hertzian elastic contact. Zhang and Busnaina [83] estimated the

contact pressure between the particle and the contact surface in their model and found

that it is larger than the yield stress of the polished materials. Therefore, they proposed

that plastic deformation is a more likely deformation mechanism in polishing. The

contact pressure over the particle-wafer interfaces is suggested to be equal to the hardness

Hw of the wafer materials. Replacing the normal stress (Eq 2 8) in Tseng and Wang's

model with the hardness Hw yields the following material removal rate formulation

MRR= Ke(PV)1/2 (2.12)

where Ke is the parameter to account for materials properties, slurry abrasive

concentration and chemical processes. Both Tseng and Wang; and Zhang and Busnama's

models suggest a nonlinear pressure times velocity dependency of material removal rate.

Moreover, it is noted that besides the external force applied on the particles from the pad,

Zhang and Busnaina also proposed that an adhesion force, either van der Waals force or

electrostatic force depending on the separation distance between the particle and the

wafer, contributes to the indentation. This has been integrated into another particle-scale

model by Zhang et al. [84]. In a series of articles by Ahmadi and Xia [85], and Mazaheri

and Ahmadi [86, 87], a thermodynamic work parameter Wa of adhesion was added to

account for its effects on the indentation of abrasive particles. Mazaheri and Ahmadi [86]









introduced a double layer (dl) force into the indentation force, whose magnitude is a

function of the zeta potential of the abrasives and the wafer. Beside the abrasive wear,

Ahmadi and Xia [85] also considered the adhesion wear of the wafer in their model.

Moreover, while most of the models treated the abrasives as having a spherical shape,

Mazaheri and Ahmadi represented them as spheres with a number of hemispherical

bumps around their surface. The penetrations of slurry abrasives are modeled using the

penetrations of the bumps.

The above models imply that the abrasives are embedded in the pad and indent into

the wafer surface. It should be noted that some modeling efforts also assume that the

abrasive particles float in the slurry and impact the wafer surface from time to time

causing material removal [88].

Pad Considerations in CMP Models

The pad is assumed to be smooth in the earlier particle-wafer interaction models. It

has been observed that the pad topography and pad material play an important role in

material removal processes. For example, the material removal rate has been reported to

increase with the pad surface roughness [55]. Without conditioning of the polishing pad

surface, the material removal rate decreases exponentially with polishing time [89]. In

consideration of this, Yu et al. [63] developed a pad-based model. They approximated the

peaks on the pad surface by hemispherical asperities with constant radius and the asperity

heights to follow Gaussian distribution. Based on the model, the real contact area is

smaller than the nominal (apparent) contact area and linearly proportional to the down

pressure. Steigerwald et al. [19] proposed that the material removal rate is proportional to

the number of abrasive particles over the contact area. Combining this argument with









Yu's model yields a linear dependency of the material removal rate on the down pressure,

which agrees with Preston's equation.

Zhao and Shi [90] also proposed a model based on the wafer-asperity contact.

Unlike Yu's model [63], this model does not consider the Gaussian distribution of the

asperity heights. The contact area between an asperity and the wafer is given by Aa Ua P2/3

based on Hertz elastic contact theory. By combining Steigerwald's argument, the material

removal rate formulation can be obtained as

MRR= K(V)P(2/3) (2.13)

where K(V) is a function of the relative velocity V and other CMP parameters. It is

further considered by Zhao and Shi [90] that when the particles are rolling against the

wafer surface, their contribution to material removal will be negligible. They argued that

whether the particle is rolling or not is determined by the surface friction between the

particles and the wafer, and only when the down pressure P is larger than a threshold

down pressure Pth, the pure rolling can be avoided. The material removal rate is given as:

MRR = K(V)(P2/3 Pth2/3) for P > Pth (2.14a)

and

MRR = 0 for P< Pth (2.14b)

The fundamental difference between the above pad-based models and the particle-

based models by Cook and others is that pad-based models attribute the material removal

rate to the number of abrasive particles captured by the polishing pad while the later

attributes the material removal rate to the interaction between a single abrasive and the

wafer.









A particle-pad interaction is critical to the particle scale models considering that the

function of the pad is to trap the abrasive particles and transmit load to the particle-wafer

interface. Cook's model [24]suggested a close-packing of spherical abrasives onto the

pad. It is assumed that the wafer and pad are separated completely by the abrasives and

no direct pad-wafer contact exists. The force applied on a single abrasive under these

assumptions is given by


F = Pr2 (2 15)
ki

where P is the polishing pressure, r the abrasive size and kl the particle fill fraction on the

pad. This particle-pad interaction model has been integrated into the material removal

model of Cook. It is also used by Ahmadi and Xia [85] to evaluate the force on a particle

in their case of a hard-pad and a larger concentration of abrasive particles. Later, Zhao

and Shi [90] proposed that when the pad is soft enough, the abrasive particles will be

embedded deeply into the pad and the force from the wafer is supported by the pad and

abrasives together. This idea has been applied by Luo and Domfeld [27, 91, 92] and Fu et

al. [93] in their model. Luo and Dornfeld's model [27, 91, 92] suggested that this force is

proportional to the contact pressure multiplied by the abrasive size by assuming that the

abrasives are closely packed to each other and these closely packed abrasives are

enclosed by the pads so that the effective contact area between wafer and pad is equal to

that without abrasives. Moreover, the size of the abrasives that may be captured by the

pad is assumed to be a function of abrasive size distribution and pad properties. Their

model, however, neglects the lower sizes of the particle size distribution in material

removal calculation. Fu et al. [93] later assumed that the abrasives are dispersed evenly

over the pad surface and used a beam model to evaluate the wafer-pad direct contact









between two single abrasives. The force supported by a single abrasive can be obtained

from the beam model and is a function of abrasive size, down pressure and pad material

properties [93].

Besides the force, the second purpose of an abrasive-pad interaction model is to

evaluate the number of abrasives involved in the material removal process. Fu et al. [93]

considered the number of trapped particles as an independent parameter in their model.

This may be misleading considering that various parameters, for example, the abrasive

weight concentration and abrasive size, have an influence on the number [27, 72, 91, 92].

Luo and Dornleld considered more complex scenarios and suggested that only a portion

of abrasives are involved in the material removal process, which is not reasonable.

Slurry Considerations in CMP Models

The contribution of slurry chemicals to the material removal is either neglected in

earlier models or represented by an all-purpose coefficient. Cook [24] suggested a

complete but complicated scenario of the chemical effects. Besides the mechanical

removal, it is proposed that the surface removal during polishing include the following

five chemical processes (i) the slurry chemical diffusion into the wafer surface, (ii) the

subsequent wafer material dissolution under the load imposed by the abrasive particles,

(iii) the adsorption of the dissolution product onto the surface of the polishing grain, (iv)

the re-deposition of the polishing materials back onto the wafer surface, and (v) the

corrosion rate between particle impacts. These steps are not considered in most of the

early models as they are complex to model quantitatively.

The major contribution of slurry chemicals on the material removal process has

been attributed to the formation of a surface layer. This idea is well demonstrated by

Kaufman et al. in their Tungsten CMP model [37].









Kaufman et al. proposed that this passivation layer is removed by slurry abrasives

and the fresh tungsten surface is exposed, which is subsequently passivated and removed.

This mechanism of continued passivation and removal can be used to explain the copper,

aluminum and other metal CMP systems as well. A similar mechanism is supposed to

work in silicon, silica and low-k CMP systems. Paul [94] and Zhao et al. [95] have

proposed detailed surface kinetics models to connect the slurry chemical concentrations

and fresh metal surface sites available to the formation rate of the surface layer. Their

models can explain the material removal rate as a function of chemical and abrasive

weight concentration. Borst et al. [62] have proposed a five-step model for CMP of SiLK

dielectrics (i) mass transport of reactant from the slurry to the slurry/wafer interface, (ii)

adsorption of reactant to available surface site, (iii) reaction between adsorbed reactant

and specific wafer surface to form an altered wafer surface layers, (iv). mechanical

removal of the altered wafer surface layer, and (v) mass transport of removed material to

the bulk slurry. In their work, the mass transportation, slurry chemical concentration and

reaction rate to the formation of the surface layer were incorporated. This detailed model

was suggested to be able to be extended to the CMP of other materials.

The idea of continuous surface modification and removal has been applied in the

model developed by Qin and co-workers [96]. A similar approach has also been used in

Luo and Dornfeld's model [91]. They extended Kaufman's model by proposing that the

surface layer is a bi-layer structure, though in reality there might be a gradual transition

between the layers. They did not cover the details on how the formation rate of the

surface layer is affected by the slurry chemicals. But Luo's model assumes that all the









asperities contact the wafer and that the particles fill the asperity-wafer contact spots,

which is not necessarily true.

The slurry chemicals affect not only the wafer but also the slurry abrasives and

polishing pad. Their contribution to material removal is therefore not only reflected

through surface kinetics, but also through alteration of the abrasive and pad properties

such as the abrasive shape, abrasive size and pad Young's modulus. There are not many

modeling efforts on these two interactions yet. A recent model by Castillo-Mejia et al.

[97] tried to explain the effect of water-pad interaction in CMP. The water is proposed to

plasticize the polishing pad and reduce its elastic modulus. A formulation on the ratio of

the Young's modulus of wet pad to the dry pad is suggested. This Young's modulus is

then used in a wafer-pad contact model to evaluate the material removal.

Many of these models were also extended to patterned wafers along with other

modeling concepts including combination of the solid-solid contact and slurry erosion

approaches [98-109]. Polishing mechanisms were also based on surface reaction kinetics

[95, 110, 111] and modeled using molecular dynamics simulations [112-115].

PERC I CMP Model

Most of the earlier models have concentrated on one or two interactions of the

CMP process parameters. They are useful for identifying the input parameters. However,

they may not be sufficient for understanding the whole material removal process. The

effects of the same input parameters may be contrary to each other when acting in

different conditions. A comprehensive model of CMP integrating the main interactions

together is therefore needed. For this purpose, a model was developed by Qin et al.[72],

taking into consideration most critical CMP parameters. This section discusses the









assumptions on which the model is built, its effectiveness in predicting the CMP process

variables and the model limitations.

Model Development

The chemicals in a slurry alter the properties of the wafer surface that is in contact

with them. Since the chemical influence is restricted to a thin region near the wafer

surface, a thin surface layer whose mechanical properties are different from those of the

bulk wafer is assumed. This surface layer can be formed by chemical reactions at the

surface or by the diffusion of slurry ionic species into the wafer. The surface layer is then

removed by mechanical action of the slurry particles and/or by dissolution into the slurry

through a convective diffusion process. Although there may be a few exceptional cases

[Luo98], material removal by the dissolution is small compared to that by the mechanical

action of the slurry particles, and it is not considered in this model. Fig. 2-2 describes

schematically the physical situation that is considered in the present analysis. The pad

asperities that are in contact with the wafer surface act as the anchoring sites for the

slurry particles. The anchored particles then gouge the chemically altered wafer surface

or the bulk wafer depending on the indentation depth resulting in material removal. In the

following section, various parameters considered in the present analysis and the

underlying assumptions are described followed by the details of the model development.

Topology of a pad surface has been characterized and described statistically by

various researchers [63, 116] Their measurements indicated that pad asperity heights

were in the order of tens of microns and appeared to have a normal (or Gaussian)

distribution. In Fig. 2-2, the topology of the pad surface is shown schematically along

with a statistical description characterizing the pad asperities. In this figure, 3 is the









mean radius of curvature of the tip of the pad asperities, 4 is the distribution function for

the height of the asperities, and cy the standard deviation of the pad asperity heights,

respectively.


Asperity Height, z


(b)


Fig. 2-2 Pad consideration in PERC I. (a) Schematic of the pad surface that is in contact
with the chemically modified layer formed on the wafer surface; (b)
Distribution of the pad asperity heights (When the height of an asperity is
greater than the average gap h between the pad and the wafer, that asperity is
in contact with the wafer surface.) [72]









Since the characteristic length scale for the roughness of the pad surface (e.g., 3) is

much larger than the feature sizes on the wafer, it was assumed that the wafer surface is

smooth and flat compared to the pad surface. This assumption makes it possible to use

the Greenwood-Williamson model [117] that describes the contact area, Areal, between a

flat surface and a randomly rough surface under a normal force (or load), L:


A ,real = TNA z h) (z)dz (2.16)

L = NAE12(z h)3/2 ()dz (2.17)

where N is the number density of the pad asperities (i.e., number of asperities per unit

area), Ao is the total area of the flat wafer surface, and h is the average gap between the

smooth wafer and the rough pad under the given conditions. Then, the down-pressure, P,

applied to the wafer with an area Ao is L/Ao whereas the actual mean contact pressure, Pr,

is L/Areal if the normal force applied to the wafer is entirely supported by the pad

asperities in contact with the wafer. That is

L =PA,= PrAreal (2.18)
E* is the composite modulus between the two surfaces in contact, that is defined as

1 1-v2 _V2
1 ~ (2.19)
E* Ep E

where E and v are the Young's modulus and the Poisson's ratio, and the subscripts p and

w represent the pad and the wafer, respectively.

Equations 2.16, 2.17 and 2.18 provide an explicit relationship between the contact

area (Ar) and the down pressure (P) that is needed in modeling the CMP process. From

Eqs. 2.16 and 2.17,










AL 4E* 3 h h)/2(z Jz (2.20)
L 4E (z -h)3/( Z


Following Yu et al.[63], the normal distribution function may be used for the


distribution of the asperity height, ). When )(z) = exp -z-- is substituted into
Cy [27j 2CY2 2

Equation 2.20, the integral cannot be obtained in an explicit form. Instead, a numerical

integration should be preformed. Johnson showed that the ratio of the two integrals in Eq.

2.20 is nearly a constant for a broad range of h/o [77]. Thus,

rea =-C 1 =C-1, PA, 22
A-C C (2.21)


where C is a constant whose value is between 0.3 and 0.4 when h/l is in the range of 0.5

and 3.0. Recalling that o is the standard deviation of the asperity height distribution,

h/o=3.0 represents a situation where only 0.13% of the pad asperities are in contact with

the wafer whereas about 30.85% is in contact when h/o=0.5. Practical situation in a

typical CMP process is well within this range ofh/l value. From Eqs. 2.18 and 2.21,


Pr = C E (2.22)


It should be noted that the contact area (Ar) increases linearly with the down-

pressure whereas the contact pressure (Pr) remains constant due to the linear increase of

Ar with P.

The underlying assumption for Eq. 2.18 is that the applied normal force on the

wafer is supported entirely by the pad asperities. As is mentioned previously,

experimental measurement on the friction coefficient indicates that the hydrodynamic









pressure is negligible under typical CMP operational conditions. Furthermore,

commercial pads often have grooves or perforations to prevent hydroplaning (i.e., to

prevent a large pressure development due to a lubrication flow) and to ensure uniform

slurry distribution. Thus, the assumption that the hydrodynamic pressure is negligible is

justifiable.

Small Plastic Deformation of the Thin Layer on the Wafer Surface

Considering the fact that the deformation of the surface layer by the slurry particles

under the contact pressure is very small in the order of several nanometers, the mode of

deformation can be assumed to be plastic deformation. In the case of oxide CMP, it is

known that the silica surface is softened when it is in contact with an aqueous solution. A

surface layer (or so-called gel layer) is formed due to the diffusion of water molecules

into the silica surface altering the surface properties.

The situation may be different in the case of metal CMP. Since an oxidizer is added

in most metal CMP processes, metal oxide is formed on the wafer surface creating a

structure mismatch at the interface between the oxide layer and the bulk wafer

underneath. Thus, delamination or microcracking of the oxide layer may occur at the

interface during the metal CMP process. However, as evidenced in previous sections, it is

likely that plastic deformation is still the dominant mode of deformation because the

indentation depth by the slurry particles is small (e.g., less than several nanometers).

Furthermore, the oxide layer may be soft due to hydration in an aqueous environment.

Thus, the assumption that the chemically altered thin surface layer on the wafer exhibits

plastic deformation is plausible. This assumption enables us to apply the abrasive wear

theory in deriving the expression for the material removal rate. When the indentation

depth is beyond the surface layer, the deformation of the unaltered wafer material may be









either plastic or elastic depending on the hardness of the wafer material and the slurry

particles.

Material Removal by a Single Particle

In the present analysis, it is assumed that the slurry particles are monosized and of

radius 'R'. The overall material removal rate is assumed to be the multiple of the removal

rate by a single particle and the number of particles in contact with the wafer:

(RR) = n (RR)v/Ao (2.23)

where n is the number of slurry particles anchored in the region of the pad that is in

contact with the wafer, and (RR)v is the volumetric removal rate by a single particle. The

overall removal rate, (RR), is typically described in terms of the thickness removed per

unit time; hence the division by the nominal wafer area Ao.

Schematic illustration of single particle abrasion is given in Fig. 2-3. The material

removal is viewed as a sliding-indentation process in which the volumetric removal rate

by a particle is given as

(RR)v = AiV (2.24)

where Ai is the cross-sectional area of the particle immersed in the wafer under pressure

(hashed area in Fig. 2-3a), and V is the relative velocity of the pad to the wafer.

Assuming that the hard particle maintains its spherical shape,


A, = -a(R o)+ R2 arcsin a
R (2.25)

where co is the indentation depth and a the radius of the circular indentation on the wafer

surface by the particle of radius R,

Because co is very small compared to R, a/R is also very small and Equation 2.25

can be linearized about a/R to give









A, = ac +
3 I R]) (2.26)

Thus the volumetric removal rate is


(RR), = ao V
3 (2.27)


WaferWafer
t
a Co t '"


b Pad
PPad t

tFa P Fa


(a) (b)
Fig. 2-3. Schematic of single particle abrasion showing the removal of chemically
modified surface layer. (a). o < t. (b). o > t with soft wafer materials.

Because a2=(2Rco-o2) and co is much smaller than R, Equation 2.27 can be

rewritten as

2a3V
(RR) 2aV
3R (2.28)

Once the indentation depth co (or a) is known, the volumetric removal rate by a

single particle can be readily calculated from Eq. 2.28.

Depending on the relative magnitude of the indentation depth (co) to the surface

layer thickness (t), the material removal may be classified into two different regimes as

depicted in Fig. 2-3; (a) o < t and (b) co > t.









Indentation depth smaller than the surface layer thickness (i.e., o _< t)

When the chemically modified surface layer is thick enough, the indentation depth

co will be no greater than the surface layer thickness and only plastic deformation within

the surface layer occurs. In this case, o) (or a) can be obtained from the force balance

imposed on the particle by the pad and the wafer that depends on the indentation depth of

the particle into the wafer surface. The force imposed on a particle by the pad is given as

F = 7rb' (2.29)


where b is the radius of the circular indentation into the pad as described in Fig. 2-3a, and

P, is the contact pressure given by Eq. 2.22. The force on the particle by the deforming

wafer can be given as


F = Ta 2B (2.30)


where Be is the effective Brinell hardness of the chemically modified surface layer. The

term "effective" is used because its value is influenced by the thickness of the chemically

modified surface layer and the material property of the underlying substrate. The pad is

supposed to hold the particles in place thereby transmitting the normal force to the

particles that cause indentation of the wafer surface. The pad should be soft enough to

provide stable anchoring of the particles on its surface. However, if it is too soft, the

particles will be embedded too deeply into the pad diminishing the material removal

capability of the particles. Thus, the pad should be sufficiently hard to make the value of

b in Fig. 2-3 to be close to the particle radius R. Then, from equations 2.29 and 2.30 with

b R,








1/2
a=R (2.31)


This equation along with equations 2.22 and 2.28 gives the following expression for the

volumetric removal rate by a single particle of radius R.

(2 "-3/4 E 3/2
(RR) C3/2R2 ~/2 V (2.32)
S3 P Be

Indentation depth greater than the surface layer thickness (i.e., o > t)

When the bulk wafer material beyond the surface layer is relatively soft (e.g.,

copper) compared to the hardness of the particles, it is possible for the particle to cause

deformation into the wafer beyond the surface layer (Fig. 2-3b). As it was described in

the previous section, the deformation is expected to be plastic for both the surface layer

and the bulk wafer, and the force causing the deformation may be given as

F, = [2tRB, + (a2 2tR)B j (2.33)

where Bw and Be are the Brinell hardness of the bulk wafer material and the chemically

modified surface layer, respectively. Because this force is equivalent to the one imposed

on the particle by the down-pressure, Eq. 2.33 is equated with Eq. 2.29 with b=R to give


R2P, + 2(B, Bj)Rt 12
a R + 2(B (2.34)


Then, Eq. 2.28 for the volumetric removal rate by a single particle is reduced to


(RR) =2C(j R2 +21 Rt (2.35)
3 B BR









While equation 2.35 describes a situation where the deformation reaches into the

bulk wafer beyond the surface layer, deformation of the bulk wafer may not occur if the

bulk wafer material is very hard. This limiting case corresponds to the situation of

infinitely large Bw in equation 2.35 that is reduced to


(RR) =4, R1/2t3/2 (2.36)
3

Equations 2.32, 2.35 and 2.36 indicate that the volumetric removal rate by a single slurry

particle depends on the geometry of the pad and the particle (i.e., 3, C and R), the

material properties (E*, Bw and Be), the thickness of the surface layer (t), and the relative

velocity of the pad (thus the particle) to the wafer (V). It may be interesting to note that

(RR), is independent of the down pressure, P. It is due to the fact that the contact

pressure, Pr, is independent of P. As equation 2.21 indicates, the contact area of the pad

with the wafer (Ar) increases linearly with P. Consequently, the mean contact pressure,

P, which is PAo/Ar, is independent of P. In the following section, the number of particles

in contact with the wafer surface is estimated to determine the overall removal rate.

Estimation of the Overall Removal Rate


When the wafer is pressed against the pad and is in sliding motion relative to the pad, the

particles can be entrapped only in the region where the local distance between the wafer

and the pad asperity is smaller than the particle diameter, 2R. Thus, the number of

particles that can be trapped on the pad asperities is


n = 2R'Areal" Pn


(2.37)









Here A, is the real contact area between the wafer surface and the pad asperities as

it was described in previous section. p, is the number density of the particles in the slurry

(i.e., number of particles per unit slurry volume), that can be calculated from the solid

loading Ca (wt%) of the slurry particles as

3 Cap,
P, (2.38)
4 7R3 pa


where pa and ps are the densities of the particle and the slurry solution, respectively.

Substitute of Eqs. 2.38 into 2.37 gives


3 Cap9
n = A, (2.39)
2 7R2pa


By combining Eqs. 2.39 and 2.18, the number of particles anchored on the pad asperities

becomes


3 Ca s 0 pAA
n- 2C -CR (2.40)
2C 7R2 pa a E


Now that (RR), and n are given in terms of various processing variables and material

properties, the overall material removal rate in a CMP process can be estimated from Eqs.

2.32, 5.27 and 2.40 for the two different cases described above:

Removal Rate: Indentation depth smaller than surface layer thickness (i.e., co

(RR= C P (E)2Be32 PV (2.41)



Removal Rate: Indentation depth larger than surface layer thickness (i.e., co > t),










(RR) = -C1 {c U+ 21 1-1 3/2 PV (2.42)
v zC pA, El ) B B) R


As Eq. 2.23 indicates, the overall removal rate, (RR), is the thickness removal rate which

is the volumetric removal rate divided by the nominal wafer area Ao. We may recall that

C is a constant whose value is about 0.35 when h/o is between 0.5 and 3.0 [Joh85]. The

overall removal rate given above is reminiscent of Preston's equation in that the material

removal rate is proportional to the down-pressure, P, and the relative velocity, V. It

should be noted that the Preston's coefficient Kp, whose value relies on empiricism, is

now given as a function of various processing variables and material properties.

The model predicts the removal rate as a function of pressure and velocity product (PV)

very well [72]. The removal rate is usually only considered as a function of PV in many

modeling efforts, ignoring other processing parameters. But the PERC I model considers

the particle size effect, which is crucial for any CMP system.

Equation 2.41 indicates that the overall removal rate is independent of the particle size R

whereas Eq. 2.42 indicates a decrease in (RR) with increasing particle size. When the

indentation-depth is smaller than the surface layer thickness (i.e., 0)
removal rate by a single particle (RR), is proportional to R2 (Eq. 2.32). The number of

particles in contact, on the other hand, is inversely proportional to R2 as the Eq. 2.40

indicates. Consequently, the particle size effect is negated.

Thus the model predicts as shown in Fig. 2-4 that the removal rate is either

independent of particle size in the modified layer removal regime or decreases with

particle size in the substrate indentation regime. But, the reported literature has shown






57


that removal rate also increases with particle size in a given range, and that there is an

optimal particle size at which enhanced polishing can take place as shown in Figs. 2-5

and 2-6. To overcome these limitations, a (PERC II) model is developed by analyzing the

crucial assumptions in PERC I, and refining them when necessary. The following chapter

deals with assumption validation and PERC II model development.


Modified
layer
removal


Wafer
removal


Partide Size
Fig. 2-4. Schematic ofPERC I predictions for increasing particle size.


0 10 20 30 40 50
Mean Particle Size (nm)


60 70


Fig. 2-5. Polishing of silica by nanoslurry showing optimal particle size [118].


200


150
E

* 100

o
E 50
a-











600
-*- 18 kPa, 0.4 m/s
5500 -- 32 kPa, 0.6 m/s

-0 45 kPa, 0.9 m/s
400

i 300

B~200

100

0
25 60 95 130
Mean Particle Size (nm)

Fig. 2-6. Polishing of silica at various pressure, velocity and particle sizes showing
optimal particle size [116].














CHAPTER 3
PERC II CMP MODEL



The previous chapter highlighted the basic concepts involved in PERC I model

[96] development, along with various challenges faced by it. In this chapter, some of the

critical model assumptions are verified and refined as necessary. The changes are

incorporated into the basic framework of the PERC I model to develop the PERC II CMP

model.

Assumption Validation

The critical components in the CMP process are the wafer, pad and slurry. As the

wafer is fixed in a given CMP process, the contributions from pad and slurry are

investigated to include their most crucial characteristics into the model. The main role of

the pad in CMP is to trap the abrasive particles for material removal and transmit the load

applied onto the trapped particles. In particle scale modeling, the function of the pad in

global planarization need not be considered.

Pad-wafer Contact Area

The pad-wafer contact area strongly influences the number of particles that can be

trapped under each pad asperity. The greater the contact area between pad and wafer, the

higher the number of particles that can be trapped resulting in enhanced material removal.

The changes in pad properties during polishing are important to model the CMP process.

Often dry properties of the pad are investigated [119], rather than the more appropriate

wet properties. The pad characterization investigations are also limited to the bulk [48,









68, 120] of the material rather than the surface. These bulk properties in dry state are

usually employed in conventional CMP modeling efforts [68]. Since, polishing involves

the interfacial behavior of pad, abrasive, and wafer, pad surface properties should be used

rather than the bulk properties. Surface properties of the pad rapidly change due to

immersion in slurry [121, 122], quickly reaching equilibrium values [46].

There is one fundamental question that needs to be answered. What is the real

contact area between pad and wafer? And is the Greenwood-Williamson model [117],

which states that "contact area is linearly proportional to the applied load" applicable in

CMP systems? A basic assumption of the PERC I model is that removal rate is linearly

dependant on the pad-wafer contact area. Abrasive particles trapped between pad

asperities and wafer are considered to be responsible for material removal. As applied

load on the wafer increases, the pressure at the pad asperity-wafer interface is supposed

to remain constant due to elasticity of the pad, while the pad-wafer contact area increases.

This behavior is predicted by the "Greenwood-Williamson" model, which assumes that

the pad asperity tips contact the wafer under Hertz elastic theory conditions. Although a

number of CMP models have employed this concept [63, 109], no systematic attempts

are reported that provide validity of this assumption. Similarly, some researchers have

assumed the contact area to be proportional to the power of two-thirds [90] of pressure

without any experimental basis. In the past, pad-wafer contact area has been generally

derived mathematically [27, 123]based on statistical surface roughness rather than actual

experimental measurements. The pad-wafer contact area reported in literature including

theoretical calculations varies from 0.0005% to 20% [27, 49, 63, 109, 124, 125].

Considering the importance of reliable value of the pad-wafer contact area and its









dependence on applied load in CMP modeling, a systematic attempt was made to

measure it under CMP conditions. Kim et al. [124] have measured the pad-wafer contact

area using optical microscopy and have reported a value of 5%. On the other hand, Basim

[125] has reported the value to be 0.3% in dry state based on FTIR measurements. To

investigate the pad-wafer contact area, a reliable technique is needed. To establish the

reliability of optical microscopy and/or FTIR techniques, contact area measurements

were performed on pad using optical microscopy.

Optical microscopy

The average pad asperity radius is around 30 |jm for a typical CMP pad and the

RMS roughness around 5[im. Therefore, an optical microscope can be used to study the

contact spots, the majority of which can be expected to be over a micron in size. To

simulate the wafer, a microscope coverslip was used. To minimize the bending of the

coverslip under applied load, a fixture was fabricated as shown in Fig. 3-1 which enabled

easy access to the microscope objective lens for translation in "in-plane" direction. The

fixture consists of a base plate with a window hole of 10mm x 5mm to allow optical

observation of the contact spots with minimum bending of the coverslip under applied

load.

Optical measurements were performed in dry environment using Leika microscope

equipped with frame grabber. One inch square coupons were punched out from IC 1000

pad, which was used for polishing. The pad was ex-situ conditioned using a grid-abrade

diamond pad conditioner. Minimal contrast between contact and non-contact regions was

obtained, when the pad specimens were analyzed under the given load. This was not even

sufficient for qualitative analysis. Measurable distinction between contact and non-









contact spots was achieved with coating of the pad surface with a 5-10 nm thick gold-

palladium layer using the Denton sputter coater. The thin coated layer is not expected to

affect the pad-wafer contact area results, as the attempt here is to measure the contact

area under dry conditions.












Cover sl


Metallic Base

Microscope objective
Fig. 3-1. Schematic of the fixture used in measuring pad-wafer (dry) contact area.

Measurements were performed in two modes. Mode I consisted of measuring the

contact area of selected asperities as a function of applied load and mode II consisted of

measuring various contact spots under applied load by translating the microscope

objective to cover the entire specimen in view. The optical micrographs were analyzed

using Spot and Image-Pro software to calculate the percent contact area.

The micrographs obtained in mode I are shown in Fig. 3-2. The regions "P" and

"N" indicate the pad asperities that are of interest in all three figures, though only Fig.3-

2a is labeled for clarity. In "P" regions, the asperity contact increases with applied load,

whereas, in "N" regions, new asperity contacts are formed with applied load. The pad-

wafer contact area values obtained from optical measurements are plotted in Fig. 3-3. The










results indicate that the contact area of a given pad asperity increases linearly with

applied load and more importantly the magnitude of contact area obtained from optical

technique is in the same range as obtained from the FTIR technique by Basim (Fig. 3-4).

The discrepancy between this data and Kim's optical microscopy result [124] could be

due to the possibility that some non-contact areas were counted as contact spots due to

poor contrast, as no pad surface modification or coating was mentioned in their study.








1--I
10 micron











(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 3-2. Pad asperity contact spots seen through optical microscope. (a) 0.75 psi. (b) 5
psi. (c) 8.8 psi.



A Various asperity contacts at same pressure
S0.8


S0.6 -i

0.2



0
S0.4 A


0.2 0 .



0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Applied pressure (psi)
Fig. 3-3. Pad asperity contact area dependence on applied load. Each legend represents a
selected asperity contact.










0.55 :--* ,-- --- ,-- ---,- i "-'--1-- ---, ----,
0.55 .- I I


0.45
0.40 -
0.35 a0.33 ~, pad contact

^ 0.35
o 03" u
-e0.1505 .., .


0.15 *
0.10


0 2 4 6 7 8 10 12

Head Pressuie (psi)

Fig. 3-4. Pad contact area as a function of applied load [125].

The main motivation behind investigating contact area measurements is to get a

realistic value of pad-wafer contact area under CMP conditions. The optical and FTIR

techniques are used in dry conditions, whereas the actual CMP is a wet system.

Combining optical data from this study and FTIR data from Basim [125], it is established

that FTIR with attenuated total reflection (FTIR-ATR) method can be successfully used

to estimate the pad-wafer contact area. The same technique was employed in the present

investigation to measure the contact area in wet condition simulating the CMP

environment.

Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR)

To investigate the pad-wafer contact area variation with applied load in various

slurries, FTIR-ATR was used. The contact spots contribute toward the absorbance signal

resulting in quantitative estimation of the pad-wafer contact area depending on signal









intensity. Maximum signal intensity is obtained when the pad surface is in full contact

with the wafer surface. The contact area is obtained by normalizing the measured signal

intensity with the maximum signal intensity [126]. The setup used for contact area

measurements is shown in Fig. 3-5.


Applied load


IR Beam





ATR crystal

Fig. 3-5 Schematic of the FTIR-ATR technique used to measure pad-wafer contact area.

A silicon ATR crystal is used in contrast to the ZnSe crystal employed by Basim

[125] to simulate the silica wafer system. A nitrogen purged Nicolet Magna 760

spectrometer equipped with liquid nitrogen chilled MCTA detector was used to carry out

FTIR analysis for better accuracy. All the spectra were the result of 512 co-added scans at

a resolution of 4 cm 1. The background spectrum for all the experiments was the single-

beam spectrum of the dry silicon crystal. The intensities of the CH2 peaks of the

polyurethane were recorded in the wavenumber range of 3000-2750 cm 1. The

asymmetric and symmetric stretches of CH2 at wavenumbers of 2927 and 2855 cm-1

respectively were analyzed. The contact area is expected not to depend on pad-wafer

relative velocity, hence they are held stationary. The slurries were simulated by using

solutions of varying pH with no other chemicals (passivating agents) or particles added.

This is valid especially in silica CMP as no passivating chemicals are generally added in









slurry formulation. The absence of particles reduces the errors due to scattering. The

water FTIR/ATR signal is subtracted from pad spectrum (both at same pH) to get the

desired signature spectrum (Fig. 3-6). A representative piece of pad sample (IC-1000)

soaked in given solution for one hour was placed on the (Si) ATR crystal and loaded at 4,

7 and 10 psi in the wet state under solution. The solutions studied are nanopure water

adjusted to pH 4, pH 9 and pH10.5 with either 0.5M HNO3 or 0.5M KOH.

Silica CMP is generally performed at slurry pH 10.5, as the silica solubility

increases drastically after pH 10. Thus, there should be minimum silica wafer

modification or "modified layer" formation at pH 4 and pH 9. Whereas, pHl0.5 should

lead to considerable surface dissolution of silica. These conditions are chosen, as all CMP

process variables except pad properties are supposed to be constant in pH range of 4 to 9,

and increased surface modification (dissolution) at pH10.5. The typical absorbance

spectra obtained for a given specimen at different applied loads is shown in Fig. 3-7. The

signal intensities at symmetric and asymmetric stretches are averaged to calculate the

contact area. The results obtained for different pH and dry conditions indicate that contact

area increases linearly with applied pressure for all conditions (Fig. 3-8). The normalized

plot shows the accuracy associated with the measurement technique, which is consistent

for all the conditions used. The linear dependence of pad-wafer contact area on applied

load validates the use of Greenwood-Williamson theory in the CMP model. Pad-wafer

contact area in the wet state was measured to be around 2-3 times the contact area in the

dry state (Fig. 3-9). This implies that the removal rate calculated would be 2-3 times less

if the dry contact area is used in the model. There is no discernible change in pad-wafer

contact area under different pH conditions due to data scatter, possibly due to uncertainty






67

associated with subtraction of water spectrum. Utilizing the value of pad-wafer contact

area obtained and the Greenwood-Williamson assumption, pad asperity modulus is

derived which is used in calculation of pad asperity stress distribution.


SWater: pHl0.5



J V,,


Signature peak


Fig. 3-6. Analysis of the FTIR-ATR spectra.




lopsi
e' 10psi
I I psi
90




2927. 12855
Wavenumber (cm-1)
Fig. 3-7. Absorbance spectra of pad (in pH 4) at different applied pressures.


Pad: pH10.5,7psi





ViL^












2.5


2


1.5


1


0.5


5 7 9


Pressure (psi)
Fig. 3-8. Contact area variation with applied load in dry and wet conditions.


1.2

1


0.8 -

0.6 -

0.4 -

0.2 -

0-


I Pressure = 10 psi


Dry


pH 4.0


pH 9.0


pH 10.5


Fig. 3-9. Contact area in dry and wet systems in various pH conditions.


--Dry
---- pH 4


- -pH 10.5









Atomic force microscopy (AFM)

Contact area increase in the wet state is attributed to changes in the mechanical

properties of the pad. Consequently, surface mechanical properties of pad were

investigated using a colloidal probe atomic force microscope (AFM), where a particle is

attached to AFM tip to measure pad properties. A Digital Instruments Dimension 3100

AFM equipped with a liquid cell adapter was used.

Particle indentation into pad was used to assess pad surface mechanical properties

at pH levels of 4, 9 and 10.5. It was realized that a stiff cantilever is needed to probe the

surface mechanical properties of the pad. Hence a tapping mode cantilever was modified

by cutting the tip area with focused ion beam (FIB) yielding a cantilever with a stiffness

of 75 N/m as compared to 30 N/m before the modification. A 7[tm silica particle was

attached to the tip of cantilever for measuring mechanical properties of the pad.

Nanoindentation measurements were carried out using the modified AFM tip shown in

Fig. 3-10. The pad surface was scanned with the colloid probe to find a relatively flat

surface before indentation data was measured. This is expected to minimize the effect of

surface asperities or roughness on the surface mechanical analysis. Typical indentation

data are shown in Fig. 3-11. Only the approaching curve is used to investigate the pad

surface mechanical properties. The results from AFM are summarized in Fig. 3-12.

The indentation data presented in Fig. 3-12 indicates that the pad surface

mechanical response is markedly different in dry and wet systems. In dry pad case, the

force on AFM probe increases with indentation depth at a constant pace without any

change in stiffness. Whereas, for wet cases at all pH levels employed, a dramatic change

in slope is observed. The indentation data is not reproducible over entire pad surface, as








the pad surface is not perfectly smooth due to asperities. But all the indentation data in

wet state showed the stiffness change in contrast to the dry data. When the indentation

data is aligned such that all curves match the dry pad behavior, it can be seen that the pad

surface is affected by the solution pH which results in different mechanical response

compared to the bulk material (Fig. 3-13). The moduli of pad surface and bulk shown in

Fig. 3-12 were estimated utilizing Hertz theory. The modulus of dry pad is atleast 3-5

times the pad modulus in dry state indicating pad swelling.


(a)

Silica parali


(b)
Fig. 3-10. Colloidal probe AFM tip (a) Modified tapping mode cantilever, dotted line
shows the region of the cantilever removed by FIB. (b) Silica particle attached
to the modified cantilever.









70
--Approaching
50 + Retracting


e 30 Air i Pad
O 0
0
U-
10


-10 f--
-200 0 200 400

Indentation Depth (nm)

Fig. 3-11. Force-distance curve indicating softer "modified layer" on the pad surface.

The surface modification of polyurethane is not entirely unexpected. The

polyurethane polishing pads possess both -COC- and -COOC- functional groups in the

main chain structure which are susceptible to hydrolytic attack [50], especially in alkaline

media [50]. Disruption of hydrogen bonding is reported for pad samples immersed in DI

water for minutes [97]. Schematic of hydrogen bond disruption is shown in Fig. 3-14.

This hydrolytic attack can explain the pad surface mechanical property behavior.

The presence of surface modification on pad surface or pad swelling could impact

the abrasive trapping ability of the pad asperities along with the load transmitted to the

particles during polishing depending on particle size. The change in contact area

observed in wet state indicates that depending on slurry chemistry, the pad-wafer contact

area could be effected, directly influencing the material rate. Hence, when different slurry

chemistries are used in a CMP process, the CMP model needs to incorporate the slurry

effect not only as a modified layer on wafer surface, but also as change in pad-wafer









contact area and abrasive trappability, which has not been accounted for in past CMP

modeling efforts.


100

80


0 50 100


150


Normalized Indetation Depth (nm)

Fig. 3-12. Force-indentation curves from AFM for different conditions. All curves are
offset such that they match in the top portions to clearly show the evidence of
a softer layer on pad in wet systems.


Bulk pad


Softer layer


Bulk pad

(b)


Fig. 3-13. Schematic of pad surface as deduced from AFM data. (a) Dry state. (b) Wet
state.










H H


Hydroged -
Bodg V H


II 1I
0 0


(a) (b)

Fig. 3-14. Schematic of polishing pads (a) Structure showing hydrogen bonding between
neighboring polymer molecules, (b) Water can form hydrogen bonds with
polymer molecule by disrupting hydrogen bonds between the polyurethane
molecules [127].

Pad Asperity Height Distribution

A quantitative understanding of the pad-wafer and pad-particle interface is

fundamental to a comprehensive CMP model. The pad asperities are assumed to remain

constant through the planarization of each wafer. It is known that the asperities involved

in polishing wear out changing in height over time, while the shorter asperities, those that

do not come into contact with the wafer, retain their original height. Thus the pad

roughness or the asperity height distribution changes with polishing, if pad conditioning

is not performed properly. The surface roughness of pad is known to be directly

proportional to the polishing rate [128-130]. Different types of pads have different

asperity height distributions, though they might have similar average surface roughness.

In PERC I, pad asperites were assumed to be spherical and of same size with pad asperity

height averaged out to obtain the pad asperity stress, and pad-wafer contact area. This

implies that the pad asperities are not only assumed to be equal in size and shape, but also

of equal height. This imposes the pad to have contact spots equal in size, experiencing









same contact pressure. Thus, all the particles trapped in these contact spots have same

indentation into the wafer surface leading to equivalent material removal under each

asperity. Thus the previous PERC model was equivalent to having a single asperity

model with no effect of asperity height distribution. Depending on the CMP system and

desired planarization criteria, different pads are used in practice. Therefore, it was

considered necessary to include the asperity height distribution in the revised model

(PERC II). Due to constant asperity height, only an average indentation depth was

derived in the previous model (PERC I) to indicate surface roughness of the polished

wafer. When asperity height distribution is used, asperities at different heights lead to

different indentation depth, resulting in information about distribution of scratches

(indentation depths).This data can be used to estimate the surface roughness as root mean

square roughness (RMS).

To incorporate the asperity distribution, Gaussian distribution of asperities is

assumed, as the reported literature cites Gaussian distribution [116]. The pressure at

contacting asperities were calculated individually to estimate the indentation depth of

trapped particles.

Abrasive Particle Size Distribution

The role of slurry in CMP is two-fold. The chemicals in the slurry are needed to

react with wafer surface resulting in formation of a surface layer which is amenable to

enhanced material removal. The abrasives in the slurry on the other hand, remove this

modified surface layer causing material removal. The effect of chemicals is attributed to

surface layer of different mechanical properties in PERC I model. Whereas, the effect of

abrasives is considered by assuming average size of the particles. The monosized slurry

assumed in the PERC I model is an ideal case, since real CMP slurries are seldom









monosized (Fig. 3-15). Oxide polishing slurries are commonly purchased in concentrated

form and diluted on-site to minimize shipping and labor costs. Some mult-component

tungsten and copper polishing slurries must be combined shortly before use because of

their short postmix lifetime. The slurry stability can change after it is combined with the

oxidizer or due to dilution leading to polydispersity.







0) *





O s .. -/ ... \ ..+- .
0 60 T7 80 90 100

Diameter (nm)

Fig. 3-15. Particle size distribution of silica slurry [118]

Sometimes mixed abrasive slurries are used [32], which invariably exhibit

polydisperse particle size distribution. To account for the particle size distribution effect,

PERC I model was modified to incorporate slurry abrasives with Gaussian size

distribution

PERC II Model Development

Conceptually, the difference between the PERC I and PERC II models can be

illustrated as shown in Figs. 3-16 and 3-17. The PERC I model assumes spherical pad

asperities of equal height all over the pad (Fig. 3-16a). As the slurry is assumed to be





76

monosized, each asperity traps equal number of particles in CMP resulting in equal
removal rate by each asperity and each particle(Fig. 3-16b).




Wafer
Pad aspriilics
. .


\/


Pad asperities
(b)
Fig. 3-16. Schematic of pad, slurry and wafer in PERC I model. (a)Before contact. (b)
During CMP.
Whereas in the PERC II model (Fig. 3-17a), the spherical pad asperities are
assumed to have a height distribution as observed experimentally [116]. As the slurry is
assumed to be polydisperse, each asperity traps different number of particles of different
particle sizes in CMP according to pad asperity height and particle distribution (Fig. 3-
17b). Thus the PERC II model includes realistic contributions of pad and wafer
characteristics compared to the PERC I model. The model formulation is detailed in the
following section.


..........
...............
................
................
................
................
................
.................
..............
. . . .
.............


...........
.........
............
. . . . .
. . . . .
- - - - -
. . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . .












Wafer


'--hury particles


. . .


\


Pad asperities


Wafer


/. ... ... ... ..
. . . . .


Fig. 3-17. Schematic of pad, slurry and wafer in PERC II model. (a) Before contact.
(b)During CMP

Real contact area (Areal) between pad and wafer due to applied load (L) is given by:


Ar =rNA, (z h)(z)dz



L 4NAoE3/2 z -h)32(z)dz


P(z) = exp
a =~


(3.1)



(3.2)



(3.3)


2
z
2a2


where Nis the number density of the pad asperities (i.e., number of asperities per unit


area), Ao is the total area of the flat wafer surface, and h is the distance between wafer


. . .
. . . .


Wafer


.......... ..
..............
...............
................
.................
..................
...................
...................
...................
....................
................
.................









surface and the pad asperity average plane under the given conditions. E* is the

composite modulus between the two surfaces in contact, defined as

1 1-v2 1v (34)
-- + W (3.4)
E* Ep E

where, E and v are the Young's modulus and the Poisson's ratio, and the subscripts p and

w represent the pad and the wafer, respectively. Equations (3.1) and (3.2) are derived

from Hertz theory as in Greenwood-Williamson model [77, 117], yielding contact area

and load at a given asperity of height 'z' to be:

Areal(Z)=7 P (z-h) (3.5)

L(z)=(4/3)E* 1/ 2(z-h)3/2 (3.6)

where 'h' is calculated from Eq. 3.2, since applied load and pad properties are known.

The underlying assumption for Eq. 3.2 is that the applied normal force on the wafer is

supported entirely by the pad asperities. As was mentioned previously, experimental

measurements indicate that the hydrodynamic pressure is negligible under typical CMP

operational conditions [69].

From equations 3.5 and 3.6, contact pressure and contact area at a given asperity

height can be calculated assuming that the pad asperity distribution is known. The pad

asperity distribution can be determined from routine surface roughness measurement

techniques like optical and force profilometers or atomic force microscopy (AFM).

Contact pressure according to Hertz theory, on an asperity of height z is given by:


P(z) =4E* (z- h)2 (3.7)
3z-f1i
35c/72









Plastic Deformation of Wafer Surface

When an abrasive particle is indented into the wafer surface, elastic and plastic

deformation of wafer and abrasive particle occur. However, in CMP, slurries are

designed such that the chemistry changes the modulus of the wafer surface for enhanced

material removal. In the current model, particles are assumed to be rigid such that they do

not deform during polishing. When the indentation of abrasive particle is beyond the

modified surface layer, the substrate indentation could yield either elastic or plastic

response depending on the substrate, for example in case of silica, the deformation will

still remain plastic whereas for copper, it would be elastic deformation followed by

plastic deformation. Therefore, in material removal calculation, indentation into ductile

wafers is not considered to cause material removal, as it leads to change in shape only,

whereas in the case of brittle material like silica, cracks are developed leading to material

removal.

Slurry Characteristics Particle Size Distribution

The abrasive particles in the slurry are assumed to be spherical in shape with a

given size distribution y(r).As mentioned earlier, particle size distribution Y(r) was

assumed to be Gaussian, given by:-


S(r) ex (r -Ur)2 (3.8)
ao. [2; 2o.2

where [Lr is the mean particle radius and Or the standard deviation.

Material Removal by Single Particle

The overall material removal rate (RR) is assumed to be the multiple of the

removal rate by a single particle and the number of particles trapped between pad

asperities and the wafer:









RR = (1/Ao)J In(r,z) RR,(r,z)drdz (3.9)

where n(r,z) is the number of slurry particles anchored between pad asperity and the

wafer and RR,(r,z) is the volumetric removal rate by a single particle of radius r trapped

by asperity of height z. The overall removal rate, RR is typically described in terms of the

thickness of the wafer surface layer removed per unit time; hence the division by the

nominal wafer area Ao.

Schematic illustration of single particle abrasion is given in Fig. 3-18. The material

removal is viewed as a sliding-indentation process in which the volumetric removal rate

by a single abrasive particle is given by

RR,(r,z)= A,(r,z)V (3.10)

Where A,(r,z) is the cross-sectional area of the particle indented into the wafer

under pressure (hashed area in Fig. 3-18), and Vis the relative velocity between the pad

asperity and the wafer.




I T

Sb Pad

t, Pad t
F. Pad F.




Fig. 3-18 Schematic of single particle abrasion showing the removal of chemically
modified surface layer, (a). co < t; (b). co > t with soft wafer materials.[72]









Assuming that the hard particle maintains its spherical shape,


A, (r,z) = -a(r,z)(r o(r,z))+ r2 arcsin a(r,z) (3.11)
r

where co(r,z) is the indentation depth and a(r,z) is the radius of the circular indentation on

the wafer surface caused by the particle of radius r trapped under asperity of height z.

Because co(r,z) is very small compared to r, a(r,z)/r is also very small and Equation 3.11

can be linearized about a(r,z)/r as already discussed:


Az (r, a(r, z)(r, z) )+ ( (3.12)
3 r

Furthermore, since a2(r,z)=(2rco(r,z)-co2(r,z)) and co(r,z) is much smaller than r,

Equation 3.12 can be rewritten as


A4 (r, z) 2a3(r,z) (3.13)
3r

Once the indentation depth, co(r,z) (or a(r,z)) is known, the volumetric removal rate

by a single particle can be calculated from Eq. 3.13. It should be noted that co and a are

dependant on particle radius and height of the trapping asperity. Removal rate per particle

is given by:


RR, (r, z) = 2a(rz) V (3.14)
3r

Depending on the relative magnitude of the indentation depth (co(r,z)) as compared

to the surface layer thickness (t), the material removal may be classified into two

different regimes as depicted in Fig. 3-18: (a) o(r,z) < t and (b) o(r,z) > t and can be

calculated using force balance as follows.









Considering that the pad is sufficiently hard as compared to the modified layer, the

value of b in Fig. 3-18 can be close to the particle radius R,

( -1/2
P(z)
a(r,z) = r i when co(r,z) < t (3.15)


and


a(r, z) = r2p(z) + 2(BW Be)rt when co(r,z) > t (3.16)
BI

where, Be is the effective Brinell hardness of the chemically modified surface layer. In

the following section, the number of particles in contact with the wafer surface is

estimated to determine the overall removal rate.

Number of Active Abrasive Particles

When the wafer is pressed against the pad and is in sliding motion relative to the

pad, the slurry particles can be entrapped only in the region where the local distance

between the wafer and the pad asperity is smaller than the particle diameter, 2R. For a

slurry consisting of particles with Gaussian distribution, mean particle size (Rm) is used

to calculate the number of particles that can be trapped on the pad asperity of height z:

N(z) 2Rm -Areai(z) p (3.17)

where Rm is the mean abrasive particle radius and Areai(z) is the real contact area between

the wafer surface and the pad asperity as given by eq. 3.5. p, is the number density of the

particles in the slurry (i.e., number of particles per unit slurry volume), that can be

calculated from the solid loading Ca (wt%) of the slurry particles as

3C, p,
Pn ,= 3a 0p (3.18)
4;r pr3 (r (r)dr









where pa and ps are the densities of the particle and the slurry solution, respectively and

y(r) the slurry particle size distribution. Substitution of Eq. 3.18 into 3.17 gives

3 Rm Caps Area, (z)
N(z) 2=( (3.19)
2 ap, frv ,(r)dr

From eq. (3.19), the number of trapped particles of radius R is given by,


n(R,z)=N(z)*y(R)= 3 Rm C Area (z) (r) (3.20)
2 ;Tr fJr3 V(r)dr

Estimation of the Overall Removal Rate

The overall material removal rate can be determined by following these steps:

h is calculated using eq. 3.2.

Contact pressure P(z) at a given asperity is calculated along with the real

contact area Areai(z) of that asperity with wafer.

Total number of particles N(z), that are trapped are determined, from which

number of particles of given radii, n(r,z) are derived.

From P(z), removal rate by single abrasive of radius r is calculated which is

multiplied with n(r,z) to give removal rate by that particle size. This process

is repeated to account for all the particles of different radii trapped on that

asperity yielding material removal rate by particles trapped on a given

asperity.

It should be noted that there are 4(z)NAo asperities at a given height which

will each contribute the same material removal.









The above step is repeated for all the pad asperities of various heights that

are in contact with wafer (determined by h) to give overall removal rate by

the following equation:



RR = (1/Ao)J In(r,z) RR,(r,z)drdz


-RR= CpN Area(z) ) w(r)(r,z ddz (3.21)
p, r3 y(r) dr h r
r

where, a(r,z) varies as given in eqs.3.15 and 3.16 depending on particle radius and

asperity height.

The indentation depth, co(r,z) is used to calculate the surface roughness RMS of the

polished wafer according to the following equation:


0)2
RMS = (3.22)
n

where coi is the indentation depth.

The overall removal rate predicted by Eq. 3.21 and surface roughness given by

Eq. 3.22 depend on various parameters that represent the geometry of the pad and the

particle (i.e., 3, o and R), material properties (E*, Bw and Be), thickness (t) of the modified

surface layer on wafer, and the relative velocity of the pad (thus the particle) to the wafer

(V). The PERC II model will be validated with respect to critical CMP parameters in the

next chapter.














CHAPTER 4
MODEL ASSESSMENT

The parameters governing the material removal calculation consist of CMP

operating parameters, slurry parameters, pad and wafer parameters, as listed in Table 4-1.

However, some of these parameters, especially the sub-nanometer thick modified layer

hardness and thickness can not be determined experimentally due to equipment

limitations. The remaining parameters are relatively easy to investigate experimentally

for many CMP systems. Hence, modified layer hardness and thickness are used as the

fitting parameters in the model.

Table 4-1. Parameters included in the revised PERC model.
Operating Parameters Pad properties
Pressure Pad modulus
Velocity Asperity height distribution
Asperity radius
Slurry parameters Asperity density
Particle size distribution
Solids loading Wafer properties
Abrasive density Modified layer thickness
Solvent density Modified layer hardness
Wafer hardness



Model Validation

In this section, PERC II model predictions are compared with experimentally

measured values to assess the reliability of the proposed CMP model. The experimental

literature data is also compared with PERC I predictions to assess the advantage of PERC

II over PERC I. Though PERC II is a refined model compared to PERC I, the model is

still a simplified version of real CMP, mainly in estimating the number of trapped









particles and indentation depth considering an abrupt transition between modified layer

and wafer substrate. The removal rate values for both models are normalized by a

constant to have reasonable modified layer thickness values. Surface roughness data is as

produced by the models without any normalizing factor. The size distribution of slurries

given in the respective literature are fit to the closest Gaussian distribution, which is used

in the model.

Silica CMP: Micron Sized Slurries

The polishing results of silica by silica abrasives as reported by Choi et al. [131]

are considered here. Micron sized CMP slurries were formulated by dispersing sol-gel

silica particles of different sizes from Geltech Corporation in deionized water and

adjusting pH values to 10.5. The average diameter of the slurry particles were 0.2, 0.5,

1.0 and 1.5 itm. The size distribution of the slurries is plotted in Fig. 4-1. A 2 |tm thick

silica layer was deposited on p-type silicon wafer by plasma-enhanced chemical vapor

deposition. 1.5 x 1.5 in silica samples were used to mimic the wafers. A Struers RotoPol-

31 tabletop polisher was used with IC 1000/Suba IV stacked pad. The following

conditions were applied: down pressure of 3.5 psi, slurry flow rate of 100 ml/min, and

rotation speed of 150 rpm (110 cm/s). The polishing rates were determined by measuring

oxide film thickness using variable angle spectrometry ellipsometry and surface quality

was assessed by atomic force microscopy (AFM).

The polishing rate was investigated as a function of particle size and solids loading.

The removal rate decreased with increasing particle size (Fig. 4-2). The parameters used

are: wafer Hardness=8 GPa, modified layer Hardness = 450 MPa, modified layer

thickness = 7.2 A and Normalization factor = 100. The PERC II model correlates well









with the experimental values than the PERC I model. The reported literature belongs to

the substrate indentation regime. The model projects that enhanced removal rate can be

obtained by using smaller sized slurries. The surface roughness on the other hand,

increases with particle size on an average for all the slurries considered (Fig. 4-2b). This

is not surprising as the larger size particles have deeper indentation depths increasing

surface roughness. Both the models predict the average trend in surface roughness with

increasing particle size.

25
-- 0.2pm
20 0.5pm
S---- 1.0pm
o 15 1.54n

E -O

0




0 1 2

Particle Size (mn)
Fig. 4-1. Slurries used in oxide polishing [131].

Silica CMP: Nanosilica slurries

The slurry sizes in the earlier study spanned from 0.2 to 1.5 jtm, which is well

above the normal slurry size range (<300 nm). Considering the nanosize slurries of 50-

150nm mean particle sizes, CMP behavior of silica polishing by silica abrasives is

investigated further [116]. Slurries with mean particle diameters of 50, 80, 110 and

140nm were used to polish 100mm diameter, p-type polished silicon wafers that

contained a thickness of 1.3 pm thermally grown oxide. The silica particles were










precipitated from a colloidal solution. The polishing was done at three different levels of

pressure and relative pad-wafer velocities: 18kPa, 0.4m/s; 32kPa, 0.6m/s; and 45kPa,

0.9m/s. The parameters used in the model are: wafer Hardness=8 GPa, modified layer

Hardness = 250 MPa, and modified layer thickness = 9.3 A. The removal rates for the

given set of pressure and velocity with different particle sizes is shown in Fig. 4-3. The

material removal rates with slurry mean sizes of 10 and 20nm were ignored, as the

authors [116] noticed considerable particle staining on the polished surfaces indicating

agglomeration.

The PERC II model corresponds with the experimental results better than the

previous PERC I model. Each set of modeled removal rates for given pressure and

velocity were normalized individually with normalizing factor ranging from 185-200.

The discrepancy in the removal rate at particle size 50nm between experimentally

observed values and modeled values can be attributed to agglomeration, which is

suggested by the authors for that size [116].

250
Experimental
200 1 PERC II Model
---PERCI Model
150

5 100
E
50

0 i i
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Mean Particle Size (nm)

(a)
Fig. 4-2. Silica polishing by slurries in the micron range. (a) Removal rate. (b) Surface
quality