0
Research Papers

Prediction of Electromigration Failure of Solder Joints and Its Sensitivity Analysis

[+] Author and Article Information
Lihua Liang

College of Mechanical Engineering,  Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou 310014, P. R. Chinalianglihua@zjut.edu.cn

Yuanxiang Zhang

College of Mechanical Engineering,  Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou 310014, P. R. Chinajarson_zhang@hotmail.com

Yong Liu

 Fairchild Semiconductor Corp., S. Portland, ME 04106yong.liu@fairchildsemi.com

J. Electron. Packag 133(3), 031002 (Sep 14, 2011) (12 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4004658 History: Received July 14, 2010; Revised May 30, 2011; Published September 14, 2011; Online September 14, 2011

Electromigration (EM) in solder joints under high current density has become a critical reliability issue for the future high density microelectronic packaging. This paper presents atomic density redistribution algorithm for predicting electromigration induced void nucleation and growth in solder joints of Chip Scale Package (CSP) structure. The driving force for electromigration induced failure considered here includes the electron wind force, stress gradients, temperature gradients, as well as the atomic density gradient, which were neglected in many of the existing studies on electromigration. The simulation results for void generation and time to failure (TTF) are discussed and correlated with the previous test results. EM sensitivity analysis is also performed to investigate the effect of EM parameters and mechanical properties of material on electromigration failure. The simulation results indicated that the atomic density on the activation energy is quite sensitive, and the mechanical material parameters have no impact on EM sensitivity of normalized atomic density.

Copyright © 2011 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Mesh of Al wire model (350 elements, p = 2)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

NAD at anode with different normalized time

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Sensitivity of the normalized atomic density with respect to Ea at anode under p = 2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Sensitivity of the normalized atomic density with respect to D0 at anode under p = 2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

CSP package model. (a) CSP package structure; (b) local view

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Sub-model of CSP structure. (a) solid submodel and its mesh; (b) local view of solder bump.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Electron flow direction in a global model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Temperature distribution of viscoplastic SnPb and SnAgCu solder bump. (a) SnPb solder bump; (b) SnAgCu solder bump.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Temperature gradient of viscoplastic SnAgCu solder bump

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Temperature gradient of viscoplastic SnPb solder bump

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Current density distribution of viscoplastic SnPb and SnAgCu solder bump. (a) SnPb solder bump; (b) SnAgCu solder bump.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Hydrostatical stress distribution of viscoplastic SnPb and SnAgCu solder bump. (a) SnPb solder bump; (b) SnAgCu solder bump.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Normalized atomic density distribution of viscoplastic SnAgCu and SnPb solder bump under 1.7 A at 3.5 × 10+ 5s . (a) SnAgCu solder bump; (b) SnPb solder bump.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

SEM of the bump 1 cracking

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Comparison of normalized atomic density distribution with D∇c and without considering D∇c. (a) location of nodes; (b) without considering D∇c; (c) with considering D∇c.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Void formation between simulation solutions and test results for SnAgCu solder bump

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Comparison of TTF between simulation solutions and test results. (a) SnPb solder bump; (b) SnAgCu solder bump.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Sensitivity of the normalized atomic density with respect to Ea . (a) at 1 s; (b) at 100 s; (c) at 1000 s; (d) at 1.57 × 10+ 6 s.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

Sensitivity of the normalized atomic density with respect to D0 . (a) at 1 s; (b) at 100 s; (c) at 1000 s; (d) at 1.57 × 10+ 6 s.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 20

Sensitivities of NAD with respect to Ea and D0 with the time. (a) ∂c∂Ea; (b) ∂c∂D0.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In