Characterization of Bulk and Thin Film Fracture in Electronic Packaging

[+] Author and Article Information
Vijay Subramanian

Intel Corporation,
5000 West Chandler Boulevard,
Mail Stop CH5-157,
Chandler, AZ 85226
e-mail: vijay.subramanian@intel.com

Kyle Yazzie, Tsgereda Alazar, Bharat Penmecha, Pilin Liu, Yiqun Bai, Pramod Malatkar

Intel Corporation,
5000 West Chandler Boulevard,
Mail Stop CH5-157,
Chandler, AZ 85226

Contributed by the Electronic and Photonic Packaging Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ELECTRONIC PACKAGING. Manuscript received January 26, 2017; final manuscript received May 2, 2017; published online June 12, 2017. Assoc. Editor: S. Ravi Annapragada.

J. Electron. Packag 139(2), 020912 (Jun 12, 2017) (7 pages) Paper No: EP-17-1010; doi: 10.1115/1.4036661 History: Received January 26, 2017; Revised May 02, 2017

As semiconductor packaging technologies continue to scale, it drives the use of existing and new materials in thin layer form factors. Increasing packaging complexity implies that materials in thin layers are subject to nontrivial loading conditions, which may exceed the toughness of the material, leading to cracks. It is important to ensure that the reliability of these low-cost materials is at par or better than currently used materials. This in turn leads to significant efforts in the area of material characterization at the lab level to speed up the development process. Methods for testing and characterizing fracture-induced failures in various material systems in electronic packaging are investigated in this paper. The learnings from different test methods are compared and discussed here. More specifically, different fracture characterization techniques on (a) freestanding “thin” solder-resist films and (b) filled “bulk” epoxy materials such as underfills and epoxy mold compounds are investigated. For thin films, learnings from different test methods for measuring fracture toughness, namely, uniaxial tension (with and without an edge precrack) and membrane penetration tests, are discussed. Reasonably good agreement is found between the various thin film toughness test methods; however, ease of sample preparation, fixture, and adaptability to environmental testing will be discussed. In the case of filled epoxy resin systems, the single-edge-notched bending (SENB) technique is utilized to obtain the fracture toughness of underfills and mold compounds with filler materials. Learnings on different methods of creating precracks in SENB samples are also investigated and presented.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Simplified schematic shows the typical constituents of a flip-chip package

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Typical images of (a) notch created by a diamond blade band saw and precracks created using razor blade (b) and laser milling (c)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Drop hammer jig for precracking notched samples using a sharp razor blade

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Membrane penetration test setup

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Thin film tensile dog bone and SENT sample geometries

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of KIc values of underfill materials with different filler loading percentages and precracking techniques

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

KIc values of polycarbonate samples with blunt (no precrack), razor blade created precrack, and UV laser precrack

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Normalized failure loads for four different types of solder-resist films and under different clamping conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Stress distribution in the film during membrane penetration test, as obtained from FE modeling. Inset shows the principal stress distribution in the solder-resist film underneath the loading pin.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Dependence of peak (failure) load on film thickness

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Normalized failure load values adjusted for film thickness variation between the four films

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Effect of thermal aging is shown for two types of solder-resist films

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Tensile failure load distribution for solder-resist films A and C

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Normalized KC values of solder-resist films A and C




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