Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T12:21:00.283Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Copper Leadframe Oxidation Investigation by Electron Energy-Loss Spectroscopy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2020

A. Rucki
Affiliation:
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, Otto-Hahn-Ring 6, D-81730, Miinchen, Germany
C. Lee
Affiliation:
Infineon Technologies Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Assembly & Interconnect Technology, Package Definition (AIT SIN PD), 168 Kallang Way, Singapore349253
Get access

Extract

Copper alloys are widely used as a leadframe (chip carrier) material in plastic packaged semiconductor devices. The oxidation of Cu leadframes during the assembly process can result in poor adhesion between the moulding compound and the die-pad. This often leads to interfacial delamination and contributes to popcorn cracking during the component-board attachment process. The main cause of poor adhesion has been attributed to the weak Cu oxide(s) layer on the leadframe surface. Studies have shown that the moulding compound/leadframe adhesion decreases with increasing oxide thickness.

The aim of this investigation is to give a detailed analysis of the phase formation of a CuNiSi alloy during oxidation and to identify the locus of failure for the interfacial delamination. The Cu leadframes were oxidized in an air oven at 240° C for up to 200 min exposures before encapsulation. A scanning acoustic microscope was used to locate delamination regions along the moulding compound/leadframe interface.

Type
Semiconductors
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References:

1.Fukuzawa, I. et al., Proc. 23rd Int. Reliab. Phys. Symp. (1985)192Google Scholar
2.Kim, S., Proc. 41st Electron. Comp. Technol. Conf. (1991)750Google Scholar
3.Lee, C. et al, Proc. 48th Electron. Comp. Technol. Conf. (1998)1154Google Scholar
4.Hofer, F. and Golob, P., Ultramicroscopy 21(1987)379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Discussions with Cerva, H. are gratefully acknowledged.Google Scholar