Journal of Electronic Materials

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 80–87 | Cite as

In Situ Measurement of Stress and Whisker/Hillock Density During Thermal Cycling of Sn Layers

Article

Abstract

Compressive stress is believed to be the primary driving force that makes Sn whiskers/hillocks grow, but the mechanisms that create the stress (e.g., intermetallic compound growth) are difficult to control. As an alternative, the thermal expansion mismatch between the Sn layer and the substrate can be used to induce stress in a controlled way via heating and cooling. In this work, we describe real-time experiments which quantify the whiskering behavior and stress evolution during cyclic heating. The density of whiskers/hillocks is measured with an optical microscope, while the stress is measured simultaneously with a wafer-curvature-based multi-beam optical stress sensor. Results from three thermal cycles are described in which the samples are heated from room temperature to 65 °C at rates of 10, 30, and 240 °C/h. In each case, we find that the whisker/hillock formation is the primary source of stress relaxation. At fast heating rates, the relaxation is proportional to the number of hillocks, indicating that the stress is relaxed by the nucleation of many small surface features. At slower heating rates, the whisker/hillock density is lower, and continual growth of the features is suggested after nucleation. Long whiskers are found to be more likely to form in the slow heating cycle.

Keywords

Pb-free manufacturing tin whiskers thermal cycling reliability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    E. Chason, N. Jadhav, F. Pei, E. Buchovecky, and A. Bower, Prog. Surf. Sci. 88, 2 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. Chason, N. Jadhav, W.L. Chan, L. Reinbold, and K.S. Kumar, Appl. Phys. Lett. 92, 17 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    B.Z. Lee and D.N. Lee, Acta Mater. 46, 10 (1998).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    K.N. Tu and R.D. Thompson, Acta Metall. 30, 5 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    R.M. Fisher, L.S. Darken, and K.G. Carroll, Acta Metall. 2, 3 (1954).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    K.N. Tu, Phys. Rev. B 49, 3 (1994).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    K. Suganuma, A. Baated, K.-S. Kim, K. Hamasaki, N. Nemoto, T. Nakagawa, and T. Yamada, Acta Mater. 59, 19 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. Chason, Thin Solid Films 526, 1–14 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    F. Pei, N. Jadhav, and E. Chason, Appl. Phys. Lett. 100, 22 (2012).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    L. B. Freund, S. Suresh, Thin Film Materials: Stress, Defect Formation and Surface Evolution, 1st edn. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 86–93.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    C.A. Schneider, W.S. Rasband, and K.W. Eliceiri, Nat. Methods 9, 7 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J.W. Shin and E. Chason, J. Mater. Res. 24, 4 (2009).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Z. Guo, Y.-H. Pao, and H. Conrad, J. Electron. Packag. 117, 2 (1995).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Smetana, IEEE Trans. Electron. Packag. Manuf. 30, 11 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© TMS 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EngineeringBrown UniversityProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations