Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T13:04:10.070Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Low Temperature Oxidation of Cu-Base Leadframe and Cu/Emc Interface Adhesion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

Soon-Jin Cho  and
Kyung-Wook Paik
Soon-Jin Cho
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Taejon, Korea, s_sjcho@cais.kaist.ac.kr
Kyung-Wook Paik
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Taejon, Korea, s_sjcho@cais.kaist.ac.kr
Get access

Abstract

Low temperature oxidation of a Cu-base leadframe has been investigated to understand the effect of Cu oxidation on the adhesion between Cu-base leadframes (Cu L/F) and epoxy molding compounds (EMC). From the kinetic studies on the oxidation, oxide growth was found to follow the parabolic rate law in the temperature range of 150 °C to 300 °C and the activation energy for the oxidation was 17.0 kcal/mol. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) studies confirmed that the oxide film consisted of Cu2O, CuO, and NiO. It was shown that the early stage of oxidation improved the adhesion strength. Furthermore the optimum copper oxide thickness required for the maximum pull strength ranged between 20 nm and 30 nm. The high pull strength was presumably due to the increase of surface wettability and mechanical interlocking effects resulting from copper oxidation.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 445: Electronic Packaging Materials Science IX , 1996 , 275
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1997

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

1 Manzione, L. T., Plastic Packaging of Microelectronic Devices, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1990, chap. 9, p. 337–345.Google Scholar
2 Yoshioka, O., Okabe, N., and Yamagishi, R., in Proc. 39th ECTC, p. 464 (1989).Google Scholar
3 Kim, S., IEEE Trans. Comp. Hybrids Manufact. Technol., 14, p. 809 (1991).Google Scholar
4 Wagner, C., J. of Electrochemical Society, 99, p. 369 (1952).Google Scholar
5 Bouillon, F. and Stevens, J., Acta Metallurgies 7, p. 774 (1959).Google Scholar
6 Sampath Kumar, T. S., Mallya, R. M., Applied Surface Science, 35, p. 63 (1988–89).Google Scholar
7 Chong, C. T., Leslie, A., Beng, L. T. and Lee, C., in Proc. 45th ECTC, p. 463 (1995).Google Scholar
8 Evans, U. R. and Miley, H. A., Nature, 139, p. 283 (1937).Google Scholar
9 Bridges, D. W., Baur, J. P., Baur, G. S., and Fassell, W. M. JR., J. of Electrochemical Society, 103, p. 475 (1956).Google Scholar
10 Pilling, N. E. and Bedworth, R. E., J. of Institute of Metals, 29, p. 529 (1923).Google Scholar
11 Castellan, G. W. and Moore, W. J., J. of Chemical Physics, 17, p. 41 (1949).Google Scholar
12 Tylecote, R. F., J. Institute of Metals, 81, p. 681 (1952–53).Google Scholar
13 Wilkins, F. J. and Rideal, E. K., Proc. Roy. Soc. [A], 128, p. 394 (1930).Google Scholar
14 Kinloch, A. J., J. Materials Science, 15, p. 2141 (1980).Google Scholar