Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-h6jzd Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-02-22T23:43:34.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measurements of the Adhesion Strength of Cu/Epoxy Interfaces

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

H. Y. Lee  and
Jin Yu
H. Y. Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Kusong-dong 373–1, Yusong-gu, Taejon, 305–701 KOREA
Jin Yu
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Kusong-dong 373–1, Yusong-gu, Taejon, 305–701 KOREA
Get access

Abstract

Copper-based leadframe sheets were oxidized in a black-oxide forming solution, molded with epoxy molding compound (EMC), and the interfacial fracture toughness was measured using sandwiched double cantilever beam (SDCB) and sandwiched Brazil-nut (SBN) specimens.

Results showed that pebble-like Cu2O precipitates on the leadframe had almost no adhesion to EMC while the opposite was true of the acicular CuO precipitates. Thus, the fracture toughness of the leadframe/EMC interface was close to zero in the beginning but rapidly increased to ˜100 J/m2 as acicular CuO nucleated on the smooth-faceted Cu2O layer. Under the mixed Mode loading the fracture toughness increased parabolically with the phase angle (ψ) with minimum at ψ = 0°. For ψ < -340, interface crack kinked into EMC. Fractography analyses based on XRD, SEM and AES studies showed that the failure path along the leadframe/EMC interface varied significantly with the loading condition and the crack speed.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 586: Symposium M – Interfacial Engineering for Optimized Properties II , 1999 , 213
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2000

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. Chai, T. C., Chan, K. C., Wong, E. H., Fan, X. J., and Lim, T. B., Proc. 49th ECTC, p. 70 2, (1999).Google Scholar
2. Wong, E. H., Teo, Y. C. and Lim, T. B., Proc. 48th ECTC, p. 1372, (1998).Google Scholar
3. Kitano, M., Nishimura, A., Kawai, S. and Nishi, K., Proc. IEEE IRPS, p.90, (1988).Google Scholar
4. Ganesan, G. S. and Berg, H. M., IEEE Trans. on Components, Hybrids, and Manufacturing Technology, 16, p.940,(1993).10.1109/33.273696Google Scholar
5. Cui, C. Q., Tay, H. L., Chai, T. C., Gopalakrishan, R. and Lim, T.B., Proc. 48th ECTC, p. 1162, (1998).Google Scholar
6. Moon, B. H., Yoo, H. Y. and Sawada, K., Proc. 48th ECTC, p. 1148, (1998).Google Scholar
7. Yun, H. K., Cho, K., An, J. H. and Park, C. E., J. Mater. Sci., 27, p. 5811 (1992).Google Scholar
8. Evans, J. R. G. and Packham, D. E., J. Adhesion, 9, p.267, (1978).Google Scholar
9. Ashworth, V. and Fairhurst, D., J. Electrochem. Soc., 124, p.506, (1977).10.1149/1.2133338Google Scholar
10. Strehblow, H.-H. and Titze, B., Electrochemica Acta, 55, p.839, (1980).10.1016/0013-4686(80)90036-5Google Scholar
11. Oh, T. S., Cannon, R. M. and Ritchie, R. O., J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 70, p.C-352, (1987).Google Scholar
12. Atkinson, C., Smelser, R. E. and Sanchez, J., Int. J. Fract., 18, p.2 7 9, (1982).Google Scholar
13. Suo, Z. and Hutchinson, J. W., Mater. Sci. and Engng., AI07, p.135, (1989).Google Scholar
14. Wang, J. -S. and Suo, Z., Acta Metall. Mater., 38 p. 12 79, (1990).Google Scholar
15. Liechti, K. M. and Chai, Y. S., J. Appl. Mech., 59, p.295, (1992).10.1115/1.2899520Google Scholar
16. Evans, A. G., Dalgleish, B. J., He, M. and Hutchinson, J. W., Acta Metall. Mater., 37, p.3249, (1989).Google Scholar