Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:52:50.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Thermal Expansion Mismatch in Electronic Packaging

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2011

R. O. Carlson ,
H. H. Glascock II ,
H. F. Webster  and
C. A. Neugebauer
R. O. Carlson
Affiliation:
General Electric Company Corporate Research & Development Schenectady, New York 12301
H. H. Glascock II
Affiliation:
General Electric Company Corporate Research & Development Schenectady, New York 12301
H. F. Webster
Affiliation:
General Electric Company Corporate Research & Development Schenectady, New York 12301
C. A. Neugebauer
Affiliation:
General Electric Company Corporate Research & Development Schenectady, New York 12301
Get access

Abstract

Thermal expansion mismatch causes serious problems in operating device reliability because of the various stresses imposed on the joint materials undergoing temperature changes. Silicon has a low expansion coefficient so strain buffers are often employed between the silicon and the outer metal covers with relatively high expansion coefficients. These buffers can be metals like molybdenum, ceramics like alumina, or a brush structure of copper, with soft solders at the joints. However, solders themselves have finite fatigue lives which can be estimated from material and dimensional data.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 40: Symposium J – Electronic Packaging Materials Science I , 1984 , 177
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1985

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. Glascock, H.H. II, and Webster, H.F., IEEE Trans. Comp., Hybrids, and Manuf. Tech., CMHT–6, 460 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Coffin, L.F., Trans. Am. Soc. Mech. Engr. 76, 931 (1954); also S.S. Manson, NACA Tn 2933 (1954).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Eckel, J.F., Proc. ASTM 51, 745 (1951).Google Scholar
4. Southern Research Institute, “Fatigue Properties of Solder Materials,” I.D. No. 2281–59, Aug. 10, 1960.Google Scholar
5. Norris, K.C. and Landzberg, A.H., IBM J. Res. Dev. 13, 266 (May 1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Solomon, H.D. and Coffin, L.F., STP-520, pg. 112, ASTM (1973).Google Scholar
7. Woodford, D.A. and Coffin, L.F., 4th Bolton Landing Conf., Claitors Pub. Div., Baton Rouge, 421 (1974).Google Scholar
8. Burgess, J.F., Carlson, R.O., Glascock, H.H. II, Neugebauer, C.A., and Webster, H.F., IEEE Trans. Comp., Hybrids, and Manuf. Tech., CMHT–7, 405 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar