Continuing with our examination of advanced packaging at the 2012 IMAPS MINIPAD.
ST Micro reported on stress induced fine pitch copper pillar failures. Compared to solder bump, Cu pillar bumping is known to possess good electrical properties, better electromigration performance and better thermal fatigue resistance . The only drawback is that Cu pillar bump can introduce high stress due to Cu higher stiffness compared to the solder material. Therefore, the stress induced failures become a major issue when Cu pillar bump is built on low k or extreme low k (ELK) chips. In this ST Micro study, fine pitch copper pillar has been assessed vs polyimide effectiveness for fine pitch Cu pillar interconnections having small pillar diameter.
(Click on any of the images below to enlarge them.)
Vehicle1 (package 2 configuration) used extreme lowk ILD materials. Die were attached on the substrate without underfill and underwent several die attach reflow cycles to induce failure and define the more robust configuration. The no PI leg did not evidence any defect up to 20 reflows but the PI passivated leg showed 100% failure after 20 reflows which appear to be stress induced failures ( likely to be crack in aluminum pads ).

Results after reliability tests show that the implementation of polyimide for fine pitch Cu pillar is not obvious. Thus, in the case of PI configuration, failure analysis reveals three main failure modes: delamination at the Bump/PI/pad and copper stress voiding in the pad metal in stacked vias structures, both occurring during thermal cycles. Delamination in the low-k layers has been also found for the highest die size in the PI configuration. All those analyses have revealed that for the tested configurations, higher stress has been observed with the PI configuration compared to the no PI one.
FEA was done to better understand these results. In the No Polyimide configuration, the stress is spread along the pad structure thanks to the higher copper contact. Indeed, the passivation layers (i.e. SiN and PSG layers) have sufficient mechanical properties to transfer the stress to the beneath layers. In the PI configuration, high peak stress is observed beneath the Copper/Aluminum interface. On the contrary, in the No PI configuration, the stress is spread along the pad structure thanks to the higher contact of Copper pillar bump.
STATSChipPAC looked at some "Advanced Ultrathin eWLB-PoP solutions." eWLB has been introduced into production to allow for higher ball count WLP, by extending the package size beyond the area of the chip. There is also great opportunity related to a 3D variation of eWLB which would allow for mounting of components or another package on the top surface with thinner profile and PoP (Package-on-Package) technology.
The table below shows reliability for such stacked test vehicles.
Bernd Appelt of ASE continued the theme of thinner is better with his presentation "Ultra Slim Packages with Ultra Slim Substrates" There is no question as the figure below shows devices continue to get thinner.

JEDEC package heights are defined as follows:

The ASE package family fits these dimensions as follows:
Substrate thickness vs package thickness are shown on the following chart:
The ASE embedded technology a-EASI (adv embedded assembly solution integration). They are undergoing customer evaluation with embedded actives and passives.
FCI presented the latest n their ChipletT(TM) and ChipsetT(TM) embedded die fan-out packaging based on multilayer flex. We discussed this technology in detail last fall [see IFTLE 83, "Orange County 3DIC Workshop"]
Below we see a nice example of what can be done with this technology, i.e a 50% reduction in footprint by embedding the ASIC die.



For all the latest in 3DIC and advance packaging stay linked to IFTLE………………….
