4.7 Review

Evolution of interfacial voids in Cu-to-Cu joints

期刊

MATERIALS CHARACTERIZATION
卷 190, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.matchar.2022.112085

关键词

Cu-to-Cu bonding technology; Interfacial voids; Void ripening; Interfacial elimination

资金

  1. Center for the Semiconductor Technology Research from The Featured Areas Research Center Program within Ministry of Education (MOE), Taiwan
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan [MOST 111-2634-F-A49-008]
  3. Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC), USA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, Cu joints with highly (111)-oriented nano-twinned structure were fabricated at 250 degrees C. A new characterization approach using plan-view images of focused ion beam was reported to observe the evolution of interfacial voids in the Cu joints under annealing. The distribution function of interfacial voids and the kinetics of void evolution were then studied and analyzed. The evolution of interfacial voids was proposed to occur at different stages, which were dominant by plastic deformation, creep deformation, and void ripening caused by grain boundary and lattice diffusion.
In this study, the Cu joints were fabricated by Cu pads with the highly (111)-oriented nano-twinned structure at 250 degrees C. We reported a new characterization approach by plan-view images of focused ion beam (FIB) to observe the evolution of interfacial voids in the Cu joints under annealing. The distribution function of interfacial voids and the kinetics of void evolution were then studied and analyzed. The evolution of interfacial voids was proposed to occur at different stages, which were dominant by plastic deformation, creep deformation, and void ripening caused by grain boundary and lattice diffusion. Significant void ripening was observed at early stage of bonding attributed to fast grain boundary diffusion. However, after the bonding interface was eliminated, the void sizes did not change due to slow lattice diffusion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据