4.6 Article

Artifact-Free Microstructures in the Interfacial Reaction between Eutectic In-48Sn and Cu Using Ion Milling

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 16, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma16093290

关键词

low-temperature soldering; interconnection; Cu-In-Sn intermetallic compounds; interfacial reaction; mechanical properties

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, cryogenic broad Ar+ beam ion milling was used to investigate the interfacial reaction between In-48Sn and Cu during soldering. Cu-6(Sn,In)5 and Cu(In,Sn)2 were confirmed as the main intermetallic compounds formed. The microstructure evolution and growth mechanism of Cu-6(Sn,In)5 during soldering were proposed. Additionally, the Young's modulus and hardness of Cu-6(Sn,In)5 were determined.
Eutectic In-48Sn was considered a promising candidate for low-temperature solder due to its low melting point and excellent mechanical properties. Both Cu-2(In,Sn) and Cu(In,Sn)(2) formation were observed at the In-48Sn/Cu interface after 160 degrees C soldering. However, traditional mechanical polishing produces many defects at the In-48Sn/Cu interface, which may affect the accuracy of interfacial reaction investigations. In this study, cryogenic broad Ar+ beam ion milling was used to investigate the interfacial reaction between In-48Sn and Cu during soldering. The phase Cu-6(Sn,In)(5) was confirmed as the only intermetallic compound formed during 150 degrees C soldering, while Cu(In,Sn)(2) formation was proven to be caused by room-temperature aging after soldering. Both the Cu-6(Sn,In)(5) and Cu(In,Sn)(2) phases were confirmed by EPMA quantitative analysis and TEM selected area electron diffraction. The microstructure evolution and growth mechanism of Cu-6(Sn,In)(5) during soldering were proposed. In addition, the Young's modulus and hardness of Cu-6(Sn,In)(5) were determined to be 119.04 +/- 3.94 GPa and 6.28 +/- 0.13 GPa, respectively, suggesting that the doping of In in Cu-6(Sn,In)(5) has almost no effect on Young's modulus and hardness.

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

4.6
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