Ultrasonic friction power during thermosonic Au and Cu ball bonding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ultrasonic friction power during thermosonic ball bonding with Au and Cu wires, both 25 µm in diameter, is derived with an improved method from experimental measurements during the bonding process. Experimental data include the current delivered to the ultrasonic transducer and the tangential force measured using piezoresistive microsensors integrated close to the Al bonding pad. The improvement results from a new, more accurate method to derive the mechanical compliance of the ultrasonic system. The method employs a bond process modification in which the ultrasonic current is ramped up sequentially in three steps. In the first two steps, the ultrasonic current is set to levels that are too low to cause sliding. The bonding takes place during the third step, when the current is ramped up to the optimum value required for making good quality bonds. The ultrasonic compliance values are derived from the first two steps and are 8.2 ± 0.5 µm N −1 and 7.7 ± 0.5 µm N −1 for the Au and Cu processes, respectively. These values are determined within an average error estimate of ±6%, substantially lower than the ±10% estimated with a previously reported method. The ultrasonic compliance in the case of Au is 6% higher due to the lower elastic modulus of Au compared with that of Cu. Typical maximum values of relative sliding amplitude of ultrasonic friction at the interface are 655 nm and 766 nm for the Au and Cu processes. These values are 81% of the free-air vibration amplitude of the bonding capillary tip for the respective ultrasonic current settings. Due to bond growth, which damps relative motion between the ball and the pad, the final relative amplitude at the bond interface is reduced to 4% of the equivalent free-air amplitude. Even though the maximum value of relative amplitude is 17% higher in the Cu process compared with the Au process, the average total interfacial sliding is 519 µm in the Cu process, which is 31% lower than that in the Au process (759 µm). The average maximum interfacial friction power is 10.3 mW and 16.9 mW for the Au and Cu ball bonding processes, respectively. The total sliding friction energy delivered to the bond is 48.5 µJ and 49.4 µJ for the Au and Cu ball bonding cases, respectively. These values result in average friction energy densities of 50.3 mJ mm −2 and 54.8 mJ mm −2 for Au and Cu ball bonding, respectively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".