MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013929975 · doi:10.1109/ectc.2007.373932

Integrated Modeling of C4 Interconnects

2007· article· en· W2013929975 on OpenAlexaff
Julien Sylvestre

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectronic Packaging and Soldering Technologies
Canadian institutionsIBM (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlip chipBall grid arrayInterconnectionSolderingParametric statisticsFinite element methodChipComputer scienceReliability (semiconductor)Boundary value problemMechanical engineeringIntegrated circuit packagingMaterials scienceElectronic engineeringEngineeringStructural engineeringMathematicsPhysicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An extensive methodology for the numerical modeling of C4 interconnects in flip chip organic packages is presented, with particular emphasis on the variability introduced by the manufacturing process. A number of different analytical and experimental techniques are used to develop a complete mechanical model of the interconnect, in order to infer the characteristics of various packaging options with respect to the reliability of C4 interconnects. A fully parametric "macroscopic" finite element model of the entire module (laminate, underfill, chip, lid structure) is first constructed, and is used to define boundary conditions for "microscopic" models of the interconnects. A flexible software system that allows the complete parameterization of the module (in terms of its topology, scales, and material properties) is described. The geometry of the interconnect is calculated parametrically from first principles using a model of the solder joint in fluid phase, taking into account various properties of the interconnect such as the solder volume, the pad diameters, the relative position of the pads, etc. Data validating this fluid model on BGA and on C4 solder balls are also presented. Finally, the variability inherent to manufacturing flip chip packages is emulated by sampling some of the model parameters from random distributions (examples of such parameters include laminate warpage and solder joint volume, and their influence on global package properties, such as the underfilled gap between laminate and chip). Illustrative examples of applying this methodology for problem solving in a manufacturing environment are also presented.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectronic Packaging and Soldering TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207