Effects of Curing Agents and Drilling Methods on CAF Formation in Halogen-Free Laminates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing demands for more reliability and functionalities in electronic devices have pushed the electronics industry to adopt newly developed materials and reduce interconnect sizes and spacing. These adaptations have led to concerns of reliability failures caused by conductive anodic filament formation (CAF). CAF is a conductive copper-containing salt that forms via an electrochemical process. It is initiated at the anode and grows along the epoxy/glass interface to the cathode, and once CAF reaches the cathode a short circuit will occur. \n \nThe objective of this research is to evaluate and compare the effects of curing agents (DICY vs. phenolic-cured epoxy) and drilling methods (laser vs. mechanical drilling) on CAF formation using an insulation resistance test at 85 ºC, relative humidity of 85%, and a voltage gradient of 0.4V/µm. \n \nTime-to-failure for DICY-cured and phenolic-cured epoxy with laser drilled microvias and mechanically drilled vias were determined using the insulation resistance test. The failed coupons were cross-sectioned and examined using a Scanning Electron Microscope equipped with Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy to verify the existence of CAF. Weibull analysis was used to compare the reliability and identify the failure modes of the failed coupons. \n \nTest results show that DICY-cured epoxy is a better CAF resistant material than phenolic-cured epoxy. It is believed that the brittleness of phenolic-cured material might enhance the damage to the epoxy/glass fiber interface during drilling; and hence, facilitate subsequent CAF formation. \n \nThe study also shows that laser drilled microvias are less prone to CAF formation than mechanically drilled vias, because there is less mechanical damage and lower glass fiber content. Finally, using Weibull analysis, it is determined that laser drilled microvias experienced infant-mortality failure, whereas mechanically drilled vias exhibited a wear-out type failure.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".