Electrothermal coupling analysis and experimental verification for wirebond devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The thermal performance of a powered wirebond device with package level and board level test specimens was investigated by both analytical and experiment methods. The effects of thickness and thermal conductivity of the molding compound and heat spreader attached to the top surface of the molding compound on the performance of the Au wire and silicon die were modeled and evaluated by three-dimensional electrothermal coupling analysis. An advanced quad flat no-lead (QFN) sample was selected to experimentally measure the maximum allowable current in Au wire for packages either with or without molding compound. Two failure modes, namely the fusing of the wire and the decomposition temperature of the molding compound, were established in analysis. A board level test specimen with a thermal test die was also employed to measure the real time package thermal performance. The major achievement of this work is in the complete combination of modeling, experiment, and optimization for thermal performance evaluation purpose of a powered wirebond device. Results of this physical analysis can provide a reliable and useful guide to estimate the maximum allowable currents in Au wires for a wirebond device under practical application conditions.
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".