MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898179347 · doi:10.1109/tcpmt.2018.2878104

Effective Method for Wire Bonds Rework Using Conductive Epoxy

2018· article· en· W2898179347 on OpenAlex
Catherine Marsan-Loyer, T Dequivre

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Components Packaging and Manufacturing Technology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallurgy and Material Forming
Canadian institutionsMiQro Innovation Collaborative Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReworkEpoxyElectrical conductorBondMaterials scienceWire bondingComposite materialAdhesiveComputer scienceElectrical engineeringEngineeringBusinessEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of wire bonded chips requires us to go through multiple designs to achieve the best packaging performances. Nevertheless, some of the designs may not be tested due to defects preventing the wire bonds to be effectively completed. Unless an effective way to rework such failed assemblies is feasible, the invested resources in the design and manufacture are lost. The MiQro Innovation Collaborative Center, Bromont, QC, Canada, has developed a method to rework such assemblies. In this paper, we present a method where two silver-filled conductive epoxies are used to repair failed gold wire bonds. The mechanical adhesion and electrical properties of such rework assemblies were compared to reference gold wire bonds. The rework method consists of reattaching the sheared end of the wire to the landing pad on which a drop of conductive epoxy is deposited. Each group is at least composed of 40 samples for statistical analysis of the method reproducibility. Experiments were conducted on two identical test chips with gold pads on each substrate. A matrix of 1-mil-diameter gold wire bonds was realized. Then, on each substrate, the first group of wire bonds was used as a reference and the others were sheared at the stitch bond and reworked with two different silver-filled conductive epoxies. The pull tests revealed that all the wires (reference and reworked with epoxy 1 and 2) rupture at the neck of the first ball bond at a similar break load (~12 g). Visual inspection using the cross section of the reworked area showed no visual defect. We could also see that the deposited drop from epoxy 1 is much more likely to make a better electrical connection due to the presence of smaller silver flakes and a better capability to wet both the wire and the pad. The electrical resistance of reference and reworked wire bonds were measured on a two-probe station. On both samples, reworked wire bonds with epoxy 1 have similar resistance (94 mQ) than the reference (91 mQ) ones. The ones reworked with epoxy 2 have an electrical resistance (214 mQ) more than twice than the reference ones. Reliability testing showed increasing electrical resistance throughout 1000 deep thermal cycling cycles for epoxy 2, while epoxy 1 remained stable until 500 cycles. We demonstrated that failed wire bonds could be effectively reattached to the substrate using the appropriate conductive epoxy. This method enables us to reduce development costs by reworking failed considered assemblies to avoid the waste of resources and delays in the run to the market for the new product.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.488
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.251 · 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