Estimation of Maximum Operating Temperature for Cu Wire Bonds: Comparison of Epoxy and Silicone Encapsulant Types
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To add to the knowledge of high-temperature reliability of Cu wire bonds, this work reports a method and data for the estimation of maximum operating temperature levels for various Cu wire and encapsulant combinations. An accelerated failure time model based on the Arrhenius equation was used to describe the dependence of the degradation times on the aging temperature and to recommend maximum operating temperature values. Failure was defined as +10 % resistance change. However, due to time constraints, insufficient failure time data was available for model fitting using this failure criterion. Instead, models were fit using a failure criterion of 1 % resistance increase, then extrapolated to the original failure criterion, assuming a linear rate of resistance increase. Using this extrapolation, it was estimated that to keep the failure probability below 1 ppm, the recommended maximum operating temperature levels for a standard lifetime of 12 kilohours with PCC wire are 163 °C, 145 °C, and 141 °C for encapsulants air, epoxy, and silicone, respectively. Corresponding maximum temperatures for bare Cu wire are 159 °C and 125 °C for epoxy and silicone, respectively. Bare Cu wire in air had poor reliability at 225 °C and so was not tested at 200 °C or 175 °C.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".