Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-rwnhh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-15T09:42:58.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors Affecting Metal/Polymer Interface Durability in Microelectronics Packaging: Chemistry and Water Uptake

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

H. M. Clearfleld ,
B. K. Furman ,
A. Callegari ,
T. Graham  and
S. Purushothaman
H. M. Clearfleld
Affiliation:
IBM FSC/Microelectronics, Route 52, M/S 81 K, Hopewell Junction, NY 12533
B. K. Furman
Affiliation:
IBM Research Division, P.O. Box 218, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
A. Callegari
Affiliation:
IBM Research Division, P.O. Box 218, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
T. Graham
Affiliation:
IBM Research Division, P.O. Box 218, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
S. Purushothaman
Affiliation:
IBM Research Division, P.O. Box 218, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
Get access

Abstract

Durability of metal/polymer interfaces is essential for the long-term reliability of high performance microelectronics packages. Such interfaces undergo stresses during production and in service. In this work, we report on the durability of interfaces formed between reactive metals and polyimides (PI) that have been subjected to stresses simulating both types of environment. The P1 surfaces were treated by Ar RF plasmas prior to metal deposition, and durability was determined by measuring the 90 degree peel strength as a function of environmental exposure. The durability of Cr and Ti/PMDA-ODA interfaces through processing stresses (i.e., large thermal excursions) depends on the PI surface modification and the metal reactivity. For both, we observed interfacial degradation due to oxidation of the metal–the cause is water absorbed by the polyimide. These studies, coupled with water transport measurements, suggest that the physical structure of the interface is the dominant factor. To determine the durability under service environmental stresses (e.g., temperature/humidity), we correlated peel strengths with interfacial chemistry and water uptake. In this case, Ar and O2 plasmas were used. For Ta/BPDA-PDA, the durability depends on the type of plasma treatment. Ar-treated specimens maintain strength through 500 hours T/H stressing whereas those treated by O2 plasma alone fail at 165 hours. The differences here can be explained by the interfacial chemistry–Ta/Ar-etched surfaces form a stable TaG-like structure whereas the Ta/O2-etched surfaces form a metastable, sub-oxide structure that transforms to Ta2O5 during stressing. Ta/PMDA-ODA interfaces fail readily under these conditions due to the increased water uptake of the PI.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 323: Symposium J – Electronic Packaging Materials Science VII , 1993 , 321
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Furman, B.K., Purushothaman, S., Castellani, E.E. and Renick, S.: Proc. Symp. Multilevel Metallization, Interconnect and Contact Technology, eds. Rothman, L.B. and Herndon, T. (The Electrochemical Soc., Princeton, New Jersey, 1987), p 142.Google Scholar
2. Furman, B.K., Purushothaman, S., Castellani, E.E. and Renick, S., Proc. Intl. Conf. on Materials and Process Characterization for VLSI (ICMPC88) (IEEE, 1988), p. 250.Google Scholar
3. Furman, B.K., Purushothaman, S., Castellani, E.E., Renick, S. and Neugroschl, D., in Metallization of Polymers, eds. Sacher, E., Pireaux, J. and Kowalczyk, S., ACS Symposium Series 440 (Am. Chemical Soc., 1990), p. 297.Google Scholar
4. Furman, B.K., Purushothaman, S. and Neugroschl, D. in Metallized Plastics 1I, ed. Mittal, K. (Plenum, New York, 1991), p. 437.Google Scholar
5. Furman, B.K., Childs, K.D., Clearfield, H.M., Davis, R.E. and Purushothaman, S., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. 10, 2913 (1992).Google Scholar
6. Seshan, K., Reddy, S.N.S., and Ray, S.K., Proc. 37th Elec. Comp. Conf. (IEEE, 1987), p. 604.Google Scholar
7. Oh, T.S., Kim, D.G., Kowalczyk, S.P., Molis, S. and Kim, J., J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 10, 374 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Kim, J., Kowalczyk, S.P., Kim, Y.H., Chou, N.J. and Oh, T.S., Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. 167, (Mater. Res. Soc., Pittsburgh, 1990) p. 137.Google Scholar
9. Holloway, K. and Frier, P.M., Appl. Phys. Lett. 51, 1736 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Callegari, A.C., Furman, B.K., Purushothaman, S., Clearfield, H.M., Graham, T. and Price, W.H., Microelec. Eng. 19, 575 (1992).Google Scholar
11. Callegari, A.C., Clearfield, H.M., Furman, B.K., Graham, T. and Purushothaman, S., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A12 (1994, in press).Google Scholar
12. Furman, B.K., Clearfield, H.M. and Purushothaman, S., Proc. 4th Intl. Conf. on Polyimides, Ellenville, NY, in Advances in Polyimide Science and Technology, ed. Feger, C. (Technomic, 1993), p. 552.Google Scholar
13. Clearfield, H.M., Furman, B.K., Purushothaman, S., Sheth, N. and Bailey, F., Proc. 15th Annual Meeting of The Adhesion Society, ed. Boerio, F.J. (The Adhesion Society, 1992), p. 148.Google Scholar
14. Clearfield, H.M., Furman, B.K., Bailey, F., Sheth, N. and Purushothaman, S., MRS Symp. Proc. 264, eds. Ho, P.S., Jackson, K.A., Li, C-Y. and Lipscomb, G.F., (MRS, Pittsburgh, 1992), p. 237.Google Scholar
15. Bachman, B.J. and Vasile, M.J., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A7, 2709 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Moylen, C.R., Best, M.E. and Ree, M., J. Polym. Sci. B: Polymer Physics 22, 87 (1991).Google Scholar
17. White, R.C. and Ho, P.S., in Handbook of Ion Beam Processing Technology, eds. Cuomo, J.J., Rossnagel, S.M. and Kaufman, H.R. (Noyes, 1989), p. 315.Google Scholar
18. Hardwick, D.A., Ahearn, J.S., Desai, A. and Venables, J.D., J. Mater. Sci. 21, 179 (1986).Google Scholar