Accelerated Temperature Cycle Test and Coffin-Manson Model
for Electronic Packaging
Helen Cui, RF Micro Devices
Key Words: Accelerated Reliability Testing, Temperature Cycle, Coffin-Manson Model, Activation Energy
SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS
Temperature cycle profiles at various stress levels were
investigated for accelerated reliability testing of electronic
device packaging. Failure Analysis was conducted for test
failures to determine their root cause failure mechanisms and
failure modes. Weibull analysis was conducted for failures
with the main failure mechanisms (such as solder fatigue,
mechanical cracks). The Coffin-Manson model has been used
to model crack growth due to repeated temperature cycling. A
good correlation was obtained between the Coffin-Manson
model and the test results, and Activation Energy (EA) was
determined. The limitation and application of the Coffin-
Manson model are further discussed.
The main failure mechanism determined by failure
analysis was Via Cracking in the package substrate. The
acceleration factor between different stress levels was
determined by Weibull analysis of test data. The Coffin-
Manson model was used to correlate the test data and
determine the activation energy related to via crack failure
mechanism. The Coffin-Manson model with determined
Activation Energy could be used to estimate product reliability
under different application conditions for the same main
failure mechanism.
1. INTRODUCTION
Today’s electronic packaging continues to shrink in size
and reaches higher packing density and higher reliability.
Accelerated test is needed to save test time and cost and
reduces cycle time to market. Various temperature cycling
profiles are employed to evaluate the effect of stress on life
and to detect the unknown failure modes.
The temperature cycle profile can be characterized by
• High extreme temperature (Tmax),
• Low extreme temperature (Tmin),
• Temperature change ∆T, ∆T = Tmax - Tmin
• Ramp rates,
• Dwell times at extreme temperatures.
Figure 1 shows a schematic of temperature cycle profile.
RAMS 2005
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universite du Quebec en Outaouais. Downloaded on February 14,2021 at 16:50:03 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Product life could be significantly affected by the
maximum temperature (Tmax) the temperature change (∆T)
dwell time and ramp rate. The larger of Tmax, ∆T, dwell
time, and ramp rate indicate the higher stress level.
Temperature Cycling tests are used to characterize product
capability and to detect unknown failure modes (e.g., die
crack, via crack) during technology development, product
design verification, and product qualification.
Often, the stress level of the test temperature profiles far
exceeds the product field application stress level. This leads to
accelerated test. Test results at the high stress level need to be
extrapolated to the low stress level, i.e., field application stress
level. It is critical that the main failure mechanism remains
the same for the high stress level and low stress level. For
new technology (or designs for which the field failure
mechanisms are unknown) it is critical to conduct failure
analysis to determine root cause failure mechanisms and
failure modes.
Temperature
Test Duration
Tmax
Ramp Rate
∆T
Tmin
Dwell Ramp Dwell Ramp
Time Time Time Time
Figure 1 Temperature cycle profile schematic
In this study, a 6mm x 8mm electronic packaging module
with three die was tested with variety of temperature cycling
profiles for accelerated tests. Via cracking was verified
through temperature cycle tests. Weibull analysis was
conducted on failures corresponding to the via crack failure
556 0-7803-8824-0/05/$20.00 ©2005 IEEE
mechanism. The acceleration factor between the high and low
stress level temperature cycle was determined.
2. ACCELERATED RELIABILITY TEST
2.1 Temperature Cycle Profiles
Three temperature cycle profiles were employed:
Temperature cycle -1 (TC1) -40 to 85C
Temperature cycle -2 (TC2) -40 to 125C, and
Temperature cycle -3 (TC3) -40 to 150C
Industry standards, such as JEDEC Standard JESD22-
A104-B Temperature Cycling, and other customer
specifications were used a references and guidelines for these
temperature cycle profiles. The dwell time at temperature
extremes and the ramp rates for each temperature cycle profile
were as listed in Table 1.
• TC3 (-40 to 150C) test conditions has the highest stress
level, while TC1 (-40 to 85C) test conditions has the lowest
stress level.
• TC2 (-40 to 125C) test conditions has a very short dwell
time, which could significantly reduce creep development at
higher temperatures.
• TC1 (-40 to 85C) test conditions have minimum transition
times, or much higher ramp rate then the TC3 and TC2 test
conditions.
2.2 Failure Criteria
Parts were electrically tested after certain number of
cycles. A device was considered a failure if it does not meet
the criteria in the referenced electrical test specification.
• Step 1 - Electrical test: Electrical test was performed at
each read point. If a device did not meet the electrical testing
requirements, it was considered an electrical test failure, and
was sent to Failure Analysis.
• Step 2 - Failure Analysis: Failure Analysis was conducted
for electrical test failures to determine root cause failure
mechanisms and failure modes.
o If a device has “via crack” failure mechanisms, it is
considered a failure.
o If device has other failure mechanisms, it is treated as
a suspended data. (Note: There was no other failure
mechanisms found in this study.
o The devices that passed electrical test at the end of
reliability tests were treated as a time suspended data.
In this study, 120 devices were tested under TC1 (-40 to
85C), 120 devices were tested under TC2 (-40 to 125C), and
320 devices were tested under TC3 (-40 to 150C). The
failures and time suspended data points are listed in Figure 3.
Failure Analysis was conducted for test failures to determine
root cause failure mechanisms and failure modes. Based on
Failure Analysis, the main failure mechanism was “via
cracking”. Figure 2 shows a typical via crack.
RAMS 2005
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universite du Quebec en Outaouais. Downloaded on February 14,2021 at 16:50:03 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Crack
Figure 2 Typical via crack
2.3 Weibull Analysis
The Weibull failure distribution was plotted using the data
points from via crack failures. The Weibull distribution is
given by [1]:
β
F(t) = 1 - e -[(t-γ)/η] (1)
Where
F(t) = % failed (the probability of failure) at “t” number
of cycles or hours.
γ = location parameter.
β = shape parameter or Weibull slope.
η = scale parameter or characteristic Weibull life.
Weibull++™ 6 [2] software from ReliaSoft was used to
plot the Weibull charts.
Only a few effective read points were available in this
study, since continuous monitoring was not available. All
parts needed to be removed from the temperature cycle
chamber for the electrical test to be performed.
For “Test-to-failure” tests data point collection, at least 5
read points are suggested for Weibull analysis.
2.4 Results
The Weibull plots for the test data and analytical
estimates of Weibull life are shown in Figure 3.
The Acceleration Factor is defined by the ratio of the
lower stress test mean life to the high stress mean life. Based
on the test data, the Acceleration Factor AF of TC3 -40 to
150C vs. TC1 -40 to 85C is 20.
2.5 Discussion on Temperature Cycle profiles
TC1 and TC3 both have dwell times of 30 minutes.
Dwell time is critical for effective temperature cycling tests
[3]. The TC1 and TC3 test data were used here to estimate the
557 0-7803-8824-0/05/$20.00 ©2005 IEEE
acceleration factor.
TC2 has dwell time of only 1 minute. A 1 minute dwell
time will result in much less damage than a 30 minute dwell
time due to less creep development, especially at high
temperatures.
The TC1 ramp rate (42 C/min, acting as thermal shock) is
much higher than the TC3 and TC2 ramp rate (10 - 14 C/min).
A higher ramp rate has more damage than a lower ramp rate.
3. COFFIN-MANSON MODEL
3.1 Coffin-Manson Model
The Coffin-Manson model has been used successfully to
model crack growth in solder due to repeated temperature
cycling. Coffin-Manson model has typically considered 3
factors, maximum temperature Tmax, temperature change ∆T,
cycling frequency f. It has been successfully used for
mechanical failure, material fatigue or material deformation.
This model takes the form [4]
N = A · f -a · ∆T -b · G(Tmax)
Where
N = the number of cycles to fail
f = the cycling frequency
∆T = the temperature range during a cycle
A = coefficient
a = cycling frequency exponent, typical value is around -
1/3
b = temperature range exponent, typical value is around 2.
G(Tmax) = exp((EA/K)*(1/Tmax) is an Arrhenius term
evaluated at the maximum temperature Tmax reached
in each cycle.
K = Boltzman’s constant 8.623 x 10-5 eV/K
EA = Activation Energy
Activation Energy EA is the most critical parameter. It can be
determined by test.
3.2 Calculate Acceleration Factor
Calculate Acceleration Factor AF using Coffin-Manson Model
Term 1 Term 2 Term 3
b -a
AF = NL/NH = (∆TH/ ∆TL) · (fL/fH) · exp((EA/K)
·(1/TKL – 1/TKH)) (3)
where
Term 1 = effects of temperature change
Term 2 = effects of frequency of usage
Term 3 = effects of the maximum temperature
(determined by Arrhenius model)
AF = acceleration Factor
NL = the number of cycles to fail at the low stress level
temperature cycle
NH = the number of cycles to fail at the high stress level
temperature cycle
∆TH = ∆T of high stress level temperature cycle
RAMS 2005
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universite du Quebec en Outaouais. Downloaded on February 14,2021 at 16:50:03 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
∆TL = ∆T of low stress level temperature cycle
fL = cycles per day at the low stress level temperature
cycle
fH = cycles per day at the high stress level temperature
cycle
TKL = max absolute temperature at the low stress level
temperature cycle, in ºK
TKH = max absolute temperature at the high stress level
temperature cycle, in ºK
For this study, a=-1/3 and b=1.9 are used.
3.3 Determine Activation Energy
Activation Energy EA is the most critical parameter.
Activation Energy EA is specifically related to certain failure
mechanisms and failure modes. Activation Energy EA was
determined by correlating thermal cycling test data and the
Coffin-Manson Model. In this case, the following steps were
used:
Acceleration Factor AF using test data
(2) AF_Test TC1 vs. TC3 = 4365 / 217 = 20
Acceleration Factor AF using Coffin-Manson model
AF_Model TC1 vs. TC3 = (∆TH/ ∆TL)b · (fL/fH)-a ·
exp((EA/K) ·(1/TKL – 1/TKH))
Set AF_Test TC1 vs. TC3 = AF_Model TC1 vs. TC3, then
Activation Energy was determined to be: EA=0.42.
3.4 Discussion on Coffin-Mansion Model Limitations
The Coffin-Manson model gives a semi-empirical
estimation only. It only gives a trend.
The Coffin-Manson model only consider the effects of
maximum temperature Tmax, temperature change ∆T, cycling
frequency f.
The Coffin-Manson model considers the effects of dwell
time and ramp time using frequency of usage f. It cannot tell
the difference between dwell time and ramp time. Dwell time
and ramp rate are critical factors in temperature cycle test.
Dwell time is important for creep development, especially at
high temperature.
The Coffin-Manson model cannot tell the difference
between Temperature Cycle and Thermal Shock. Ramp rate is
the key difference between Temperature Cycle and Thermal
Shock. Thermal Shock has much higher ramp rate than
Temperature Cycle. A higher ramp rate has more damage
than lower ramp rate [5].
3.5 Discussion on Coffin-Mansion Model Application
The Coffin-Manson model with determined Activation
Energy (EA) can be used to estimate Acceleration Factor of
temperature cycles at different stress levels; to determine
whether one can meet a new customer requirement (such as a
new temperature cycle profile and cycles requirement) and/or
to correlate temperature cycle tests versus field usage for the
same failure mechanism. Figure 4 shows a schematic of
558 0-7803-8824-0/05/$20.00 ©2005 IEEE
reliability analysis flow chart including baseline study of
accelerated reliability test and data analysis, and application of
the Coffin-Manson model for the same main failure
mechanism.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
5. Agarwal, R., Tuchscherer, L., Cui, H., “Thermal Cycling
and Thermal Shock for FCOB (FCOB - Flip Chip On
Board) Testing”, ASME Interpack Conference, 1999
BIOGRAPHIES

Thanks to Chris Calabro, Danielle Wiebking, Craig Helen Cui

Callahan for initiating and coordinating the tests, to Preston
Scott for the Failure Analysis, and to Terri Gilbert, Wade
Cole, Steven Smith for providing customer related
information.
REFERENCES
1. Kececioglu, D.B., Reliability Engineering Handbook,
Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Vol. 1,
1991
2. Wiebull++TM 6, ReliaSoft Corporation, Tuson, AZ, 2002.
3. Zhai, J.C., “Board Level Solder Reliability vs. Ramp Rate
& Dwell Time During Terperature Cycling”, IEEE 41st
Annual International Reliability Physics Symposium,
2003
4. Engineering Statistic Handbook, www.itl.nist.gov
RF Micro Devices
7628 Thorndike Road
Greensboro, NC 27409
e-mail: hcui@rfmd.com
Helen Cui is a senior reliability engineer in Reliability and
Failure Analysis Lab at RF Micro Devices. She received her
B.S. (1988) and M.S. (1991) in Mechanical Engineering from
Xian Jiaotong University, and M.S. (1995) in Reliability
Engineering from University of Arizona. She has more than
10 years working experiences in Reliability Engineering. Her
experienced areas include Reliability Testing, Accelerated
Life Testing, Failure Analysis, Reliability Data Analysis,
Product Qualification, and Electronic Packaging.

Temperature Cycle Tmin Tmax Dwell Time Ramp Time Ramp Rate Cycle Frequency of
Profile (C) (C) (min) (min) (C/min) Duration usage
(min) (cycles per day)
Temperature Cycle TC1 -40 85 30 3 42 66 22
Temperature Cycle TC2 -40 125 1 17 10 36 40
Temperature Cycle TC3 -40 150 30 15 13 90 16

Table 1 Temperature cycle profiles

Data Set Failure Time Suspended Slope Characteristic Location Mean Life
Suspended at Cycles Parameter Weibull Life Parameter γ (Cycles)
β η
Temperature Cycle TC1 9 111 500 1.20 4644.7 17.7 4365
Temperature Cycle TC2 11 109 750 1.82 2915.8 0 2592
Temperature Cycle TC3 z 78 242 114 1.86 224.9 0 217

Table 2 Data for Weibull plot of temperature cycle

RAMS 2005 559 0-7803-8824-0/05/$20.00 ©2005 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universite du Quebec en Outaouais. Downloaded on February 14,2021 at 16:50:03 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Weibull plot of temperature cycle test data
99.9
99.0
90.0
70.0
50.0

10.0
% Failed

5.0

1.0

0.1

0.01
1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 10000.00

Cycles

Figure 3 Weibull plot of temperature cycle test data

Reliability Test and Data Analysis – Baseline Study

Reliability Test (Test to Failure)

Failure Analysis to determine the main failure

mechanism

Test Data Weibull Analysis

Determine AF using Test Data

Determine AF using Coffin-Manson Model

Determine Activation Energy EA for the Main

Failure Mechanism

Application of Coffin-Manson Model for the same Main Failure Mechanism

Estimate AF of Determine whether we can Correlate temp

temperature cycles at meet a new customer cycle tests vs. field
different stress levels requirement (a new TC profile usage for the same
and cycles required) failure mechanism

Figure 4 Reliability analysis flow chart

RAMS 2005 560 0-7803-8824-0/05/$20.00 ©2005 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universite du Quebec en Outaouais. Downloaded on February 14,2021 at 16:50:03 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.