Scratch Test Methodology for Leadframe Plating

Ong Chen Ho, Alfred Yeo, Wang Hui Teng

Infineon Technologies Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.
168 Kallang Way Singapore 349253.
chenho.ong@infineon.com

Abstract acoustic emission signals (AE) are recorded as secondary test

Pre-plated leadframe (PPF) is usually plated with nickel-
palladium plating, and the hardness of the plating is much
higher than tin (Sn) plating. However, in some cases, it is
observed that the PPF is more prone to damage that resulted in
exposed copper (Cu). The damage is induced by mechanical
contact of the test pin with external lead of integrated circuit
(IC) package. Currently, at Sn and PPF plating processes,
quality checks such as plating layer hardness, thickness, grain
size, surface roughness, and etc. were carried out. There is no
measurement method that characterizes the damage resistance
of a particular plating layer. This work studies the application
of scratch test as a damage test method to characterize the in
leadframe plating surface of both Sn and PPF, in relation with
various types of diamond indenter and scratch techniques
which is progressive load scratch and constant load scratch
test. Recommendation is given at the end of this paper.
data along with the Fz. After the completion of the scratch
test, the scratch line is microscopically analyzed for specific,
well-defined damage such as cracking, deformation, buckling,
spallation or delamination of the plating. In scratch test, the
progressive normal load force is applied. The moment when
the scratch penetrates trough the plating layer is followed with
the fracture of material a fluctuation of forces. This force is
called critical load force [2] and it is denoted as the critical
load (Lc), and is related to the practical adhesion strength and
the damage resistance of the given plating or substrate system.
The Lc depends on the test parameters such as indenter
parameters and geometry, loading rate and scratch speed, as
well as on the properties of the coated sample such as plating
thickness, surface roughness and microstructure, damage
mechanism, hardness, modulus of elasticity and fracture
strength [3]. In this paper, the Lc is defined at the point where
plating layer fail and exposed Cu is observed.

1. Introduction
For decades, the outer lead of the IC is usually plated with 2. Methodology
Sn layer. The purpose of this Sn layer is to protect the Cu 2.1 Scratch test methodology
leads from oxidation and provide good solderability to the IC Bruker Tribolab tester is used to setup the scratch testing
package on the printed circuit board (PCB). In semiconductor in this work. As shown in the Figure 1, Cu strip plated with
process flow, the Cu leadframe (chips carrier) is subjected to PPF/Sn is clamped with specimen clamper which is installed
Sn plating after the chips are encapsulated. The plating on top of the linear drive; a diamond indenter is fixed at the
process requires substantial floor space and processing time. bottom of the load cell which is attached at the bottom of the
Recently, PPF leadframe with Ni-PdAu has gain more carriage. During the scratch test, the diamond indenter will be
popularity as the plating process is carried out at leadframe driven down by the Z-axis motor and load cell would detect
supplier premise in which the floor space utilization and the Fz applied on the specimen. Linear drive motor will drive
manufacturing cycle time have improved. The hardness of Ni- the specimen at constant speed in Y-axis to provide the scratch
PdAu plating is usually much higher (~3x) than Sn plating, action of diamond indenter towards specimen. Fx, z and AE
which supposed to be not easily scratched. The thickness of are recorded as a secondary measurement response, along with
Ni-PdAu layer is ~2 μm, while Sn is 10~16 μm. At final test, Fz.
IC is inserted into test socket to carry out functional testing.
The outer leads of IC are contacted with the test pins, which is
integrated in the test socket for electrical testing. It is observed
that certain types of PPF plating are more prone to exposed Cu
after the IC retest for few times. There is limited
understanding on scratch resistance for both the PPF plating
and Sn plating.
Scratch Test
In scratch testing, a diamond indenter of defined geometry
is drawn across the surface of a coated sample at a constant
speed with a defined normal load force (Fz) over a defined
distance. Fz can be constant, progressively increasing or
incrementally increasing. The diamond indenter typically has
Rockwell C geometry with an angle of 120 degrees and a Figure 1: Scratch test setup
spherical tip radius of 200 μm. Different tip radius can be used
to change the contact pressure.
During the test the scratch friction force (Fx), the
coefficient of friction (COF), the penetration depth (z) and the

978-1-5386-3042-6/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE 1 2017 19th Electronics Packaging Technology Conference

Authorized licensed use limited to: STMicroelectronics international NV. Downloaded on September 09,2020 at 08:39:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2.1 Progressive load scratch test with Rockwell indenter and
AE sensor
Rockwell indenter is used to scratch across the surface of
the Sn plated specimen and PPF specimen. The Fz increased
linear from 3 to 45 N and the bottom specimen is driven by
the linear drive at a constant speed of 0.25 mm/s over 15 mm
scratch distance (Figure 2). The AE sensor is glued (with nail
polish) on the specimen near to the scratch line. The AE
sensor would capture the acoustic wave that generated when
the buckling, spallation or delamination occurred.
Figure 2: Progressive load scratch test
2.2 Diamond indenter types study
As compared with Sn plated strip, the PPF plating layer is
quite thin, it is less than 2% of the strip thickness. Cu base
under the PPF plating layer is relatively softer and it is prone
to deformation by the indenter during scratch test. Therefore,
it is important to use the sharper tip in order to concentrate the
loading stress on the PPF plating surface. The diamond tip
evaluated are flat punch, Vickers and cone tip with 60° cone
angle, 25 μm tip radius (Figure 3) to compare with Rockwell
indenter. Progressive load scratch test was used with Fz from
0.1 to 2.0 N at 0.25 mm/s scratch speed over 15 mm scratch
distance on PPF specimen. After the scratch test, the specimen
was then inspected for the first exposed Cu and full exposed
Cu and corresponding scratch depth was measured with
LEXT. The target is to select diamond indenter with the
minimal scratch depth when first exposed Cu is observed.
Figure 3: Various types of diamond indenter
2.3 Constant load scratch test
The scratch test starts with a constant Fz of 0.3 N over
2 mm scratch distance. The Fz increases by 0.02 N for each
subsequent line until multiple scratch lines forms the scratch
lines mapping (Figure 4). This scratch test technique provides
a clear visualization to distinguish the different damage level
at each incremental Fz.
2 2017 19th Electronics Packaging Technology Conference
Authorized licensed use limited to: STMicroelectronics international NV. Downloaded on September 09,2020 at 08:39:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Figure 4: Constant load scratch test
2.4 Scratched surface analysis
After the scratch test, the specimen is heated up to 250 °C
with a heater block for 20 minutes to oxidize the exposed Cu.
The color contrast of oxidized Cu is higher and thus provides
a better visual judgement. The specimen is then examined
under a 3D laser measuring microscope LEXT OLS4000 to
measure the distance of exposed Cu from the initial scratch
location and depth. With this distance, the corresponding Lc,
Fx, and the COF can be checked back from the graph. In
general, the Lc has positive correlation with the practical
adhesion strength and the damage resistance of the plating
layer.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1 Progressive load scratch with Rockwell Indenter and AE
sensor
Figure 5 shows the graph of progressive load scratch test
result on Sn plated specimen. The first AE signal is detected at
location A, which corresponds to the exposed Cu failure
(Figure 6a), and the Fz is 15.27 N. At this point, it is also
observed that the Fx and COF increase drastically. This is an
indication of a change in the scratch surface material from Sn
to Cu. A peak AE signal is observed when a gross plating
failure occurred at location B, and eventually full exposed Cu
is observed at this location (Figure 6b).
This scratch test method is suitable to analyze Sn plating
layer, where the Sn plating failure is accompanied with the
strong AE signal detection. In this case, the Lc = 15.27 N.
Figure 5: Progressive load scratch test graph on Sn plated
specimen with Rockwell indenter
 (a) (b) First exposed copper

Figure 6: Sn plating specimen’s scratch line with Rockwell indenter

(a) first AE signal (b) AE signal peak.
6.02 μm
Figure 7 shows the progressive load scratch test graph on
PPF specimen. AE signal is detected at location D and full
exposed Cu is seen (Figure 8b). Upon checking on the scratch Figure 9: Scratch depth analysis for Rockwell indenter
line, it is observed that the first exposed Cu (Figure 8a) is on PPF specimen (first exposed Cu)
happened much earlier, which is at location C and there is no
AE signal detected. After that, intermittent exposed Cu is 3.2. Diamond indenter types study
observed, and it is quite difficult to define the exact location The flat punch indenter penetrated into the PPF plating at
where full exposed Cu started. the start of the scratch line where the applied Fz is 0.1 N. The
The expected scratch depth when first exposed Cu is measured scratch depth is 6.55 μm (Figure 10), there is no
around 2.11 μm which is the PPF plating thickness. However, meaningful scratch test can be performed.
the measured scratch depth at first exposed Cu (Figure 8a)
location is quite deep, which is 6.02 μm (Figure 9). This result Start of
suggested probably the indenter has deformed the PPF plating scratch line
layer into Cu base material during the scratch test.

6.55 μm

Figure 10: Scratch depth analysis for flat punch indenter

on PPF specimen (start of scratch line)
Figure 7: PPF specimen of progressive load scratch test
graph with Rockwell indenter Along the scratch line with the Vickers indenter, there is
no exposed Cu observed. At the end of the scratch line, the
(a) (b) measured scratch depth is 5.09 μm (Figure 11). It is evident
that the Vickers indenter has already deformed the PPF plating
layer into the base Cu.

Figure 8: PPF specimen’s scratch line with Rockwell indenter

(a) first exposed Cu (b) first AE signal.

3 2017 19th Electronics Packaging Technology Conference

Authorized licensed use limited to: STMicroelectronics international NV. Downloaded on September 09,2020 at 08:39:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 End of
scratch line
5.09 μm
Figure 11: Scratch depth analysis for Vickers indenter
on PPF specimen (end of scratch line)
Figure 12 shows the graph of the progressive load scratch
test on PPF specimen using cone tip indenter. First exposed
Cu is observed at location E where Fz is 0.45 N and scratch
depth is 0.93 μm (Figure 13a). Full exposed Cu is observed at
location F where Fz is 0.76 N and scratch depth is 1.78 μm
(Figure 13b). Prior the full exposed Cu, Fx and COF has
increased drastically, which indicate a change in the scratch
surface material. However, there is no AE signal as expected
at both locations E and F. The AE signals were detected quite
late after the full exposed Cu. The same observations are seen
when the scratch test is repeated a few times.
Figure 12: Progressive load scratch test graph on
PPF specimen with cone tip indenter.
(a) (b)
0.93 μm 1.83 μm
Figure 13: Scratch depth analysis for cone tip indenter on PPF specimen
(a) first exposed Cu (b) full exposed Cu.
Figure 14 shows the scratch depth graph with various
indenters on PPF specimen. Rockwell, Vicker and flat punch
indenters are not suitable to perform the scratch test on PPF
strip due to deep scratch depth. The most suitable indenter for
scratch test on PPF specimen is cone tip indenter with 60°
cone angle and 25 μm tip radius, which minimal scratch depth
is observed when the PPF plating layer has failed.
4 2017 19th Electronics Packaging Technology Conference
Authorized licensed use limited to: STMicroelectronics international NV. Downloaded on September 09,2020 at 08:39:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Figure 14: Scratch depth graph for various
indenters on PPF specimen
3.3. Constant load scratch test
Figure 15 shows the PPF specimen after performed the
constant load scratch test. Exposed Cu is clearly seen from
line 13 onwards, where Fx and COF increase drastically
(Figure 16). When the first Cu is exposed during the scratch
test, Fz at this point is defined as Lc. Analysis showed the Lc
for the PPF specimen is 0.74 N.
Figure 15: Constant load scratch test on PPF specimen with cone
tip indenter (exposed Cu on line 13)
Line
13
Figure 16: Constant load scratch test graph on PPF specimen
with cone tip indenter
Conclusions
Standard progressive load scratch test method with
Rockwell indenter and AE sensor is quite suitable to test on
Sn plated Cu strip where strong AE signal is detected when
the plating failure occurred. However, progressive load
scratch test on PPF plated Cu strip is quite challenging as
when the PPF plating failed, there is a) no AE signal
detection, b) no clear plating failure transition and c)
deformation of PPF plating into the Cu base material. These
challenges had been overcome by using a) cone tip indenter
with small radius to concentrate the normal load stress on PPF
plating surface and b) constant load scratch test technique to
provide better visualization of damage. In this work, we
develop a methodology by performing progressive load
scratch test first to obtain the Lc, then followed by the constant
load scratch test at narrow normal force range with fine force
increment. It is noted that Lc can be categorized into Lc1: first
plating failure and Lc2: Gross plating failure. However, we
only characterized Lc1 in this study.

Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Infineon Technologies Asia
Pacific Backend Development management team and project
core team in supporting all the assessments and fruitful
discussion.

References

1. Chen, Z., Wu, L. Y. L., Chwa, E., & Tham, O. (2008).

Scratch Resistance of Brittle Thin Films on Compliant
Substrates. Materials Science and Engineering A, 493(1-
2), 292-298.
2. "Application Note #1001 Thin Film and Plating Testing
Using Bruker‘s UMT Testers," [Online]. Available:
https://www.bruker.com/fileadmin/user_upload/8-PDF-
Docs/SurfaceAnalysis/TMT/ApplicationNotes/AN1001-
Thin_film_and_plating_testing_using_UMT_testers-R.pdf.
3. "Scratch Testing," [Online]. Available:
http://www.qualitymag.com/articles/89229-scratch-test.
4. ASTM C 1624 – 05, Standard Test Method for Adhesion
Strength and Mechanical Failure Modes of Ceramic
Platings by Quantitative Single Point Scratch Testing,
ASTM International, 2005.
5. ASTM D 7027 – 05, Standard Test Method for Evaluation
of Scratch Resistance of Polymeric Platings and Plastics
Using an Instrumented Scratch Machine, ASTM
International,2005.
6. ASTM D 7187 – 05, Standard Test Method for Measuring
Mechanistic Aspects of Scratch/Mar Behavior of Paint
Platings by Nanoscratching, ASTM International, 2005.
7. Sergici, A. O., Ranhill, N. X., “CSM Instrument Inc.
Scratch Test of Coatings”, Advanced Material & process
(2006), pp 41-43.
8. Malzbender, J., Tender, J.M.J, Balkenende, A.R., With,
G., “Measuring Mechanical Properties of Coatings: A
mechanical properties applied to nano particles filled sol-
gel-coatings on glass”. Materials Science and Engineering
R36 (2002), pp. 74-78.

5 2017 19th Electronics Packaging Technology Conference

Authorized licensed use limited to: STMicroelectronics international NV. Downloaded on September 09,2020 at 08:39:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.