MEASUREMENTS OF ADHESIVE BONDLINE EFFECTIVE THERMAL

CONDUCTIVITY AND THERMAL RESISTANCE USING THE LASER FLASH METHOD

Robert C. Campbell, Stephen E. Smith
Holometris
25 Wiggins Ave.
Bedford, MA 0 1730
e-mail: info@holometris.com

Raymond L. Dietz
Diemat, Inc.
458 Boston St., Suite 1
Topsfield, MA 0 1983
e-mail: dieniat@shore.net

ABSTRACT NOMENCLATURE

Thermal modeling of device packages requires thermal resistance (mm’WW)

accurate thermophysical property data for package temperature difference (K)
materials. Accurate data for the thermal resistance of heat flow (W)
the adhesive bondline used to attach a high power area (mm2)
device to a substrate is critical because this thermal bondline thickness (pm)
resistance can be a significant part of the total thermal thermal conductivity (W/m-K)
resistance in the heat flow path from the device effective thermal conductivity (W/m-K)
junction to the package case or ambient. in-plane thermal conductivity (W/m-K)
through-plane thermal
The bondline thermal resistance can in principle be conductivity (W/m-K)
calculated by dividing the espected or measured intrinsic thermal resistance (mm2K/W)
bondline thickness by the adhesive thermal contact thermal resistance (mm2K/W)
conductivity measured on a free-standing cured total bondline thermal resistance
sample. However, at a typical bondline thickness of (mm2K/W)
15-75pm, the contact thermal resistance bctween the die (substrate) to adhesive interface
adhesive and its adherents can be significant compared temperature difference (K)
to the intrinsic thermal resistance of the adhesive and thermal diffusivity (cm2/s)
thus cannot be ignored. Also, the thermal conductivity effective thermal diffusivity (cm2/s)
measured on a free-standing cured sample may not be in-plane thermal diffusivity (cm2/s)
equivalent to the thermal conductivity of the adhesive through-plane thermal diffusivity (cm2/s)
in the bonded assembly. bulk density (g/cm3)
specific heat capacity (J/g-K)
This paper will investigate some of the variables that half rise time (ms)
determine the adhesive bondline effective thermal
conductivity and contact resistance. The results of I. INTRODUCTION
multi-layer laser flash diffusivity measurements will be
presented for a range of available adhesives in The ability to accurately predict the device junction
“sandwich” sample assemblies that simulate the temperature has become critical with the increasing
package. Thermal conductivity measurements of the power and speed and decreasing size of semiconductor
adhesives free-standing will also be obtained by the devices. For high power devices, accurate knowledge
laser flash method. of the die attach thermal resistance can be critical.
The thermal conductivity provided by adhesive vendors

IEEE
0-7803-5624-5/99/$10.0001999 83 Fifteenth IEEE SEMl-THERMTMSyrnposiurn

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Catania. Downloaded on November 30,2022 at 14:40:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 is typically the result of a nieasurement on a thick,
free-standing molded sample. In some cases this value
may be used to calculate the intrinsic thermal
resistance for a given bondline. With an estimate of
the contact resistance, the total resistance can be
estimated. However, the contact resistance for
adhesive bonds of various materials is not well
characterized. Also, depending on the type of adhesive
and test sample size and preparation method the
“bulk” sample and its thermal conductivity may not
accurately represent the adhesive bondline
microstructure.
11. BONDLINE THERMAL RESISTANCE AND
EFFECTIVE THERMAL CONDCUTLVITY
The total thermal resistance from the surface of the die
to the surface of the substrate will be the sum of the
contact resistances and the intrinsic adhesive resistance
(see Figure 1). Thermal resistance is defined as
R,,,= AT I (QIA).
The intrinsic thermal resistance can be calculated as
the ratio of the bondline thickness to the adhesive
thermal conductivity
The contact,resistance is defined as
and the total bondline thermal resistance becomes
The effective thermal conductivity is defined as
AS I (AX I h + 2Kon).
he,= AX I hot=
/ The laser flash diffusivity method, or more generally
is useh1 in comparing the performance of different
adhesive bondlines, including their contact resistance,
but is a function of bondline thickness because the
2&,) term is fixed and begins to dominate for thin
bondlines.
Equation (1) suggests two methods to determine %,
from measurements of Et,, and AX, neither of which is
always valid. If Ronand are not functions of As,
then a linear fit of Equation (1) for a range of As will
produce a y-asis intercept equal to 2(Kon). The
84
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Catania. Downloaded on November 30,2022 at 14:40:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
adhesive h can also be determined from the reciprocal
of the slope of the line. If the adhesive h is known
from measurements of a free-standing sample then
2 ( L ) = hot-AS I h. (2)
The y-asis intercept method requires that the thermal
conductivity is not a function of thickness. The use of
the term thermal conductivity of course implies no
dependence on thickness but due to the nature of the
die attach process and the drying and curing
conditions, voids may reduce the thermal conductivity
for thicker bondlines, effecting the accuracy of fitting
the slope and intercept. The subtraction method has an
advantage in that realistic bondline thicknesses can be
used, but requires an assumption that the adhesive
microstructure and resulting thermal conductivity are
equivalent in the bondline and in the free-standing
sample.
The magnitude of the contact resistance in the
assembly is espected to be dependent on many
variables. The chemistry and thermal conductivity of
the adhesive, thermal conductivity of the device and
substrate, processing and curing conditions, effects of
thermal stress due to thermal expansion mismatch and
the surface condition (plating, surface finish) of the
device and substrate can all effect the contact
resistance. The thermal conductivity of the adhesive in
the bonded assembly may also be dependent on
variables such as processing and curing conditions,
bondline thickness and area and size, shape and
orientation of filler particles.
III. EXPERIMENTAL METHOD LASER -
FLASH DIFFUSIVITY
A. Single Layer Diffusivity
the flash diffusivity method, originally described by
W.J. Parker [I] is a transient heat flow technique
primarily used to measure the thermal diffusivity of
materials. Thermal diffusivity is a measure of how
quickly a temperature disturbance can propagate
through a material and is related to the thermal
conductivity through the following equation
This relationship allows the thermal conductivity to be
Fifteenth IEEE SEMI-THERMTMSymposium
 -
Figure 1 Schematic of die attach bondline
calculated from measuremcnts of the thermal
diffusivity, bulk density and specific heat.
The laser flash method (sce Figure 2) in\-olves rapidly
heating one face of a small disk or slab of the material
with a single pulse from a laser or other source and
monitoring the arrival of the resulting temperature
disturbance as a function of time on the other face of
the sample. Normally the back face surface
temperature is monitored with an infrared detector,
making the measurement contactless. This is a
significant advantage over other methods especially for
thin, low thermal resistance samples. Uncertainties in
other methods related to the contact resistance between
heating and cooling plates and the sample, and to
accurate measurement of surface temperature
differences using contact sensors can be essentially
eliminated.
Figure 3 is an esample of the normalized back surface
temperature rise measured by the IR detector. In this
figure, the laser pulse is initiated at time zero, there is
short lag as the pulse propogates through the sample
thickness, and then a steep rise followed by a more
gradual rise to a plateau where the heat from the laser
pulse has become equally distributed in the sample.
Data analysis consists of fitting the measured back
surface temperature rise to the theoretical model to
determine the value of diffusivity for the sample. For
single layer samples, we have used the approach of
J.A. Koski [2], in which corrections for radiative heat
losses and the finite width of the laser pulse can be
applied.
B. Specific heat
a5
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Catania. Downloaded on November 30,2022 at 14:40:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
For single lager samples we also employ the laser flash
method to measure the specific heat of the sample by a
calibrated method [I]. This technique involves
comparing the sample temperature rise due to the laser
pulse to that of a sample of known specific heat tested
under the same conditions. After calibration, the
specific heat and thermal diffusivity can be measured
on the same sample usually at the same time.
C. Multi-layer analysis
The method can be applied to the determination of the
thermal diffusivity, thermal conductivity and thernial
resistance of an unknown layer in a multi-layer or
“sandwich” structure, provided that the thermal
properties and thickness of the other layer or layers are
known or can be measured independently. We have
used the approach of T.R.Lee [3] for three layer
samples. In this case the bondline represents the
middle layer and the contact thermal resistances are
lumped in the middle layer effective thermal diffusivity
(and conductivity). J.N. Sweet [4] has developed a
three layer solution which can account for the two
contact resistances separately from the middle layer
difisivity. However, because changes in the contact
resistances and the middle layer diffusivity tend to
effect the temperature rise curve in the same way, it is
usually not possible to determine both quantities
simultaneously using this solution. Although Sweet’s
model more accurately represents our samples, both
solutions applied to the same data will result in the
same fit value of the bondline total thermal resistance.
Data analysis consists of fitting the measured
temperature rise data to the theoretical model to
determine the value of diffusivity for the bondline
lager. The Lee solution relates the back surface
Fifteenth IEEE SEMI-THERMTMSyrnposiurn
 bondline +
Si \
1-
U detector

.? 4 k. 4- IR radiation
... :. .-.,
+ sample
Si 4 4 4 4 4
. I I I I

Figure 2 - Schematic of laser flash diffusivity method

temperature rise vs. time to the thickness, density,
specific heat and difisivity of each layer. Normally
the tso or half rise time of the three layer sample is
found by measuring the apparent difisivity and is
corrected for the finite pulse effect [2]. In Figure 3, tso
is the time where normalized temperature equals 0.5 or
about 7 ms on this curve. Then, with inputs of tso and
the thickness, density, specific heat and diffusivity of
each layer (the diffusivity of the bondline layer is
initially estimated), the diffusivity of the bondline layer
is iterated until the normalized temperature rise
calculated with the three layer solution converges to
the value of 0.5 (for tso). Although the Lee solution
requires inputs of the bondline thickness, specific heat
and density, the final calculated value of bondline
thermal conductivity and thermal resistance is
relatively insensitive to the specific heat and density
inputs for the layer thickness ratios of the samples in
this work.
Sweet and Lee have also developed solutions for two
layer samples with contact resistance that can be
utilized in cases where the bondline thickness
approaches zero relative to the first and second layers.
This method has the advantage of not requiring inputs
of the bondline bulk density and specific heat, but as
the first and second layer thickness increase relative to
the bondline thickness, the sensitivity of the bondline
thermal resistance measurement is reduced. This
solution is exact only as the bondline thickness
approaches zero. However, for some of the layer ratios
encountered in this work the deviation between the
calculated thermal resistance using the two layer
approximation and using the three layer solution was
only about 3%.
D. Inplane thermal diffusivity and thermal
conductivity
In order to characterize any possible anisotropy in the
free-standing adhesive samples, we have employed a
modification of the standard through-plane laser flash
method [5, 6, 71 to measure ".y and L,,. This method
employs a mask to collimate the laser beam and heat

86 Fifteenth IEEE SEMI-THERMTMSymposium

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Catania. Downloaded on November 30,2022 at 14:40:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
an approsiniately 5 nim diameter spot on the front face
of a 25 m m diameter disk. This allows heat to flow
through the thickness of the sample and spread out in
the plane. Another mask is employed on the opposite
face to define an annulus of approsiniately 8 to 10 nim
in diameter on the back face that is esposed to the IR
detector. The temperature rise measured at this
annulus is fit to a two-dimensional model with inputs
of the through-plane thermal diffusivity, saniple
thickness and heating and viewing diameters to
determine axy.

temperature rise curve

0.9 -

0.8 -
0.7 -

2 0.6-
E
E 0.5 - _
d.
E 0.4 -
2
0.3-

0.2 - - - I

-.
3
0.1 - a
I

O /
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
time (seconds)

Figure 3 - Back surface temperature rise curve measured by IR detector

N. SAMPLE PREPARATION The Si-Si bonded samples were prepared by using a

Free standing adhesive films were prepared by doctor
blading the adhesive paste between strips of tape (for
thickness control) on a Teflon block and then
performing the supplier-recommended curing cycle.
After curing, the films were released from the Teflon
block and three 0.5 inch diameter disks were die cut
for laser flash testing. For some of the films, 1.0 inch
diameter disks were also cut for in-plane diffusivity
measurements.
manual die attach machine to align and bond two 0.3
or 0.4 inch square silicon die with the adhesive, and
then performing the supplier-recommended curing
cycle. After curing, most of the adhesive “squeeze out”
was removed from the faces and edges of the die. The
Si-& bonded samples were prepared by using the
manual die attach machine to align and bond a 0.3
inch square silicon die near the center of a 1.0 inch
square 6061 series aluminum substrate, and then
performing the supplier-recommended curing cycle.
The “squeeze out” fillet was left intact for the Si-AI

a7 Fifteenth IEEE SEMI-THERMTMSymposium

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Catania. Downloaded on November 30,2022 at 14:40:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 samples.
Due to the partial transparency of silicon in the IR
wavelengths, the outer Si faces of the bonded samples
were sputter-coated with a 0.1 pm gold film. This
prevents transmission of laser energy and prevents the
IR detector from viewing internal temperature change.
A graphite film approximately 2 p i thick was then
applied to increase the laser energy absorption and the
emmitance of the sample surfaces.
V. MEASUREMENTS
The free-standing film sample's thickness, diameter
and mass were measured before applying the graphite
coating in order to calculate the bulk density. The
cured films tended to have significant thickness
variations so a flathall micrometer was used to make
five thickness measurements with light contact
pressure to avoid compression.
For the bonded samples the thickness of the Si die and
A1 substrates were measured before assembly with a
flatlpoint micrometer with a precision of 0.1 mil.
After curing the total thickness of the Si-Si and Si-AI
samples was measured with the flatlpoint micrometer
near each of the four comers and averaged. The
average bondline thickness can be calculated by
subtracting the average total thickness from the sum of
the Si or Si and A1 thicknesses.
The specific heat and thermal diffusivity of the free-
standing film samples, and the thermal diffusivity of
the Si die, A1 substrate and Si-Si bonded samples were
measured on a Holonietrix Microflasli instrument.
This instrument utilizes a Nd:glass laser (1.06 pm
wavelength, 330 ps pulse width, 10 mm beam
diameter) and an InSb IR detector. The thermal
diffusivity of the Si-A1 bonded samples was measured
on a Holometris Thermaflash 2200 instrument which
has the same laser and detector but allowed heating of
most of the 1.0 inch square A1 substrate area due to the
divergence of the laser beam at large distances from
the laser head. Heating most of the A1 substrate area
was important to minimize in-plane heat conduction.
A mask was used to eqose only the die area of the Si-
A1 samples to the LR detector. The in-plane diffusivity
was also measured on the Thermaflash 2200
instrument in a cell that allows the measurements to
performed in vacuum to limit heat loss.
VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
88
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Catania. Downloaded on November 30,2022 at 14:40:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Eight different silver-filled adhesives were investigated
and are summarized in Table 1. These adhesives were
chosen to represent a range of binder types and silver
loading levels. The addition of spherical silver spacers
to the pastes of adhesives 3 and 7 was an experimental
attempt to achieve uniform bondline thickness control.
These spacers, approsimately 38 pm (1.5 mils) in
diameter and uniform in diameter from spacer to
spacer serve as stand-offs during die attach. Note that
the weight and volume percentages of silver do not
include the silver spacers.
A. Free-standing thermal conductivity
The results for the free-standing adhesive films are
sumniarized in Table 2 and show some dependence of
the thermal conductivity on the binder chemistry and
silver loading level. The thermal conductivity for
Adhesives 1 and 2 was lower than expected for their
silver loading level, but for Adhesives 3 through 8 the
thermal conductivity increases in the same order as the
silver loading level. Adhesive 5 has a similar silver
loading level as Adhesive 4, but has a much higher
thermal conductivity due to its solvent and
thermoplastic binder system which may allow for more
intimate silver particle to particle contact [SI.
Adhesive 6 has mixed thermoplastic and thermoset
binders and higher silver loading. Adhesives 7 and 8
have extremely high thermal conductivities of 85 and
,66 W/m-K. This result on Adhesive 8 is similar to
previous measurements on much thicker (3 mm)
molded samples of this adhesive. The addition of
silver spacers to Adhesive 7 may have resulted in
slightly higher silver loading and higher thermal
conductivity.
The measured film thermal conductivities for
Adhesives 2, 5 and 6 were significantly lower than
previous results on much thicker (3-10 mm) molded
samples. One possible esplanation for these
differences is the formation of a binder-rich layer or
gradient at one surface of the film due to the tendency
for the binder to migrate to the one available interface
at the surface of the Teflon block on which the films
were cured. A difference in color was noted between
the Teflon and free sides of the films that corresponded
to a binder-rich surface on the Teflon side. Due to the
very low thermal conductivity of the unfilled binder,
the thermal resistance of this layer may be high even
though its thickness may be fairly small compared to
the film thickness. For the thicker samples cured in a
Fifteenth IEEE SEMI-THERMTMSymposiurn
 mold, a binder-rich layer at each surface of similar
thickness may not be thick enough compared to the
total thickness to have a similar effect. The thermal
conductivity for Adhesives 3, 4 and 8 was more similar
to previous measurements of much thicker samples.
Another possible exqhnation for the lower film
thermal conductivity is a difference in the orientation
of the silver particles within the adhesive. Both silver
flake and silver powders are used as fillers. The silver
flake have diameters of approximately 5-15 pm with
an aspect ratio of 10 to 1. Due to processing and
curing conditions it may be that thicker bulk samples
tend to have a random orientation of the silver flake.
In the film the silver flakes may tend to align with the
longer dimension parallel to the film surface, resulting
in anisotropy in the thermal conductivity. The
through-plane thermal conductivity X, would be
reduced and in-plane thermal conductivity hxy
increased relative to a random orientation analogous to
unidirectional fibrous composites.
B. In-plane thermal conductivity
In order to investigate possible anisotropy in the
thermal conductivity of the free-standing samples, in-
plane thermal diffusivity measurements were
perfomled on

-
Table 1 Summary of tested adhesives
I Adhesive I Bindertype I Wt. % ofAg I Vol. % ofAg I Notes I
Adhesive 1 I epoxy I 80 I 31 I measured h,and L o n l y
Adhesive2 I epoxy 82 34 I measured h, and 3Lxyonly
Adhesive 3 epoxy 77 28 contains Ag spacers
Adhesive 4 epoxy 90 51
Adhesive 5 solvent, thermoplastic 90 53
Adhesive 6 solvent, mised 92 58
thermoplastic and
thermoset
Adhesive 7 solvent, epoxy I 93 62 I contains Ag spacers
Adhesive 8 solvent, epoxy 93 62

-
Table 2 Freestanding adhesive propcrties

Fifteenth IEEE SEMl-THERMTMSymposium

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Catania. Downloaded on November 30,2022 at 14:40:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Adhesives 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8. The results are
summarized in table 3 and show very significant
anisotropy for these free-standing films. Note that the
results for Adhesive 8 are on a thinner film of a
different material lot from the result in Table 2. The
final column in Table 3 lists the Ly/ h, ratio, which
indicates the degree of anisotropy. There appears to be
an inverse relationship between the & / h, ratio and
the silver loading level. These results could be
consistent will the binder-rich layer theory if one
assumes that the thin, binder-rich layer and the thicker
silver-filled layer act as a large thermal resistance in
series with a small themial resistance in measurements
of h,, and act as a large thermal resistance in parallel
with a small thermal resistance in measurements of
LY.The results could also be consistent with the silver-
flake orientation theory or some combination of the
two theories.
We are planning to perform SEM on sectioas of these
films in an attempt to learn more about their
microstructure and its correlation to measured & and
C. Bondline effective thermal conductivity and
thermal resistance
Several groups of bonded samples were tested. The Si
die, substrates and adhesives tested in each group are
summarized in Table 4. Table 5 contains the
properties of the Si die and A1 substrate. Note that the
specific heats of the Si die and the AI substrate were
taken from the literature [9].

-
Table 3 Free standing adhesive inplane thermal conductivity
T a. av 1, L y LyIL
(00 (cm2/s) (cm2/s) (WIm-K) (W/m-K)
I

-
Adhesive 1 25 0.0036 0.0133 0.67 I 2.46 3.7
Adhesive 2 25 0.0088 0.0357 1.67 I 6.79 I 4.1 I
Adhesive 5 25 0.0467 0.112 6.24 I 15.0 1 2.4 I
Adhesive 6 25 0.0651 0.108 9.07 I 15.0 I 1.7 I
Adhesive 8 25 0.301 0.452 48.0 I 72.1 I 1.5 I

-
Table 4 Bonded sample summary

s tested

(Si-Si) 315
polished
mound
I ground

Group2 400x 457 ground/ I ground 5,63

(Si-Si) 400 ground
Group3 300x 610 polished ground 5
(Si-Si) 300 round
Group4 300x 610 5
(Si-Si) 300
Group5 300x 610 1 .os 965 rolled 596
(Si-AI) 300 round 1 .o

90 Fifteenth IEEE SEMI-THERMTMSymposium

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Catania. Downloaded on November 30,2022 at 14:40:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Ax As p T
(mils) (pm) (g/cm3) ("C) (J/g-K) (cm2/s) (W/m-K)
Sidie(avg. of3), 15 381 2.33
Group 1
Sidie(avg. of2), 18 457 2.31
Group 2
Sidie(avg. of2), 21 610 2.31
Groups 3,4,5
A1 substrate 38 965 2.70
Group 1:
Group 1 included 0.315 inch square Si-Si bonds for
Adhesives 3, 4 and 7. The Si-Si bond was chosen so
that the effect of adhesive binder type and silver
loading level on the bondline thermal properties could
be studied. Four Si-Si replicates were tested for each
adhesive. The results are summarized in Table 6. The
contact resistance is calculated by the subtraction
method (Equation 2) using the free-standing
conductivities from Table 2. The final column is the
calculated contact resistance as a percentage of the
total measured resistance.
These results show some dependence of the effective
thermal conductivity on the adhesive binder type and
silver loading level, but the results are much more
closely grouped than the corresponding free-standing
results. Adhesive 3 had the lowest free-standing
thermal conductivity in this group and the highest
calculated contact resistance as espected, but Adhesive
7 had a much higher calculated contact resistance than
Adhesive 4 despite its much higher (factor of 23) free-
standing thermal conductivity. After the thermal
testing x-ray images were t<aken of this group of
samples and it was determined that the Adhesive 7
samples had significant voiding. This voiding
probably caused the additional bondline thermal
resistance and calculated contact resistance for this
adhesive. Adhesive 7 contains non-reactive solvents
and experiences significant shrinkage as the solvents
are evaporated during the cure cycle. The silver
spacers used in Adhesive 7 to achieve uniform
bondline thickness did not allow for the bondline
shrinkage and the voids probably developed as the
adhesive pulled away from the silicon during the cure.
The samples in this group were later sectioned and
polished in order to obtain a SEM micrograph of the
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Catania. Downloaded on November 30,2022 at 14:40:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
CP . a A,
I
25 0.715 0.860 143
25 0.715 0.820 135
25 0.715 0.827 137
25 0.905 0.664 162
bondline for thickness measurements. These optical
thickness measurements agreed fairly well with the
bondline thickness calculated by subtraction as
described in Section V. The masimum difference
between the two methods for the 12 bonded samples
was 5.6 p n ~(0.22 mils) and the average difference was
2.2 pm (0.09 mils). Espressed as a percentage of the
bondline thickness, the masimum difference was
18.5% and the average difference was 6.5%. Note that
the results in Table 6 were calculated with the optical
thickness measurements.
Group 2:
Group 2 included 0.400 inch square Si-Si bonds for
Adhesives 5, 6 and 8. Five Si-Si replicates were tested
for each adhesive. The results are summarized in
Table 7.
The contact resistance for Adhesive 8 is calculated by
the subtraction method (Equation 2) using its free-
standing thermal conductivity from Table 2. For
Adhesives 5 and 6, the free-standing thermal
conductivity from previous measurements of thicker
molded samples was used because Et, was about the
same or lower than Rhk calculated with the current
results on the free-standing films. Use of the film
conductivity for Adhesive 5 resulted in negative
calculated contact resistance for each sample while for
Adhesive 6 the calculated contact resistance ranged
from negative to 0.9 m r n ' w . This is a clear
indication that the microstructure of the free-standing
films of these adhesives did not accurately represent
the microstructure of the adhesives in the Si-Si
bondlines. Some possible esplanations for the lower
through-plane thermal conductivity of these films
compared to thick molded samples were discussed in
Section C, but clearly hrther investigation is necessary
91 Fifteenth lEEE SEMI-THERMTMSymposiurn
 to undcrstand the adhesive microstructure in the
bondline. For this work, some unsuccessful attempts
were made to produce a more realistic free-standing
film of Adhesives 5 and 6 in the bondline thickness
range of 2 mils.
Adhesive 5 had the lowest average calculated contact
resistance of 2.3 mm2WW, Adhesive 8 was 2.6
mni2WW and Adhesive G was 3.5 mm’WW. At the
higher silver loading levels of these adhesives, the
binder type appears to impact the contact resistance
more than the filler level or thermal conductivity. For
Adhesive 8, with the exception of sample b, the
calculated contact resistance for each replicate is very
close to 2.3 niniZWW (note that the table results have
been rounded) which indicates a linear bondline
thickness vs. total resistance relationship over this
Tablc 6 - Effective thermal conductivity and thermal resistance of Si-Si bonds (Group 1)
92
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Catania. Downloaded on November 30,2022 at 14:40:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
sinall range of bondline thickness. Comparing the
contact resistance of Adhesive 8 (2.3 mmzWW) to that
of Adhesive 7 (14.7 mm2WW), which is the same
adhesive escept for the addition of silver spacers, the
additional contact resistance or intrinsic resistance
(voiding) caused by the presence of the spacers is
evident.
The effective thermal conductivities are again more
closely grouped for Adhesives 5, 6 and 8 than their .
corresponding free-standing results. This illustrates
that as the total bondline thermal resistance decreases
towards the contact resistance due to the higher
thermal conductivity and lower intrinsic resistance of
these adhesives, the contact resistance begins to
dominate.
Fifteenth IEEE SEMI-THERMTMSyrnposium
Tablc 7 - Effective tliermal conductivity and thermal rcsistilncc of Si-Si bonds (Group 2)
Adhesive 5
(0.4’’ Si-0.4” Si)
E averu e
1 Adhesive 8
(0.4” Si-0.4” Si)
avera e
Groups 3 and 4:
These groups included 0.300 inch square Si-Si bonds
of Adhesive 5 with the same Si die but with different
sides of the die bonded. Five Si-Si replicates were
tested for each group. The results are summarized in
Table 8. The contact resistance is calculated with the
subtraction method.
These die had a polished mirror finish (Group 4) on
one side and a ground finish (Group 3) on the other.
This comparison was intended to show the effect of
surface finish on the contact resistance of this
adhesive. Also, the ground finish side of this set of die
93
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Catania. Downloaded on November 30,2022 at 14:40:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
was somewhat smoother than the ground faces of the
0.400 inch square die used in Group 2. Although these
surface finish characterizations were not quantitative,
they should at least rank the finishes of the bonded die
surface.
For Adhesive 5 , the roughest die finish resulted in an
average contact resistance of 2.3 mm2K/W (Group 2,
Table 7) and the polished die finish of Group 4
resulted in an average contact resistance of 2.9
mm2WW. The average contact resistance for Group 3,
with a somewhat smoother ground die finish was 2.7
mm2K/W. These results show a fairly small (relative
to the uncertainty in these contact resistance
Fifteenth IEEE SEMI-THERMTMSymposium
 -
Table 8 Effective thermill conductivity ant1,thcrmal resistance of Si-Si bonds (Groups 3 and 4)

Table 9 Effective thermal conductivity

- 5 of Si-AI bonds (Group )
and thermal resistance

94 Fifteenth IEEE SEMI-THERMTMSymposium

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Catania. Downloaded on November 30,2022 at 14:40:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
calculations) but measurable effect of surface finish on
the contact resistance for this adhesive. However, the
result for Group 3 would be expected to be closer to
that of the rougher ground finish (Group 2) than to the
polished finish. Note that the die size was also
different for Group 2, but this would not be espected to
effect the contact resistance. The lower contact
resistance with a rougher finish is probably due to the
increased contact area between the die and adhesive at
the interfaces.
Group 5:
This group included 0.300 inch square Si-1.0 inch
square A1 bonds of Adhesives 5 and 6. Five Si-A1
replicates were tested for each adhesive. The results
are summarized in Table 9. The contact resistance is
calculated with the subtraction method.
This sample configuration was chosen to esamine the
effects of using the Si-AI combination due to the large
thermal espansion mismatch between Si and A1
(approximately 3 ppnd0C vs. 23 ppm/"C). These
results show a very significant increase in calculated
contact resistance and decrease in effective
conductivity relative to the Si-Si bonds for the same
adhesives in Table 2. The average calculated contact
resistance of Adhesive 5 is 8.9 m m 2 W and the
average effective thermal conductivity is 3.2 W/m-K
compared to values of 2.3 mm2K/W and 9.3 W/m-K
for the Si-Si bonds. For Adhesive 6, the Si-Ai values
are 19.8 m m 2 W and 1.8 W/m-K compared to values
of 3.5 m m 2 W and 8.5 W/m-K for the Si-Si bonds.
Escluding sample d from the average for Adhesive 6
gives values of 13.0 mm2K/W and 2.2 W/m-K. The
very high contact resistance of 47 nim2WW calculated
for Sample d might indicate a partial adhesive failure.
Mechanical sheer strength testing done on a group of
similarly prepared samples also indicated some low
strengths for a small number of bonds.
For Adhesive 6, which has a blended thermoplastic
and thermoset binder, the sheer stress caused by the
extreme Si-A1 thermal expansion mismatch may have
led to cracking or voiding within the bondline or at the
interfaces, increasing the calculated contact resistance.
The samples for this adhesive were cured at 200°C but
were not given additional thermal cycles. Due to its
95
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Catania. Downloaded on November 30,2022 at 14:40:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
thermoplastic binder system and lower modulus of
elasticity [8], Adhesive 5 was espected to be better able
to absorb the sheer stress. The samples for this
adhesive were cured at 175OC and were also not given
additional thermal cycles
A portion of the increased contact resistance for both
adhesives may be due to a higher Al-adhesive contact
resistance without any sheer stress factor. Some
possible esplanations for this include any effects of the
thin aluminum ohde layer on the A1 surface,
contamination of the A1 surface or a surface finish
effect.
The results of future work may allow the separation of
any sheer stress factors from these other potential
factors by testing ALA1 bonds of these adhesives and
comparing the contact resistance to that of the Si-Si
bonds. Also, s-ray or ultrasonic analysis of the Si-A1
bonded samples may help determine whether sheer
stress has damaged these bondlines.
VIL SUMMARY
The laser flash diffusivity method has been used to
characterize both the free-standing thermal
conductivity and bondline effective thermal
conductivity and thermal resistance of a range of silver
filled adhesives. Accurate knowledge of the thermal
performance of these adhesives is critical to thermal
management and modeling of high power device
packages.
Measurements of the free-standing films have shown
the effects of silver filler level, binder type and sample
preparation on the thermal conductivity. Significant
anisotropy in these films has been measured using an
in-plane modification of the laser flash diffusivity
method.
Measurements of bonded assemblies of Si-Si and Si-A1
have been used to study the effects of adhesive thermal
conductivity, filler level and binder type, as well as
surface finish and thermal expansion mismatch on the
effective thermal conductivity and contact resistance of
Fifteenth IEEE SEMI-THERMTMSymposium
 40.0
38.0
36.0
34.0
32.0
30.0 A Adh.4(Si-Si)

28.0 ----
26.0 Adh.S(SiSi)
I..._.._._...._
24.0
+ Adh.S(SiAl)
5 22.0
20.0
-
N

E 16.0 -
- Adh.6(SiSii

16.0
o Adh.6(SiAl)
14.0
12.0
-
10.0
8.0
-.. 0 Adh.7(SiiSi)

A Adh.8(Si-Si)
6.0
I . . -
4.0
2.0
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Pm

Figure 3 - Total thermal resistancc vs. bondlinc thickness for Groups 1 , 2 and 5

bondlines of the adhesives. The importance of REFERENCES

accounting for the contact resistance has been
demonstrated by calculated contact resistances that
range from 30% to over 90% of the total bondline
thermal resistance for the adhesives and assemblies
studied. Figure 3 summarizes the total thermal
resistance vs. bondline thickness for Groups 1, 2 and 5.
This plot includes the data points for each replicate as
well as a line derived from Equation I using the
adhesive free-standing thernial conductivity and the
average calculated contact resistance for the sample
configuration (note that it is not a linear fit of the data
points). This plot allows the determination of the total
thermal resistance at any bondline thickness for each
adhesive and configuration. It also shows the degree
of scatter in the measured total resistance for the
replicates.
[I] W.J. Parker, R.J. Jenkins, C.P. Butler, and G.L.
Abbott, "A Flash Method of Determining
Thermal Diffusivity, Heat Capacity, and Thermal
Conductivity", Journal 01Applied Physics, 32
(9): 1961, 1679-1684.
[Z] J.A. Koski, "Improved Data Reduction Methods
for Laser Pulse Diffusivity Determination with
the Use of Minicomputers", in Proceedings of tlie
Eighth ~vinposiiinr on Therrnophysical
Properties, Vol 11, J.V. Sengers, Ed, The
American Institute of Physics, 1981, 94-103.
[3] T.R. Lee, Purdue University Ph.D. Thesis
Therinal Dil/usivi@ of Dispersed and Layered
Cornposifes,University Microfilms International,
1977.
[4] J.N. Sweet, Dntn Analysis Methods for Flash
Tliernrnl Dgfirsivity Experir~ients, Sandia

96 Fifteenth IEEE SEMI-THERMTMSymposium

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Catania. Downloaded on November 30,2022 at 14:40:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 National Laboratories Report nunibcr SAND89-
0260 UC-25, 1989.
[5] A.B. Donaldson, "T\\lo-Din~ensionaI Thermal
Attenuation of a Laser Pulse in a Solid". Journal
of the Franklin bisritrile, 294(4), 1972. 275-281.
[6] A.B. Donaldson. "Radial Conduction Effects in
the Pulse Method of Measuring Thermal
Diffusivity", Journal of Applied Physics, 33( lo),
1972,4226-4228.
[7] A.B. Donaldson and R.E. Taylor, "Thermal
Difisivity Measurement by a Radial Heat Flow
Method", Journal of Applied PhJJsics, 46( lo),
1975,4581489.
[SI R.L. Dietz, D. Peck and P.J. Robinson, "High
Thermal Conductivity in Organic Adhesives",
Intemationnl A.licroelectronics CoiiJerence,
Japan, 1996.
[9] Y.S. Touloukian and E.H. Buyco,
"Thennophysical Properties of Matter", Vol. 4,
Specijk Heat of A4etallic Elenmits and AIloj~s,
IFWlenum, 1973.

97 Fifteenth IEEE SEMI-THERMTMSymposium

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Catania. Downloaded on November 30,2022 at 14:40:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.