Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T12:06:04.517Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Process Variables on Glass Frit Wafer Bonding in MEMS Wafer Level Packaging

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Sid Sridharan ,
Jim Henry ,
John Maloney ,
Bob Gardner ,
Keith Mason ,
Viorel Dragoi ,
Jurgen Burggraf ,
Eric Pabo  and
Erkan Cakmak
Sid Sridharan
Affiliation:
[email protected], Ferro Corporation, Electronic Materials System, Independence, Ohio, United States
Jim Henry
Affiliation:
[email protected], Ferro Corporation, EMS, Vista, California, United States
John Maloney
Affiliation:
[email protected], Ferro Corporation, Electronic Materials System, Independence, Ohio, United States
Bob Gardner
Affiliation:
[email protected], Ferro Corporation, EMS, Vista, California, United States
Keith Mason
Affiliation:
[email protected], Ferro Corporation, EMS, Vista, California, United States
Viorel Dragoi
Affiliation:
[email protected], EV Group, Florian, Austria
Jurgen Burggraf
Affiliation:
[email protected], EVGroup, Florian, Austria
Eric Pabo
Affiliation:
[email protected], EV Group, Tempe, Arizona, United States
Erkan Cakmak
Affiliation:
[email protected], EV Group, Tempe, Arizona, United States
Get access

Abstract

Among different MEMS wafer level bonding processes glass frit bonding provides reliable vacuum tight seals in volume production. The quality of the seal is a function of both seal glass materials and the processing parameters used in glass frit bonding. Therefore, in this study Taguchi L18 screening Design of Experiment (DOE) was used to study the effect of materials and process variables on the quality of the glass seal in 6” silicon wafers bonded in EVG520IS bonder. Six bonding process variables at three levels and two types of sealing glass pastes were considered. The seals were characterized by Scanning Acoustic Microscopy (SAM), cross sectional Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Energy Dispersive X-ray Analysis (EDAX). The results were quantified into four responses for DOE analysis. Key results are a) peak temperature has the strongest influence on seal properties, b) hot melt paste has significantly lower defects compared to liquid paste, and c) peak firing temperatures can be as low as 400°C under certain conditions.

Keywords

microelectro-mechanical (MEMS)screen printingmicroelectronics
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1139: Symposium GG – Microelectromechanical Systems–Materials and Devices II , 2008 , 1139-GG03-35
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2009

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

REFERENCES

1. Market Forecast, Yole Development, France, http://www.yole.fr. Google Scholar
2. Stengl, R., Tan, T., and Gösele, U., J. J. Appl. Phys., 28, 1735 (1989).Google Scholar
3. Tsau, C. H., Spearing, S. M., and Schmidt, M. A., J. of Microelectromech. Systems, 11, 641 (2002).Google Scholar
4. Wallis, G. and Pommerantz, D., J. Appl. Phys., 40, 3946 (1969).Google Scholar
5. Dragoi, V., Glinsner, T., Mittendorfer, G., Wieder, B., Lindner, P., vol. 5116, p. 160, SPIE Proc.Series, Bellingham, WA (2003).Google Scholar
6. Yang, J.-W., Hayes, S., Lin, J.-K., and Frear, D., J. of Appl. Phys., 95, 6077 (2004)Google Scholar
7. Petzold, M., Dresbach, C., Ebert, M., Bagdahn, J., Wiemer, M., Glien, K., Graf, J., MullerFiedler, R., and Hofer, H., Proc. of “10th Intersociety Conf.on Thermal and Thermomech.Phenom. in Electronics Syst., ITHERM ′06”, IEEE Proc. Series, 1343 (2006).Google Scholar
8. Schmidt, S.R., and Launsby, R.G., “Understanding Industrial Designed Experiments”, page 3–47 Air Academy Press & Associates, Colorado Springs, CO 80920, (2005); The DOE software SPC XL2000, licensed from Air Academy Associates LLC was used for this study.Google Scholar
9. Knechtel, R., Microsyst Technol., 12, 63–68 (2005).Google Scholar
10. Boettge, B., Dresbach, C., Graft, A., Petzold, M. and Bagdahn, J., “Mechanical Characterization and Microstructure Diagnostics of Glass Frit Bonded Interfaces”, ECS Transactions, 16 (8) 441–448 (2008), also known as “Semiconductor Wafer Bonding 10: Science, Technology, and Applications”.Google Scholar