删除或更新信息,请邮件至freekaoyan#163.com(#换成@)

An anisotropic thermal-stress model for through-silicon via

本站小编 Free考研考试/2022-01-01

闂傚倷绀佺紞濠傖缚瑜旈、鏍幢濡炵粯鏁犻梺閫炲苯澧撮柣鎿冨亰瀹曞墎鎹勬潪鏉挎瀳闂備線鈧偛鑻晶浼存煕閻樻煡鍙勭€规洏鍨芥俊鍫曞炊閵娿儺浼曢梺鑽ゅ枑閻熴儳鈧凹鍙冨鎶藉醇閵夛妇鍘遍梺褰掑亰閸撴瑩銆冨▎鎴犵<闁告瑦锚瀹撳棛鈧娲忛崝鎴﹀极閹剧粯鏅搁柨鐕傛嫹闂傚倷鐒︾€笛呯矙閹达附鍎斿┑鍌氭啞閸嬬喐绻涢幋娆忕仼缁绢厸鍋撻梺璇查濠€杈ㄦ叏鐎靛摜涓嶆い鏍仦閻撴洘绻涢崱妯哄濠⒀屽墯缁绘繈鍩€椤掑嫬绠ユい鏃€鍎冲畷銉モ攽閻愬弶顥為悽顖滃仱婵″爼顢曢敂鐣屽幐闂佺ǹ鏈粙鎾诲箠閸℃瑦鍋栨繛鍡樻尰閻撴洘淇婇娆掝劅闁稿孩鍨圭槐鎾诲磼濮樺吋楔闂侀€炲苯澧存繛浣冲吘娑樷槈閵忊€充函濠电姴锕ら悧濠囧疾椤掑嫭鐓ラ柣鏇炲€圭€氾拷



1.
Introduction




By providing additional vertical interconnection resources, through-silicon via technology provides an attractive route to “More than Moore” [1], resulting in the smaller footprint, higher integration density, lower latency and power consumption[2]. Though TSV is a promising way to realize 3-D IC and has many benefits over traditional 2-D IC, the reliability of TSV is much more serious since TSV structure is more complex and more sensitive to the local multi-physics coupling. Especially for the thermal-stress coupling, the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) mismatch induced by high temperature difference will generate residual stress in TSV and silicon substrate, resulting in the TSV structure cracking and even the degradation of transistor mobility[3, 4].



To investigate the effect of thermal-stress on the reliability of 3-D IC, the primary work is configuring out the stress distribution in TSV and substrate as accurate as possible. Experimental testing, such as Micro-Raman[5], is the most accurate way to approach the real situation, but test-chips and optical instruments need high cost. Though the finite element analysis (FEA) simulation is a good choice with the lower cost, FEA is computationally expensive and infeasible for full-chip scale stress analysis. Considering the cost and efficiency, most previous works focus on the analytical modeling of TSV thermal-stress. A uniaxial thermal-stress model of TSV is proposed in Ref. [6], but it has a calculation error because the real TSV stress is biaxial. The biaxial stress model is proposed under axisymmetric assumption[7] and then is refined considering the traction–free condition in Ref. [8]. A semi-analytical stress model of TSV is proposed and applied in the calculation of multi-TSVs thermal-stress at a given point on the substrate[9]. The above works make a great contribution on exploring TSV thermal-stress modeling, but their models are all established under the isotropic assumption, which has the computation error in the stress distribution of silicon substrate. Actually, silicon is an anisotropic material[10]. The stress distribution in substrate should be calculated based on the anisotropic elastic theory.



To correct the calculation error induced by isotropic assumption, we propose an anisotropic thermal-stress model for TSV. The modeling principle and related assumptions are introduced firstly. Then, the derivation of the stress model is presented. Finally, we use Synopsys TCAD-S Interconnect to verify the accuracy of the proposed model.




2.
Modeling principles and assumptions





2.1
Plane strain and plane stress assumptions




To simplify the modeling process and get the analytical solution easier, a 3-D modeling issue is always reduced to be a 2-D issue. As a 3-D structure, the stress distribution on the surface of the substrate is mostly concerned because the device layer and top insulation layer suffer from stress a lot. The transistor performance drift and insulation cracking (TSV extrusion) induced by TSV stress are two critical reliability problems[11, 12]. To model the stress distribution on the substrate surface, it is feasible to reduce TSV thermal-stress modeling from a 3-D problem to a 2-D problem.



In elastic theory, two classic assumptions are used to solve the 2-D plane problem: plane strain assumption and plane stress assumption. Their specific definitions are given as follows:



Plane strain assumption: when the dimension of an object along the z-axis is much longer than its cross section along orthogonal axes directions, the displacements and stresses are independent of the z-axis. Accordingly, the strain εiz = 0 (i = x, y, z), but the normal stress along the z-axis σzz is non-zero.



Plane stress assumption: when the thickness of an object along the z-axis is much smaller than the other dimensions, the stress and displacement are independent of the z-axis. Accordingly, the stress σzz = 0, but the normal strain along the z-axis εzz is non-zero.



Apparently, TSV and the sidewall insulation layer are long bodies which satisfy the plane strain assumption, while the device layer satisfies the plane stress assumption.




2.2
Modeling method for TSV thermal-stress




Based on the plane strain and plane stress assumptions, the modeling of TSV thermal-stress can be separated into two steps, as shown in Fig. 1.






onerror="this.onerror=null;this.src='http://www.jos.ac.cn/fileBDTXB/journal/article/jos/2018/2/PIC/17050014-1.jpg'"
class="figure_img" id="Figure1"/>



Download



Larger image


PowerPoint slide






Figure1.
The solving steps of anisotropic thermal-stress of TSV.




The first step only considers TSV and insulation layer. The radius of TSV is a and the thickness of insulation layer is b-a. The barrier layer and seed layer are neglected because their thickness is much smaller compared with the radius of TSV, which almost has no contribution to the total stress in the substrate. The second step considers the substrate with a hole with the radius of b.



Both steps are under the same temperature load ΔT which is defined as the temperature difference between operating temperature and annealing temperature. In the original problem, the interface between insulation layer and substrate are not free to expand as the temperature changes. To correctly reflect the displacement along the interface between insulation layer and substrate, a stress P is exerted on the edge of the insulation layer in step 1 and the edge of the hole in step 2, respectively.



In this paper, the material of TSV is Cu and the insulation layer is SiO2. Cu and SiO2 are still assumed to be isotropic material while Silicon is anisotropic material.




3.
Modeling of anisotropic TSV thermal-stress





3.1
Modeling without considering traction-free




The first step in Fig. 1 is considered. According to plane strain assumption, the displacement uri and normal stress of TSV and insulation layer along radial direction σrri can be given under isotropic assumption[13]:









$$begin{split}&{u_r^i = C_1^ir + displaystyle frac{{C_2^i}}{r},}& {sigma _{rr}^i = frac{{{E^i}}}{{(1 + {upsilon ^i})(1 - 2{upsilon ^i})}}left[ {C_1^i - frac{{C_2^i(1 - 2{upsilon ^i})}}{{{r^2}}} - left( {1 + {upsilon ^i}}
ight){alpha ^i}Delta T}
ight],}&{qquad :qquad :qquad :i in { {
m{Cu,Si}}{{
m{O}}_2}} ,}end{split}$$

(1)



where υi is Poisson’s ratio, αi is CTE, Ei is the Young module and r is the radial distance from the center of TSV.



C1i and C2i are constants that can be solved by the specific boundary conditions as follows:









$$left{ begin{array}{*{35}{l}} r=0, ,,,,, u_{r}^{
m cu}=0, r=a,,,,, u_{r}^{
m cu}=u_{r}^{{
m sio}_2},,,,, sigma _{rr}^{
m cu}=sigma _{rr}^{{
m sio}_2}, r=b,,,,,,u_{r}^{{
m sio}_2}=u_{r}^{
m si},,,,,displaystyle sigma _{rr}^{{
m sio}_2}=P. end{array}
ight.$$

(2)



Under the above boundary conditions, the normal stress of TSV and insulation layer along the radial direction can be expressed as the function of radius r. However, there is an unknown constant P in the expression of uri and σrri, i∈{SiO2, Cu}.



Then, we consider the second step, which is a 2-D plane stress problem under the anisotropic condition. In such case, the stress of the substrate should be solved by introducing a complex variable approach. Lekhnitskii has given the solution of step 2 in the Cartesian coordinate system[14]. The displacement and stress of substrate can be expressed by the complex function Ф(z1), Ф(z2) and their derivatives as follows:









$$begin{split}& sigma _{xx}^{{
m {s_i}}} = 2{mathop{
m Re}nolimits} [mu _1^2Phi '({z_1}) + mu _2^2Phi '({z_2})],& sigma _{yy}^{
m {s_i}} = 2{mathop{
m Re}nolimits} [Phi '({z_1}) + Phi '({z_2})],& u_x^{
m {s_i}} = 2{mathop{
m Re}nolimits} [{p_1}Phi ({z_1}) + {p_2}Phi ({z_2})],& u_y^{
m {s_i}} = 2{mathop{
m Re}nolimits} [{q_1}Phi ({z_1}) + {q_2}Phi ({z_2})],& {q_1} = {a_{12}}mu _1^{} + frac{{{a_{22}}}}{{{mu _1}}},{q_2} = {a_{12}}mu _2^{} + frac{{{a_{22}}}}{{{mu _2}}},& {p_1} = {a_{11}}mu _1^2 + {a_{12}},{p_2} = {a_{11}}mu _2^2 + {a_{12}}.end{split}$$

(3)



z1 and z2 are two complex variables z1 = x + μ1y and z2 = x + μ2y, where μ1 and μ2 are the roots of the following characteristic equations, which are only with positive imaginary.









$${a_{11}}{mu ^4} + (2{a_{12}} + {a_{66}}){mu ^2} + {a_{22}} = 0,$$

(4)



where a11, a12, a66, and a22 are the elastic constants of silicon substrate.



The complex function Ф(z1) and Ф(z2) are given as follows:









$$begin{split}&{Phi _1}({z_1}) = frac{{overline {{beta _1}} - {mu _2}overline {{alpha _1}} }}{{left( {{mu _1} - {mu _2}}
ight){xi _1}}},,,,,, {Phi _1}({z_1}) = - frac{{overline {{beta _1}} - {mu _1}overline {{alpha _1}} }}{{left( {{mu _1} - {mu _2}}
ight){xi _2}}},&overline {{alpha _1}} = frac{{Pr}}{2},,,,,, overline {{beta _1}} = frac{{iPr}}{2},&{xi _1} = frac{{{z_1} + sqrt {z_1^2 - {r^2} - mu _1^2{r^2}} }}{{r(1 - i{mu _1})}},,,,,, {xi _2} = frac{{{z_2} + sqrt {z_2^2 - {r^2} - mu _2^2{r^2}} }}{{r(1 - i{mu _2})}},end{split}$$

(5)



where r is the radius of hole in the substrate. As depicted in Fig. 1, the radius of hole in the substrate should be b.



It can be seen from Eq. (5) that the complex functions Ф(z1) and Ф(z2) also contain the stress P. Substituting Eq. (5) into Eq. (3), the displacement of step 2 at r = b can be obtained as follows:









$$u_{r = b}^{{
m si}} = (1 + {upsilon _{
m si}}){alpha _{
m si}}Delta T cdot b + left{ {[1 + i({mu _1} + {mu _2})]{a_{11}} + {a_{12}}}
ight}P·b,$$

(6)



where υsi and αsi are Poisson’s ratio and CTE of silicon, respectively. The first item in Eq. (6) represents the displacement due to thermal expansion and the second item represents the displacement due to stress P.



The displacement of insulation layer $u_r^{{
m{si}}{{
m{o}}_{ 2}}} $
is equal to the displacement of silicon substrate $ u_{r}^{text{si}{{text{o}}_{ 2}}} $ at r = b. Consequently, the stress P can be expressed from Eq. (1), Eq. (2) and Eq. (6), as follows:









$$begin{split} P =&left[ frac{{{b}^{2}}{{e}_{1}}{{f}_{1}}-{{e}_{1}}{{g}_{2}}-{{b}^{2}} {{g}_{1}}{{e}_{2}}+{{g}_{1}}{{f}_{2}}}{({{f}_{2}}{{f}_{1}}-{{g}_{2}}{{e}_{2}}) b}-(1+{{upsilon }_{
m si}}){{alpha }_{
m si}}Delta Tcdot b
ight] & times frac{1}{{[1+i({{mu }_{1}}+{{mu }_{2}})]{{alpha }_{11}}+{{alpha }_{12}}}b}, end{split}$$

(7)



where e1, f1, g1, e2, f2 and g2 are constants related to the material property, which can be solved from Eq. (1) under the boundary condition Eq. (2). Here, we directly give the above constants as follows:









$$begin{split}& {e_1} = frac{{{E_{
m Cu}}}}{{(1 - 2{upsilon _{
m Cu}})}}{alpha _{
m Cu}}Delta T - frac{{{E_{{
m sio}_{2}}}}}{{(1 - 2{upsilon _{{
m sio}_2}})}}{alpha _{{
m sio}_2}}Delta T,& {f_1} = frac{{ - {E_{{
m sio}_2}}}}{{(1 + {upsilon _{{
m sio}_2}})}}{alpha _{{
m sio}_2}}Delta T cdot frac{1}{{{b^2}}},& {g_1} = frac{{{E_{{
m sio}_2}}}}{{(1 - 2{upsilon _{{
m sio}_2}})}}{alpha _{{
m sio}_2}}Delta T,& {e_2} = frac{{{E_{
m Cu}}}}{{(1 - 2{upsilon _{
m Cu}})(1 + {upsilon _{
m Cu}})}}frac{1}{{{a^2}}} + frac{{{E_{{
m sio}_2}}}}{{(1 + {upsilon _{{
m sio}_2}})}}frac{1}{{{a^2}}},& {f_2} = frac{{{E_{
m Cu}}}}{{(1 - 2{upsilon _{
m Cu}})(1 + {upsilon _{
m Cu}})}} - frac{{{E_{{
m sio}_2}}}}{{(1 - 2{upsilon _{{
m sio}_2}})(1 + {upsilon _{{
m sio}_2}})}},& {g_2} = frac{{{E_{{
m sio}_2}}}}{{(1 - 2{upsilon _{{
m sio}_2}})(1 + {upsilon _{{
m sio}_2}})}}.end{split}$$

(8)



Substituting the stress P in Eq. (5) and in Eq. (3), the analytical expressions of normal stress σxxSi and σyySi will be obtained. To facilitate the calculation of the stress in the cylinder coordinate system, the normal stress σxxSi and σyySi can be transformed to the following expressions, as in Ref. [15]:









$$begin{split}& sigma _{rr}^{{
m {s_i}}} = - P cdot {mathop{
m Re}nolimits} [Q({mu _1},{mu _2})F(frac{r}{b},{mu _1}) + Q({mu _2},{mu _1})F(frac{r}{b},{mu _2})],& sigma _{theta theta }^{
m {s_i}} = - P cdot {mathop{
m Re}nolimits} [S({mu _1},{mu _2})F(frac{r}{b},{mu _1}) + S({mu _2},{mu _1})F(frac{r}{b},{mu _2})],end{split}$$

(9)



where the functions Q(m, n), F(m, n), R(m, n) and S(m, n) are defined as:









$$begin{split}& F(m,n) = frac{1}{{sqrt {{m^2} - 1 - {n^2}} (m + sqrt {{m^2} - 1 - {n^2}} )}},& S(m,n) = frac{{(i - n)(1 - im)}}{{m - n}},& Q(m,n) = {m^2}S(m,n),R(m,n) = - mS(m,n).end{split}$$

(10)




3.2
Modeling refinement considering traction-free




Based on the plane strain solution, the normal stress σzz along the z-axis is non-zero. In order to meet the plane strain assumption, there are two vertical stresses exerting on the TSV and sidewall insulation layer, respectively. The expressions of these two stresses are given as follows:









$$begin{split}sigma _{zz}^{{
m{Cu}}} =,, & 2{upsilon _{{
m{Cu}}}}frac{{{E_{{
m{Cu}}}}}}{{(1 + {upsilon _{{
m{Cu}}}})(1 - 2{upsilon _{{
m{Cu}}}})}}& times left[ {C_1^{{
m{si}}{{
m{o}}_{
m{2}}}} + frac{{C_2^{{
m{si}}{{
m{o}}_{
m{2}}}}}}{{{a^2}}} - (1 + {upsilon _{{
m{Cu}}}}){alpha _{{
m{Cu}}}}Delta T}
ight],sigma _{zz}^{{
m{si}}{{
m{o}}_{
m{2}}}} =,, & 2{upsilon _{{
m{si}}{{
m{o}}_{
m{2}}}}}frac{{{E_{{
m{si}}{{
m{o}}_{
m{2}}}}}}}{{(1 + {upsilon _{{
m{si}}{{
m{o}}_{
m{2}}}}})(1 - 2{upsilon _{{
m{si}}{{
m{o}}_{
m{2}}}}})}}& times left[ {C_1^{{
m{si}}{{
m{o}}_{
m{2}}}} - (1 + {upsilon _{{
m{si}}{{
m{o}}_{
m{2}}}}}){alpha _{{
m{si}}{{
m{o}}_{
m{2}}}}}Delta T}
ight],C_1^{{
m{si}}{{
m{o}}_{
m{2}}}} = & frac{{{e_1}{f_1} - (P + {g_1}){e_2}}}{{{f_2}{f_1} - {g_2}{e_2}}},{kern 1pt} {kern 1pt} {kern 1pt} {kern 1pt} C_2^{{
m{si}}{{
m{o}}_{
m{2}}}} = frac{{{e_1}{g_2} - (P + {g_1}){f_2}}}{{{e_2}{g_2} - {f_1}{f_2}}}.end{split}$$

(11)



However, in our original issue, there is no stress on the TSV and insulation layer along the z-axis, which makes a mismatch between the original vertical boundary conditions and the current vertical boundary conditions. To correct this boundary condition mismatch, the common strategy is exerting two compensating stresses on the top surface of the TSV and insulation layer. These two compensating stresses have the same values with the stresses obtained by Eq. (11), but opposite in direction, as shown in Fig. 2.






onerror="this.onerror=null;this.src='http://www.jos.ac.cn/fileBDTXB/journal/article/jos/2018/2/PIC/17050014-2.jpg'"
class="figure_img" id="Figure2"/>



Download



Larger image


PowerPoint slide






Figure2.
(Color online) The schematic of traction-free.




The additional normal stresses will be generated on the surface of silicon substrate under the vertical stress $ sigma _{zz}^{{
m{Cu}}} $
and$sigma _{zz}^{{
m{si}}{{
m{o}}_2}} $
. These additional normal stresses can be solved based on the classic half-plane problem. The solution of half-space under vertical loads has been given in Ref. [16], but this solution is only suitable for the transversely isotropic material and homogeneous materials. To eliminate the error brought by the material property mismatch and homogeneous assumption, we introduced the empirical factors by curve-fitting from the simulation results. The normal stress $sigma _{rr}^{{
m{si - h}}} $
and $sigma _{{theta theta }}^{{
m{si - h}}} $
caused by vertical stress $ sigma _{zz}^{{
m{Cu}}} $
can be given as follows:









$$begin{split}& sigma _{rr}^{
m {si - h}} = {I_1}frac{r}{{5.5{e^{ - 6}}}} left[ {sigma _{zz}^{
m Cu}frac{{{a^2}}}{2}frac{{1 - {upsilon _{
m si}}}}{{{r^2}}} + sigma _{zz}^{
m Cu}frac{{{b^2} - {a^2}}}{2}frac{{1 - {upsilon _{
m si}}}}{{{r^2}}}}
ight],& sigma _{theta theta }^{
m {si - h}} = {I_1}left( {1 + frac{{2b - 2a}}{r}}
ight)left[ {sigma _{zz}^{
m Cu}frac{{{a^2}}}{2}frac{{1 - {upsilon _{
m si}}}}{{{r^2}}} + sigma _{zz}^{
m Cu}frac{{{b^2} - {a^2}}}{2}frac{{1 - {upsilon _{
m si}}}}{{{r^2}}}}
ight],end{split}$$

(12)



where I1 is the modified Bessel functions of the first kind as the empirical factor.



With superposition method, the final effective normal stress σrr and σ?? on the substrate surface can be obtained as follows:









$$sigma _{rr}^{
m {si - eff}} = sigma _{rr}^{
m si} + sigma _{rr}^{
m {si - h}},sigma _{theta theta }^{
m {si - eff}} = sigma _{theta theta }^{
m {si}} + sigma _{theta theta }^{
m {si - h}}.$$

(13)




4.
Model verification




In this paper, the Synopsys TCAD-SInterconnect[17] is used to verify the accuracy of the proposed model. To reduce the computation time, the 3-D simulation structure in TCAD is a quarter of the original structure, as shown in Fig. 3. The top mesh is denser than the bottom mesh because we are concerned with the stress on the substrate surface more than other positions. To ensure the accuracy of simulation, the proper boundary conditions are exerted on the simplified simulation structure. The Dirichlet boundary conditions are exerted on the left, right, front and back faces of the simulation structure. In addition, the displacement at the bottom surface of the simulation structure is restricted.






onerror="this.onerror=null;this.src='http://www.jos.ac.cn/fileBDTXB/journal/article/jos/2018/2/PIC/17050014-3.jpg'"
class="figure_img" id="Figure3"/>



Download



Larger image


PowerPoint slide






Figure3.
(Color online) 3-D simulation structure in TCAD. (a) A quarter of the original TSV structure. (b) Simulation structure in mesh.




The material properties and parameters involved in simulation are given in Table 1. The operating temperature is 25 °C and the annealing temperature is 250 °C. Therefore, the temperature load in simulation is –225 °C. In addition, the wafer orientation is assumed to be (110).






NameDescriptionValue
υCuPoisson’s ratio of Cu0.343
αCuCTE of Cu (ppm/°C)17.7
ECuYoung’s module of Cu (GPa)115.5
υ$_{
m{sio}{_2}}$
Poisson’s ratio of SiO20.16
α$_{
m{sio}{_2}}$
CTE of SiO2 (ppm/°C)0.51
E$_{
m{sio}{_2}}$
Young’s module of SiO2 (GPa)71.7
υsiPoisson’s ratio of Si0.28
αsiCTE of Si (ppm/°C)3.05
CijStiffness of silicon with orthotropic material property (GPa)C11 = 165, C12 = 63.9, C44 = 79.6
aRadius of TSV (μm)2.5 or 5
b-aThickness of insulation layer0.5
ΔTTemperature load (°C)?225





Table1.
The parameters involved in the TCAD simulation.



Table options
-->


Download as CSV





NameDescriptionValue
υCuPoisson’s ratio of Cu0.343
αCuCTE of Cu (ppm/°C)17.7
ECuYoung’s module of Cu (GPa)115.5
υ$_{
m{sio}{_2}}$
Poisson’s ratio of SiO20.16
α$_{
m{sio}{_2}}$
CTE of SiO2 (ppm/°C)0.51
E$_{
m{sio}{_2}}$
Young’s module of SiO2 (GPa)71.7
υsiPoisson’s ratio of Si0.28
αsiCTE of Si (ppm/°C)3.05
CijStiffness of silicon with orthotropic material property (GPa)C11 = 165, C12 = 63.9, C44 = 79.6
aRadius of TSV (μm)2.5 or 5
b-aThickness of insulation layer0.5
ΔTTemperature load (°C)?225





SInterconnect does not support editing elastic constants. In such case, we use the stiffness coefficient in modeling and simulation. The relationships between elastic constants and stiffness coefficient are given as follows:









$$begin{split}& {a_{11}} = {a_{22}} = frac{{{C_{11}} + {C_{12}}}}{{C_{11}^2 + {C_{11}}{C_{12}} - 2C_{12}^2}},& {a_{12}} = - frac{{{C_{12}}}}{{C_{11}^2 + {C_{11}}{C_{12}} - 2C_{12}^2}},{a_{66}} = frac{1}{{{C_{44}}}}.end{split}$$

(14)



The comparison of normal stress $sigma _{theta theta }^{{
m{si - eff}}} $
and $sigma _{rr}^{{
m{si - eff}}} $
between the proposed model and the TCAD simulation is shown in Fig. 4. Two different radiuses (r = 2.5, 5 μm) are adopted to verify the scalability of the proposed model. The normal stresses $sigma _{theta theta }^{{
m{si - eff}}} $
and $sigma _{rr}^{{
m{si - eff}}} $
are both oriented along the [110] direction. Although the proposed model is 2-D, the analytical results match well with the 3-D simulation results. The maximum error between model and simulation is below 5%. The models proposed in Refs. [6, 8] are also compared. Apparently, there is an error between the above two models and simulation since their proposed models assume the substrate as isotropic material. As the radius of TSV increase from 2.5 to 5 μm, the error induced by isotropic assumption becomes greater.






onerror="this.onerror=null;this.src='http://www.jos.ac.cn/fileBDTXB/journal/article/jos/2018/2/PIC/17050014-4.jpg'"
class="figure_img" id="Figure4"/>



Download



Larger image


PowerPoint slide






Figure4.
(Color online) The comparison of normal stress $sigma _{theta theta }^{{
m{si - eff}}} $
and $sigma _{rr}^{{
m{si - eff}}} $
between proposed model and TCAD simulations. (a) r = 2.5 μm. (b) r = 5 μm.





5.
Conclusion




A more accurate analytical thermal-stress model of TSV is proposed both considering the anisotropic property and being traction-free. It is a feasible way to solve the anisotropic thermal-stress issue for TSV by using the Lekhnitskii complex method. The comparison results show that the maximum error between the model and the TCAD 3-D simulation is below 5%. With the proposed model, the thermal-stress distribution of substrate caused by TSV will be predicted more accurately than the isotropic stress model. In future works, the proposed model can be applied in TSV placement driven by thermal-stress, leading to the faster and more accurate optimization for 3-D IC physical design.



相关话题/anisotropic thermalstress model

闂傚倷鑳堕幊鎾诲触鐎n剙鍨濋幖娣妼绾惧ジ鏌ㄩ悤鍌涘2婵犵數鍋為崹鍫曞箰缁嬫5娲Ω閳哄绋忛梺鍦劋椤ㄥ棝宕甸埀顒勬⒑閸涘﹤濮﹀ù婊呭仱瀹曟椽鏁撻悩宕囧幘闂佸搫顦悘婵嬪汲閵忋倖鐓熼柨鏇楀亾妞わ妇鏁婚獮鍐╃鐎n偒妫冨┑鐐村灦绾板秹骞夐妶鍡欑闁瑰鍋為ˉ鏍偣娓氬﹦鎮兼俊鍙夊姇閳诲酣骞囬崜浣虹厬婵犵妲呴崹闈涒枍閿濆拋娼╅柕濞炬櫆閻撱儲绻涢幋鐐ㄧ細闁绘帡鏀遍妵鍕敃閵忊晛鍓遍梺鎸庣⊕閸旀瑩鐛€n噮鏁嶆繝濠傛媼濡叉挳姊绘担鍛靛湱鎹㈤幇顔剧煋闁绘垼妫勯崹鍌炴煕瀹€鈧崑鐐哄磻閵娾晜鐓ラ柣鏇炲€圭€氾拷
婵犵數濮伴崹褰掓偉閵忋倕鐐婄憸宥嗘叏閵堝鈷戦柛娑橈工缁楁帗淇婇锝囨创妞ゃ垺妫冩慨鈧柕鍫濇-濡嫰鏌f惔顖滅У闁哥姵鐗犲畷銏ゅ箻椤旂晫鍘搁梺鍛婃礋濞佳囨倶閿濆棎浜滈柟瀛樼箖婢跺嫮绱掔€n亶妯€闁糕斁鍋撳銈嗗坊閸嬫捇鏌嶇拠鏌ュ弰婵¢箖浜堕弻宥堫檨闁告挻鐟╁畷顖涘鐎涙ê浜┑鐐叉▕娴滄繈寮查鍕€堕柣鎰暩閹藉倿鏌涢妶鍥㈤棁澶嬬節婵犲倸鏆fい搴㈩殕閵囧嫰鍩為鐐差仾濠殿垱鎸抽弻锟犲炊閳轰焦鐏侀梺鍛婄憿閸嬫捇姊绘担鍝ョШ婵炰匠鍡愪汗闁绘劗鏁哥粻鏃堟煙閹屽殶闁崇粯姊归幈銊ノ熺拠鎻掝潽闂佹悶鍊х粻鎾诲蓟閻旇櫣鐭欓柟绋垮閹瑩姊烘导娆戠М缂佺姵鐗曢锝夘敃閳垛晜鐎婚梺褰掑亰閸樺墽绮欓崟顖涒拺闁圭ǹ娴烽埥澶愭煛閸偄澧寸€规洖缍婃俊姝岊槼濠殿垰銈搁弻娑樷槈濮楀牊鏁剧紓浣哄У鐢偤鍩€椤掆偓閻忔艾顭垮鈧幃褔宕卞ù鏉挎喘瀹曠ǹ螖娴i晲鐥梻浣侯攰閹活亪姊介崟顖涙櫖闁哄稁鍘介悡蹇涙煕閳╁啯绀€妞わ絺鏆渆e婵犵數濮伴崹鍦礊婵犲洤鐒垫い鎺嶈兌閳洟鏌曢崱妤€鏆i柡灞剧洴楠炴帡骞嬮悜鍡橆棧婵$偑鍊栫敮鐐哄窗閹邦喚鐭欏┑鐘叉处閸嬫劙鏌i姀銏℃毄閺佸牓姊绘担绋挎倯婵犮垺锕㈠畷顖涘鐎涙ê浜梺鍛婄箓婵鲸鎯旈姀锛勭Ф濡炪倖鍔楅崰搴㈢妤e啯鐓涢柛銉e妽閻ㄦ垿鏌i悢鍙夋珔闁宠棄顦甸獮妯肩礄閻樺崬顒㈡俊鐐€栧ú婵嗏枍閺囩偍缂氶煫鍥ㄧ☉瀹告繃銇勯幘妤€鍟锟�20濠德板€楁慨鐑藉磻閻樿绠垫い蹇撴椤洘绻濋棃娑卞剰缂佺姵鍨块弻銈嗘叏閹邦兘鍋撳Δ鈧埢鏃堝閻樺棛鎳撻オ浼村礃閳哄﹥锛呯紓鍌欑椤︻垶顢氶銏犵劦妞ゆ巻鍋撴繝鈧柆宥呯;闁绘梻鍘ч弸渚€鏌曢崼婵愭Ч闁稿骸绉归弻娑㈠即閵娿儱顫╅梺浼欑畱缂嶅﹪骞冨Δ鍐╁枂闁告洦鍙庨弳锟犳⒑閸濆嫭顥戦柛瀣崌濮婃椽宕崟鍨ч梺鍛婃⒐閻楃娀骞冮敓鐘虫櫖闁告洦鍓欓悵浼存⒑闂堟稓绠氶柛鎾寸箞閹€斥枎閹邦喚顔曟繝銏f硾椤戝棛绮堥埀顒勬倵濞堝灝娅嶉柡鈧崡鐑嗗殫闁告洦鍋掗崥瀣煕閺囥劌骞樻俊鍙夊灴濮婃椽宕崟顐熷亾娴犲缍栧璺烘湰閸忔粓鏌涢锝嗙闁哄拋鍓熼幃姗€鎮欓棃娑楀缂備胶濮电敮鈥愁潖婵犳艾鐐婇柨婵嗘噸婢规洟姊洪懡銈呮瀾婵炲弶鍨块幊妤冩崉鐞涒剝鐏侀梺纭呮彧闂勫嫰宕曢幋锔藉€甸柨婵嗛楠炴ḿ绱掗悩宕囧⒌闁哄备鍓濆鍕槈濞嗗浚浼�