Under bump metallurgies (UBMs) have been assessed in terms of robustness and environmental impact, respectively through aging tests after wafer level balling with SAC305 (Sn 96.5 %, Ag 3 %, Cu 0.5 % (wt. %)) and life cycle assessment (LCA). Three UBMs are considered: Ti 200 nm / Ni 700 nm / Au 100 nm (UBM A) deposited by sputtering, Cu 2 μm / Ni 2 μm / Au 200 nm (UBM B) deposited by electrodeposition (ECD), and Cu 10 μm (UBM C) deposited by ECD. Configurations A and B have higher shear strength than configuration C after multiple reflows and 1000 h at 150 °C high temperature storage (HTS) thanks to Ni barrier avoiding Cu/Sn interaction that leads to Cu <inf xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">3</inf> Sn intermetallic compound (IMC) growth along with voids. After HTS, configuration A is free of defects and has strong Ti/solder or Ti/IMC interfaces. On the other hand, LCA results using standard databases reveal a greater environmental impact for UBM A than UBM B (single score three times larger), and UBM C (single score more than four times larger). This is mainly related to Au resource depletion. UBM B has less impact than UBM A due to a selective deposition process (ECD), enabling to use less Au than in UBM A configuration where patterning is secured by Au etching. Based on these results, UBM B configuration appears to be the best trade-off between robustness and environmental impact. Nevertheless, Au impact is discussed as a function of its sourcing, with highlights on using high-value Au scraps or electronic scraps.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Garnier et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: