Optimization of the Wire Bonding Process for Enhanced Thermomechanical Performance of Quad Flat No-Lead (QFN) Packages in Automotive Applications
Source abstract
Abstract
This study investigates how local warpage and stress near the sawing lines of Quad Flat No-lead (QFN) packages, under stringent automotive conditions, influence the wire bonding process. A finite element model, validated through experimental measurements, was developed to quantify deformation and stress distributions along the cutting paths. Three lead frame strip designs—1 Row 1 Block, Multi-Block, and 1 Block—were comparatively assessed under both thermal and mechanical loads. Results show that the 1 Row 1 Block design can reduce local deformation by up to 70–75% (e.g., 45 μm vs. 159 μm) compared to the 1 Block configuration, significantly mitigating alignment errors and fatigue risk. Concurrently, its peak local stress is about 212 MPa—a 70% reduction relative to the 708 MPa observed in the 1 Block design. These combined improvements highlight the necessity of balanced structural design in sawing regions to enhance wire bonding stability. Overall, these findings provide a robust framework for optimizing QFN packages under stringent automotive conditions, particularly by refining wire bonding design.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Electronic Packaging and Soldering Technologies · Powder Metallurgy Techniques and Materials · Metallurgy and Material Forming
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Mechanical and Electro-Mechanical Engineering, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Funding
Advanced Semiconductor Engineering (ASE Group) through the Collaborative Research Program
References (35)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1109/IMPACT.2010.569952310.1109/IMPACT.2010.5699523 ↗
2. 10.1109/ESTC.2016.776472710.1109/ESTC.2016.7764727 ↗
3. 10.1109/ITHERM.2019.875744810.1109/ITHERM.2019.8757448 ↗
4. 10.1109/EPTC.2007.446971710.1109/EPTC.2007.4469717 ↗
5. 10.1109/EMAP.2007.451027510.1109/EMAP.2007.4510275 ↗
6. 10.1109/cstic.2015.715344010.1109/cstic.2015.7153440 ↗
7. 10.1109/IEMT.2008.550784510.1109/IEMT.2008.5507845 ↗
8. 10.1109/ECTC.2015.715977810.1109/ECTC.2015.7159778 ↗
9. 10.1109/ESIME.2007.36001010.1109/ESIME.2007.360010 ↗
10. 10.23919/ICEP.2017.793939810.23919/ICEP.2017.7939398 ↗
11. 10.1109/eptc.2013.674580510.1109/eptc.2013.6745805 ↗
12. 10.23919/SEMI-THERM50369.2020.914283310.23919/SEMI-THERM50369.2020.9142833 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.microrel.2018.02.01610.1016/j.microrel.2018.02.016 ↗
14. 10.1109/ECTC.2002.100822110.1109/ECTC.2002.1008221 ↗
15. 10.1109/EPTC.2004.139662410.1109/EPTC.2004.1396624 ↗
16. 10.1109/ICEPT-HDP.2012.647469310.1109/ICEPT-HDP.2012.6474693 ↗
17. 10.1109/ESIME.2007.36005110.1109/ESIME.2007.360051 ↗
18. 10.1109/ICEPT.2013.675652310.1109/ICEPT.2013.6756523 ↗
19. 10.1109/ECTC.2006.164571010.1109/ECTC.2006.1645710 ↗
20. 10.1109/ICEPT52650.2021.956771810.1109/ICEPT52650.2021.9567718 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.microrel.2008.12.00710.1016/j.microrel.2008.12.007 ↗
22. 10.1109/EPTC.2007.446971110.1109/EPTC.2007.4469711 ↗
23. 10.23919/icep.2019.873350610.23919/icep.2019.8733506 ↗
24. 10.1109/ICEPT.2013.675643710.1109/ICEPT.2013.6756437 ↗
25. 10.1109/EPTC.2018.865440910.1109/EPTC.2018.8654409 ↗
26. 10.1109/IEMT.2007.441707410.1109/IEMT.2007.4417074 ↗
27. 10.1109/ICEPT.2014.692261210.1109/ICEPT.2014.6922612 ↗
28. 10.1109/EPTC.2011.618449710.1109/EPTC.2011.6184497 ↗
29. 10.1109/emap.2006.443068610.1109/emap.2006.4430686 ↗
30. 10.1109/ECTC.2006.164590810.1109/ECTC.2006.1645908 ↗
31. 10.1109/ICSGRC.2014.690868610.1109/ICSGRC.2014.6908686 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.microrel.2021.11411810.1016/j.microrel.2021.114118 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.microrel.2021.11408910.1016/j.microrel.2021.114089 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.jajp.2022.10010210.1016/j.jajp.2022.100102 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.microrel.2009.10.01510.1016/j.microrel.2009.10.015 ↗