Compact Thermal Models: A Global Approach

J. Electron. Packag. / Volume 130 / Issue 4 / THERMAL ISSUES IN EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES THEORY AND...

J. Electron. Packag. -- December 2008 -- Volume 130, Issue 4, 041107 (6 pages)

doi:10.1115/1.2993132
Author(s):
Mohamed-Nabil Sabry
Center for R&D and International Cooperation, French University in Egypt, 10 Hadaeq Ramo, Tariq ElNasr, Medinet Nasr,
Cairo 11371, Egypt

Hossam Saleh Abdelmeguid

Mechanical Engineering Department, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

The construction and usage of compact thermal models (CTMs), for the thermal analysis as well as the design of cooling
devices for electronic systems, are reviewed. These models have many advantages over the so called detailed models
based on 3D simulations, mainly being a convenient and simple quantitative description of the modeled object, when
constructional details are either unavailable or too detailed to be of use at the desired level of analysis. However, CTMs
have manifested some deficiencies in many cases, in particular, multiple chip modules (MCM) and stacked dies. The
opposite approach, detailed modeling, is more reliable, although extremely heavy. A new approach is proposed that solves
this dilemma by bridging the gap between compact and detailed models. While retaining all advantages of CTMs, i.e., having
a limited number of degrees of freedom and not requiring detailed constructional features, it can attain any required precision
level depending on the degree of complexity adopted. It gives reliable results covering all operating conditions including
MCM and stacked dies. Moreover, it gives access to data on surface temperature gradients that were never obtained before
by compact models and are highly important for reliability issues.

©2008 American Society of Mechanical Engineers

History: Received 28 September 2007; revised 17 August 2008; published 14 November 2008
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.2993132

KEYWORDS and PACS

Keywords

reliability, thermal analysis, thermal management (packaging)

PACS

89.20.Kk
Engineering
81.70.Pg
Thermal analysis (materials testing)
YEAR: 2008

RELATED DATABASES

To view database links for this article,

you need to log in.

PUBLICATION DATA

Coden:

JEPAE4

ISSN:

1043-7398 (print) 1528-9044 (online)

Publisher:

ASME

REFERENCES (26)

1 of 2 29/10/2009 15:38
Welcome to IEEE Xplore 2.0: Compact Thermal Models: A Global Approach

Home | Login | Logout | Access Information | Alerts | Purchase History | Cart | Sitemap | Help

Welcome De Montfort University

AbstractPlus BROWSE SEARCH IEEE XPLORE GUIDE SUPPORT

View TOC

Access this document

Compact Thermal Models: A Global Approach
Full Text: PDF (315 KB)
Mohamed-Nabil, S. Hossam, S.
Download this citation French Univ., Cairo;
Choose
This paper appears in: Thermal Issues in Emerging Technologies: Theory and Application, 2007. THETA
Download 2007. International Conference on
Publication Date: 3-6 Jan. 2007
Download
On page(s): 33-39
» Learn More ISBN: 1-4244-0896-2
INSPEC Accession Number: 9486476
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/THETA.2007.363405
Rights and Permissions Current Version Published: 2007-05-21
» Learn More

Abstract
Construction and usage of compact thermal models (CTM) for the thermal analysis as well as the design of
cooling devices for electronic systems are reviewed. These models have many advantages over the so called
detailed models, mainly being a convenient and simple quantitative description of the modeled object, when
constructional details are either unavailable or too detailed to be of use at the desired level of analysis. However,
CTMs have manifested some deficiencies in many cases, in particular MCM and stacked dies. The opposite
approach, detailed modeling, is more reliable, although extremely heavy. A new approach is proposed that solves
this dilemma by bridging the gap between compact and detailed models. While retaining all advantages of CTM's,
i.e. having a limited number of degrees of freedom and not requiring detailed constructional details, it can attain
any required precision level depending on the degree of complexity adopted. It gives reliable results covering all
operating conditions including MCM and stacked dies. Moreover, it gives access to data on surface temperature
gradients that were never obtained before by compact models and are highly important for reliability issues

Index Terms
Inspec

Controlled Indexing
cooling electronics packaging reliability thermal analysis

Non-controlled Indexing
compact thermal models electronics cooling stacked dies surface temperature gradients
thermal analysis

Author Keywords
Not Available

Medical Subject Heading (MeSH Terms)

Not Available

PACS Codes
Not Available

DOE Thesaurus Terms

Not Available

References

No references available on IEEE Xplore.

Citing Documents

No citing documents available on IEEE Xplore.

View TOC | Back to Top

Help Contact Us Privacy & Security IEEE.org

© Copyright 2009 IEEE – All Rights Reserved

1 of 1 19/10/2009 15:23
 Thermal Issues in Emerging Technologies, ThETA 1, Cairo, Egypt, Jan 3-6th 2007
COMPACT THERMAL MODELS: A GLOBAL APPROACH
Mohamed-Nabil, SABRY*; Hossam, SALEH**
*French U. in Egypt, Egypt; ** Mansoura U., Egypt
ABSTRACT
Construction and usage of Compact Thermal Models
(CTM) for the thermal analysis as well as the design of
cooling devices for electronic systems are reviewed.
These models have many advantages over the so called
detailed models, mainly being a convenient and simple
quantitative description of the modeled object, when
constructional details are either unavailable or too
detailed to be of use at the desired level of analysis.
However, CTMs have manifested some deficiencies in
many cases, in particular MCM and stacked dies. The
opposite approach, detailed modeling, is more reliable,
although extremely heavy. A new approach is proposed
that solves this dilemma by bridging the gap between
compact and detailed models. While retaining all
advantages of CTM’s, i.e. having a limited number of
degrees of freedom and not requiring detailed
constructional details, it can attain any required
precision level depending on the degree of complexity
adopted. It gives reliable results covering all operating
conditions including MCM and stacked dies. Moreover, it
gives access to data on surface temperature gradients
that were never obtained before by compact models and
are highly important for reliability issues.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Motivation
Miniature systems in general, micro and nano electronic
systems in particular, have the following common feature:
heat is generated at the smallest space and time scales,
because this is where the system performs its function,
while it has to be dissipated to ambient air at relatively
large scales. The problem is by nature highly distributive.
It involves even multiple scales going from the so called
“junction”, which is the active part of the device (for
example the channel in a transistor) of size in the micro or
nano range, up to the whole system which may be of
suitable size for humans or even bigger. It involves heat
transfer from the active part to the remaining part of the
device, then to the whole chip, then perhaps to adjacent
chips in an MCM, to the package, to the board, to the
whole system and sometimes to larger systems containing
many unit systems like data centers. This goes for both
space and time scales with ratios between biggest and
smallest scales of the order of 109. The quest for higher
level of integration goes in parallel with the use of a huge
amount of devices in a single system. It is out of question
to design, model and fabricate the whole system with all
its details in one shot. The fact that computational powers
are rapidly growing will never offer a solution, because
1-4244-0897-0/07/$20.00 ©2007 IEEE ThETA01/048
high performance computers are themselves too
complicated to be designed in one shot! Different system
components are designed and fabricated by different
teams each concentrating on different space and time
scales relevant to their components. A team working at a
given level cannot perform its task without having
adequate quantitative information about the behavior of
the multitude of objects the team assembles, which are
designed and fabricated by other teams. Detailed
information are totally irrelevant because millions of
these objects may be used, and hence detailed simulation
is quickly unaffordable. Also, suppliers may not wish to
reveal details of their design to preserve intellectual
property. Compact Thermal Models (CTM), which started
many decades ago (see [1][2] for a review) are supposed
to solve this problem.
Compact thermal Models are by definition simple models
that depend on only very few parameters, of the order of
10, and that can be used to predict heat transfer behavior
of an object. This is to be opposed to detailed models,
which usually use Finite Element or Finite Volume
Methods (FEM/FVM) to model the problem, which
contain a huge amount of parameters. .
1.2 Short Historic Background
For clarity of presentation, discussions in this section will
mostly address modeling the chip package, although they
apply to modeling of any other element. This is also,
historically, the case that received most attention.
The simplest possible model would be represented by a
single “equivalent thermal resistance” called θja from
junction to ambient. Knowing it, one can easily get
junction temperature Tj as a function of ambient
temperature Ta and dissipated heat Q:
Tj = Ta + Q θja (1.1)
However the problem is not that simple, because
changing package orientation (horizontal/vertical) or
cooling fluid speed would drastically change the value of
θja. A better representation would be a series of 2
resistors: one from junction to “case” (the outside surface
of a chip package) θjc, the other from case to ambient θca.
When assembling packages on board, for example, the
value of the first resistance is to be supplied by package
manufacturer; the second is the responsibility of system
integrator.
The key issue is that the compact model describing the
thermal behavior of any object should not depend on
conditions of usage, in other words boundary conditions,
but only on the nature of the object itself, if it is to be of
any usefulness. Breaking the overall resistance into two in
33
 Compact Thermal Models: a global approach; Sabry & Saleh
series is only a first step towards obtaining a model of the
package (θjc) that should depend only on the package, not
outside boundary conditions, which are to be taken into
consideration by another resistance (θca).
The problem is, unfortunately, not yet solved by this
simple approach, because heat may flow across many
different paths inside the package (from junction to case).
In fact, heat may flow either: through the “top” side
where a cooling fluid flows, or from the “bottom” side
facing the solid board which may contain highly
conductive materials. Heat may also flow across sidewalls
through metallic connections (leads). Depending on the
relative importance of external cooling effect on each side,
the overall “equivalent” resistance may be different. To
address this issue, a set of thermal resistors in a star
shaped network starting from junction to all external
surfaces was proposed as a better CTM.
Te star shaped resistors CTM may still give wrong results
in some conditions of usage. In fact it presupposes that
heat only goes from junction to all surrounding surfaces.
In fact, heat may also flow from one side to another,
without going through the junction. Delphi team was the
first to propose a model topology that is composed of a
set of resistors that may go between all pairs of “nodes”.
A model node is a portion of model surface or volume
that may exchange heat with the surroundings, such as the
“junction”, “top”, “bottom”, “lead frame” etc. Models
were built based on observation of the object behavior
under a set of usage cases that is intended to cover all
“practical” situations, called the “generating set”. Some of
the resistors may be eliminated, if the heat flowing
through them was negligible in all cases in the generating
set. Models built this way behaved much better than
earlier ones in situations not accounted for in the
generating set. The same team was also the first to
introduce the concept of Boundary Conditions
Independence BCI, which states that for a model to have
any usefulness, it should behave as close as possible to
reality not only for a given set of heating/cooling cases,
but for any arbitrary case. Of course no single compact
model could be 100% BCI; this would only be achievable
by the detailed model having an infinite number of
parameters or degrees of freedom.
Delphi main contribution was to clarify where problems
came from in earlier models. Models created by this
procedure went as far as one can go with models based on
a set of resistors for static problems, or resistors and
capacitors for dynamic problems. Technology has then
evolved to packages of relatively large sizes with possibly
a number of chips inside (MCM, stacked dies) instead of
only one. These cases are difficult to model even with
Delphi approach. The difficulty stems from the basic fact
that heat does not flow from one “point” to another
“point” but rather from one surface or volume to another.
Even if each surface or volume is considered as a “node”,
this does not mean that in reality temperature or heat flux
are distributed uniformly over it. A large outside package
surface may have a temperature profile that significantly
departs from a uniform one. If the profile remained the
same in all practical situations, then it does not matter
whether this profile was uniform or not. The node
34 ThETA01/048
temperature in this case can be considered as the average
temperature. The model will behave remarkably well at
all situations. If however the profile changes, which is the
case in many new applications including in particular
MCM and stacked dies, than model parameters can never
be adjusted to adequately predict all usage conditions.
One of the solutions proposed was to divide the surface
into a set of smaller portions, each being considered as a
“node” having hopefully the same profile in all
heating/cooling situations (i.e. heating from different
modules and cooling from different outside surfaces). The
idea was sound, however it gave rise to the new problem
of how to partition the surface intelligently that quickly
became intractable in complex MCM modules. Note that
the difficulty related to the distributive nature of heat
transfer is not yet totally solved at that level.
A new era was open when a detailed analysis of profile
effects was first introduced [3]. In this approach, later
called flexible profile [25], each node did not have a
single temperature and a single heat flux, but rather a set
of parameters that may reproduce any given profile.
These parameters could be for instance coefficients of
Taylor or Fourier series expansion of that profile. In the
same way as “average” temperatures were allowed to
change in earlier models in different heating/cooling
scenarios, each of these coefficients is allowed to change
reproducing thus the actual profile in any heating/cooling
scenario. This is indeed a new era in many different
respects. First, when using these models you do not have
to assume the profile; it is rather an outcome of the
analysis. Note that the difficulty related to the distributive
nature of heat transfer was finally solved by simply
recognizing its existence! Second, CTM can no longer be
represented by a set of resistors but rather by a matrix
relating different expansion coefficients. Third, and
probably the most important difference, the model offers
a smooth transition from the “compact” version (with
only one coefficient per node) to the “detailed” version
(with as many coefficients as needed to adequately
represent the actual profile).
2. GENERAL THEORY OF COMPACT
THERMAL MODELS
A global approach to the generation of compact thermal
models CTM that unifies all available methods is
presented. Discussions will only consider conduction
problems, although it may apply to convection as well.
The detailed model taking into consideration only
classical conduction effects (i.e. no quantum effects) at
steady state is governed by:
∇ ⋅ (λ∇T (r )) = − qv (r ) r ∈ Ω (2.1a)
T = Ts ; λ n ⋅ ∇T = qs ; (2.1b)
∂Ω D ∂Ω N
where T is the temperature field, qv is a volumetric heat
generation term, λ is the thermal conductivity, r is the
coordinate, qs is the heat flux density entering the surface.
The latter can be expressed as any linear or non-linear
function of T, allowing thus Robin type boundary
conditions:
 Compact Thermal Models: a global approach; Sabry & Saleh
qs = h (T ∞– T) (2.1c)
(where h is the heat transfer coefficient by convection) as
well as radiation and non-linear convection.. In the sequel,
λ will be considered constant in order to have a linear
PDE (2.1a). This is not a limitation, since the case where
λ is function of T can be easily transformed to a linear
equation using Khirchhoff transformation. Note that
boundary conditions may still be a nonlinear function of T
through h, which may represent both nonlinear convection
and radiation.
Equation (2.1a) describes the relation between
temperature and heat fluxes within the domain Ω. Since
this is a partial differential equation of the elliptic type, it
must be supplied with boundary conditions (2.1b)
describing interactions between the modeled object and
outside world. They can be either of the Dirichlet type on
the sub-domain ∂ΩD of the boundaries or Neumann on
∂ΩN (or even of Robin type if (2.1c) was used). Equations
(2.1) can be simplified by assuming that λ is constant that
may have different values over different sub-domains Ωi
of Ω. Two adjacent domains of different λ can be
matched using the following conditions at the interface:
T1 = T2 ; λ1n1 ⋅ ∇T1 + λ 2 n 2 ⋅ ∇T2 = 0 (2.2)
where ni is he unit outward normal to domain Ωi. System
(2.1), can be rewritten in a dimensionless form in each
sub-domain of constant λ as:
∇2T (r ) = −qv (r ) r∈Ω (2.3a)
T = Ts ; n ⋅ ∇T = qs (2.3b)
∂Ω D ∂Ω N
Characteristic length a, temperature difference [T] and
heat flux [Q] (in Watts) can assume any set of values
selected from boundary conditions (2.1b) provided that
the following relation is respected:
[Q] = λ a [T] (2.4)
Compact models are expected to be based on equation
(2.3a) only, if they are to respect the BCI condition.
Hence they must be linear, which does not preclude the
possibility of having nonlinear expressions in (2.3b) (see
above note on Kirchhoff transformation). This equation
relates temperatures and heat fluxes at any point in the
domain or at the surface, a relation that depends only on
the object itself. It does not depend on applied boundary
conditions. A compact model should not involve all such
details, i.e. relations between ALL points, but rather a
relation between a very limited set of state variables
describing the system behavior. This set may be for
example average temperatures and heat fluxes at different
“nodes” of the modeled object. When combined with
applied boundary conditions, this relation will allow us to
get both temperatures and heat fluxes. Suppose now that
temperatures associated to each node are grouped in an
array of size N, the total number of nodes, as well as
another array of size N for heats exchanged. With this
rather simplified set of state variables, the most general
form of a CTM would be a matrix relating both arrays,
which can take either of the following equivalent forms:
ThETA01/048
∑
N
j =1
Yij T j = Qi (2.5a)
Ti = ∑ j =1 Rij Q j
N
(2.5b)
Any CTM, regardless of how it is built (a network of
resistors, star shaped or Delphi type) is only a special case
of the general matrix representation (2.5). However,
matrices appearing in either forms of (2.5) (whether Y or
R) cannot have any arbitrary form. As they represent a
physical model relating heats and temperatures, they must
respect laws of physics. In particular, they must:
- Respect first law of thermodynamics
- Respect second law of thermodynamics
- Respect reciprocity or the auto-adjoint nature of
the governing differential equation.
It has been shown earlier [3] that this leads to the
following constraints that are easier to express in terms of
matrix Y:
∑
N
Y ij = 0 ∀ j (2.6a)
i =1
∑ Y ij (Ti − T )(T j − T ) ≥ 0
N
i =1
(2.6b)
Yij = Yji (2.6c)
where T is the average temperature. All above
constraints are respected by a network of resistors,
although this is not the most general form.
Two main methodologies are used to construct compact
models (reviewed in [1, 2]): structural [4-13] and
behavioral [14-23]. A global approach to each of these
methodologies will be briefly presented below.
2.1 Behavioral methodology
In this methodology, internal constructional details are
irrelevant, only the response of the system to a set of
excitations. Take for the moment node 1 to be a “special”
node. Suppose now we perform N-1 experiments in which
all nodes are insulated except node 1 as well as another
node, but never the same one in different experiments.
Obtaining temperatures (by direct measurement or by
numerical or analytical methods) of all nodes in each of
these experiments would give us sufficient data to
calculate all elements in the matrix. In fact, by
superposition of the results of the N-1 cases, we can
reproduce any “realistic” case in which all nodes
participate in heat transfer. We could have also started
with any other set of N-1 “realistic” test cases to obtain all
matrix elements, provided the set is “complete”. This
property has been defined and corresponding
mathematical criteria were derived earlier [3]. The
procedure seems simple and straightforward. However,
due to the distributive nature of heat transfer, temperature
profiles would have a large impact on the results. Two
experiments with the same average temperature on each
node, but with different temperature profiles on each node,
would produce different heat transfer on each node, or
vice-versa. This means that we may pick 2 different sets
of complete N-1 experiments and get 2 different models
for the same object. The Delphi solution was as follows:
35
 Compact Thermal Models: a global approach; Sabry & Saleh
- Select a relatively large set (much greater than
N-1) of “plausible” experiments of practical
relevance, called the generating set.
- Optimize matrix elements (or equivalently
network resistors) to give the least possible error
in predicting results of the generating set.
- Confirm precision by using the obtained model
to predict cases in another set, called the test set,
which are outside the generating set
2.2 Structural methodology
In the structural methodology, model generation is based
on model internal constructional features. In fact, the
behavior is obtained by solving the governing differential
equations for a more or less general case, described by
more or less “general” boundary conditions. There are
many different ways to solve PDE’s but they are all
equivalent and can be cast in a single general procedure
using the Green’s function G(r,r') satisfying:
∇2G (r , r ') = −δ(r − r ' ) r, r' ∈ Ω
(where δ is the Dirac distribution) together with a set of
boundary conditions that need not be specified at this
level. Using it will allow us to represent the solution as:
T (r ) = ∑ j =1 ∫
N
{G (r ,r' )q(r' ) − n ⋅ ∇G T (r' )}dr'
r'∈Ω j
where Ωj is the j’th sub-domain at which heat is
exchanged, i.e. the sub-domain belonging to compact
model “node” j ranging from 1 to N. This sub-domain can
be either a volume or a surface depending on the nature of
heat source.
At that point, every thing is still analytic. We did not
make any assumption so far. This means that (2.8), which
relates temperatures with heat fluxes, can be taken as the
basis for ANY compact model. Temperatures and heat
fluxes are still “detailed” in the sense the equation relates
local values of T and q, and not global or average values
over nodes. The method by which we relate local values
with global values, and hence construct the CTM out of
(2.8) would constitute the most important difference
between one proposed approach to build compact models
and the other. We may not be able to obtain G in a closed
form, hence an approximation is needed, which is also
another, although minor, factor in distinguishing between
different model generation procedures. This has an impact
on how fast and accurate model elements can be
calculated, which will not receive any further attention
here. But the first difference is about the philosophy and
ability of the obtained model to reflect real situations.
Suppose for instance that we assume that all profiles are
uniform, which means we simply replace local values by
their global counterparts. Substituting in (2.8), taking out
of the integral any uniform profile and performing
integration over the known Green’s functions will yield
an equation of the form (2.5), the sought for CTM. We
may also assume any profile in the form of a function (f
(r) say) having a unity average value. Local value of T,
over node k for example, can be expressed as: T = Tk f(r).
(where Tk is the corresponding global value at node k).
Substituting in (2.8) and integrating, would still give us a
36
compact model of the form (2.5), but with different values.
So we are back again with the same problem, as for the
behavioral approach: model, CTM depends on selected
(or assumed) profiles. We have to be clever enough to let
these profiles be as close as possible to “practical”
situations for the model to be relevant.
3. THE PROPOSED APPROACH
The proposed approach is a global solution to the compact
model generation issue that can be applied to both
behavioral and structural approaches. Although it can also
be applied to convective problems [24], only conduction
problems will be addressed here. In fact, it is mainly
about how we treat the profile issue. In a previous work
[3], expected errors due to different profiles were studied
in details and an error bound was derived. Error
estimation was so close to reality, which encouraged
proposing a new approach that uses these estimates to
improve model precision. The basic principle is very
simple:
(2.7)
Instead of associating only one global value to T and q
over each node, let us associate a finite set of constants
for T and q, which can be expansion coefficients of a
truncated series (Taylor, Fourier …) representing the
(2.8) profile.
The number of expansion coefficients retained depends
on the precision needed. We can virtually go to infinity in
order to get the exact solution. Fortunately, we never need
to go that far. It has been shown earlier [3] that highly
oscillating modes can be safely neglected. The application
of the flexible profile method to the structural approach
has been presented earlier [25] for rather simple cases. It
will be briefly reviewed here before giving results for real
life cases. A modified Green’s function technique is used
satisfying the following conditions:
∇ 2G (r , r ') = −δ(r − r ' ) r, r' ∈ Ω (3.1a)
 − 1 r ∈∂Ω1
n ⋅ ∇G (r, r ' ) =  (3.1b)
 0 r ∉ ∂Ω1
∫r∈∂Ω Gdr = 0
1
(3.1c)
where ∂Ω1 is the outside surface sub-domain
corresponding to an arbitrarily chosen “reference” node.
Using the above Green’s function, as well as the Green’s
theorem, equation (2.3a) can be transformed into:
T (r ) − Tav1 = ∑ j =1 ∫ G (r , r ' )q(r ' )dr '
N
(3.2)
r '∈Ω j
where Tav1 is the average temperature over node 1 and Ωj
is the domain of “node” j. Using any convenient
orthonormal set φiu (r ) over each node i, we can express T
and q profiles as:
T (r ) r∈Ω = ∑u = 0 Tiu φiu (r )
∞
(3.3a)
i
q(r ) r∈Ω = ∑u = 0 qiu φiu (r )
∞
(3.3b)
i
Hence, by substituting in (3.2) we get after multiplying
both sides by φiu (r ) , integrating using the orthonormal
property of φiu (r ) and truncating the series after U terms:
Tiu = ∑ j =1 ∑ v = 0 Rijuv q vj i ∈ [1, N ], u ∈ [0, U ]
N U
(3.4a)
ThETA01/048
 Compact Thermal Models: a global approach; Sabry & Saleh
Rijuv = ∫ ∫ φiu (r )G (r, r ' )φvj (r ' )dr 'dr (3.4b)
r∈∂Ω i r '∈∂Ω j T-TOP-M0 T-TOP-M2
T-TOP-M4 T-TOP-FEM
This is the Flexible Profile Compact Model involving as
state variables at each node, not only one single value, but
rather the coefficients of the expansion of T and q profiles 45
over a given complete set. Taking a sufficient order of 40
precision over each node, typically 0 to 4, one can
approximate reasonably well any T or q profile with one 35
and the same model. It is worth noting that classical

T
approaches are explicitly or implicitly equivalent to the 30
proposed approach with the restriction of the number of
terms of the series (3.3) to only one term. 25
20
4. RESULTS 0 0.5 r 1 1.5
The proposed method was applied to a BGA package Figure 2. Temperature predictions T versus r (the distance
proposed in an earlier benchmark [26]. Constructional along diagonal) of Flexible Profile applied to the BGA
details of the package are shown in figure 1. The upper problem (test case 15) for the zero’th (M0), second (M2)
part of the figure represents the cross section given in the and forth order (M4) approximations
benchmark, the lower one being the breakup of the
original body into pieces each being a parallelepiped of a In order to show the Flexible Profile capabilities to treat
given material. Results for the test case 15 of the MCM cases, with general boundary conditions, the
benchmark are shown in figure 2 (Top node temperature structure shown in figure 5 was considered. Lateral
as a function of the radial distance r along the diagonal) as dimensions are not the same for all blocks. Lateral walls
compared to finite element results of the same problem. are not adiabatic with boundary conditions of both
Figure shows the zero’th, second and forth orders of Neumann and Robin types. Two volumetric heat sources
approximation. The second order is already quite close to were inserted inside the structure.
the FEM solution. The forth is almost indistinguishable
from FEM results. Figures 3 and 4 give results for test
cases 40 and 01 respectively, with 4 modes, showing the T-TOP-Fp T-TOP-FEM
same level of accuracy. T-BOT-Fp T-BOT-FEM

26
Mould

Die 24
T

Substrate top 22
Substrate 1 Substrate 2 Substrate 3
20
Inner balls Air Outer balls
18
0 0.5 r 1 1.5
Figure 3. Test case 44 for the BGA package proposed in
the Benchmark [26]

Figure 1. BGA constructional details

ThETA01/048 37
 Compact Thermal Models: a global approach; Sabry & Saleh

T-BOT-FEM T-BOT-Fp T-Bot-Fp-V2 T-Top-Fp-V2

T-TOP-FEM T-TOP-Fp T-Bot-Cos-V2 T-Top-Cos-V2

130 109.2

125 109
108.8

T
120
108.6
T

115 108.4
110 108.2
108
105
0 0.2 0.4 X 0.6 0.8 1
0 0.5 r 1 1.5
Figure 7. Results of the hypothetical package, with only
Figure 4. Test case 01 for the BGA package proposed in the right heater energized
the Benchmark [26]

5. CONCLUSION
The new Flexible Profile approach, designed for reduced
order thermal modeling, has for the first time been applied
to a real life package model: the BGA proposed in an
earlier benchmark [26]. Results were conclusive. With a
bit more parameters than standard compact thermal
models (CTM), the Flexible Profile approach is capable
of predicting temperature profiles that are very close to
those that would have been obtained by a detailed model
(requiring significantly more parameters). These results
were obtained with only 4 modes in each direction. Hence,
the Flexible Profile approach is a global one that bridges
Figure 5. A hypothetical package structure to test the the gap between CTM and detailed models, with any
ability to treat MCM with general boundary conditions desired accuracy.
Figure 6 shows the results if only the left heater is
energized, while in figure 7, only the right heater is Moreover, the approach was capable of predicting correct
energized. results for MCM packages, which usually constitute a
problem for classical CTMs.
Last, but not least, profile data for temperature and heat
flux in this approach are a calculation outcome. This has a
T-Bot-Fp-V1 T-Top-Fp-V1
large positive impact on reliability studies.
T-Bot-Cos-V1 T-Top-Cos-V1

109.2 6. REFERENCES
109 [1] M.N. Sabry, “Dynamic compact thermal models used for
electronic design: a review of recent progress,” Proceedings of
108.8
IPACK03, International Electronic Packaging Technical
T

108.6 Conference and Exhibition Maui, Hawaii, USA, Interpack2003-

35185, 2003.
108.4
[2] C. J. M. Lasance. Recent progress in compact thermal
108.2 models. In Proc. 19th IEEE SEMI-THERM Symp., pages 290–
299, March 2003.
108
[3] M. N. Sabry, Compact Thermal Models for Electronic
0 0.2 0.4 X 0.6 0.8 1
Systems, IEEE – CPT, Part A, Vol. 26, pp. 179-185,
2002.
Figure 6. Results of the hypothetical package, with only
the left heater energized [4] T. Hsu and L. Vu-Quoc, “A rational formulation of thermal
circuit models by finite element method and model reduction
techniques for electro-thermal simulation” IEEE 4th Workshop
on Computers in Power Electronics, pp. 67 – 72, 1994
[5] Liu Da-Guang; V. Phanilatha; Zhang Qi-Jun and M.S.
Nakhla, “Asymptotic thermal analysis of electronic packages
and printed-circuit boards”, IEEE Trans. on Components,

38 ThETA01/048
 Compact Thermal Models: a global approach; Sabry & Saleh
Packaging, and Manufacturing Technology, Part A, Vol. 18, no. diode and IGBT)”, 13th International Symposium on Power
4, pp. 781 – 787, 1995 Semiconductor Devices and ICs, ISPSD '01, pp. 381 – 384, 2001
[6] G. Digele; S. Lindenkreutz and E. Kasper, “Fast electro- [21] G. Noebauer, “Creating compact models using standard
thermal circuit simulation using reduced order models”, 4th spreadsheet software”, 17th Annual IEEE Symposium
International Workshop on Thermal Investigation of ICs and Semiconductor Thermal Measurement and Management, SEMI-
Microstructures, THERMINIC, Cannes, France, pp. 115 – 120, THERM XVII, pp. 126 – 133, 2001
1998 [22] M. Rencz and V. Szekely, “Dynamic thermal multiport
[7] V. Phanilatha; M.S. Nakhla; Zhang Qi-Jun; Liu Da-Guang, modeling of IC packages”, IEEE Trans. on Components and
“Finite element transient thermal analysis of electronic boards Packaging Technologies, Vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 596 – 604, 2001
and packages using moment-matching techniques”, The 5th [23] K.L. Pandya, and W. McDaniel, “A simplified method of
Intersociety Conference on Thermal Phenomena in Electronic generating thermal models for power MOSFETs”, 18th Annual
Systems, ITHERM V, pp. 391 – 398, 1996 IEEE Symposium on Semiconductor Thermal Measurement and
[8] M.N. Sabry, “Static and dynamic thermal modeling of IC’s”, Management, SEMI-THERM XVIII, pp. 83 – 87, 2002
Microelectronics Journal, Vol. 30, pp 1085 – 1091 (1999) [24] M.N. Sabry, , Compact Thermal Models For Internal
[9] Y.C. Gerstenmaier and G. Wachutka, “Time dependent Convection, Transactions of IEEE / Components, Packaging
temperature fields calculated using eigenfunctions and and Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 28, No.1, pp 58-64, 2005
eigenvalues of the heat conduction equation”, 6th International [25] M.N. Sabry, High Order Compact Thermal Models,
Workshop on Thermal Investigation of ICs and Systems, Transactions of IEEE / Components, Packaging and
THERMINIC, Budapest, pp. 55 – 61, 2000 Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 28, No.4, pp 623-629, 2005
[10] M. Zubert; A. Napieralski and M. Napieralska, “The new [26] C. Lasance, “Two Benchmarks for the Study of Compact
general method for thermal and electro-thermal model Thermal Modelling Phenomena”, Proc. 6th THERMINIC
reduction”, 6th International Workshop on Thermal Investigation Workshop, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 217–222, 2000
of ICs and Systems, THERMINIC, Budapest, pp. 62 – 67, 2000
[11] W. Batty; C.E. Christoffersen; A.J. Panks;S. David; C.M.
Snowden and M.B. Steer, “Electrothermal CAD of power
devices and circuits with fully physical time-dependent compact
thermal modeling of complex nonlinear 3-d systems”, IEEE
Trans. on Components and Packaging Technologies, Vol. 24, no.
4, pp. 566 – 590, 2001
[12] L. Codecasa; D. D'Amore and P. Maffezzoni, “Moment
matching model order reduction of discretized thermal
networks”, 7th International Workshop on Thermal Investigation
of ICs and Systems, THERMINIC, Paris, pp 22 – 26, 2001
[13] L. Codecasa; D. D'Amore; P. Maffezzoni and W. Batty,
“Multi-Point Moment Matching Reduction of Distributed
Thermal Networks”, 8th International Workshop on Thermal
Investigation of ICs and Systems, THERMINIC, Spain, Madrid,
pp. 231-234, 2002
[14] J.V. Motto, Jr.; W.H. Karstaedt; J.M. Sherbondy. and S.G.
Leslie, “Modeling thyristor and diodes; on-state voltage and
transient thermal impedance, effective tools in power electronic
design”, Industry Applications Conference, IAS '97, Vol. 2, pp.
1182 – 1189, 1997
[15] C. Lasance; D. Den Hertog and P. Stehouwer, “Creation
and Evaluation of Compact Models for Thermal
Characterisation Using Dedicated Optimisation Software”, 15th
Annual IEEE Semiconductor Thermal Measurement and
Management Symposium, SEMI-THERM, p.1, 1999
[16] V. Sunde;Z. Bencic and Z. Jakopovic, “A temperature-
dependent electrothermal MOSFET model for calculating its
current loadability”, IEEE International Symposium on
Industrial Electronics, ISIE '99., Vol. 2 , pp. 579 – 583, 1999
[17] S. Schroder and R.W. De Doncker, “Physically based
models of high power semiconductors including transistor
thermal behavior”, IEEE 7th Workshop on Computers in Power
Electronics, COMPEL 2000, pp. 114 – 117, 2000
[18] V. Szekely and M. Rencz, “Thermal dynamics and the time
constant domain”, IEEE Trans. on Components and Packaging
Technologies, Vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 587 – 594, 2000
[19] M. Busani; R. Menozzi;M. Borgarino and F. Fantini,
“Dynamic thermal characterization and modeling of packaged
AlGaAs/GaAs HBTs”, IEEE Trans. on Components and
Packaging Technologies, Vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 352 – 359, 2000
[20] P.M. Igic; P.A. Mawby and M.S. Towers, “Physics-based
dynamic electro-thermal models of power bipolar devices (PiN

ThETA01/048 39