## A Critical Review on the Electromigration Effect, the Electroplastic Effect, and

## Perspectives on Effect of Electric Current upon Alloy Phase Stability

Yu-chen Liu 1 and Shih-kang Lin 1,2,3,*

- 1 Department of Materials Science and Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan city 70101, TAIWAN;  2 Center for Micro/Nano Science and Technology,

National Cheng Kung University, Tainan city 70101, TAIWAN;  3 Hierarchical GreenEnergy Materials (Hi-GEM) Research Center, National Cheng Kung University,

Tainan 70101, TAIWAN

*E-mail: linsk@mail.ncku.edu.tw

## Abstract

The electronic interconnections in the state-of-the-art integrated circuit (IC) manufacturing are scaled down to the micron or sub-micron scale. This results in a dramatic  increase  in  the  current  density  passing  through  interconnections,  so  the electromigration  (EM)  effect  plays  a  significant  role  in  the  reliability  of  products. Although  thorough  studies  and  reviews  of  EM  effects  have  been  continuously conducted in the past 60 years, some parts of EM theories lack clear elucidation of the electric current-induced non-directional effects, including the electric current-induced phase equilibrium changes. This review article is intended to provide a broad picture of

electric current-induced lattice stability change and to summarize the existing literature on EM-related phenomena, EM-related theoretical models, and relevant effect of the electroplastic  (EP)  effect  in  order  to  lead  to  a  better  understanding  of  the  electric current-induced effects on materials. This article also posits that EM is either part of the  EP  effect  or  shares  the  intrinsic  electric  current-induced  plastic  deformation associtated with the EP effect. This concept appears to contribute to the missing parts of the EM theories.

Keywords:  electromigration  effect,  electroplastic  effect,  phase  stability,  electric current effect

## Background

Electric current is intimately related to human life. During the past hundred years, thorough theoretical models have been proposed for the electric current-induced effect, such as the thermoelectric effect, and the Joule heating effect. Currently, the technology node of state-of-the-art integrated circuit (IC) manufacturing can be scaled down to the nano scale. This leads to the interconnections being scaled down to the micron or subnano scale [1-3]. The scaling-down tremendously multi-functionalizes modern electronic devices, and allows continuous reductions in their feature size. However, the scaling-down has drawn attention to new effects induced by electric current due to increases in the current density passing through the interconnections, and resulted in significant  reliability  concerns  [2,  4-10].  Therein,  electromigration  (EM)  effect  has caused significant reliability concerns in modern industrial electronic devices due to the formation of voids and hillocks [11], as well as the polarity effect [12, 13]. We call this EM-induced voids/hillocks formation and polarity effect directional effects because the atomic diffusion often follows the direction of the electron flow, which results in the formation of voids and hillocks as well as variations in the interface growth rate on opposite  sites.  The  existing  theories  have  successfully  explained  the  EM-induced voids/hillocks formation and polarity effect [14].

Despite the success of EM theories, phenomena induced by electric current that

have been found more recently cannot be thoroughly understood using the existing EM theoretical models [14-16]. For example, electric current is found to induce the alloy supersaturation effect [17, 18], the non-polarity effect [19], lattice deformation [20-26], electrorecrystallization [27], and grain rotation [28]. Unlike the voids/hillocks formation and the polarity effect, these phenomena are found non-directional, which means the effects do not follow the direction of electron flow and thus cannot be well explained by the existing EM models. We call them the non-directional effects  The . missing parts of the existing EM theory motivated this article as a review of the existing literature  on  EM-related  phenomena,  EM-related  theoretical  models,  and  relevant electric current-induced effects such as the electroplastic (EP) effect. This study is an attempt  to  summarize  all  the  EM-  and  EP-induced  effects  under  a  broad  picture  of electric  current-induced  lattice  stability  change.  To  be  more  specific,  the  existing literature either from EM or EP research points out that electric current will induce a lattice deformation, which is believed to be induced by atomic diffusion in EM and by the electron-dislocation interaction in EP. Based on the literature, an idea is proposed herein suggesting that either EM is part of the EP effect or shares the intrinsic electric current-induced plastic deformation induced by the EP effect. This idea may rationalize the electric current-induced phase equilibria change as well as the non-polarity effect.

First, the existing models for the EM driving force are reviewed, and the missing

parts of these models are pointed out. The model of EM occurrence is then reviewed, where it is pointed out that the occurrence of EM is not only the function of the intrinsic resistivity property of materials but also that of the strip length, which is the so-called the Blech effect. The concept of EM-induced stress/deformation (e.g. back stress model) is introduced to elucidate the occurrence of EM. Early stages (i.e. before EM occurs) of lattice deformation found in the EM tests is reviewed, and correlations between the occurrence  of  EM  and  the  mechanical  properties  of  materials  are  pointed  out.  The relevant EP effect is then reviewed to reveal the intrinsic electric current-induced lattice deformation.  Changes  in  electric  current-induced  phase  equilibria  and  interfacial reactions are reviewed in the final section. Overall in this study, the missing parts of EM theories are revealed to clearly elucidate the non-directional effects.

## Theories of the electric current-induced force on ions (driving force for EM)

Generally, the driving force of electromigration comprises two components, one of which is the direct force Fd from the external electric field causing the columbic force, and the other of which is the electron wind force Fw . The general equation to formulate the driving force F of EM can be written as Eq. (1):

$$F = F _ { d } + F _ { w } = ( z _ { d } + z _ { w } ) e \rho j = z ^ { * } e \rho j & & ( 1 ),$$

where 𝑧𝑑 , 𝑧 𝑤, 𝑧 ∗ are the effective charges in the direct force, electron wind force, and the net force, respectively. 𝑒 is the fundamental charge, 𝜌 is the resistivity, and 𝑗 is the current density. The effective charge sets the scale of the driving force and is one of the most important quantity by which to evaluate EM effect since it can be directly measured via experimental methods [14, 29]. The existing theoretical models tackled a fundamental  understanding  of 𝐹𝑑 and 𝐹 𝑤 . Thorough  reviews  on  the  existing theoretical models for EM have been provided elsewhere [15, 29-32]. In this section, we  review  four  representative  classic  models  and  recently-proposed  models,  and highlight their potential issues.

## Semi-ballistic model

Huntington et al. conducted a marker motion experiment in gold under an electric current, e.g. 30A and 60A, at high temperatures, e.g. 830-1020℃, and proposed the

ballistic model for the EM effect [14]. They considered the momentum transfer per unit time to a point defect in a current-conducting metal. The electrons were considered to be scattered by the defect alone, which was decoupled from the lattice. The scattering process took place without the creation or annihilation of phonons. The x-component of the momentum transfer per unit time per unit volume to the defects 𝑑𝑀𝑥 𝑑𝑡 is shown in

Eq. (2):

$$\frac { d M _ { x } } { d t } = - \left ( \frac { 1 } { 4 \pi ^ { 3 } } \right ) ^ { 2 } \iint \frac { m _ { 0 } } { \hslash } \left ( \frac { \partial E } { \partial k _ { x } ^ { \prime } } - \frac { \partial E } { \partial k _ { x } } \right ) \times f ( k ) \{ 1 - f ( k ^ { \prime } ) \} \ W _ { d } ( k, k ^ { \prime } ) \ d k ^ { \prime } d k \quad \ \ ( 2 ),$$

where 𝑚0 is the mass of electron, 𝜕𝐸 ℏ𝜕𝑘𝑥 is the group velocity of electron, 𝑓(𝑘) is the distribution function of electrons in k -space, and 𝑊𝑑(𝑘,𝑘 ′ ) is the transition probability function per unit time that the electron in state k will jump to state k' by virtue of its interaction  with  the  defects.  The  momentum  transfer  between  the  electron  and  the defects is the mass times the group velocity. The problem with this model is that it is only  applicable  for  an  isolated  defect  in  free  electron  gas.  In  real  metals,  the complicated band structure effect should be considered. The other concern is that not all the momentum lost by the electrons goes to the ion of interest [15]. The momentum lost may go to the lattice or neighboring scatters. Despite the fact the ballistic model is not general, it still formulates a pioneer physical picture of the driving force for EM.

Charge polarization model

Bosvieux and Friedel proposed a charge polarization model to approach the EM effect [16]. The charge polarization was more generalized and enabled a number of later modeling studies [15, 33-36]. Different from the momentum transfer proposed by the semi-ballistic model, the charge polarization model considered the electron wind force arising from the perturbed electron density in the vicinity of the bare defect complex, e.g. the combination of a bare ion with a vacancy in its vicinity. The perturbed electron density under electric field was assumed to come from two sources: (1) Arising from the  incident  electrons  scattered  by  the  defect  complex,  and  (2)  arising  from  the electrostatic electric field, including the polarization response. The general form of the electron wind force 𝐹 𝑤 is therefore formulated as Eq. (3):

$$F _ { w } = - \, \Big | \ \delta n ( r ) \nabla _ { R } v _ { o } ( r - R ) d ^ { 3 } r$$

where δ𝑛(𝑟) is the perturbed electron density for any defects to generalize the formula to a realistic system, and 𝑣𝑜 is the bare potential for the defects. In order to obtain the δ𝑛(𝑟) , one  has  to  perform  the  self-consistent  calculation  to  solve  the  Schrödinger equation. The total self-consistent potential is shown in Eq.(4):

$$\nu _ { t o t a l } ( r ) = \nu _ { o } ( r ) + \nu _ { s c } ( r )$$

where 𝑣𝑜 (𝑟) is  the  bare  columbic  potential  of  ion,  and 𝑣𝑠𝑐 (𝑟) is  the  screening potential. The change in the electron density comes from the screening potential term, 𝑣𝑠𝑐 (𝑟) . The self-consistent total potential and wavefunction is obtained by solving the

Schrödinger equation. Once the total electron density is known, the electron density under perturbation 𝛥𝑛(𝑟) can be obtained by using Eq. (5):

$$n ( r ) = n _ { 0 } ( r ) + \Delta n ( r )$$

where n0 (𝑟) is the electron density at equilibrium state.

Research has shown that when using the charge polarization model to describe the case of an isolated ion in electron free gas, the equation for Fw is identical to that in the semi-ballistic model [15]. The merit of the charge polarization model is that it rests on the charge density contribution calculation and can avoid disentangling the momentum transfer between electrons and ions. Despite the fact that the charge polarization model calculating the electron wind force is shown to be more generalized to realistic systems, the way Bosvieux and Friedel treated the direct force calculation is not relevant, i.e. they considered the direct force to be zero since the screening effect exists. This is not true for alloy systems such as H impurities in metal hosts, i.e. the direct force value is equal to the valence electron of H multiplied by the electric field [15]. Controversies exist for how to properly describe the direct force value to this date [37].

## Pseudopotential-based model

The  way  Bosvieux  and  Friedel  treated  the  individual  ion  potential 𝑣𝑜 (𝑟) was overrated since the repulsive part necessary to cancel the attractive part of 𝑣𝑜 (𝑟) near

the ion core was not considered. In order to overcome this problem, Sorbello performed a pseudopotential-based analysis to calculate the Fw of the EM driving force [38]. In the pseudopotential method, the potential induced by the core electron and the nuclei is considered as a unified pseudopotential to simplify the complicated description. The pseudopotential of an individual bare ion is w0 , and  the  total  pseudopotential  of  the crystal  system  is  the  sum  of  the  individual  pseudopotential  and  the  total  screened potential (i.e. 𝑤𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = Σ𝑤0 + 𝑉 𝑠𝑐 ). Through Eq. (3) to (5), the wind force can then be resolved.

Despite the fact that the pseudopotential-based analysis proposed by Sorbello can be generalized more easily to a real system, the model suffers from arbitrary form factor selection. Metals with a more complicated band structure effect (e.g. dor felectron orbital contributions) will show a huge error range in the effective charge calculation. For example, the error in the calculated effective charge for Cu ranges from 5.61% to 103%; for Ag, it ranges from 14.04% to 64.91%, and for Au, it ranges from 41.92% to 71.62%. On the other hand, the direct force contribution was assumed to be equal to the nominal valence of metals multiplied by the electric field. This assumption may not be universal and again creates controversy. Nevertheless, the analysis done by Sorbello is viewed as a pioneer work to generalize the calculation of the EM driving force.

## Korringa-Kohn-Rostoker (KKR) Green's function

The Korringa-Kohn-Rostoker (KKR)  method  is  one  of  the  first  principles calculation  methods  that  is  wave-function-based.  Dekker et  al. performed the KKR Green's function to calculate the electron wind force in pure Al, Cu, Ag, Au, impurities in Al, impurities in Ag, and some 4 d transition metals in [34]. In [35], Dekker et al. systematically  calculated  the z ∗ 𝑤𝑑 in  face-centered-cubic  and  body-centered-cubic metals. In [36], Dekker et al. focused on calculating the Al-alloy systems. The electron wind force in these studies was treated by using the polarization model shown in Eq. (3). The alloy system is described with respect to an intermediate system containing a void as a reference system proposed by Lodder [39] in order to depict the saddle point of the diffusion process in EM. The results obtained by Dekker et al. appear to be more precise  than  those  obtained  using  the  previous  theoretical  approach  proposed  by Sorbello,  especially  when  dealing  with  noble  metals  (e.g.  Cu,  Ag  and  Au)  with complicated  band  structure.  However,  a  comparison  with  the  experimental  data suggests that a quantitative approach to the effective charge fails in terms of some dilute alloy systems, e.g. impurities in Ag [34].

## Recent-proposed models (Machine learning model)

Recently, Liu et al. performed the machine learning method with an

experimentally-determined effective charge (i.e. the parameter that set the scales of the EM driving force) data as the training data set, in an attempt to build a model to decipher the effective charge [40]. They found that the effective charge is the function of not only the electrical conductivity of the system, but the electronegativity, periodic table column,  and  number  of p valence  electrons.  Their  results  were  consistent  with  the classical  understanding  but  provided  far  more  information  related  to  the  effective charge since the classical methods only suggested the effective charge to be a function of valence electrons and electrical conductivity (i.e. z ∗ = 𝑧𝑑 + 𝐾 𝜌(𝑇) ). They attempted to predict technologically-relevant host-impurity pairs, such as impurities across the periodic table in the host elements of Al, Ag, Au, Cu, Co and Sn, as shown in Figure 1. Despite the fact that the models seemed to work well, the limitation to the model was the temperature limit (e.g. at only a homologous temperature of 0.9), the composition limit (e.g. only binary systems are valid), and the fact that it can only be applied to metal  elements  (e.g.  non-metal  systems  such  as  H  may  have  different  underlying physics).  The  data  set  may  need  further  refinement  to  improve  the  accuracy  and generalization for further application.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.01170v1-figure-345416c6-d3b2-49fa-8c24-7da6126d52fe.jpg)

of impurity in Cu host

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.01170v1-figure-a1168529-faaa-48df-808e-42c21499f621.jpg)

| NaMg P 5                                     |
|----------------------------------------------|
| Rp Sr Y Zr NbMo Tc RuRn Pd Ag Cd In Sn Sb Te |

of impurity in Ag host

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.01170v1-figure-f8da683c-a071-4c39-afd2-0c190971118b.jpg)

Figure 1. z* of impurities in dilute alloys of Al, Ag, Au, Cu, Co and Sn predicted by

| NaMg                                          |
|-----------------------------------------------|
| Rb Sr Y Zr NbMc Tc Ru Rh Pd Ag Cd In Sn Sb Te |
| Cs Ba Pb BI                                   |

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.01170v1-figure-adc1f0ea-e15a-4344-9dad-3792d1880d59.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.01170v1-figure-1e5305cd-9464-4a71-ae87-036630f5a0ee.jpg)

the machine learning model. Reprinted with permission from reference [40].

These theoretical models can be well applied to explain EM-induced phenomena such  as  the  formation  of  voids/hillocks  and  the  polarity  effect  since  they  are  all directional effects. However, in the following sections, it is shown that only applying the driving force theory for EM cannot explain non-directional phenomena, such as the Blech critical product, the phase equilibria change under an electric current, and the non-polarity  effect. This  suggests  that  in  addition  to  the  diffusion  standpoint,  other factors governing EM-induced phenomena exist.

## EM-induced stress

Blech critical product for EM occurrence and the back stress mechanism

Blech  found  that  the  edge  drift  of Al  strips  could  only  be  observed  beyond  a critical  length  of  the  strip  under  a  given  current  density  [41].  The  current  density multiplied  by  the  critical  length  was  a  constant. This  product  was  called  the  Blech critical  length-current-density  product  or  the  Blech  critical  product,  where  a  higher critical product led to more criteria for the occurrence of EM. Blech further found that the Blech critical product of the Al strip increased if the strip was fully covered by a SiN  layer,  as  compared  to  one  without  a  covered  layer.  The  Blech  critical  product cannot be well explained by either the semi-ballistic model or the charge polarization model solely since these models does not include any quantities related to the strip length ℓ . Blech suggested that beside the fact that an electric current will induce force to the ions and cause EM, atomic diffusion itself induced by an electric current will also induce mechanical stress due to atom accumulation before relaxation, which refers to EM-induced stress. Therefore, a so-called back stress existed with the aid of the covered layer. When covered, atoms will accumulate at one side (e.g. anode side). Due to the accumulation of atoms at one side, the vacancy concentration increases at the other side (e.g. cathode) so that a vacancy concentration gradient is established. The side with atom accumulation will develop a compressive stress while the other side with vacancy

accumulation will develop a tensile stress. Therefore, a back stress gradient forms that will compensate the EM driving force. The steady-state net flux of diffusion 𝐽 under electric current is written as Eq. (6) [42]:

$$J = \frac { N D } { k T } \left [ z ^ { * } e \rho j - \frac { \partial } { \partial x } \left ( \mu _ { a } - \mu _ { v } \right ) \right ]$$

where D is the diffusivity, k is the Boltzmann constant, T is the absolute temperature, z* is the effective charge, 𝜌 is the resistivity,   is the current density, j 𝜇𝑎 and 𝜇𝑣 are the chemical potential of atoms and vacancies, respectively, and x is the distance along the film in the direction of the electric current. EM-induced atom/vacancy diffusion has been typically assumed to be deposited at grain boundaries. These atoms/vacancies may combine with  the  grain  boundary  dislocations  and  induce  dislocation  climbing  that changes the available lattice sites in the grains (i.e. dislocation climbing is considered to be the source/sinks of lattice sites). It has been assumed that the time span for the local equilibrium between the stress state and the vacancy is far shorter than the long distance  diffusion  that  occurs  via  grain  boundaries.  Therefore,  Eq.  (7)  could  be established:

$$\mu _ { a } - \mu _ { \nu } = \mu _ { 0 } + \Omega \sigma _ { n n }$$

where μ0 is a constant, Ω is the atomic volume, and 𝜎𝑛𝑛 is the stress normal to the grain boundary. Substituting Eq. (6) with Eq. (7), the steady-state flux J can be written as Eq. (8):

$$J = \frac { N D } { k T } \left ( z ^ { * } e \rho j - \frac { d \sigma } { d x } \Omega \right )$$

when the electric field-induced driving force was totally compensated by the back stress gradient-induced driving force at steady-state, there was no net flux (i.e. EM ceased), as shown in Eq. (9)-(10):

$$z ^ { * } e \rho j = \frac { d \sigma } { d x } \Omega$$

$$j \ell _ { \text{cr} } & = \frac { \sigma \Omega } { z ^ { * } e \rho } & ( 1 0 ),$$

Eq. (10) is well-known as an equation by which to estimate the Blech critical product of EM occurrence. Based on Blech critical product Schreiber further derived a so-called Blech-Schreiber formula to predict the steady-state cathode edge displacement velocity 𝑉 , as shown in Eq. (11) [43]:

$$V = V _ { d } ( 1 - \frac { L _ { t h } } { L } ) = V _ { d } ( 1 - \frac { \sigma _ { c r } \Omega } { z ^ { * } \rho j L } )$$

where 𝑉𝑑 is the displacement velocity for the strip length toward infinity, 𝐿𝑡ℎ is the threshold strip length for EM occurrence, 𝐿 is any given strip length, and 𝜎𝑐𝑟 is the threshold stress for EM occurrence. Despite the fact that debates existed for Eq. (8) to Eq. (11), which will be discussed in the following sections, the Blech critical product is currently  still  very  useful  for  interconnection  design  in  electronic  products.  Table  I summarizes the critical product of different systems.

Table I. Blech critical product measurement.

| System        | Testing structure               | Critical product (A/cm)   | Temperature ( ∘ 𝐂)   | Reference   |
|---------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------|----------------------|-------------|
| Sn            | Blech structure                 | 1500                      | 63                   | [44]        |
| Sn-0.7 wt.%Cu | Blech structure                 | 500                       | 63                   | [44]        |
| Sn-3.0 wt.%Cu | Blech structure                 | 1580                      | 63                   | [44]        |
| Sn-1.8 wt.%Ag | Solder joint                    | 30                        | 145                  | [45]        |
| Cu            | Blech structure Dual damascene  | 900 to 1600 3850 ± 350    | 175 to 275 350       | [46]        |
| Cu            | (processed with a SiCN cap)     | 3760 ± 220 4010 ± 200     | 300 250              | [47]        |
| Cu            | Dual damascene                  | 3000                      | 250                  | [48]        |
| Cu            | Blech structure                 | 1200 to 2400              | N/A                  | [49]        |
| Cu            | Dual damascene                  | 9000                      | 325                  | [50]        |
| Cu            | (passivated with nitride/oxide) | 3470 2660                 | 350 400              | [51]        |
| Cu/CNT        | Blech structure                 | 4800 to 6000              | N/A                  | [49]        |
| Al            | Blech structure                 | 1260                      | 350                  | [41]        |
| Al            | Blech structure                 | 901                       | 200                  | [52]        |
| Al- 0.5wt.%Cu | Two level structure             | 5900                      | 210-250              | [53]        |

## EM-induced hillocks formation and stress relaxation

Blech suggested that when the compressive stress at the anode side induced by EM reaches a threshold  stress,  hillocks  will  form  as  the  result  of  stress  relaxation. Nevertheless,  Eq.  (11)  assumes  the  back  stress  gradient  to  be  linear  along  the  strip length  at  steady-state,  the  threshold  stress 𝜎𝑐𝑟 to  be  constant,  and  the  maximum compressive stress to be built up at the very end of the anode. These assumptions made

the hillocks form only at a sharp point (e.g. at the anode end), where the threshold stress was  reached.  Glickman et al. criticized that this was  not  consistent  with  the experimental observation since hillock formation is generally found to occur over a finite strip length instead of at a sharp point [54]. Klinger et al. [55] and Glickman et al. [54,  56]  proposed  a  model  to  account  for  hillock  formation  based  on  the  stress relaxation  mechanism.  The  key  assumptions  behind  their  models  consisted  of  the followings: (1) The threshold stress 𝜎𝑐𝑟 was dependent on the strip length and current density (i.e. the strip length of the hillock formation zone depended on the total strip length and current density), and (2) the relaxation occurred not only via fast dislocation gliding but required time-dependent dislocation movement (e.g. climbing, diffusional creep, etc. ).  Their  result  experimentally  proved  that  the  cathode  edge  displacement velocity did not follow Eq. (11) (i.e. a negative deviation existed)  at higher current densities  but  approximately  followed  the  model  they  built  based  on  the  diffusional creep  mechanism.  Even  though  the  authors  argued  that  the  threshold  stress  was intrinsically  related  to  the  creep  threshold  stress,  the  correct  physics  underlying  the threshold stress induced by EM is still not clear.

## Theoretical frameworks for EM-induced stress evolution

Even though the aforementioned discussion suggests issues in Eq. (11), the back

stress  model  proposed  by  Blech  is  still  generally  accepted  because  it  is  easily comprehended. More accurate theoretical frameworks based on the back stress model to simulate EM-induced stress evolution from the transient state to steady state were further  pursued  in  several  works.  Kirchheim  proposed  that  when  an  EM-induced vacancy diffuses to the grain boundary, it causes a volume change in the grain due to the relaxation of its neighboring atoms by 𝑓𝛺 , where   is a relaxation factor, and f 𝛺 is the atomic volume [57]. Due to the strain induced by the vacancy, a new driving force induced  by  the  strain  gradient  for  vacancy  diffusion  at  the  grain  boundary  was established  as 𝐽 𝜎 = -𝐷𝐶 𝑘𝑇 𝑓Ω 𝜕𝜎 𝜕𝑥 , where 𝐶 is  the  vacancy  concentration  at  the  grain boundary,  and 𝜕𝜎 𝜕𝑥 is  the  stress  gradient.  The  equilibrium  vacancy  concentration  is formulated as 𝐶𝑒 = 𝐶0𝑒𝑥𝑝  ( (1-𝑓)𝛺𝜎 𝑘𝑇 ) , where 𝐶0 is the equilibrium vacancy concentration in the absent of stress. The total flux of the vacancy is shown in Eq. (12):

$$J = - D \frac { \partial C } { \partial x } + \frac { D C } { k T } z ^ { * } e \rho j - \frac { D C } { k T } f \Omega \frac { \partial \sigma } { \partial x }$$

The  first  term  on  right  hand  side  of  the  equation  is  due  to  the  driving  force  of concentration gradient; the second term is due to the electric field, and the third term is due to the vacancy-induced stress gradient. By introducing the annihilation/production of vacancy term (i.e. 𝐶-𝐶𝑒 𝜏𝑠 , where 𝜏𝑠 is the relaxation time), the numerical solution for Eq. (12) can be obtained to demonstrate the stress evolution induced by EM.

Korhonen et al. proposed an analytical stress evolution model under EM subjected

to a confined metal line [58]. They assumed atoms were transported along the grain boundary and are predominately deposited at the grain boundaries under electric current.

Following the same assumption made by Blech [42] and Eq. (7), the stress increment caused by the climbing of the grain boundary dislocations in a confined metal line is shown  as 𝑑𝜎 = -𝐵 dC C , where B is  the  applicable  modulus,  and 𝑑𝐶 𝐶 is  the  relative change in the available lattice sites due to dislocation climbing. The stress evolution during EM is thus formulated as Eq. (13):

$$\frac { \partial \sigma } { \partial t } = \frac { \partial } { \partial x } \left [ \frac { D _ { a } B \Omega } { k T } ( \frac { \partial \sigma } { \partial x } + \frac { e z ^ { * } \rho j } { \Omega } ) \right ]$$

where 𝐷𝑎 is the effective diffusion coefficient of atoms along the grain boundary (i.e. 𝐷𝑎 = 𝛿𝐷𝐺𝐵 𝑑 , 𝛿 is the grain boundary width, 𝐷𝐺𝐵 is the diffusion coefficient diffusion coefficient,  and d is  the  grain  size.  Clement et  al. further  considered  the  vacancy diffusion mechanism and introduced the vacancy annihilation/creation sink/source term to revisit Korhonen's model, as shown in Eq. (14) [59]:

$$\frac { \partial \sigma } { \partial t } = \frac { D _ { v } C _ { v } B \Omega } { C k T } [ \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } \sigma } { \partial x ^ { 2 } } + \left ( \frac { \Omega } { k T } \frac { \partial \sigma } { \partial x } + \frac { z ^ { * } e p j } { k T } \right ) \frac { \partial \sigma } { \partial x } \ ]$$

where 𝐷𝑣 is the  vacancy  diffusion  coefficient, 𝐶𝑣 is the  equilibrium  vacancy concentration, and 𝐶 is the lattice site concentrations. Clement et al. suggested that Korhonen's model is only valid when the EM-induced maximum stress is relatively small. Park et al. followed Korhonen's model but further discussed the effect of the stress on the atomic diffusivity [60]. The stress-dependent diffusivity is shown as D ′ =

D  exp  [( Ω 𝑘𝑇 + 1 𝐵 ) σ] .  Lloyd summarized the analytical models for evaluating the EMinduced stress including the thermal stress effect [61]. Sarychev et al. further provided an  analytical  model  to  solve  three  dimensional  EM-induced  stress  in  analog  to  the thermal stress [62].

## Debates for the models simulating the EM-induced stress evolution

The  vital  question  for  models  simulating  the  EM-induced  stress  evolution  is related to determining how the stress will build up without the external confinement (e.g.  oxide layer,  passivated layer, etc. )  necessary to help the atoms accumulate. Tu argued that the back stress model might not be valid for cases of non-covered strips (e.g. Au) since atom accumulation will be instantly relaxed, and no stress will be induced [63]. It also might not be valid for cases undergoing surface diffusion (e.g. Cu) since the atoms accumulating on the surface cannot build stress for the bulk. The boundary condition of the covered layers seems to make the back stress model and the associated theoretical  frameworks  phenomenological  and  not  general  to  all  cases. To  be  more specific, this gives rise to five points that are unclear: (1) How will the stress build up without an external constraint? (2) How will the stress relax (e.g. via dislocation glide, climb,  creep, etc. )?  (3)  How  fast  is  the  stress  build-up  compared  with  the  stress relaxation? (4) What is the physics underlying the critical stress that causes electric current-induced deformation? (5) Is the critical stress a constant, or does it depend on

the current density or the strip length?

On the other hand, Eq. (10) suggests that the product is only valid for a short strip length.  Typically,  the  upper  bound  (i.e.  the  threshold)  of  the  EM-induced  stress  is considered to be the yield strength ( σy ) of the material [63]. The yield stress of metals is  generally  in  the  hundred  MPa  scale.  For  instance  in  Al, σy = 110  MPa, Ω = 1.67 × 10 -29 𝑚 3 , 𝑧 ∗ = -13,𝜌 = 2.6 × 10 -8   𝑚Ω , and  the  typical  lower  bound  of current density for EM occurrence in Al is 10 4 𝐴/𝑐𝑚 2 . Following Eq. (10), the upper bound for the threshold strip length yields 340 𝜇𝑚 , which agrees with the typical strip length scale used in the experiment [41, 52, 53]. It is likely that above this sub-micron length scale Eq. (10) would no longer be valid. This seems true in the experimental observation made by Lin et al , where EM was found to occur in a 2-cm-long Cu strip subjected to a current density of ca. 7.5 × 10  A/cm 2 5 , which corresponds to a critical product of 1.5 × 10  A/cm. This seems way larger than the conventional observation, 6 e.g. 900 [46] to 9000 [50] A/cm. This may suggest a missing part exists in the Blech critical product theoretical framework.

## EM-induced lattice deformation measurement

A series of in situ synchrotron radiation (SR)-based current stressing experiments were  conducted  to  gain  more  insights  into  the  EM-induced  stress  evolution  from experimentally  measuring  the  lattice  deformation  under  an  electric  current.  The deformation include lattice strain evolution [20-24], dislocation formation [25, 26, 6466], grain rotation [64, 66, 67], and sub-grain formation (i.e. polygonization) [25, 26, 64]. A quantitative study showed the resolved shear stress (based on the FCC metals slip system) at the location where atoms accumulate (e.g. hillocks were found) to be 10 times larger than at a location without atom accumulation [65]. The location where atoms accumulate was suggested to have higher dislocation density [65]. Valek et al. studied the early stage (i.e. before the void/hillock formation induced by EM could be observed) of crystal plasticity change induced by the electric current of Al, as shown in Figure 2 [25]. They found very similar results to those in [64], where individual grains underwent bending induced by the electric current and thereby introduced a preferredoriented dislocation formation (a dislocation density of 3 × 10  /cm ) and formation of 9 2 small  angle  grain  boundaries  in  the  direction  of  the  electron  flow  (presumably  via dislocation climbing) before the void/hillock formation. Similar results were suggested by Budiman et al. , who studied Cu at the early stage of an electric current [26], and the dislocation density was found to be 3 × 10  /cm . 9 2

Figure 2. The (222) plane peak profile at different grains along the Al strip subjected to electric current. Peak streaking, rotation, and broadening were found under electric current, indicating the plastic deformation at the early-stage of current-stressing.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.01170v1-figure-04e1e7fa-3e13-4b4e-9f3f-cb7ecb1a1b03.jpg)

## Reprinted with permission from reference [25].

Here, an effort is made to highlight the experimental works done at the early stage of EM [24-26], which experimentally suggested that before the void/hillock formation, crystal plasticity including the dislocation formation was found. A plausible explanation for  these  findings  was  that  the  plasticity  resulted  from  the  stress  developed  by  the atom/vacancy  accumulation,  which  was  discussed  in  the  aforementioned  section. However,  how  the  atom/vacancy  accumulation  will  induce  stress  without  covered layers is not clear. A more rigid quantitative model and mechanistic study to correlate the electric current and early-stage stress state is required. Nevertheless, these works

provided a different insight suggesting that the way to view EM-induce failures (e.g. void/hillock formation) is not just a kinetics problem but also involves the mechanical stress.

An  additional  insight  is  that  Lin et  al. found  that  voids/hillocks  formed  at  a homologous temperature of 0.28 under current stressing for 1680 s [24]. Under this condition, very low kinetics was suggested (i.e. where a surface diffusion coefficient of 10 -16 m 2 /s, an absolute temperature of 373 K, an effective charge of -5.5, resistivity of 1.68 × 10 -8 m·Ω, a current density of 10 10 A/m 2 yielded a self-diffusion velocity of ca. 0.001 nm/s). From this velocity, it was not possible to find a hillock size of ca. 1 μm after 1680 s of current-stressing. The classical models for the EM driving force seem to be  missing  some  aspects  of  the  low  kinetics. With  an  understanding  of  the  electric current-induced plastic deformation found at the early-stage, one plausible explanation for this issue is that an electric current will induce dislocation formation. Either the stress relaxation may result in hillock formation, as shown schematically in Figure 3 [24], or the dislocations may provide a fast diffusion path [25, 26, 64-66]. It is also likely  that  a  high  resistivity  location  (e.g.  grain  boundary)  may  provide  local  Joule heating and extra electron wind force that dominates the diffusion process. Overall, only  applying  the  kinetics  perspective  seems  inadequate  to  elucidate  the  observed phenomenon.

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the stress relaxation induced voids/hillocks formation subjected to electric current. Reprinted with permission from reference [24].

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.01170v1-figure-2a8e40d9-57c1-466f-9199-21dd2abe3cd8.jpg)

## Correlation between the mechanical properties of materials and EM occurrence

The aforementioned discussions point out that EM will induce mechanical stress due to atom accumulation/depletion before relaxation occurs. This infers that EM is likely to be the result of the electric current-induced crystal plasticity. When the stress reaches a 'yield' strength of materials, plastic deformation, including the void/hillock formation, and crystal plasticity will be found. If this is true, it is then sensible to ask one question regarding the correlation between EM and mechanical stress － does EM

occurrence correlate to a material's mechanical properties? To be more specific, do materials with stronger mechanical properties tend to have stronger EM-resistance? The answer to these questions seem positive when observing what people have done in regard to enhancing the EM-resistance of materials. For example, (111)-textured facecentered cubic (fcc) materials have stronger EM-resistance than non-textured ones [10, 68-70], while (111)-textured fcc materials have been found to have a maximum Young's modulus compared to other planes. Precipitation of Al2Cu existing in an Al-Cu alloy was found to have a longer mean time to failure (MTF) [71, 72], and precipitation has been found to harden materials. EM occurrence was found to be delayed when fullycovered layers were present, e.g. anodization [73], and passivated layers [50]. These 'rigid  walls'  may  suppress  the  lattice  deformation  induced  by  an  electric  current. Therefore, materials are more prone to being retained in the elastic deformation region [24].  Though  one  may  argue  that  precipitation  or  segregation  found  at  the  grain boundary  retards  EM-induced  diffusion [74],  the  reason  for  enhancement  of  EMresistivity by textured film, covered film, and the presence of precipitation is not easily understood via pure diffusion theory. These indirect correlations likely suggest that EM occurrence is strongly related to the mechanical properties of materials.

## Electroplastic (EP) effect

The  aforementioned  discussion  suggests  that  the  mechanical  stress/mechanical properties of materials may be one of the key factors that can be used to evaluate the EM  effect,  especially  when  speaking  of  EM-induced  failure  such  as  formation  of voids/hillocks, the Blech effect, EM-induced stress, etc .  However, most EM studies have  solely  focused  on  the  atomic  diffusion  aspect  (i.e.  elucidating  the  EM-related phenomena via various diffusion theories). Very few EM studies have provided direct experimental evidence to prove that EM occurrence is mechanistically related to the mechanical properties of materials [63, 75]. The very direct  correlation  between  an electric current and plastic deformation has been found for a related effect called the electroplastic (EP) effect, which refers to the plastic deformation induced by current stressing  [76-81].  The  theoretical  EP  model  is  generally  accepted  as  an  electrondislocation interaction, but this is still being debated up to the present time [79]. The most well-known phenomenon induced by EP is where the electric current decreases the flow stress but no change is found in the elastic stress, as shown in Figure 4 [8284]. The recrystallization temperature was found to decrease under current stressing (i.e. to accelerate the occurrence of recrystallization) [85]. The grain size of materials has been found to be refined under current stressing [86-88]. Even though scientists usually consider the EP effect to be different from that of EM by suggesting the model for the EM driving  force  is  merely  one  way  to  explain  EP  (i.e.  the  local  Joule  heating  is

considered as one of the possible mechanisms for EP) [89], it is still very difficult to separate  EM  from  EP  when  current-stressing  materials.  Up  to  the  present  time,  no studies  have  directly  proven  that  these  two  effects  are  parallel.  Based  on  our understanding and the aforementioned discussions, it is likely that EM is part of the EP effect framework, or EM  shares the intrinsic electric current-induced plastic deformation induced by the EP effect. In this context, the crystal plasticity found in the early-stage of the current stress is likely to result from the EP effect. EP effect might be the  reason  why  electric  current  will  induce  stress  without  external  covering  layer.

Figure 4. The true stress vs. true strain relation of Ti subjected to pulse direct current.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.01170v1-figure-4f4ff9bf-f373-456c-9392-9755f6330336.jpg)

At each pulse, the true stress dropped. Data was taken from [84].

## Electric current-induced phase equilibria change

Electric current has been found to change the phase equilibria of materials [17, 27, 89-102]. Conrad  provided  a  thorough  discussion  of  phase  transformation  under  an electric  current,  including  the  interfacial  reaction,  precipitation,  crystallization,  and recrystallization of metals [89]. Guan et al. reviewed and discussed the electric currentinduced  phase  transformation  effect [81]. Dolinsky  and  Elperin  discussed the thermodynamics of phase transition [103] and nucleation [104] under electric current. They showed that additional work is required to form a nucleation with lower electrical conductivity. In other words, an additional energy term is added in the Gibbs free energy change of a given phase transformation due to the change in the current distribution when  a  nucleus  forms.  Jiang et  al. performed  a  thermodynamics  analysis  of  the dissolution of the beta phase in the Mg-Al-Zn alloy under electric current following Dolinsky and Elperin's work, and the analytical results agreed with their experimental results  [18].  Lin et  al. used  the ab  initio -aided  CALPHAD  method  to  explain  the supersaturation of Pb-Sn induced by an electric current [105]. The relationship between compressive stress and current density was empirically established by correlating that the  Sn  whisker  growth  rate  was  the  same  under  the  associated  electric  current  or compressive stress [106]. The modeling results showed that when the current density is higher than a critical value of ca. 2.5 × 10 4 A/cm 2 , the phase boundaries of the Pb-

Sn  system  are  changed  by  electric  current  stressing,  as  shown  in  Figure  5.  The simulation results agreed well with the experimental observations [17]. However, the correlation between the stress and current density in the study was only empirical and lacked a physical interpretation.

Figure 5. The phase boundary and the phase relation of Pb-Sn binary system change

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.01170v1-figure-7f48e320-a4ed-4808-91b7-0f7ac40a38fb.jpg)

under electric current. Reprinted with permission from reference [105].

The  phase  equilibria  change  is  a non-directional effect  and  thus  cannot  be  well explained by the classical theoretical models of EM. However, if an electric current intrinsically induces lattice plasticity, and it does not relax to form voids/hillocks or any other relevant failures, the stored strain energy will be likely to contribute to the Gibbs free energy change and the driving force in the phase transformation. In general the molar Gibbs free energy of any given phase changed by electric current-induced strain

can be described using Eq. (15):

$$G _ { m } ^ { \ \prime } = \, ^ { 0 } G _ { r e f } + \, ^ { i d } G _ { m } + \, ^ { e x } G _ { m } + \, ^ { s t r a i n - e x } G _ { m }$$

where 𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑓 , 0 𝐺𝑚, 𝑒𝑥 𝑖𝑑 𝐺𝑚, 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛-𝑒𝑥 𝐺𝑚 are the are the reference energy  of the constituent  components,  and  the  molar  Gibbs  free  energy,  ideal  mixing  Gibbs  free energy, excess Gibbs free energy due to non-ideal mixing, and excess Gibbs free energy due to the electric current-induced strain, respectively. Therefore, the addition of the 𝐺𝑚 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛-𝑒𝑥 term might result in an abnormal supersaturation phenomenon, and would also be the origin of the stress introduced to the CALPHAD model proposed by Lin et al. [105].

## Polarized and non-polarized effect

Interfacial  reactions  are  found  to  be  changed  by  the  EM  effect  [107,  108], including the polarity and non-polarity effects. In a given reaction couple (e.g. an A/B/A sandwich  structure)  forming  interface  layers  (e.g. A/L/B/L/A,  where L denotes  the interface layer), the flux of dominant diffusion species a (𝐽 𝑎 ) under a direct electric current can be denoted as Eq. (16):

$$J _ { a } = - \frac { D _ { a } N _ { a } } { R T } \left ( R T \frac { \partial \ln N _ { a } } { \partial x } \pm z _ { a } ^ { * } e E \right )$$

where Na is the mole fraction of species a, and x is the thickness of the interface layer

formed at the interface. If the dominant diffusion species a diffuses in the same direction as  the  transporting  electron  flow  to  form  the  interface  layer,  the  second  term  in  the parenthesis on the right hand side of Eq. (16) will be +𝑧𝑎𝑒𝐸 ∗ . If the diffusion direction is opposite to that of the electron flow, the second term will be -𝑧𝑎𝑒𝐸 ∗ . Eq. (16) clearly indicates  that  in  the  case  of  the  two  interface  layers  in  the  given A/B/A  sandwich structure  under  an  electric  current,  one  will  be  enhanced  and  the  other  one  will  be suppressed comparing to the reaction couple without current stressing. This phenomenon is called the polarity effect. EM theories of the semi-ballistic model or the charge  polarization model  can  explain  the  polarity  effect effectively. Table  II summarizes the experimental results for the polarity effect found in several reaction couple systems.

However, the direct current has also been found to have either no effect on the growth rate of the interface layers, or to cause a symmetrical enhancement/suppression of the interface layers at both the cathode and anode side. These results were in contrast to the usual polarity effect on the asymmetrical growth rate of the interface layers, and were independent of the electric current direction. Therefore, the phenomenon showing symmetrical enhancement/suppression of the interface layer under an electric current is called the non-polarity effect. Eq. (16) then fails to explain the non-polarity effect since it  is  a non-directional effect. A  series  of  models  was  proposed  to  explain  the  non-

polarity  effect,  but  are  plausible  [109,  110]  and  phenomenological  [111]. A  better understanding of how investigate the underlying physics of the non-polarity effect is still being pursued. Table III summarizes the experimental results showing no effects of a direct current on the interfacial reaction and the results for the non-polarity effect. It is worth mentioning that AC or a reversing current have also been found to induce the non-polarity effect, as summarized in Table III.

The non-polarity effect is likely to result from the phase equilibria changed by electric  current.  To  be  more  specific,  the  chemical  potential  of  a  given  species  is changed  by  electric  current  as  suggested  by  Eq.  (15).  For  example,  the  diffusioncontrolled NiBi3 interface layers at the cathode and the anode side of Bi/Ni reaction couple were found to be both enhanced under electric current [19]. If the chemical potential of the NiBi3 phase is changed by the electric current due to the presence of strain energy, then the chemical potential gradient of the dominant diffusion species controlling the growth of NiBi3, which is Bi in this case, will be changed simultaneously. If the chemical potential gradient of Bi is enhanced by the electric current due to the strain energy, the diffusion velocity of Bi will be enhanced, and the diffusion will be independent of the direction of the electron flow [112]. Therefore, NiBi3 growth will be accelerated. This is likely to be true for NiBi3 growth since it is a diffusion-controlled reaction process (i.e. the reaction between Bi and Ni is fast enough so that the NiBi3

phase forms immediately when Bi reaches Ni). In short, it is likely that the non-polarity effect originates from the change in the electric current-induced phase stability, which changes the driving force of diffusion in the meantime.

Table II. Summary of the experimental results for the polarity effect found in several reaction couple systems. Adapted from Ref. [111].

|                                  | Current density 2   | *IMC Growth   | *IMC Growth   | Reference   |
|----------------------------------|---------------------|---------------|---------------|-------------|
| System (Temperature)             | (A/cm )             | Cathode       | Anode         |             |
| Sn/Ni (160-200 ℃ )               | 500                 | E             | S             | [13]        |
| Sn/Ag ( 120-200 ℃ )              | 500                 | E             | S             | [113]       |
| Sn-3.5wt%Ag/Ni (160- 200 ℃ )     | 500                 | E             | S             | [114]       |
| Sn-0.7wt%Cu/Ni (160- 200 ℃ )     | 500                 | E             | S             | [114]       |
| Cu/Sn-3.8wt%Ag-0.7wt%Cu (180 ℃ ) | 10 3 to 10 4        | S             | E             | [12]        |

*E: Enhanced; S: Suppressed.

Table III. Summary of the experimental results showing no effects of direct current upon the interfacial reaction and results for the non-polarity effect. Adapted from Ref.

[111].

| System (Temperature)   | Current density (A/cm 2 )   | *IMC Growth   | *IMC Growth   | Reference   |
|------------------------|-----------------------------|---------------|---------------|-------------|
| System (Temperature)   | Current density (A/cm 2 )   | Cathode       | Anode         | Reference   |
| Sn/Cu (200 ℃ )         | 500                         | N             | N             | [13]        |
| Zn/Ni (150,200 ℃ )     | 300                         | N             | N             | [19]        |
| Bi/Ni (185,200 ℃ )     | 300                         | N             | N             | [19]        |
| Al/Ni (400 ℃ )         | 500,1000                    | E             | E             | [109]       |
| Bi/Ni (150- 170 ℃ )    | 300                         | E             | E             | [19]        |
| Al/Au (400- 500 ℃ )    | 1000                        | E             | E             | [110]       |

| Ni/Ti (625~850 ℃ )    | 0 to 2546   | E   | E   | [115]   |
|-----------------------|-------------|-----|-----|---------|
| Ag/Zn (300,350 ℃ )    | 0 to 764    | E   | E   | [116]   |
| Ni-P/Sn-3.5%Ag        | 1000        | S   | S   | [117]   |
| $ Al/Cu (200- 525 ℃ ) | 500 to 1300 | E   | E   | [118]   |
| $ Sn/Ag (160 ℃ )      | 500         | E   | E   | [119]   |
| $ Sn/Ni (180- 200 ℃ ) | 500         | E   | E   | [119]   |

*N: No effect; E: Enhanced; S: Suppressed.

$ Under alternating current or reversing current.

## Conclusion

This  review  article  provides  a  thorough  review  on  the  EM-related  phenomena, especially for non-directional effects, EM-related theoretical models, and the relevant EP  effects.  A  broad  picture  of  electric  current-induced  phase  stability  changes  is proposed, which could complement the missing aspects of the existing EM theories for the non-directional phenomena.  Main  concerns  in  the  existing  EM  theories  are summarized as follows: (1) Although the general picture of the EM theory, i.e. ,  the charge polarization model, has been established, it is still not fully complete due to the fact that the zd value cannot be easily simulated; (2) the classical theories are not fully applicable to explain the non-directional changes of phase equilibria induced by electric currents; (3) the existing theoretical frameworks were developed based on experiments with external covers, such as native oxides or passivated layers, so the stress could

evolved; however, it is not clear why the stress could be built up without external covers.

The origin of the EM-induced stress and early-stage crystal plasticity is not clear.

By introducing the electric current-induced plasticity, or the EP effect to the EM effect,  the  aforementioned  electric  current-induced  peculiar  phenomena  could  be comprehended. In the case of electric current-induced crystal plasticity, the additional strain energy  could  contribute  to  the  changes  in  Gibbs  free  energy  of  phase transformation. Therefore, the phase stability and interfacial reactions are expected to be changed by electric currents. The EP effect might also be the reason for early-stage lattice  deformation  observed  in  the  EM  studies.  The  missing  part  of  EM  theory  to elucidate the non-directional effect is proposed  in  the review  article. Further investigations for establishing a complete theory for the effect of electric currents upon materials are needed.

## Acknowledgement

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) in Taiwan (MOST 103-2221-E-006-043-MY3 and 106-2628-E-006-002-MY3).

## Authors' contributions

Y.C.L  collected  important  papers  and  made  first  draft  of  the  article  with  the guidance of S.K.L. S.K.L modified and revised for publication. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

## Reference

- 1. D. Shahrjerdi and S.W. Bedell, Nano Lett. , 13 (1), 315-320 (2013).
- 2. K.N. Tu, Y. Liu, and M. Li, Appl. Phys. Rev. , 4 (1), 011101 (2017).
- 3. A. Lancaster and M. Keswani, Integration , 60 , 204-212 (2018).
- 4. F.M. d'Heurle, Proc. IEEE , 59 (10), 1409-1418 (1971).
- 5. T. Kwok, Mater. Chem. Phys. , 33 (3-4), 176-188 (1993).
- 6. D. Malone and R. Hummel, CRIT REV SOLID STATE , 22 (3), 199-238 (1997).
- 7. D. Pierce and P. Brusius, MICROELECTRON RELIAB. , 37 (7), 1053-1072 (1997).
- 8. E.T. Ogawa, K.-D. Lee, V.A. Blaschke, and P.S. Ho, IEEE Trans. Rel. , 51 (4), 403-419 (2002).
- 9. K. Zeng and K.-N. Tu, Mater. Sci. Eng., R , 38 (2), 55-105 (2002).
- 10. C.M. Tan and A. Roy, Mater. Sci. Eng., R , 58 (1), 1-75 (2007).
- 11. C.Y. Liu, C. Chen, and K.N. Tu, J. Appl. Phys. , 88 (10), 5703-5709 (2000).
- 12. H. Gan and K.N. Tu, J. Appl. Phys. , 97 (6), 063514 (2005).
- 13. S.-W. Chen, C.-M. Chen, and W.-C. Liu, J. Electron. Mater. , 27 (11), 1193-1199 (1998).
- 14. H.B. Huntington and A.R. Grone, J. Phys. Chem. Solids , 20 (1-2), 76-87 (1961).
- 15. R.S. Sorbello, Solid State Phys. , 51 , 159-231 (1997).
- 16. C. Bosvieux and J. Friedel, J. Phys. Chem. Solids , 23 (1-2), 123-136 (1962).
- 17. Y.T. Chiu, C.H. Liu, K.L. Lin, and Y .S. Lai, Scripta Mater. , 65 (7), 615-617 (2011).
- 18. Y.  Jiang,  G.  Tang,  C.  Shek,  Y .  Zhu,  and  Z.  Xu, Acta Mater. , 57 (16), 4797-4808 (2009).
- 19. C.M. Chen and S.W. Chen, J. Electron. Mater. , 29 (10), 1222-1228 (2000).
- 20. P.-C. Wang, G. Cargill III, I. Noyan, and C.-K. Hu, Appl. Phys. Lett. , 72 (11), 12961298 (1998).
- 21. H. Zhang, G. Cargill III, Y. Ge, A. Maniatty, and W. Liu, J. Appl. Phys. , 104 (12), 123533 (2008).
- 22. H.-K. Kao, G.S.C. III, F. Giuliani, and C.-K. Hu, J.  Appl. Phys. , 93 (5), 2516-2527 (2003).
- 23. K. Chen, N. Tamura, M. Kunz, K.N. Tu, and Y.-S. Lai, J. Appl. Phys. , 106 (2), 023502 (2009).
- 24. S.-k. Lin, Y .-c. Liu, S.-J. Chiu, Y .-T. Liu, and H.-Y . Lee, Scientific Reports , 7 (1), 3082 (2017).
- 25. B.C.  Valek,  N.  Tamura,  R.  Spolenak,  W.A.  Caldwell,  A.A.  MacDowell,  R.S. Celestre, H.A. Padmore, J.C. Bravman, B.W. Batterman, W.D. Nix, and J.R. Patel, J. Appl. Phys. , 94 (6), 3757-3761 (2003).
- 26. A.S. Budiman, W.D. Nix, N. Tamura, B.C. Valek, K. Gadre, J. Maiz, R. Spolenak,

- and J.R. Patel, Appl. Phys. Lett. , 88 (23), 233515 (2006).
- 27. Y.-T. Chiu, K.-L. Lin, A.T. Wu, W.-L. Jang, C.-L. Dong, and Y.-S. Lai, J. Alloys Compd. , 549 , 190-194 (2013).
- 28. A.T. Wu, A.M. Gusak, K.N. Tu, and C.R. Kao, Appl. Phys. Lett. , 86 (24), 241902 (2005).
- 29. P.S. Ho and T. Kwok, Rep. Prog. Phys. , 52 (3), 301 (1989).
- 30. F.M. D'Heurle and R. Rosenberg, Physics of Thin Films , G. Hass, M.H. Francombe, and R.W. Hoffman, (Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, 1973), p. 257-310.
- 31. H. Huntington, Diffusion in solids: recent developments , A.S. NOWICK and J.J. BURTON, (Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, 1975), p. 303-352.
- 32. K.-N. Tu, Solder Joint Technology ,  K.-N. Tu, (New York, NY: Springer, 2007), p. 211-243.
- 33. J. van Ek, J.P . Dekker, and A. Lodder, Phys. Rev. B , 52 (12), 8794-8800 (1995).
- 34. J.P . Dekker, A. Lodder, and J. van Ek, Phys. Rev. B , 56 (19), 12167-12177 (1997).
- 35. J.P . Dekker and A. Lodder, J. Appl. Phys. , 84 (4), 1958-1962 (1998).
- 36. J.P . Dekker, P . Gumbsch, E. Arzt, and A. Lodder, Phys. Rev. B , 59 (11), 7451-7457 (1999).
- 37. A. Lodder, Defect Diffus. Forum , 261-262 , 77-84 (2007).
- 38. R.S. Sorbello, J. Phys. Chem. Solids , 34 (6), 937-950 (1973).
- 39. A. Lodder, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. , 6 (10), 1885 (1976).
- 40. Y.-c. Liu, B. Afflerbach, R. Jacobs, S.-k. Lin, and D. Morgan, MRS COMMUN , 1-9 (2019).
- 41. I.A. Blech, J. Appl. Phys. , 47 (4), 1203-1208 (1976).
- 42. I.A. Blech and C. Herring, Appl. Phys. Lett. , 29 (3), 131-133 (1976).
- 43. H.U. Schreiber, Thin Solid Films , 175 , 29-36 (1989).
- 44. C.C. Wei and C.Y. Liu, J. Mater. Res. , 20 (08), 2072-2079 (2005).
- 45. Y.  Li  and  D.  Goyal, 3D  Microelectronic  Packaging:  From  Fundamentals  to Applications . 1 ed. (New York, NY: Springer, 2017). p. 71-99.
- 46. R.  Frankovic  and  G.H.  Bernstein, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices , 43 (12),  22332239 (1996).
- 47. D. Ney, X. Federspiel, V. Girault, O. Thomas, and P. Gergaud, IEEE Trans. Device Mater. Rel. , 6 (2), 175-180 (2006).
- 48. L. Arnaud, T. Berger, and G. Reimbold, J. Appl. Phys. , 93 (1), 192-204 (2003).
- 49. Y. Chai, P .C. Chan, Y. Fu, Y . Chuang, and C. Liu, IEEE Electron Device Lett. , 29 (9), 1001-1003 (2008).
- 50. E.T. Ogawa,  A.J.  Bierwag,  K.-D. Lee, H. Matsuhashi,  P.R.  Justison, A.N. Ramamurthi, P.S. Ho, V.A. Blaschke, D. Griffiths, A. Nelsen, M. Breen, and R.H. Havemann, Appl. Phys. Lett. , 78 (18), 2652-2654 (2001).

- 51. P.-C. Wang and R.G. Filippi, Appl. Phys. Lett. , 78 (23), 3598-3600 (2001).
- 52. R. Frankovic, G.H. Bernstein, and J.J. Clement, IEEE Electron Device Lett. , 17 (5), 244-246 (1996).
- 53. R.G. Filippi, G.A. Biery, and M.H. Wood, MRS Symp. Proc. , 309 , 141 (1993).
- 54. E. Glickman, N. Osipov, A. Ivanov, and M. Nathan, J. Appl. Phys. , 83 (1), 100-107 (1998).
- 55. L. Klinger, E. Glickman, A. Katsman, and L. Levin, Mater. Sci. Eng., B , 23 (1), 1518 (1994).
- 56. E. Glickman and M. Nathan, Microelectron. Eng. , 50 (1-4), 329-334 (2000).
- 57. R. Kirchheim, ACTA METALL MATER , 40 (2), 309-323 (1992).
- 58. M.A. Korhonen, P. Bo/rgesen, K.N. Tu, and C.Y. Li, J. Appl. Phys. , 73 (8), 37903799 (1993).
- 59. J.J. Clement and C.V. Thompson, J. Appl. Phys. , 78 (2), 900-904 (1995).
- 60. Y.J. Park and C.V. Thompson, J. Appl. Phys. , 82 (9), 4277-4281 (1997).
- 61. J.R. Lloyd, Microelectron. Eng. , 49 (1), 51-64 (1999).
- 62. M. Sarychev, Y.V.  Zhitnikov,  L.  Borucki,  C.-L.  Liu,  and  T.  Makhviladze, J.  Appl. Phys. , 86 (6), 3068-3075 (1999).
- 63. K.N. Tu, J. Appl. Phys. , 94 (9), 5451-5473 (2003).
- 64. B.C.  Valek,  J.C.  Bravman,  N.  Tamura,  A.A.  MacDowell,  R.S.  Celestre,  H.A. Padmore, R. Spolenak, W.L. Brown, B.W. Batterman, and J.R. Patel, Appl. Phys. Lett. , 81 (22), 4168-4170 (2002).
- 65. N.  Tamura,  R.S.  Celestre,  A.A.  MacDowell,  H.A.  Padmore,  R.  Spolenak,  B.C. Valek, N.M. Chang, A. Manceau, and J.R. Patel, Rev. Sci. Instrum. , 73 (3), 13691372 (2002).
- 66. K. Chen, N. Tamura, B.C. Valek, and K.N. Tu, J. Appl. Phys. , 104 (1), 013513 (2008).
- 67. A.T. Wu, K.N. Tu, J.R. Lloyd, N. Tamura, B.C. Valek, and C.R. Kao, Appl. Phys. Lett. , 85 (13), 2490-2492 (2004).
- 68. H. Shibata, M. Murota, and K. Hashimoto, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. , 32 (Part 1, No. 10), 4479-4484 (1993).
- 69. S. Vaidya and A.K. Sinha, Thin Solid Films , 75 (3), 253-259 (1981).
- 70. M.J.  Attardo  and  R.  Rosenberg, IEEE  8th  Rel.  Phys.  Symp. , 41 (6),  2381-2386 (1970).
- 71. C. Kim and J.W.M. Jr., J. Appl. Phys. , 72 (5), 1837-1845 (1992).
- 72. E.G. Colgan and K.P. Rodbell, J. Appl. Phys. , 75 (7), 3423-3434 (1994).
- 73. A.J. Learn, J. Appl. Phys. , 44 (3), 1251-1258 (1973).
- 74. X.Y. Liu, C.L. Liu, and L.J. Borucki, Acta Mater. , 47 (11), 3227-3231 (1999).
- 75. K.N. Tu, Phys. Rev. B , 45 (3), 1409 (1992).
- 76. H.-D. Nguyen-Tran, H.-S. Oh, S.-T. Hong, H.N. Han, J. Cao, S.-H. Ahn, and D.-M.

Chun, INT J PR ENG MAN-GT. , 2 (4), 365-376 (2015).

- 77. A.F.  Sprecher,  S.L.  Mannan,  and  H.  Conrad, Acta  Metall. , 34 (7),  1145-1162 (1986).
- 78. H. Conrad, A. Sprecher, W. Cao, and X. Lu, JOM , 42 (9), 28-33 (1990).
- 79. B.J. Ruszkiewicz, T. Grimm, I. Ragai, L. Mears, and J.T. Roth, J MANUF SCI E-T ASME , 139 (11)(2017).
- 80. W.A. Salandro, J.J. Jones, C. Bunget, L. Mears, and J.T. Roth, Electrically Assisted Forming , (Switzerland: Springer, Cham, 2015), p. 255-311.
- 81. L. Guan, G. Tang, and P.K. Chu, J. Mater. Res. , 25 (7), 1215-1224 (2011).
- 82. O.A. Troitskii, Pis'ma Zhurn. Experim. Teor. Fiz. , 10 , 18-22 (1969).
- 83. V.I. Spitsyn, O.A. Troitskii, E.V. Gusov, and V.K. Kurdynkov, Izvest. Akad. Nauk, SSSR, Metallog , 2 (123)(1974).
- 84. K. Okazaki, M. Kagawa, and H. Conrad, Scr. Metall. , 12 (11), 1063-1068 (1978).
- 85. H. Conrad, N. Karam, and S. Mannan, Scr. Metall. , 17 (3), 411-416 (1983).
- 86. V.L.A. Silveira, R.A.F.O. Fortes, and W.A. Mannheimer, Scr. Metall. , 17 (11), 13811382 (1983).
- 87. J.P . Barnak, A.F. Sprecher, and H. Conrad, Scr. Metall. , 32 (6), 879-884 (1995).
- 88. Y. Cao, L. He, Y. Zhou, P . Wang, and J. Cui, Mater. Sci. Eng., A , 674 (Supplement C), 193-202 (2016).
- 89. H. Conrad, Mater. Sci. Eng., A , 287 (2), 276-287 (2000).
- 90. M.-J. Kim, M.-G. Lee, K. Hariharan, S.-T. Hong, I.-S. Choi, D. Kim, K.H. Oh, and H.N. Han, Int. J. Plast. , 94 (Supplement C), 148-170 (2017).
- 91. J.-Y . He, K.-L. Lin, and A.T. Wu, J. Alloys Compd. , 619 , 372-377 (2015).
- 92. W.-Y. Chen, T.-C. Chiu, K.-L. Lin, A.T. Wu, W.-L. Jang, C.-L. Dong, and H.-Y. Lee, Scripta Mater. , 68 (5), 317-320 (2013).
- 93. J. Kuang, T.S.E. Low, S.R. Niezgoda, X. Li, Y. Geng, A.A. Luo, and G. Tang, Int. J. Plast. , 87 (Supplement C), 86-99 (2016).
- 94. H. Lv, R. Zhou, L. Li, H. Ni, J. Zhu, and T. Feng, Materials , 11 (11), 2220 (2018).
- 95. V. Stolyarov, ACTA METALL SIN-ENGL , 31 (12), 1305-1310 (2018).
- 96. Y. Jiang, G. Tang, C. Shek, Y. Zhu, L. Guan, S. Wang, and Z. Xu, J. Mater. Res. , 24 (5), 1810-1814 (2009).
- 97. Y. Jiang, G. Tang, C. Shek, and Y. Zhu, Appl. Phys. A , 97 (3), 607-615 (2009).
- 98. Y. Zhu, S. To, W.B. Lee, X. Liu, Y. Jiang, and G. Tang, J. Mater. Res. , 24 (8), 26612669 (2009).
- 99. W. Zhang, M. Sui, Y. Zhou, and D. Li, Micron , 34 (3-5), 189-198 (2003).
- 100. W. Zhang, M.L. Sui, K.Y. Hu, D.X. Li, X.N. Guo, G.H. He, and B.L. Zhou, J. Mater. Res. , 15 (10), 2065-2068 (2011).
- 101. S. To, Y. Zhu, W. Lee, X. Liu, Y. Jiang, and G. Tang, Appl. Phys. A , 96 (4), 939-944

(2009).

- 102. G.  Tang,  J.  Zhang,  Y .  Yan,  H.  Zhou,  and  W.  Fang, J.  Mater.  Process.  Technol. , 137 (1), 96-99 (2003).
- 103. Y. Dolinsky and T. Elperin, Phys. Rev. B , 47 (22), 14778-14785 (1993).
- 104. Y. Dolinsky and T. Elperin, Phys. Rev. B , 50 (1), 52 (1994).
- 105. S.K. Lin, C.K. Yeh, W. Xie, Y.C. Liu, and M. Yoshimura, Sci. Rep. , 3 (2013).
- 106. K.N. Tu, Phys. Rev. B , 49 (3), 2030-2034 (1994).
- 107. S.-w. Chen and S.-k. Lin, J. Mater. Res. , 21 (12), 3065-3071 (2011).
- 108. S.-w. Chen, S.-k. Lin, and J.-m. Jao, Mater. Trans. , 45 (3), 661-665 (2004).
- 109. W.C. Liu, S.W. Chen, and C.M. Chen, J. Electron. Mater. , 27 (1), L6-L9 (1998).
- 110. N. Bertolino, J. Garay, U. Anselmi-Tamburini, and Z.A. Munir, TPHB , 82 (8), 969985 (2002).
- 111. C.M. Hsu, D.S.H. Wong, and S.W. Chen, J. Appl. Phys. , 102 (2), 023715-0237157 (2007).
- 112. C.K. Yeh  and  S.K.  Lin,  National  Cheng  Kung  University,  Tainan,  Taiwan, unpublished research, 2013
- 113. C.M. Chen and S.W. Chen, J. Electron. Mater. , 28 (7), 902-906 (1999).
- 114. C.-m.  Chen,  National  Tsing  Hua  University,  Hsinchu,  Taiwan,  unpublished research, 2002
- 115. J.E.  Garay, U. Anselmi-Tamburini, and Z.A. Munir, Acta Mater. , 51 (15), 44874495 (2003).
- 116. J.R. Friedman, J.E. Garay, U. Anselmi-Tamburini, and Z.A. Munir, Intermetallics , 12 (6), 589-597 (2004).
- 117. A. Kumar, M. He, Z. Chen, and P.S. Teo, Thin Solid Films , 462 , 413-418 (2004).
- 118. M. Braunovic and N. Alexandrov, IEEE Compon. Packag. Manuf. Technol. Part A , 17 (1), 78-85 (1994).
- 119. M.Y. Du, C.M. Chen, and S.W. Chen, Mater. Chem. Phys. , 82 (3), 818-825 (2003).

## Table Caption:

Table I. Blech critical product measurement.

Table II. Summary of the experimental results for the polarity effect found in several reaction couple systems. Adapted from Ref. [111].

Table III. Summary of the experimental results showing no effects of direct current upon the interfacial reaction and results for the non-polarity effect. Adapted from Ref. [111].

## Figure Captions:

Figure 1. z* of impurities in dilute alloys of Al, Ag, Au, Cu, Co and Sn predicted by the machine learning model. Reprinted with permission from reference [40].

Figure 2. The (222) plane peak profile at different grains along the Al strip subjected to electric current. Peak streaking, rotation, and broadening were found under electric current, indicating the plastic deformation at the early-stage of current-stressing. Reprinted with permission from reference [25].

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the stress relaxation induced voids/hillocks formation subjected to electric current. Reprinted with permission from reference [24].

Figure 4. The true stress vs. true strain relation of Ti subjected to pulse direct current.

At each pulse, the true stress dropped. Data was taken from [84].

Figure 5. The phase boundary and the phase relation of Pb-Sn binary system change under electric current. Reprinted with permission from reference [105].
Yu-chen Liu Shih-kang Lin
A Critical Review on the Electromigration Effect, the Electroplastic Effect, and Perspectives on the Effects of Electric Current Upon Alloy Phase Stability
The electronic interconnections in the state-of-the-art integrated circuit
manufacturing have been scaled down to the micron or sub-micron scale. This
results in a dramatic increase in the current density passing through
interconnections, which means that the electromigration (EM) effect plays a
significant role in the reliability of products. Although thorough studies and
reviews of EM effects have been continuously conducted in the past 60 years,
some parts of EM theories lack clear elucidation of the electric
current-induced non-directional effects, including electric current-induced
phase equilibrium changes. This review article is intended to provide a broad
picture of electric current-induced lattice stability changes and to summarize
the existing literature on EM-related phenomena, EM-related theoretical models,
and relevant effects of the electroplastic (EP) effect in order to lead to a
better understanding of electric current-induced effects on materials. This
article also posits that EM is either part of the EP effect or shares the
intrinsic electric current-induced plastic deformation associated with the EP
effect. This concept appears to contribute to the missing parts of the EM
theories.