Warpage analysis for 2.5D / 3D chiplets

See how your chiplet stack bends — before it ships.

WarpStack predicts thermal warpage for advanced 2.5D and 3D chiplet packages. Run a fast 2D analysis to screen a whole design space in seconds, then switch to a detailed 3D analysis for accurate sign-off on the trickiest multi-layer stacks — all from the same floorplan, in one tool.

Request access See the results

✦ 2D warpage in ~0.35 s, any design ✦ 3D accuracy up to 11 layers ✦ One floorplan in, warpage maps out

chiplet_2.5D · warpage · µm

WarpStack 2D warpage map of a 2.5D chiplet package — a smooth bowl-shaped deflection with the die array outlined

A real WarpStack result. The predicted warpage surface of a 14-die 2.5D chiplet package — cool center, warm edges — computed by the fast 2D solver in about a third of a second.

Why it matters

When the package bends, reliability breaks

Stacking silicon, interposers, and memory bonds materials with very different expansion rates. As the assembly heats and cools, those mismatches make the whole package bow and twist — and that warpage is a first-order reliability risk in modern 2.5D and 3D integration.

🌡️

Heat makes it move

Every material in the stack expands by a different amount. Cycle the package from assembly to operating temperature and those mismatches build internal stress that warps the whole structure.

⚠️

Warpage causes failures

Too much bow leads to cracked dies, delaminated layers, and open solder joints — and it makes assembly yield fall. Catching it early is far cheaper than finding it on the line.

🔁

It has to be checked often

Floorplanning, stack-up choices, and material selection all change how a package warps. Designers need a warpage answer on every iteration — not once, at the very end.

Why a few microns matter. As the assembly cools from bonding to operating temperature, mismatched expansion bows the package into a convex (∩) or concave (∪) shape. Where the gap opens too far the solder bump pulls apart into an open circuit; where it closes too far, neighboring bumps merge into a short. WarpStack predicts that bow — and where it peaks — so these failures are caught in design, not on the assembly line.

What it does

Two solvers, one workflow

WarpStack pairs a fast 2D warpage solver for rapid screening with a detailed 3D solver for accurate sign-off — both driven from the same simple design description, so you can move between speed and accuracy without changing your inputs.

FAST

⚡ 2D screening in a blink

The fast 2D analysis returns a full warpage map in about a third of a second — the same speed whether the design has 3 layers or 11. Sweep hundreds of floorplans and stack-ups without waiting.

ACCURATE

🎯 3D for the hard cases

The detailed 3D analysis resolves the package through its full thickness, layer by layer — the fidelity you want for complex, interleaved multi-layer stacks where a fast estimate isn't enough.

SCOPE

🧱 Real multi-layer stacks

Handles arbitrary layer stacks — substrates, interposers, bumps, dies, spreaders, lids — with per-layer materials and per-die placement. Validated on designs from 3 to 11 layers and 10 to 18 dies.

MAPS

🗺️ Clear, visual output

Every run produces warpage heatmaps, cross-sections, and a 3D stack view, plus the peak-to-peak bow in microns — so the shape and the number are both easy to read.

COMPARE

⚖️ 2D vs 3D, side by side

A built-in compare mode runs both solvers and shows exactly where they agree and where they differ — so you know which designs the fast 2D can screen and which ones truly need 3D.

SCRIPTABLE

🔭 Batched & automatable

A command-line interface and structured JSON in, CSV/JSON out make WarpStack easy to script — run one design or a whole batch, and feed the results straight into your own design flow.

Workflow · agentic integration

Built for agentic EDA flows

WarpStack is designed to drop straight into agentic EDA and system-design workflows. A first-class CLI and structured data interface let autonomous design agents call fast 2D or detailed 3D warpage analysis, read back machine-readable warpage maps and peak-to-peak margins, and feed them into floorplanning, stack-up, and material-selection loops — for warpage-aware optimization and warpage reliability sign-off of chiplets and advanced packages in system design.

Agentic-flow ready — built to be driven by autonomous EDA and system-design agents, and to plug into any agentic flow.
CLI-first — every warpage analysis is scriptable from the command line; nothing in the loop needs a GUI.
Structured data interface — machine-readable floorplans in; warpage surfaces, peak-to-peak bow, and signed 3D−2D difference maps out, ready for closed-loop automation.
Warpage-aware optimization — agents sweep floorplans, stack-ups, materials, and thermal conditions, then use WarpStack results to steer the next candidate toward lower bow.
Reliability sign-off — fast 2D screens the whole design space; detailed 3D signs off the critical chiplet and advanced-package designs against warpage limits before tape-out and assembly.

agentic-flow ready CLI-first structured data interface warpage-aware optimization reliability sign-off chiplet & advanced package

Closed-loop warpage optimization

◆ Agentic EDA / system-design flow

An autonomous agent drives floorplan, stack-up, and material decisions for the chiplet or advanced package.

↓ invokes WarpStack — CLI + structured data interface

▣ WarpStack warpage analysis

Fast 2D screening or detailed 3D sign-off runs headless, producing warpage maps and peak-to-peak margins directly for automation.

↓ returns structured, machine-readable results

↻ Fed back to the agent

Warpage hotspots, peak-to-peak bow, and reliability margins steer the next floorplan, stack, or material iteration automatically.

Warpage analysis becomes a callable step inside your agentic flow — not a hand-run GUI task.

How it works

From one floorplan to a warpage map

You describe the package once — its layers, materials, and where each die sits. WarpStack builds a mechanical model of the stack, applies the thermal load, and solves for how the surface deflects. Pick the fast 2D method for screening or the detailed 3D method for accuracy; the inputs are identical.

Describe the package

A single structured file lists the layer stack, each layer's material, and the placement of every die or module — the whole design in one place.

Apply the thermal load

WarpStack takes the package from its stress-free assembly temperature down to operating temperature, so the expansion mismatches between layers turn into real bending.

Solve for the shape

A finite-element solver computes how the surface deflects across the package. Choose the fast 2D method or the detailed 3D method — same inputs, different fidelity.

Read the result

Out come warpage heatmaps, cross-sections, and the peak-to-peak bow in microns — ready to view, compare, or drop into your own scripts.

2D analysis

fast · screening

Reduces the stack to an equivalent laminate and solves the bow on a plane. The lowest-cost warpage estimate — ideal for sweeping many designs.

~0.35 s
per design3–11
layers

3D analysis

detailed · sign-off

Meshes the package as a full 3D solid, resolving every layer through its thickness. The fidelity to trust for complex interleaved stacks.

9 s–8 min
per designfull
3D field

Fast, then accurate

The two solvers are built to work together. Use the fast 2D analysis to explore — it screens an entire design space in the time a single 3D run would take. Then reach for the detailed 3D analysis on the designs that matter most, where the layers interleave in ways a flat model can't fully capture. Same floorplan, same materials — you simply choose how much detail you need.

fast 2D screening accurate 3D sign-off arbitrary layer stacks per-die placement warpage maps & cross-sections CLI & structured data

Warpage is reported as peak-to-peak deflection in microns, alongside the full surface map for every run.

Results

Fast where you can, accurate where you must

Below is a batch of nine 2.5D and 3D benchmark designs — from a simple 3-layer module to an 11-layer 3D chiplet — each solved with both methods. The pattern is consistent: 2D is fast enough to run on everything, and for a large share of designs it already lands close to the 3D answer.

Fast 2D — screen every design in under a second

2D solve time by design

One floorplan → one warpage map

~0.35 s each

Design	Layers	Dies	2D time
3-layer module	3	12	0.342 s
Planar 16-die array	3	16	0.347 s
Arbitrary-layer module	5	12	0.345 s
GaAs RF PA array	5	15	0.347 s
HBM3 memory stack	6	10	0.346 s
5 nm CPU	7	18	0.347 s
2.5D chiplet	9	14	0.347 s
11-layer 3D chiplet	11	16	0.356 s

Package sizes here span 5 mm to 200 mm on a side. The 2D solve time barely moves — every design lands between 0.34 s and 0.36 s, regardless of layer count, die count, or package size.

From stack to warpage

cores_16_1 · 16-die planar array

2D result

3D structure view of the cores_16_1 design — 16 die tiles arranged on a large planar substrate — **The design.** 16 dies on a 200 mm, 3-layer planar substrate — the 3D structure WarpStack builds from the floorplan.

2D warpage map of a large 16-die planar array — a strong central dome reaching about 1465 microns peak-to-peak — **Its 2D warpage.** That large, low-layer package bows into a pronounced dome — about **1465 µm** peak-to-peak — solved in 0.35 s.

Detailed 3D — layer-specific warpage the flat model can't see

Same design, three surfaces — HBM3 memory stack

A 6-layer, 10-die DRAM stack on a 12 mm interposer

2D vs 3D

The fast 2D method returns a single, smooth package bow. The 3D method resolves the stack layer by layer, so it reports warpage per surface — the die-level active surface and the continuous package surface — capturing local, die-specific deflection that the flat 2D map averages away.

3D structure view of the HBM3 stack — stacked DRAM dies on an interposer beneath an overmold encapsulant — Design · 3D structureThe stack. 6 layers — interposer, micro-bumps, three DRAM tiers, and overmold — with 10 dies.

2D warpage map of the HBM3 stack — a single smooth central bowl with no per-die structure — Fast 2D · screening2D laminate result. One smooth bowl, ~10 µm peak-to-peak — a fast, whole-package estimate with the stack collapsed to a plane.

3D active-surface warpage map of the HBM3 stack showing each DRAM die deflecting individually within its outline — Detailed 3D · die surface3D active surface. Each DRAM die now bends on its own — the local, die-specific warpage that matters for cracking and bond reliability.

3D package-surface warpage map of the HBM3 stack — the continuous encapsulant top surface bowing — Detailed 3D · package surface3D package surface. The continuous encapsulant top — the global package bow, reported separately from the die-level view.

Because the 3D solver models every layer through its thickness, it doesn't just give a more accurate number — it tells you where the warpage lives. The die-level active surface and the package-level surface come out as separate maps, so you can see local die deflection and the overall package bow independently. The flat 2D method, by design, blends all of that into a single averaged surface.

2D vs 3D — where fast is already close enough

Closest-agreement designs

Peak-to-peak warpage, 2D vs 3D

2D within ~10–20%

Design	2D	3D	Agreement
Arbitrary-layer module 5L	251 µm	269 µm	93%
2.5D chiplet 9L	50 µm	44 µm	88%
Planar 16-die array 3L	1465 µm	1256 µm	86%
HBM3 memory stack 6L	10.1 µm	8.3 µm	83%
16-die array, variant 3L	1696 µm	1370 µm	81%

For these designs the fast 2D map already predicts the 3D peak warpage within roughly 10–20% — close enough to screen and rank candidates before committing to a full 3D run. Deep, interleaved stacks (like the 11-layer chiplet) diverge more — exactly the cases where the 3D analysis earns its extra time.

How much faster 2D runs

3D solve time ÷ 2D solve time

up to 1400×

11-layer 3D chiplet

1411×

2.5D chiplet

285×

5 nm CPU

153×

GaAs RF PA array

57×

HBM3 memory stack

33×

3-layer module

26×

The 3D solve grows with the size and depth of the stack — from about 9 s for a simple module to roughly 8 minutes for the 11-layer chiplet. The 2D solve stays near 0.35 s throughout, so the speed gap widens exactly where design-space exploration needs it most.