Dipping Paste

Following on from our discussions of last time...

As you will recall from the previous post on this topic, My friend and colleague Chris Nash and I were discussing some puzzling results for low dip height found during testing of package-on-package (PoP) materials. The findings will be of interest to everyone who uses a dipping process in both SMT and flip-chip assembly.

Post II:
For greater solder paste and flux dipping heights it appears as though a linear doctor blade (back and forth) used in a dipping process running at high speed will allow dip heights close to those expected from the theoretical engineered limit, for 50 microns and greater dip height. The high speed shear-thins the flux, which has the effect of both reducing the thickness of the boundary layer, and also has the benefit of reducing the extensional (tack) viscosity, so components can be more easily released from the dip tray.

What if you want to go to lower dip depths?

As we move into the area of copper pillar flip-chip dipping, and even (we hear) some Japanese customers doing package-on-package assembly, the dip height (dip depth) can go down to as low as 10-20microns, and this where we are hearing that rotary dip trays are coming into their own. The diagram below shows a simplified version of a flux and solder paste dipping tray.


Rotary dip trays seem to have the following advantages:

- Height Setting: The dip height/depth is set using two micrometers, so is infinitely adjustable to a precise setting, although the dip height does have to be measured.

- Low Cost: They also add zero capital cost for a new dip depth setting, compared to specially-engineered dipping trays, which can be upwards of $2,000 each.

- Accuracy and Precision of Depth: From a more pragmatic viewpoint, however, the real reason for rotary trays being used with ultra-low dip heights is that the flux depth is actually measured: there is no tacit assumption of a given dip depth being correct and constant, based on the engineering of the dipping tray. As we saw last time, an error of 20 microns is possible, and with a dip height of 50 microns or less, this is a huge problem if you are using a 50 micron dip tray and assuming that you are getting exactly that dip depth.

However, rotary dip trays also have their share of potential problems compared to linear dipping systems: 

 - Larger Surface Area: Flux and solder paste may dry out faster, and a water soluble material will be more vulnerable to the humidity content of the air. It is also more wasteful of flux, since a larger surface area of flux is exposed than will ever be used, although this may also be true of some of the linear tray designs.
 
- Circular Tray: Materials will experience a higher shear rate at the outer edge than in the middle. If spun too fast, dipping materials may accumulate at the edges, thrown outwards by centripetal force.

- Lower Shear Rate: For the same flux or solder paste dip depth, the velocity of the doctor blade will be much lower with a rotary than a linear system. However, as you can see from the illustration below, for a doctor blade moving at 1/4 the speed and 1/4 the dip height, the shear rate is the same.

As always, please contact me if you need to learn any more.

Cheers!  Andy

Solder powder particle size and shape impacts the functionality of solder paste in many ways: printing/dispensing/dipping; solderballing; graping; voiding; tack and so on.

For this reason, I just spent an interesting couple of months leading a cross-industry (two solder paste suppliers and two solder paste users) group to help my old friend Brian Toleno, chair of the IPC 5-24b (Solder Paste Task Group) put the finishing touches to the final version of the J-STD-005A. The concerns were with the definitions of powder size in paste: both the distribution and the “maximum allowable particle size”. We reached a nice pan-industry consensus, which should allow the J-STD-005A to see the light of day as a published document in 2012. I also saw some recent work by colleagues on the effect of particle size on surface area. I didn’t see the derivation of this work, so I want to show you how to calculate the surface area of solder powder in a paste.

Assume solder paste at a weight loading of x%. [Note that: As the solder powder size (diameter) decreases, the metal loading is usually also decreased by 0.5% or more to compensate for the boundary layer of thixotropic flux adhering to the particle surface, but let's make the first order assumption that x is independent of particle size]. So 1 gram of solder paste contains (x/100) grams of solder metal.

If the metal has a density of r (rho), then the volume of metal (v) per gram of solder paste:

               v = x / (r * 100)

Let’s assume that the metal particles are monodispersed (i.e.: all the same diameter (d)), so the number of particles per gram of paste (n) is then simply v (total volume of metal per gram) divided by the volume of one particle (v_p).

               n = v / v_p = x / (r * 100 * (4/3) * pi * (d/2)³ )

We can now also calculate the solder powder surface area (s) per gram of paste from our knowledge of n and the surface area per solder powder particle (s_p):

               s = n * s_p = n *4 * pi * (d/2)²

It is a simple matter of algebra to show that the ratio of surface area to volume is merely an inverse of the particle radius or diameter (I’ll leave that as homework for you):

A while back, I did a little Excel numerical integration to show the effect of powder type on the population distribution, and hence how powder “type” (2,3,4,5 and so on) affects the surface area, with some assumptions thrown in about the width of the distribution. The results are shown below, and are pretty much as you would expect. As you go from type 3 to type 6, you see about a 10 fold increase in the surface area.

A quick trip to discuss roadmapping with one of the world’s top processor manufacturers, and a visit to discuss Pb-free power die-attach materials, left me with a few hours to spare at LAX.

This time around I was trying to work out how much package-on-package (PoP) solder paste we would expect to see for a waferlevel CSP (WL-CSP) or a BGA dipped to half height. The need for some deep thought was driven by a customer who asked at what point a PoP dipping paste needs to go from a type 4 to type 5, 6, 7 and so on (however you define them), based on the PoP/CSP pitch or ball diameter. Good question.

To start with, in order to get consistent quantities of paste on each sphere, the PoP paste metal loading needs to be well below the point at which rheopectic behavior can expect to be seen (that is, much less than 50% by volume of solder powder metal). By doing this, you pretty much guarantee a “monolayer” of solder paste powder particles (radius r) coating the CSP or BGA sphere (radius R). Figure 1 shows the kind of result that is typical for a good paste: in this instance our halogen-free PoP paste Indium 9.88-HF.



Figure 1: 0.4mm pitch CSP with PoP paste

If the metal loading is too high, even at time zero, you will start seeing large variations in the amount of PoP solder paste adhering to the surface of each sphere (bump), even on adjacent spheres: the small amount of paste that is picked up during the dipping process adheres to the main solder sphere in uneven clumps. This is why standard type 4 printing solder pastes just don’t work in PoP applications: not only is the particle size too big – the rheology is all wrong.

If R>>r, then a reasonable first order approximation is that you can treat the sphere surface as planar and so model the number of solder particles based on a series of hexagonally close-packed particles (Figure 2 gives the definitions).
 

Figure 2: Definitions for the PoP paste dipping process

Using the same model of solder powder particle size as in the discussion on waferbumping paste, you can calculate a couple of potentially useful things:

i/ The maximum number of solder powder particles on each solder sphere (bump)

ii/ The mass of solder paste adhering to each soldersphere

The first (i/) is useful for establishing the inherent variability due to the finite size of the solder powder, and I’m going to suggest another Mackie rule of thumb of a minimum 150 solder powder particles per solder bump, based on the maximum allowed particle size (diameter). The table below gives  the result of this rather simplistic analysis:



Table: Effect of Package Bump Diameter on Solder Paste Type Needed

A 400micron bump should therefore be fine even with a type 3 dipping paste, whereas a 200micron bump will need a type 5 paste.

I look forward to someone proving this wrong. The second (ii/) is helpful, because we can easily use it to test the theoretical mass of PoP dipping paste against what we actually find. Note that this is just simple geometry: it doesn't tell us how much paste is really needed to resolve issues such as the 60 - 90micron bowing we are hearing about from our customers, even with the more rigid PoP packages currently available.

Cheers!  Andy

This week a customer in Asia asked why one of our new epoxy fluxes was not allowing the package-on-package (PoP) device to be picked up from the dipping tray. Obviously, the vacuum nozzle must have sufficient force to extract the PoP package from the PoP flux reservoir (yellow, below).



Those of you who know me also know that I am always trying to reduce things to numbers so, naturally I got thinking about how I would model this from a physical viewpoint and came up with the following:

If the downward force (weight of component plus tack force of epoxy flux) is greater than the upward force (air pressure on the bottom of the component), then the component could not be extracted from the epoxy flux. The figure shows the different variables. Expressing this mathematically, this comes out, in SI units, as:

Downward force = m.g + n.Ft.pi.(d/2)^2

where Ft is the tack force in units of mass per unit area, taken from the maximum tack force determined by the Solder Paste Tack Test from J-STD-005, ANSI/IPC TM 650:2.4.44

Upward force = 101000.A.pi.(D/2)^2

where A is the measure (fraction) of atmospheric pressure and denotes how good the vacuum is (zero vacuum is 0.0atm : hard vacuum is 1.0atm).

There are some uncertainties with this approach: How does the vacuum vary across the nozzle diameter? Does the 5mm diameter probe used in the IPC test equate to a complex CSP (chip-scale package) bottom surface, with many rounded solder bumps or solderspheres? And so on. But, at least the model puts us in the right ballpark. Just to give you a feel for how this works, the second figure shows some results. Note that scenario (iv) is the only one showing problems (negative force balance).

The data implies that you are only likely to see an issue with inability to pick up components from a dipping flux tray if either:

• Components: Heavy (thick / large)
• Vacuum Nozzle: Too small a diameter and/or the vacuum is weak/poor
• Flux: Very tacky (high tack force)

For many of the newer applications, component sphere/bump immersion to just deeper than the bump height (say 100-110%) is desirable. If the customer dips the whole bottom of the component into a standard (non-epoxy) flux, this potentially opens up a lot of issues including reliability (SIR; electrochemical migration); component displacement (skewing) during reflow; as well as difficulty in picking up the component from the tray. The solution to this series of issues, is to choose either a standard flux with a high pre-reflow SIR, such as our PoPflux 30B, or a low-volatile content epoxy flux.

I'll have more to say on epoxy fluxes in a couple of months, as we are currently nearing the end of extensive testing at several customers in Europe and Asia.

上週在美國的拉斯韋加斯(Las Vegas), IPC舉辦了美國地區行業的盛會APEX.   Indium公司一如既往的在展會中心安排展位，和業界各位舊友新友交流，與大家分享最新的產品和技術，傾聽大家的反饋和聲音。

除此，在人山人海的技術會議交流中心(paper presentation, educational workshop)，Indium公司的五位大將還為大家做了精彩的演講：

• Ning-Cheng Lee, Ph.D, Vice President of Technology 李寧成博士：

²       Lead-Free Flux Technology and Influence on Cleaning.

²       Selection of Dip Transfer Fluxes and Solder Pastes for PoP Assembly.

²       Achieving High Reliability Low-Cost Lead-Free SAC Solder Joints Via Mn or Ce Doping.
 

• Ronald C. Lasky, Ph.D. PE, Senior Technologist

²       Achieving High Reliability for Lead-Free Solder Joints – Materials Consideration

• Mario Scalzo, Senior Technical Support Engineer

²       Addressing the Challenge of Head-in-Pillow Defects in Electronics Assembly.

²       Challenges for Implementing a Halogen-Free Process

• Eric Bastow, Senior Technical Support Engineer

²       Understanding SIR

• Chris Anglin, Applications Development Engineer

²       Stencil Printing Transfer Efficiency of Circular vs. Square Apertures with the Same Solder Paste

 這些文章在Indium的技術網站上面，都可以免費下載。

Cheers!

I love watching a good basketball game, and one of my favorite local teams is the Syracuse Orangemen. If you go to a Syracuse home game, notice the shot clock – it was made with Indium Corporation solder. There are a lot of places you can see our products in your everyday life. That smart phone in your pocket, the electrical components in your car, the thermal interface in the computer in front of you. That’s one of the things that makes this job rewarding, being part of so many various applications.

In addition to learning about these different applications, we also get a good reference for what assembly trends are developing, and which material technologies are becoming more popular. 

I’ve watched the halogen-free trend explode and fade, as it was adopted by some large OEMs and their contract manufacturers, but has not spread to most other companies. Another trend that is fading away from the spotlight is Pb-free die-attach solder, since the EU has not found a suitable replacement and has pushed back the exemption deadline. 

A long-existing topic that has had recent mention is solder jetting. The trend towards soldering smaller components is not new or surprising, but for smaller components (01005s and 0201s) we have seen a trend towards dispensing instead of jetting – which seems to suit those applications.

For small component printing, transfer efficiency is critical. Outside of solder paste optimization, “nano-stencil” technology is an upcoming technology that may take-off and improve paste release characteristics. Solder paste is being used in some other creative ways too, like low temperature alloy dipping paste for rework operations. Manycompanies are now using or evaluating specialized solder applications to replace components without fully reflowing the rest of the components on the board.

Integrated preforms are finding their way into more and more applications recently as well. These connected preforms are being used to reduce the need for component pallets and selective soldering operations.

All these applications are great ways that our customers are taking soldering technology to the next level, using materials and assembly methods that were not common before. I look forward to learning how you’d like to use solder in your application!

Click here for a description and video that shows a nozzle design from FINETECH  which clamps down onto PoP components during rework. 

“The PoP soldering head is an easy-to-use tool for reworking stacked devices as a whole in a single reflow process. It uses vacuum-actuated mechanical clamping tweezers which avoid separating the single layers of a PoP during component removal. The PoP soldering head can be easily adapted to different component thicknesses. Furthermore it is possible to adjust the width of the clamping tweezers prior to the process when the rework arm is swiveled down to avoid affecting other components on the PCB (e.g. accidental shifting of neighboring small passives).”

Sounds like this would be great for combating “PoP Quicksand”. That nasty problem that large components have when the vacuum provided by the nozzle isn’t strong enough to lift the package-on-package component back out of the PoP solder paste or dipping flux. Okay, I just made up that term – but it’s pretty descriptive, right?

Conceptually it seems to make a lot of sense, please comment if you have any experience with it!

Source: Amkor



The new TVM™ PoP components have gotten a lot of press, and soon we should be able to get our hands on TMV PoP daisy chain parts for material testing.  I would love to evaluate next generation PoP solder pastes with these new components.  Lee Smith (Vice President of Business Development at Amkor) had this to say about obtaining parts for testing: 

LS: “We have significant direct and end customer demand for our TMV technology in next generation high density PoP applications.  Amkor has qualified the technology for high volume production and we are now completing customer ramp readiness and SMT validations.

In addition to our customer specific work, we have presented 3 TMV joint project studies on SMT stacking and board level reliability at industry conferences over the past 2 years.  We have demonstrated robust SMT stacking with standard dipping flux, paste and BGA underfill materials.  We plan on offering a 14x14mm daisy chain TMV PoP test vehicle through Practical Components sometime in Q2 2010.  Prior to that we will entertain joint projects with this test vehicle under non-disclosure agreements to validate compatibility with new SMT materials.”

Click here to learn more about the Amkor’s TMV and PoP package family.

For more information, Lee can be contacted at Lee.Smith@amkor.com

TMV is a trade mark of Amkor Technology, Inc.

Dr. Andy Mackie recently put together a model to determine the probability that a component can be successfully dipped in solder paste or flux.  Here is a little more from him on this subject:

"A customer in Asia was asking why one of our no-clean package-on-package fluxes, the ultralow residue NC510, was not allowing the PoP device to be picked up from the dipping tray. It turned out that the customer was allowing the flux to coat the whole of the bottom of the component, not just the solder bumps, so the vacuum nozzle had insufficient force to extract the PoP package from the flux . I got thinking about how I would model this from a physical viewpoint.

If the downward force (weight of component plus tack of flux) is greater than the upward force (air pressure on the bottom of the component), then the component could not be extracted from the flux. The figure shows the different variables. Expressing this mathematically, this comes out, in SI units, as:

Downward force = m.g + n.Ft.pi.(d/2)^2

where Ft is the tack force in units of mass per unit area, taken from the maximum tack force determined by the Tack Test Method from J-STD-005, ANSI/IPC TM 650:2.4.44

Upward force = 101000.A.pi.(D/2)^2

where A is the measure (fraction) of atmospheric pressure and denotes how good the vacuum is (zero vacuum is 0.0 : hard vacuum is 1.0).

There are some uncertainties with this approach: How does the vacuum vary across the nozzle diameter? Does the 5mm diameter flat IPC probe equate to a much smaller sphere? and so on, but it at least puts us in the right ballpark.
Just to give you a feel for how this works, the second figure shows some data. Note that scenario iv is the only one showing problems (negative force balance).  The data implies that you are only likely to see an issue with inability to pick up PoP components from a dipping PoP flux tray if either:

- Components: Heavy and have many large PoP solder bumps
- Vacuum Nozzle: Too small and the vacuum is weak/poor
- Flux: Very tacky (high tack force)

and certainly, if the customer dips the whole bottom of the component into the flux, this opens up a lot of issues, including reliability (SIR); component displacement during reflow; as well as inability to pick up the component from the tray. This is why we always recommend a flux dipping height of 40-50% of the PoP bump height, to eliminate these issues."

I have found this model not only interesting, but useful for technicians to use when asked why components are 'only dipped 50%'.  As a technician, it is good to have a scientific reason to refer to - even though experience may have already proven the theory to us personally. 

Brandon Judd and I have been working on a paper for this year’s SMTAI event, and I thought I would share a snip from it.  Although people generally share the beginning of a paper, I’d like to share the conclusion, in Brandon’s words:

“With the miniaturization of today’s electronic devices and the increasing complexity of their features, the need for PoP components is significantly increasing.  Although it may seem like a simple solution to just use the standard SMT paste that you have in-house for your upcoming PoP applications, these products will not be optimal for this type of process.  As our testing has shown, modern PoP solder paste materials are much better suited to the dipping process used for PoP components.  Formulation, particle size, and metal loading are all key factors in the design of a PoP specific paste.  The time spent evaluating these new products is well worth saving yourself the headaches of getting electrical opens on your boards from using standard SMT materials or even outdated dipping pastes, causing costly and time consuming rework down the road.  With the proper material and process, insufficient solder transfer and head-in-pillow defects should be a thing of the past.  “   

This is something you may have run into if you’ve ever manually dipped and placed PoP components.  Yesterday while trying to hold a conversation about the package-on-package process, I lost track of the very same process I was discussing.  I neglected to dip one of the components into solder paste before placing it on the board.  This is a picture of what happens.  The stack itself soldered well, as would be expected, but fell off when the board was lifted from the conveyor at the end of the line. 

If you’re wondering what a small error like this costs:

1 hour lost time + price of the board and components.

Luckily the other 14 PoP stacks can still be used for cross-sectioning and learning more about the PoP paste that was being evaluated.  If this was a production board I would be able to simply dip the stack and re-place it on the pads, send it through a second reflow, and test the final assembly for functionality – but you just can’t get away with that during evaluation.

A lot has changed in the world of package-on-package in the last few years.  The most obvious change that I have seen is the development of specialized pastes for component dipping.  If you haven’t tried one of these pastes, here are 8 reasons why you should:

8)       More consistent transfer over time

7)       Head-in-pillow elimination

6)       Better wetting to a range of alloys

5)       Optimized metal loading

4)       Specially designed powder distribution

3)       Halogen-free flux formulations

2)       Maximized transfer volumes

1)       Higher possible yields

If you're new to PV module assembly (tabbing in particular), you're probably trying to get a feel for all the needed materials.  This part is a little like getting all the materials you need to cook dinner.  You need to get EVERYTHING that is required – so you don't have to go back to the store for ¼ cup of milk (or in this case, a pint of flux).  In previous posts we've talked about tabbing ribbon [1, 2, 3], as well as tabbing flux.  It is important that both of these products are used during tabbing.  The flux is used to remove oxides on the surface of the tabbing ribbon (the solder coating) and promote wetting to the metallization paste.  Liquid flux is generally used for this application, and it is applied by dipping the ribbon into it.  Feel free to email solar@indium.com to learn exactly how these products should be used in your application.

A side view of PoP paste Indium9.88HF after .4mm component dipping.

By propping your component up sideways under a microscope (if you don’t have one with a side-view function), you can get a pretty good view of the paste deposit.  There are different theories surrounding the deposit profile and its relationship to ‘performance’, although they are all just theories at the moment.  We have worked with pastes that have uniform and non-uniform profiles - pastes from each category have worked well.  There are so many other characteristics that impact warpage compensation, it’s probably not fair to judge a paste by its profile.  Viewing dipped components from the side does allow you to see roughly how much solder paste was applied, and if the deposit is consistent from sphere to sphere.

Diagram of Solder-Dipping Test Apparatus

Solder-wetting Curve

Interesting question from a Power Semiconductor customer this week about how to test solder paste for use in Power die-attach applications. The customer wanted to use a wetting balance to measure the solderability of the flux. A schematic of a solder wetting balance is shown on the right: a coupon of known size is dipped in flux and then placed in a holder that grips the coupon at its top. The holder can measure the y-axis force on the coupon. Initially, this force is due only to the weight of the coupon, plus the weight of the flux. The force changes over time as the coupon is immersed in the liquid solder, initial buoyancy being followed by wetting of the solder to the specimen coupon (see second diagram: solder wetting curve).

For a change of pace, again, I have asked another Technical Support Engineer, Chris Nash, to comment about powder sizes.  Chris is the Regional Technical Support Engineer for the Midwest region, and works from Indium Corporation HQ in Clinton, NY.

What’s the difference between Package-on-Package (PoP) / BGA rework solder paste, and solder paste designed for SMT?  Solder paste for dipping applications is designed to transfer more solder based on its rheological characteristics.  In the chart shown here, a typical SMT paste is compared to 3 next generation dipping pastes.  Although the names cannot be released right now, all PoP/rework pastes transferred over 100% more paste to the solder joint area.  (Hint: you can probably break me down relatively easily if you have me on the phone.  For the whole story call me at (315) 853-4900)

This added solder volume helps ensure that more solder is available during joint formation to compensate for component warpage.  During rework, increased solder volume replaces solder that has been scavenged during the component removal process.  Either way, more solder volume relates to a more robust solder joint.