Solder Joints

Do you ever have a need for a "low temperature" solder (meaning an alloy that melts at less than 175C)?

You may have delicate components that cannot withstand standard reflow temperatures, or maybe you are looking to reduce costs by lowering the reflow temperature, or you may be step soldering.  Whatever your reason, there are two unique metals that are used extensively in low temperature solder alloys.

The first one I am sure you can guess: Indium.  The other one is Bismuth. While these two elements are used extensively in the over 100 alloys available in the 50C to 175C range, they couldn't be more different from each other.

Indium is a very soft, malleable metal and remains so even at cryogenic temperatures. It melts at 156C.  Bismuth, on the other hand, is very brittle, even at room temperature, and melts at 271C.  But both lend themselves very nicely to solder alloys that melt below 175C.

Let's look at the two most common alloys in these families.

The two alloys:

• 52In 48Sn (Indalloy #1E) Melts at 118C
• 58Bi 42Sn (Indalloy #281) Melts at 138C

What they have in common are:

• Both are lead-free
• Both are tin-based
• Both are eutectic (liquidus and solidus temperatures are the same, with no plastic range)
• Both can be made into a wide variety of solder forms and can be used in low temperature applications

But the indium-based alloy will give you better compensation of coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) mismatch than the bismuth alloy.  The bismuth alloy has greater tensile strength but has a lower shear strength than the indium alloy and is generally not recommended in applications where the product has potential to be dropped (like cell phones).  The indium alloy will give you greater thermal conductivity than the bismuth, as well.  The bismuth will give you a cost advantage.

So, which alloy do you use?  Well, that depends on the metallizations you are working with and the environment in which your final product will be operating. For example, if you are soldering to two different surfaces that expand at different rates, then you will want to go with the indium alloy - to keep your solder joints from cracking.  But, there are a lot more considerations when choosing a low temperature solder, and we can help you sort through them.  Check out our Low Temperature Solder page on the web or contact us at AskUs@indium.com or contact me directly at cgowans@indium.com and we can answer your questions or put you in touch with one of our local experts to review your entire process for the best solution.

Let us help!

Carol Gowans

Maria Durham, Indium’s new Technical Specialist in Semiconductor and Advanced Assembly Materials, has been doing some research on indium lead (In/Pb) solder alloys. We chatted about her findings this week. 

 [Andy C. Mackie: ACM] Which indium/lead solder alloys are most common, and what are their properties?

[Maria Durham: MD] Firstly, the use of lead-(Pb-)containing solders in some soldering applications is restricted due to local environmental and RoHS compliance, but there are still many applications where they are  allowed. Many military, aerospace, and industrial equipment uses, as well as many applications related to vehicles, are exempt. The table below shows the most common indium/lead (In/Pb) alloys (pink) and their properties, sorted by liquidus temperature; the higher of the two melting points (solidus and liquidus) seen for non-eutectic alloys. In blue are three comparison materials.

Indalloy 205 is the most commonly used, probably because it has the closest liquidus temperature to the tin/lead eutectic (183°C), 63Sn/37Pb (Indalloy 106). This means it can be reflowed using a standard Sn/Pb eutectic profile. The next most common alloys that are used are Indalloy7, 204, and 206.  Besides the melting range, indium has comparable thermal and electrical conductivity to standard materials.

[ACM] What makes indium-lead (In/Pb) solders so attractive, and why have we seen a recent resurgence in their usage?

 [MD] One main attraction to using indium/lead (In/Pb) solder alloys in soldering to precious metal surfaces is that, unlike tin-containing solders, they do not leach gold. That is, gold does not dissolve in them to any appreciable extent. During discussions at Semicon West in 2011, one of our California customers reported going through 8 simulated reflows with Indalloy 205 in contact with a gold surface with no loss of joint strength and no joint embrittlement. That is pretty impressive. Note that embrittlement is often caused by gold-intermetallic formation. It has been noted that even at 250°C, 50In/50Pb dissolves Au at a rate 13 times slower than it does into 63Sn/37Pb, although this, of course, is a kinetic, not a solubility limit, study.

The higher melting Indalloy 164 (92.5Pb/5In/2.5Ag) has the lowest coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of all of the In/Pb solders and is able to withstand the higher temperature excursions that can be seen in step-soldering type applications (where a very high melting solder is used to form the first joint, followed by a next lowest melting alloy, and so on). This is seen in applications such as power electronics assembly, where the first step solder is often used for die-attach either as a solder paste, wire, or preform. The high melting point helps the solder withstand the operational temperatures associated with under-the-hood electronics, in applications such as engine control modules, where Indalloy 151 (92.5Pb/5Sn/2.5Ag) or Indalloy 163 (95.5Pb/2Sn/2.5Ag) are most commonly used. In/Pb solder is excellent on very rigid structures such as ceramic-to-metal or ceramic-to-ceramic. The desired solidus / liquidus temperature range can be adjusted by changing the indium:lead ratio, making it very easy to “dial in” the alloy to a specific reflow process.

Another attraction to using In/Pb solders is that they exhibit good fatigue resistance in thermal cycling from -55°C to 125°C.  In testing, the 50In50Pb solder joint fatigue life is about 100 times greater than that for 63Sn/37Pb.

 [ACM] What fluxes are used in these applications, and how are they formulated differently?

 [MD] The fluxes most compatible with the lower melting point (<200°C) indium-containing solders are NC-SMQ-80 (solder paste) or the lower-tack TacFlux® 012 (suitable for use with wire, preforms, and spheres). These are no-clean fluxes, specifically formulated for lower temperature reflow.  Under appropriate low temperature reflow these fluxes leave behind benign residues that do not need to be cleaned off (“no-clean” flux), although they are often cleaned off in most practical applications, usually to ensure reliable wirebonds absent of flux spatter.

 To learn more, please contact us.

 Cheers!  Andy

Reducing the surface oxides of Nitinol is just the first step in getting a good solder joint with this versatile medical assembly material.

Next you have to choose the right solder alloy.  You will probably want to stay away from anything containing lead, cadmium, or antimony, particularly in medical applications.  And you will want something with a high tensile strength.

The best choice is Indalloy #121 (96.5Sn 3.5Ag).  It has a tensile strength of 5,620 PSI and a melting temperature of 221C and is obviously lead-free.  It wets well to the cleaned Nitinol.

If you need a higher melting temperature solder (one that can withstand autoclave temperatures for example) you should consider Indalloy #182 (80Au 20Sn) which melts at 280C, has a tensile strength of 40,000 PSI, and has long been considered a highly reliable solder.  Additionally, this alloy is available in very fine diameter solder wires to minimize waste.

Soldering temperatures should be 25C to 50C above the liquidus temperature of whichever solder you use and proper cleaning should be always be performed afterwards.

Contact us at medical@indium.com for more information about soldering for medical devices or visit our web site at www.indium.com/medical

Carol

Eric Bastow recently wrote about using our Indalloy Flux #2 for soldering to Nitinol.  He did many tests and wrote an Application Note called Soldering to Nitinol.

Fort Wayne Metals, a leading supplier of medical wire (including Nitinol) also did a test on various fluxes as they relate to break load (maximum load before the joint breaks.

The fluxes tested included:

• Indalloy Flux #2 and Flux #3
• Indalloy Flux #5RMA; #5R; #5RA
• Indalloy Flux #4R
• Flux #400 (no longer commercially available)

The #5 series and the #4R were found to not be strong enough to clean off the tenacious oxides formed on Nitinol. Therefore, they didn't enable the solder to wet the surface properly.

Flux #2 and Flux#3 gave the best results (of the fluxes tested for break load) since they removed more of the oxides and allowed for a stronger solder bond.

Want to know more about soldering to this important medical material?  You can contact Eric Bastow directly at ebastow@indium.com or email us at medical@indium.com. 

Carol Gowans

cgowans@indium.com

With regard to soldering or wetting (coating) with indium, we are often asked to comment on the oxide formation of indium and how to remove it. We are also asked how long will it take for the oxide to reform on the surface. The procedure, below, will help you to better understand indium oxide, its removal, and how to handle it once it has been removed.

Indium is self-passivating. At room temperature, the oxide formation on the surface of the indium will be between 80-100 Angstroms thick.   Generally, this amount of oxide is not considered significant to hamper the wetting of the indium to a substrate, especially if a flux is used. Even if a flux is not used, the indium should not have any difficulty forming a joint or coating a surface.

If the application calls for an oxide-free joint and a flux cannot be used, the indium oxide can be easily removed following these steps:

·         Clean the indium in isopropyl alcohol or acetone to remove any surface organics. Allow to dry.

·         Etch the indium in 10% HCl for 1 minute to remove the surface oxides.

·         Rinse the indium in DI water to remove the acid.

·         Rinse the indium in isopropyl alcohol or acetone to remove the water.

·         Blow dry with dry nitrogen or allow to air dry.

While this etching procedure will remove the oxides, it has also opened up a whole new surface on the indium which will be prone to oxidation. Generally, the formation of oxide will begin on the surface of freshly etched indium as soon as it is exposed to air. At this time the thickness of the oxide layer is between 30-40 Angstroms. After 2-3 days of being exposed to air, the oxide has reached its passivating thickness of 80-100 Angstroms.

Note: 

Indium has the unique ability to cold weld to itself when the oxides have been removed. During the etching process, care must be taken to keep units of indium separated so they will not stick together. If they do stick, it is very difficult to separate them without distorting the indium.

If the etched indium is not going to be used immediately, storage in a nitrogen dry box is recommended . Alternatively, the etched indium can be submerged in clean acetone to prevent exposure to air.

FLUX:
To solder directly to stainless steel, Indalloy #2 Flux (activation range 100-371°C) must be used to remove the surface oxides, allowing a clean surface for the solder to wet. This flux is recommended for mechanical assembly joining only. Due to the corrosiveness, it is not recommend for electrical applications because, if the post reflow flux residue is not thoroughly removed using warm water with mechanical scrubbing, the joint will be compromised due to the potential for corrosion during its life. An alternate solution would be to nickel plate the stainless steel, so a weaker flux (RA, ROL1) can be used that is less corrosive and can be easily removed with an appropriate solvent.   

Another alternate solution is to use a forming gas consisting of nitrogen and hydrogen. This method of oxide removal is generally used when the soldering temperature can be above 350°C which is ideal for activating the hydrogen to reduce the oxides. With this method, there is no post-reflow flux residue to clean up.

SOLDER:
The solders usually recommended for stainless steel joining applications contain a considerable amount of tin; however, the actual solder choice has to fit the temperature range of the application. Generally, a low-temperature application may require Indalloy #1E (52In,48Sn) - 118°C (eutectic), while Indalloy #182 (80Au,20Sn)- 280°C (also eutectic) is a great solder choice for high temperature. If you are looking for a solder in the moderate range of temperatures, Indalloy #121 (96.5Sn, 3.5Ag); 221°C (eutectic) is an excellent choice as well as any of the SAC alloys in the same temperature range. There are also many other solders to choose from that will work equally as well. Please see our solder alloy physical properties chart or consult our Applications Engineering staff at Indium Corporation.

We are frequently asked if it is possible to solder to aluminum. The answer is yes, if the following guidelines are followed: 

FLUXES:
Because it is difficult to solder to aluminum, Indium Corporation developed Indalloy Flux #3 (activation temperature is 96-343°C) to remove the tenacious oxides that prevent the solder from wetting to the surface. This flux is very corrosive and is not recommended for electronic applications because, if any of the post-reflow flux residue remains after a warm water rinse with mechanical scrubbing, the joint may be compromised. This flux is recommended for mechanical assembly joining applications only. 

Another alternate solution is to use a forming gas consisting of nitrogen and hydrogen. This method of oxide removal is generally used when the soldering temperature is greater than 350°C which is ideal for activating the hydrogen to reduce the oxides. With this method, there is no post-reflow flux residue to clean up.

METALLIZATIONS:
An alternate to corrosive fluxes is to nickel plate the aluminum so a weaker flux (RA, ROL1) can be used. These fluxes are less corrosive and can be easily removed with an appropriate solvent.   There are many solder alloys that will wet to nickel. Check out our solder alloy physical properties table.

SOLDER ALLOYS:
The solders that are normally recommended for joining aluminum are:

• Indalloy #201 (91Sn, 9Zn); 199°C E
• Indalloy #176 (95Zn, 5Al); 382°C E. 

Folks,

A reader writes:

My company makes an electronic product that requires a 40 year shelf life. We assemble with tin-lead solder on FR-4 PWBs. The product is to replace older technology (i.e. 1960-70s), but has some newer components such as BGAs, SOICs, and PQFPs. The product will be stored in dry nitrogen at 70F.  We take great care in manufacturing, by cleaning, inspecting, and testing the end product.

My question is, do you know of any studies that would discuss the reliability of products stored or in use for 40 years?

My sense is that our reader will be successful, but his question is profound and hard to answer with confidence. The military would like their electronics to perform for that long, but realistically much of it is replaced every ten years or so. If you look at something like the B-52 bomber, which debuted in 1952, the electronics have been upgraded regularly. So there isn’t as much 40 year electronics experience as one might think. An exception being the IBM AP-101 computer. This computer was kept in service for over 30 years, because it served its function and had survived the rigorous and expensive military qualification testing.

However, anecdotal data might support optimism for 40 year shelf life. In a class I teach at Dartmouth, The Technology of Everyday Things, I have sought out some old transistor radios from the late 1960s and early 70s to show the class how this old technology works. Anytime I have every found an old device like this, they always work, unless the batteries have leaked inside the radio.

This question raises an interesting thought. Although those of us in electronic assembly are concerned with tin-lead and lead-free solder joint life, what about the modern devices inside the components? Forty years is a long time. How will the 3D-22 nanometer copper circuit lines in a modern microprocessor hold up over this amount of time? These circuit lines lines are so fine that the 22 nanometer width is only about 70 atoms.  In addition, copper integrated circuits are still a relatively new technology. I’m sure much accelerated life testing has been done on such circuits, but would such testing confirm 40 years of shelf or service life?

I would appreciate any thoughts that readers have on these questions.

Cheers,

Dr. Ron

Two categories of solder are available to choose from when the in-service environment for a device reaches above 125°C either in continuous operation or thermal cycling accelerated life testing. These categories are those comprised primarily of lead, and those of gold. From the electronics industry’s drive to eliminate lead, many manufacturers who have traditionally used lead solders are treading cautiously, looking now at the gold solders, primarily at Indalloy 182 (80Au20Sn).

The most common concern regarding this switch relates to the strength of AuSn, which is much higher than the lead solders. The degree that this should be of concern however, should be realized within the scope of the application.

For instance, review this case scenario:

Indalloy 159 (90Pb10Sn) was used in a device for years to adhere high temperature sensors to a calibration probe that is slowly cycled in operation from 350K (~75°C) to 500K (~225°C). The solder joins a nickel and gold plated Kovar™, or platinum or platinum coated, nickel lead to a tinned copper lead. The solder joint is not placed under tension or shocked.

Considering the high temperature solder options in this scenario, the AuSn would be mechanically preferred.

Why?

Well, tin-bearing soft solders will leach gold from gold metallizations during soldering, creating a brittle Au-Sn intermetallic layer within the solder joint. The more gold available, the more consumed, and the greater the thickness of the resultant intermetallic layer. The brittle nature of this layer, situated intimately next to the relatively soft PbSn solder layer, creates differential stresses that promote crack propagation upon thermal cycling.

AuSn was not considered previously because the engineers were familiar with its hardness and, given the cracking failure described using a softer solder, they did not anticipate improvement. It was a pleasant surprise to them to find that switching to a lead-free solder would not sacrifice the quality of their device. AuSn is a brittle alloy but, unlike the description above, no differential stresses are involved. 

Note: Eutectic gold solders have been used for many years to solder nickel plated Kovar™ lids to high reliability ceramic packages and have a good history of fatigue performance.

Folks,

Patty arrived at work an hour early to prepare for her meeting with ACME CEO Mike Madigan. Nineteen days ago, he had asked her to develop an electronics assembly metric that would correlate with profitability. This metric would, in turn, be able to help pinpoint opportunities for improvement. He gave her 3 weeks, so she was two days early. Mike was in town to meet with Sam Watkins, the local plant manager, so he ordered that they meet. 

Patty had quickly identified non-material assembly cost per I/O (NMAC/I/O) as a good metric candidate. She went to five of ACME’s plants and, after a day or two at each one, she collected all of the data she needed to prove her point. Rob helped her by writing an Excel® macro that would calculate NMAC/I/O and plot it versus profitability. The correlation coefficient was an outstanding 0.983.

While visiting the five factories, she tried to learn why those that had a poor NMAC/I/O were performing poorly. After a little checking, she and Pete discovered that the poor performing sites typically had lines that were not time balanced, had slow component placement machines, and occasionally had very slow printers or solder paste with poor response to pause. There was even one plant that was using a full wave solder process, when only 8 solder preforms would have done the job in the reflow process. None of these “problems” would show up if you were only tracking line uptime. In light of this situation, she also developed a plan to use NMAC/I/O to identify and implement opportunities for improvement.

As Patty headed toward Sam’s office, Sam’s administrative assistant invited Patty into the conference room to allow Patty to get her laptop set up. Just as she finished setting up and her Powerpoint® presentation was on the screen, Sam and Mike walked in.

“Coleman, we’re counting on you to take us to the next level,” Mike said a little gruffly, so let’s get this show going.”

Patty looked at Sam and could tell that Sam was uncomfortable with his boss’s abrupt demeanor.

“I performed quite a bit of research and concluded that non material assembly cost per I/O is the best metric,” Patty started.

“That’s great Coleman, but what the hell is non material whatever you said,” Madigan interrupted.

Patty’s cell phone vibrated, but she ignored it.

“Non material assembly cost per I/O is the total cost of running a factory less the components, hardware, and PWBs used. Some people call this the conversion cost,” Patty answered.

“If you think about it, it is almost obvious that this is the best metric,” Patty went on, “it measures all of the non material cost divided by how much we produce.”

“I get it,” said Sam, “we are producing I/Os or solder joints, we measure the total cost to make solder joints and divide by the number of solder joints. It’s that simple.”

“Precisely,” Patty responded.

“I understand now, why uptime alone wasn’t a complete metric. You can be up and running, but be doing it inefficiently,” Mike said with a rare smile on his face.

Patty’s cell phone vibrated again.

“Exactly,” Patty commented.

“OK, so we are going to measure NMAC/I/O,” Mike commanded, “How does it correlate to profit?” He finished.

“It is nearly perfect,” Patty said.

They continued their discussions and reviewed Patty’s plan to improve productivity at the sites with a high NMAC/I/O. Patty would take the lead on this effort.

As Patty got up to leave, Mike commanded, “Oh, and Coleman, find out why so few people use NMAC/I/O.”

Patty thought this was something to discuss with the Professor.

As Patty walked out of Sam’s office, Clare Perkins, Sam’s Admin stopped her.

“Ms. Coleman, your mother-in-law called, Rob has been taken to the hospital,” Clare said.

Cheers,
Dr. Ron

Folks,

I thought I would post a few short thoughts as the new year begins. Here it goes:

1.    A billion hours ago the stone-age was the future, a billion minutes ago Caesar ruled Rome, a billion seconds ago Jimmy Carter was President, a billion passives ago you took your last break (about 4 hours ago). As exciting as the latest quad core microprocessor is, the largest number of components that we assemble is passives, approaching two trillion per year. That is about 6 billion a day. If you lined up all of the 7 billion people in the world, each year you could give every man, woman and child several hundred passives from all of the passives that are produced. If two trillion passives (assume 0402s) were lined up end to end they would circle the earth 50 times!

2.    Schools in Indiana are no longer required to teach cursive writing. Key board skills are considered more important.  Yikes! I’m all for keyboard skills, but I want my grandkids to be able to write in cursive. If not, how do they write their names? Are we less than a generation away from people writing their names as an “X?”

3.    Thoughts on lead-free solder reliability in long term mission critical environments from a NASA study:

        “Test vehicles assembled with lead-free materials (notably tin-silver-copper) exhibited lower reliability under some test conditions.”

Some people would respond to this statement by saying, “I told you that lead-free solder was no good.” However, another way of stating the results would be, “Lead-free solder performed better in more tests than tin-lead solder did.” The ratio, by my count, was about 5 to 3 in favor of lead-free. However, I agree that lead-free is not ready for mission critical (>20-year) service life. The main reason being that, in some cases, when lead-free solder joints failed in these types of studies, the results were much, much worse than tin-lead solder joints. These failure modes need to be understood and addressed. In addition, tin whiskers and pad cratering are looming problems in these, mission critical, long service life quadrant D applications as discussed in the Navy's Manhattan Project (http://www.navyb2pcoe.org/pdf/LFEMP_book.pdf).

4.    SACM has arrived. SACM is a SAC105 alloy that is doped with manganese. Work performed on SACM by Liu, Lee, et al was reported in a May 2009 ECTC paper, Achieving High Reliability Low Cost Lead-Free SAC Solder Joints Via Mn Or Ce Doping. The thorough testing reported in this paper suggests that SACM has promise as a material candidate for quadrant D applications mentioned in #3. In explaining the superior performance of this material the authors state:

“The mechanism for high drop performance and high thermal cycling reliability can be attributed to a stabilized microstructure, with uniform distribution of fine IMC particles, presumably through the inclusion of Mn or Ce in the IMC.”

We have had to wait awhile for this material to become commercially available as it is a challenge to manufacture doped solders like this in large quantities.  I think this paper should be on you "must read" list.

5.   I had not planned on reading Steve Job’s biography , as I thought I knew quite a bit about him from reading recent articles in Forbes, Fortune and Business Week. But I went ahead and downloaded it to my Kindle anyway. This work by Walter Isaacson is a masterpiece. To share one tidbit from it that relates to those of us in electronic assembly: 

"In almost all cases electrical engineers first design the circuits that perform the functions of some device like a mobile phone or tablet. Mechanical Engineers are then left to fit the circuits into the “box.” (Hence MEs are often called “box stuffers” by EEs). Jobs completely changed this approach. He told the engineering team how he wanted the product to look and function first, then they had to determine how to make it work that way. I’m convinced that only through this approach are the revolutionary design concepts that Jobs and Apple came up with possible."

The book also points out his many flaws (e.g. Jobs would regularly park in handicap spots, the author reports several times that Jobs just didn’t think the rules applied to him, etc.). Another interesting thought (read it and see if you agree with me) that if Steve was not Paul Jobs' adopted son, Apple would have never happened.

Cheers,

Dr. Ron

Here is a list of tricks to help you overcome the issues that can arise while hand soldering silicon-based solar cells (and other applications as well). Some of these ideas are obvious for most, but all the suggestions can help you form a better solder joint - and build a better final product:

1)    Use the correct soldering tip. I’ve made the mistake of using an inappropriate solder tip before, and so have many of my customers. It’s a frustrating problem you will only let happen to you once: everything is set up perfectly but nothing will melt, until you notice the solder tip is not the correct size or shape. This has happened to many of my customers who were initially using cone point soldering tips when they were working with 2mm wide solder coated tabbing ribbon. Simply changing the tip to a 2mm wide chisel point made all the difference, and promoted soldering readily. Why such a big difference in performance? The chisel tip allows heat to flow across the ribbon, instead of only heating a single point. More heat flow = more heat in your solder joint.

2)    Pre-tin the soldering iron. Just as an appropriately sized soldering tip will distribute heat across the soldering surface, a bit of molten alloy can help create a thermal interface to maximize heat transfer. Remember to melt a small amount of solder onto the tip of your iron before soldering, and be sure it’s the same alloy you are soldering with. (Leave the custom alloying to us ;)

3)    Consider the alloy you are soldering. All the heat your typical soldering iron can produce will not be enough to melt some of the highest temperature alloys. Be sure to have a good understanding of the alloy you have selected. In some cases with low-temperature alloys (like bismuth or indium alloys), excessive soldering temperature can de-wet the alloy and char low temperature fluxes.

4)    Use the correct flux. Fluxes are quite different, I’ve spent my entire soldering career trying to get that point across. There are fluxes for high temperatures or low temperatures, cleaning with water or not cleaning at all. There are specialty fluxes for specialty alloys and there are fluxes for different soldering surfaces. Use the correct flux. If you don’t know what the best flux for the application is - just ask; that’s what I am here for.

5)    Use a bottom side heater. Silicon is known to pull heat away – that c-Si solar cell that needs to be soldered is a heatsink! Some solder equipment vendors also provide underside heating pads to help prevent excessive heat loss.

6)    Keep your soldering iron clean. That black crud that builds up on your soldering iron tip, it’s not helping you form a good solder joint. Those oxides and charred flux residues can easily be removed by wiping the hot iron across the wet sponge (that should be at your soldering station). A clean tip will lead to better heat transfer, and it will make the fluxes you use more effective.

This is the soldering station I use, it’s a PS-900 supplied by OK International. Just about any soldering iron will work, but they won’t all work as well – or come with as good support.

I’m still learning all the tricks to hand soldering, so feel free to share any you have learned over the years!

~Jim

 Folks,

In gathering information on the status of lead-free soldering, some helpful friends pointed out two great sources of information: NASA and The Navy. NASA sponsored an impressive lead-free reliability investigation: "Lead-Free Solder Testing for High Reliability Project 1." This project is finished and the reports are online. There is a follow-on project: NASA DOD Lead-Free Electronics Project 2 which is currently underway. The Navy sponsored a project with ACI and the summary is here. I am currently studying these documents to help develop the consensus.  Some preliminary info follows:

Regarding -20^°C to +80^°C thermal cycling, NASA concluded:

“Under the conditions of this test, Sn3.9Ag0.6Cu (SAC) and Sn3.4Ag1.0Cu3.3Bi (SACB) were always more reliable than eutectic SnPb regardless of component type (CLCC, TSOP, BGA or TQFP).

It has been shown that conditions that highly stress the solder joints by maximizing the CTE difference between the PWB and the component will favor SnPb over SAC6. Conversely, conditions that minimize the stress put on the solder joints (e.g., compliant components such as BGA’s and/or a thermal cycle with a small delta T) will favor SAC over SnPb. The current test falls into the latter category and we can say with some confidence that the lead-free alloys tested will outperform eutectic SnPb under field conditions that are even less stressful than the -20 to +80^°C thermal cycle test conditions.”

For -55^°C to +125^°C thermal cycling, the conclusions were more cautious, likely because the data were mixed:

“The feasibility of using Pbfree solder alloys in place of SnPb solder alloys for new product designs was demonstrated under thermal cycle test conditions. Additional investigation and characterization of Pbfree solder alloys will be required as a segment of a Pbfree solder alloy implementation plan. The application/introduction of Pb-free soldering processes for legacy product designs is not recommended without extensive materials characterization and product design review.”

These results seem to be consistent with what others report, lead-free assembly produces good thermal cycle results for commercial-type thermal cycling, but the results are mixed for harsh environment thermal cycling.

Folks,

It was five years ago today that RoHS was launched, amid concerns that the world of electronics would collapse due to the many challenges of lead-free (Pb-free) soldering. Well, we have five years of field data with no “the sky is falling” lead-free reliability events. But, has it been just five years?

No. As I mentioned in a recent post, Motorola implemented lead-free soldering around 2001 to take advantage of lead-free solder’s poorer spreading.  Hmmmm,  so it has been ten years! Not too bad!

Well it is actually better than that. SnAg3.5 solder has been used for decades in both:

1.     Step soldering:  with a eutectic temperature of 221C, SnAg3.5 can be used as the step previous to soldering with Sn63 or similar Pb-Free solder. The principle is to solder first with the SnAg3.5 and then with a lower melting temperature solder. The second soldering step is performed at a lower temperature, therefore not disturbing the SnAg3.5 solder joint or bond. 

2.      Mid-Temp Pb-Free alloy:  when a solder that melts somewhat above the melting point of a “standard” solder alloy is needed, and it must be Pb-free, SnAg3.5 is often the choice.  The automotive industry has used SnAg3.5 in these applications for decades.

While I still agree that lead-free solders need some time and experience, especially in harsh environments, to establish acceptable reliability for mission critical applications, the experience with SnAg3.5 is adding to lead-free solder’s reliability portfolio.

This information came to light with the recent announcement by a major solder materials supplier that they would no longer supply SnAg3.5. But take heart, Indium Corporation still supplies SnAg3.5.  

Folks,

I have often pointed out that SAC solder's poor wetting is both a curse and Godsend.  It is a curse when trying to fill a through-hole in wave soldering, and a Godsend when assembling close lead spacings as shown in the image (below). Indium Corporation colleague and friend, Mike Fenner (image below), pointed out that, when I say that, "SAC solder doesn't wet well", I should be saying, "it doesn't spread well". His explanation follows:

SAC is different from SN63, and I think it is helpful to explain the difference by making a subtle differentiation between wetting and spreading.

The way that solders spread and wet to a surface is a balance of competing forces. We have surface tension acting to make the molten solder shrink into a ball, and wetting forces trying to make it spread across the surface. Wetting is also the action of the solder dissolving into the surface to form an intermetallic. This intermetallic is essence of the solder joint. The balance changes with different alloys, surfaces, and processes.

Most people are very familiar with the way that tin lead solders behave - and that governs their expectations. The different balance in SAC means the solder tends to spread less for the same wetting and, therefore, can give the impression of a lower quality joint. This lack of spread is usually expressed as 'poor wetting'.

I would explain this by saying the “active ingredient” in both solder families is tin. SAC alloys have a ~50% higher concentration of tin than the Sn63 solder alloy. This gives them a higher surface tension which increases the balling (coalescing) force. At the same time, the less dilute tin, in SAC solders, dissolves into a surface faster. So the final SAC joint can have a well formed intermetallic, but not high spread. These relationships will vary with surface finish and, of course, flux chemistry and process conditions come into play, but that’s for another day. Meanwhile I hope this simplified explanation helps.

Thanks Mike!

Cheers,

Dr Ron

The solder image is courtesy of Vahid Goudarzi of Motorola.

Folks,

I met Peter Borgesen back in the mid 1980s when he was a research scientist at Cornell working with Professor Che-Yu Li. Later we worked together at Universal Instruments. Currently Peter is a Professor a Binghamton University.  All during this time, Peter has been working on materials science-related topics in electronics packaging and assembly, most notably reliability. In addition to his many technical skills, he is a gifted linguist, speaking multiple European languages. Etched in my mind is Peter talking to several European graduate students in their native European languages in the space of 5 minutes, switching from one to the other effortlessly.

Few people know more about lead-free solder reliability than Peter. So I thought I would get his perspective on my recent post on lead-free field reliability data. His comments follow.

Hi Ron,

I agree that the sky is not falling. Also, we should be talking much more (only?) about life in service. I realize that we don't know enough about this (and our predictions based on test results are much more off than people want to recognize). The vast majority of practitioners focusing on 'engineering tests' are doing worse than wasting time and effort if comparisons of test results do not translate to relative performances in service. There is a lot of ‘sticking heads in the sand’ here.

I am not concerned about the long term life of cell phones, and not very worried about in which respect they do better or worse in service than with SnPb. Intermetallic bonds have generally gotten weaker and more prone to sporadic defects, and cratering is greatly enhanced for the devices Vahid Goudarzi mentions when discussing Motorola field data. I agree those are limited concerns, no sky falling indeed.

What still scares me (in the case of critical applications) or concerns me (in the case of expensive applications) is the naivete with which many seem to think we can learn much about sporadic disasters or long-term reliability of those from consumer electronics experiences.

I am not often interested in comparisons to actual life of SnPb either (any more). We face ever more applications (designs and service conditions) for which we don't have sufficiently accurate critical experience with SnPb either. The first challenge becomes not to be surprised by effects of long-term aging, combinations of loading, minor differences in pad finish, joint configuration, latent damage, process, .... and their interactions for the specific solder alloy used (!).

While I can't yet extrapolate test results to life in long-term service (I think we are close, but I really need an extra $1M to prove my hypothesis and turn it into a quantitative model) I can show how current models may easily be off by 2-3 orders of magnitude or more (worse, how they may screw up comparisons of alternatives). It obviously depends on the application whether this really matters (I side with companies who have cut drastically back on testing for many applications).

Keep up the good work.

Peter

I will keep in touch with Peter in the future for updates on his perspective.

Cheers,

Dr. Ron