Electronics Assembly Knowledge, Vision & Wisdom
WLCSP and BGA Reworkable Underfill Evaluation and Reliability
WLCSP and BGA Reworkable Underfill Evaluation and Reliability
Paper reviews study on underfill/flux compatibility issues and investigates flux compatibility between four popular commercial solder pastes and six underfills.
Production Floor

Production Floor programs cover topics including:
CAD/CAM/CIM/EDA, Circuit Board Handling, Clean Room, Cleaning Operations, Component Insertion, Component Prep, Dispensing, Feeders, Fume Extraction, Hand Tools, Labeling/Marking, Lasers, Material Handling, Odd Form, Ovens/Curing, Packaging, Stencil Printing, Repair/Rework, Soldering and more.
Submit A Comment
Comments are reviewed prior to posting. You must include your full name to have your comments posted. We will not post your email address.

Your Name


Your Company


Your E-mail


Your Country


Your Comment



Authored By:
Fei Xie, Ph.D., Han Wu, Daniel F. Baldwin, Ph.D., Swapan Bhattacharya, Ph.D., and Kelley Hodge
Engent, Inc.
Norcross, GA, USA

Qing Ji, Ph.D., and Ben Bo
H. B. Fuller
Yantai, Shandong, China

Summary
Interest in using fine pitch SMT components has increased greatly in recent years due to the growth of portable, hand held electronics and due to miniaturization trends in consumer and industrial electronics markets. The reliability of those fine-pitch portable electronics products is a great concern particularly in the areas of impact and shock performance. For very fine pitch SMT components such as WLCSPs and BTCs without ground planes (0.5mm pitch or lower), underfills can be used to improve the impact and thermal cycle reliability. Historically, the target properties of underfills can be generally summarized as high glass transition temperature (Tg), high modulus (E) and matched coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) to solder. However, the underfill selection and evaluation process has become increasingly complex, time consuming and cost prohibitive due to increasing product design constraints, introduction of new package materials, and ever changing from factor of semiconductor packages. With every new generation of package technology, one must factor into the underfill selection process, new solder alloys and soldermasks, thinner substrate core materials, finer pitches, and increasing package dimensions.

This paper continues our recent published work. Prior work presented the reworkable underfill evaluation process and several criteria were investigated which included underfill flow rate, flux compatibility, reworkability, solder extrusion, material properties such as viscosity, Tg, modulus and cure time. This paper conducts a deeper and wider study on the underfill/flux compatibility issues. It investigates the flux compatibility between four most popular commercial solder pastes and over six popular commercial CSP and BGA underfills. Two most compatible solder pastes were then selected to assemble the WLCSP and BGA rigid and flex circuits. Ten reworkable underfills from various venders were applied to the devices on these boards. The thermal cycle, temperature humidity aging, autoclave, and drop reliability tests were performed. The underfill and solder paste combination with the best performance for both rigid and flex boards were selected and applied to the production process.

Conclusions
This work continues our previous work on the evaluation of the BGA and CSP reworkable underfills. Our prior work presented the reworkable underfill evaluation process and several criteria were investigated which included underfill flow rate, flux compatibility, reworkability, solder extrusion, material properties such as viscosity, Tg, modulus and cure time. This paper conducts a deeper and wider study on the underfill/flux compatibility issues. It investigates the flux compatibility between four most popular commercial solder pastes and over six popular commercial CSP and BGA underfills.

Two most compatible solder pastes were then selected to assemble the WLCSP and BGA rigid circuits. Ten reworkable underfills from various venders were applied to the devices on these boards. The thermal cycle, temperature humidity, high temperature storage aging, reliability tests were performed. The results show that the underfill C performed better than underfill B & E, which have a similar reliability performance. Underfill A is the next one and Underfill D performed the worst. All underfills passed the thermal humidity test and high temperature storage test.

Initially Published in the SMTA Proceedings

Comments
No comments have been submitted to date.
Free Newsletter Subscription
Every issue of the Circuit Insight email newsletter will bring you the latest information on the issues affecting you and your company.

Insert Your Email Address

Directory Search


Program Search
Related Programs
bullet WLCSP and BGA Reworkable Underfill Evaluation and Reliability
bullet Additive Manufacturing-Enabled Wireless Flexible Hybrid Electronics
bullet Best Method for Repairing Underfill Arrays?
bullet Reworkable Edge Bond Adhesives for BGA Applications
bullet Issues With BGA Rework Residue
bullet Through-Hole Rework for Challenging Components
bullet Should We Modify Rework Procedures for Assemblies Fabricated Using OSP?
bullet Rework Challenges for Smart Phones and Tablets
bullet Do BGA Components Warp During Reflow?
bullet Calculating Failure Rate During Rework
More Related Programs