0

Full Content is available to subscribers

Subscribe/Learn More  >

Larger Array Fine Pitch Wafer Level Package Drop Test Reliability

[+] Author Affiliations
Tiao Zhou, Robert Derk, Kaysar Rahim

Maxim Integrated Products, Dallas, TX

Xuejun Fan

Lamar University, Beaumont, TX

Paper No. InterPACK2009-89018, pp. 693-701; 9 pages
doi:10.1115/InterPACK2009-89018
From:
  • ASME 2009 InterPACK Conference collocated with the ASME 2009 Summer Heat Transfer Conference and the ASME 2009 3rd International Conference on Energy Sustainability
  • ASME 2009 InterPACK Conference, Volume 1
  • San Francisco, California, USA, July 19–23, 2009
  • Conference Sponsors: Electronic and Photonic Packaging Division
  • ISBN: 978-0-7918-4359-8 | eISBN: 978-0-7918-3851-8
  • Copyright © 2009 by ASME

abstract

In this study, drop test reliabilities of wafer level packages (WLP) are investigated. Failure mechanism, crack map and crack initiation location are presented. Failure rates of six groups defined by JEDEC are examined through both drop test experiment and finite element (FE) analysis with ANSYS software. Effects of component placement, PCB design, WLP structures, array size, pitch, and solder alloy are studied through drop test experiment per JESD22-B111 and finite element modeling. It is found that the primary failure mechanism of WLP drop test failures is fracture of intermetallic compound (IMC) at WLP side. During the drop test, solder joints at outer columns experience most stress and will fracture first. And the corner balls always fail first. The crack initiates at inner side of solder joint and propagates to the opposite side. When JEDEC recommended PCB is used for WLP drop test, the corner components fail first. This is different from the findings from BGA packages. It is confirmed that the dominant failure rate of corner WLP components is mainly due to the effect of mounting screws, rather than the intrinsic drop test reliability of WLP. Therefore, it is not appropriate to judge the drop test reliability of WLP with the drop test data for the corner components. Instead, middle component drop test data represent intrinsic shock resistance of WLP, and they should be used to represent the drop test performance of WLP. Drop test DOE results showed that WLP structure and material make visible difference. Non-soldermask defined (NSMD) PCB pad designs result in better drop reliability than SMD pads. With a given ball array, WLP with smaller pitch has worse drop reliability. As array size increases from 6×6 to 10×10 and 12×12, the drop test performance drops significantly. In addition, choice of solder alloy makes visible difference for WLP.

Copyright © 2009 by ASME

Figures

Tables

Interactive Graphics

Video

Country-Specific Mortality and Growth Failure in Infancy and Yound Children and Association With Material Stature

Use interactive graphics and maps to view and sort country-specific infant and early dhildhood mortality and growth failure data and their association with maternal

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In