You are on page 1of 18

Processing of Fluxing Underfills for Flip Chip-on-Laminate Assembly

Renzhe Zhao & R. Wayne Johnson Laboratory for Electronics Assembly & Packaging Auburn University 162 Broun Hall, ECE Dept. Auburn, AL 36489 USA 334-844-1880 johnson@eng.auburn.edu

Greg Jones KIC 15950 Bernardo Center Dr., Suite E San Diego CA 92127 775-322-0158 DrJ@kicmail.com

Erin Yaeger, Mark Konarski, Paul Krug & Larry Crane Henkel-Loctite Corporation 15051 E. Don Julian Rd. Industry, CA 91746 800-827-2207 x401 larry.crane@loctite.com

Abstract Fluxing underfill eliminates process steps in the assembly of flip chip-on-laminate (FCOL) when compared to conventional capillary flow underfill processing. In the fluxing underfill process, the underfill is dispensed onto the board prior to die placement. During placement, the underfill flows in a squeeze flow process until the solder balls contact the pads on the board. The material properties, the dispense pattern, and resulting shape, solder mask design pattern, placement force, placement speed, and hold time all impact the placement process and the potential for void formation. A design of experiments was used to optimize the placement process to minimize placement-induced voids. The major factor identified was board design, followed by placement acceleration. During the reflow cycle, the fluxing underfill provides the fluxing action required for good wetting and then cures by the end of the reflow cycle. With small, homogeneous circuit boards it is relatively easy to develop a reflow profile to achieve good solder wetting. However, with complex SMT assemblies involving components with significant thermal mass this is more challenging. To get the large thermal mass components to temperature, the small flip chip die will be at higher temperatures for longer periods of time. Use of predictive software tools to optimize the reflow profile and minimize temperature differences across the board is required. A series of experiments were performed using these tools to optimize the reflow profile of a complex FCOL/SMT assembly. The profile obtained was used to successfully assemble flip chip die with fluxing underfill. In liquid-to-liquid thermal shock testing (-40oC to +125oC, 5 minute hold times and 1 minute transition), the characteristic life of the assembly was 1083 cycles and the first failure occurred at 992 cycles. Index Terms: Flip chip, No-flow, fluxing underfill, assembly, DOE, SMT, reliability.

Introduction Flip chip on laminate (FCOL) provides advantages in size, weight and performance for portable products. However, the industry has been slow in adopting FCOL technology. One issue often cited is the equipment and time associated with capillary underfill dispense, flow and cure. Fast flow, snap cure underfills are one solution to decreasing dispense, flow and cure times in a high volume production environment [1,2]. An alternate approach is to use fluxing underfills [3-8]. Fluxing underfills are polymer systems that incorporate fluxing activity into an underfill. Fluxing underfills contain three basic components, epoxy resins to provide the cured structure, fluxing materials such as organic acids in sufficient quantity as to remove the oxides and a catalyst to cure the material. The catalyst is chosen to provide latency until the solder starts to melt. Prior to assembly, the boards must be dehydrated to remove absorbed moisture and to ensure the solder mask has been fully cured. Moisture and volatiles from under cured solder mask can cause bubbles (voids) in the fluxing underfill during the reflow temperature cycle. The fluxing underfill is dispensed onto the dehydrated PWB at the flip chip site and the die is placed through the fluxing underfill. During placement, the underfill flows in a squeeze flow process until the solder balls contact the pads on the board. Ideally, the fluxing underfill will make initial contact with the center of the die and flow radially outward as the die is placed. This would happen if the bottom of the flip chip were a flat plate as is usually assumed in squeeze flow models. However, flip chip die have solder balls that interfere with the ideal flow pattern. Voids (trapped air) can be created in the underfill near the solder balls during placement. The viscosity, surface tension and wetting characteristics of the underfill along with the placement parameters of force, velocity or acceleration and hold time affect the formation of these placement voids. The optimization of placement parameters through a design of experiments is discussed in a later section. The assembly is then sent through a reflow oven. The fluxing underfill provides the necessary fluxing activity for good solder wetting. Depending on the cure kinetics, the underfill may cure during the reflow cycle or a post reflow cure may be required. The reflow profile and cure kinetics are important for high yield assembly. As the underfill temperature increases during the reflow cycle, the viscosity of the underfill decreases. However, as cure is initiated the viscosity of the underfill will increase. When the solder melts and begins to wet to the substrate metallization, the viscosity of the underfill must be low enough to allow collapse of the chip. Failure of the chip to collapse will result in poor or open solder joints. With small, homogeneous circuit boards it is relatively easy to develop a reflow profile to achieve good solder wetting. However, with complex SMT assemblies involving components with significant thermal mass, this is more challenging. To get the large thermal mass components to temperature, the small flip chip die will be at higher temperatures for longer periods of time. Use of predictive software tools to optimize the reflow profile and minimize temperature differences across the board is required. A series of experiments were performed using these tools to optimize the reflow profile of a complex FCOL/SMT assembly. The details are presented in a later section.

Test Vehicles For the reflow profile studies when assembled with complex SMT, the test board shown in Figure 1 was used. The board is 4.0 x 6.0 x 0.060. The components assembled onto the board are listed in Table 1. Flip chips are assembled on the bonding sites U261, U262, U232 and U233. The CBGA (U204) is a thick ceramic component with relatively large thermal mass. U20 U251 U241

U217

U230 U20 U232 U218 U26in Reflow Figure 1. Photograph of Test Vehicle Used Profile Experiments. Table 1. Components on Test Vehicle (Figure 1).
Description Pitch Ball Diameter PBGA 352 I/O 0.050" (1.27mm) .030" (.75mm) CBGA 360 I/O 0.050" (1.27mm) .035" (.89mm) Column Grid Array 360 I/O 0.050" (1.27mm) column .035 dia x .065 tall Flex PBGA 144 I/O (uBGA) 0.033" (.80mm) .020" (.5mm) DCA 96 I/o (flipchip) .017" (.45mm) .008" (.19mm) DCA 48 i/o (flipchip) .017" (.45mm) .008" (.19mm) Tape array BGA 96 I/O (CSP) .020" (.5mm) .012" (.3mm) .030" (.75mm) .012" (.3mm) BGA 46 I/O .030" (.75mm) .020" (.5mm) BGA 48 I/O Mini BGA 48 I/O .030" (.75mm) .012" (.3mm) Length x Width 1.38" SQ .983" SQ .983" SQ .473" SQ .500" SQ .250" SQ .317" SQ .223" x .305" .197" x .324" .275" SQ height .090" .200" .120" .043" .030" .030" .038" .033" .030" .044" Reference Designators u201 u204 u204 u205 - u208,u230,u231 u261, u262 u232, u233 u251, u252 u237 - u242 u211 - u214, u218, u220 u217, u219

Two types of PB8 2x2 test boards were used for the placement optimization study. One is a finger pattern design and the other one is a trench pattern design, as shown in Figures 2 and 3. The test boards have 10 die sites on each board. The boards are four-layer constructions of FR-4 epoxy with glass fiber reinforcement. The board surface finishes are electroless nickel/immersion gold. The PB8 22 die is 0.200 x 0.200 and has solder balls on 0.008 pitch. All test dies are daisy-chained structures with eutectic Sn-Pb solder bumps and silicon nitride passivation. Loctite FMD 806 and Loctite 3594 fluxing underfills were used for the process development. These underfills cure during the reflow cycle, eliminating the need for a post reflow cure.

Figure 2. Photograph of Finger Board Design.

Figure 3. Photograph of Trench Board Design.

Reflow Profile Development The reflow profile experiments were performed in a Heller 1800 reflow oven with 9 zones. For the profile development, a SlimKIC 2000 profiling system was used. This automated prediction tool allows users to predict how changes to belt speed and oven set points will affect a product profile. The software option can create and evaluate billions of potential oven recipes, automatically selecting the recipe that best fits the process window in about a minute. The automated predictive tool is designed to center the profile in a process window designated by the user, who may set limits particular to their processes. For the initial profile development, a maximum ramp rate, soak time between 140oC and 155oC, time above 183oC, and peak temperature were input into the software based on the fluxing underfill processing recommendations. An initial profile was set into the reflow oven based on past flip chip reflow experience. Thermocouples were located underneath components U261 (flip chip), U207 (flex PBGA), U201 (PBGA), U204 (CCGA), U252 (TABGA), U237 (BGA), and U219 (mini BGA). Figure 4 shows the results of the initial profile.

Figure 4. Initial Reflow Profile. The profile for the flip chip die was within an acceptable range. However, as expected, the ceramic column grid array profile was on the low end and marginal. The peak temperature was 208.8oC (11.3oC cooler than the flip chip). The soak time for the CCGA was only 37 seconds and the time above 183oC was 65.7 seconds. The software identified the CCGA as not within specifications and provided recommendations for new oven set points. Following an iterative process of profiling and following refined recommendations from the software a profile was quickly achieved with nearly equal soak times and times above 183oC for all components. The difference in peak temperature between the flip chip and the CCGA was 9.4oC, an acceptable difference. The profile is shown in Figure 5. Flip chip dies were assembled and reflowed using this profile. Fluxing underfill FMD-806 was used for the assembly. The electrical assembly yield was 0%. Figure 6 shows a cross section of one of the dies. There is no wetting of the solder to the copper pad. In the preliminary tests, the underfill showed good fluxing activity and no die floating. Thus, the reflow process likely caused the non-wetting of the solder. To verify this, Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) analysis was conducted. Figure 7 shows DSC results for FMD-806 fluxing underfill at the heating rate of 20C/min. From the DSC analysis, the onset temperature for curing is around 150C, and the curing reaction peak is at 194C. It is obvious that the long time period between 140-183C of the profile in Figure 5 had initiated underfill gelation before the solder melts. In other words, the fluxing underfill had cross-linked and its viscosity increased sufficiently prior to melting of the solder balls to prevent collapse.

Figure 5. Optimized Reflow Profile Based on Initial User Inputs.

Figure 6. Cross-section Showing No Solder Wetting with the Profile in Figure 5.

Figure 7. DSC Analysis for Fluxing Underfill FMD-806. In reviewing the two profiles, the optimized profile is approximately 100 seconds longer than the original profile. This additional time prior to melting of the solder was sufficient for significant cross-linking of the underfill. In the profile optimization, no constraint was placed on profile length. The software allows time constraints, so a time constraint of 180-200 seconds above 140oC was added to reduce the heating time prior to the melting point of the solder alloy. The profile iteration was repeated with the additional constraint and the profile shown in Figure 8 was obtained. The soak time for all components was approximately the same and the time above 183oC was only about 10 seconds less for the CCGA. The peak temperature difference between the CCGA and the flip chip die was less than 8oC (223.4oC vs. 215.5oC).

Figure 8. Final Reflow Profile. Figure 9 is a cross-section of a flip chip solder joint reflowed with the final profile. Excellent wetting of the copper trace is observed.

Figure 9. Cross-section of Flip Chip Solder Joint Obtained with Final Reflow Profile.

Placement Optimization A Camalot 3700 dispense system, a Siemens F5 pick & place system and a Heller 1800 reflow oven were used in the placement optimization study. The fluxing underfill used was Loctite 3594. The experiment was designed using Taguchis parameter design (PDE) method. The PDE is based on classical fractional factorial designs. In the factorial design, the effects of the experimental noise factors are averaged out over all treatment combinations (TCs) through randomization. Unlike the factorial designs, Taguchis method imbeds the noise factors in the design of the experiment so that randomization is generally unnecessary. Experimental noise factor is defined as those variables that are either too difficult or too expensive to control in Taguchis parameter design. For example, environmental conditions, deterioration of parts, material and subcomponents, and piece-to-piece variation belong to noise factors. Based on Taguchis parameter design, optimal factor levels can be selected in order to make the product more robust against noise. In a previous experiment [9], four controllable factors, underfill volume, placement acceleration, placement force and placement dwell time, were studied by Taguchis design of L9(34). Placement acceleration and placement force were identified as important parameters, and underfill volume and placement dwell time were less important parameters. In this experiment, the objective was to refine the parameter range selected based on the previous results. The board design was also studied. Taguchis L18(2137) design was used. There were four controllable factors, board design, placement acceleration, placement force and placement dwell time. The board design has two levels and all other factors have three levels as shown in Table 2. Placement site (die site) was taken as a noise factor, referring to samples 1 to 4. The response variables are assembly yield and placement underfill voids. The design layout is shown in Table 3. Table 2. Controllable Factors Controllable Factor A: Board Design B: Placement Acceleration C: Placement Force D: Placement Dwell Time Level 1 Finger 0.1g 1N 0s Level 2 Trench 1.3g 3N 1.5s Level 3 2.6g 5N 3s

Table 3. The Design Layout and Experimental Results


Exp. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Board Design Finger Finger Finger Finger Finger Finger Finger Finger Finger Trench Trench Trench Trench Trench Trench Trench Trench Trench Placement Placement Acceleration Force 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.3 1.3 1.3 2.6 2.6 2.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.3 1.3 1.3 2.6 2.6 2.6 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 Placement Dwell Time 0 1.5 3.0 0 1.5 3.0 1.5 3.0 0 3.0 0 1.5 1.5 3.0 0 3.0 0 1.5 Pattern Sample 1 -----00 --++ -0--000 -0++ -+-0 -+0+ -+++--+ +-0+-+0 +0-0 +00+ +0+++-+ ++0+++0 1 3 2 0 4 8 3 2 22 3 1 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 Underfill Voids Sample 2 3 0 1 4 2 4 8 12 29 0 1 6 8 0 0 1 0 0 Sample 3 5 3 1 3 3 5 10 8 7 0 2 6 7 0 1 0 0 3 Sample 4 4 1 4 0 6 6 16 8 14 0 2 6 5 1 0 0 1 0 Assembly Mean Voids S/N Ratio Yield (%) Voids 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 3.25 1.75 2 1.75 3.75 5.75 9.25 7.5 18 0.75 1.5 5.25 5.5 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.75 -11.0551 -6.76694 -7.40363 -7.9588 -12.1085 -15.4716 -20.304 -18.3885 -25.9384 -3.52183 -3.9794 -14.6613 -15.5023 6.0206 6.0206 3.0103 6.0206 -3.52183

10

The PB8 2x2 test vehicle was used in the experiment and the PWBs were dehydrated at 125C for 24 hours before assembly. Quartz die were used initially to verify that voids observed after reflow were due to placement and not out gassing or moisture generated/liberated during the reflow profile. The underfill volume used was 0.006ml. A single dot was dispensed in the center of the die site. The reflow profile used matched the final profile developed in the reflow profile development study. The assembly results are listed in Table 3. The assembly yield was 100% yield for all placement conditions. That means the factors at current levels do not affect the assembly yield. To examine the die for placement voids, both C-SAM images and flat-sections (polish the die away) were examined. Since the voids were near the edge of the die, flat-sectioning provided a better method for identifying and counting voids. Figure 10 shows examples of placement voids. For response variable underfill voids, the design type is smaller-the-better (STB) because less underfill voiding is desired.

(a)

(b) Figure 10. Examples of Placement Voids Seen in A Polished Flat-section. (a) Finger design board, (b) Trench design board

11

According to Taguchis design, the signal to noise (S/N) ratio, db , for STB was calculated with this equation: 1 n db = 10 log10 yi2 n i =1 where, n is the total number of samples and yi is the value for response variable. In our case, yi is the number of underfill voids and n = 4. Table 3 gives the db .

JMP 4.0.2 statistical analysis software was employed to analyze the data from Table 3. Figure 11 shows the prediction profile for mean underfill voids and S/N ratio. The ANOVA table for mean voids is shown in Table 4. From Figure 11 and Table 4, variable A (board design) is a strong factor, variables B (placement acceleration) and C (placement force) are moderate factors, and variable D (placement dwell time) is a weak factor. The prediction profile indicates that the board design has the strongest linear effect and the placement force has the strongest quadratic effect.
Mean Underfill Voids 18

-1.95833

-8.22

SN Ratio Underfill Voids

16.56

3.292556

-30.82

Trench

Finger

0.1

1.3

2.6

1.5

Board Design

Acceleration

Force

Dwell Time

Figure 11. The Prediction Profile for Mean Underfill Voids and S/N Ratio Table 4. ANOVA Table of Mean Voids Source Board Design Placement Acceleration Placement Force Placement Dwell Time DF 1 2 2 2 SS 80.2222 46.7569 24.7778 8.8819 MS 80.2222 23.3785 12.3889 4.4410 Ranks 1 2 3 4

12

3.0

Based on the analysis above, the optimal parameter level for voids reduction is A2B1C2D3. In other words, the optimal combination is board design at level 2 (trench), placement acceleration at level 1 (0.1g), placement force at level 2 (3N), and placement dwell time at level 3 (3s). After determining the optimal parameter combination, experiments were conducted to verify the best condition. Figure 12 shows that void-free assembly was achieved with the optimized parameters. The assembly yield was 100% and excellent solder wetting is shown in Figure 13.

(a)

(b) Figure 12. Void Free Assembly with Optimized Placement Parameters.

13

Figure 13. Cross-section Showing Excellent Wetting with Optimized Assembly Process.
Reliability Test A liquid-to-liquid thermal shock test was conducted to evaluate the reliability of the assembly with fluxing underfill Loctite FMD-806. The PB8 finger design boards were used in the assemblies. Two boards (20 dies) were tested. All assemblies were voidfree and with excellent solder wetting onto the substrate pads. The cycle was from -40C to +125C with 5 minutes at each temperature extreme and 1-minute transition time. The resistance of the daisy chain was monitored in-situ to accurately determine the cycles-tofailure. The failure of an assembled die was defined as a resistance increase of 3 over the initial resistance of the flip chip daisy chain and measurement wiring (nominally 4). The tests were terminated at 1300 cycles. After the test vehicles were removed from the thermal chamber, a series of examinations were performed to investigate the failure mode, including visual inspection for underfill fillet and die cracking, C-SAM for underfill delamination, X-ray and flat polishing for solder ball shorting, and cross-section for solder fatigue crack. Figure 14 shows the Weibull plot of the thermal test results. The characteristic life was 1083 cycles and the first failure occurred at 992 cycles.

14

Figure 14. Weibull plot of the thermal shock test data. At most of the die sites, a number of underfill fillet cracks were observed, as shown in Figures 15. It can be seen that most of the cracks are vertical fillet cracks. Some of these cracks extended into the PWB, so board cracks were expected. The flat polishing also revealed underfill bulk cracks existed. Solder had intruded into the bulk cracks and solder shorting between solder balls had occurred.

Figure 15. An Example of Underfill Fillet Cracks.

15

A typical C-SAM image is shown in Figure 16. There is significant delamination observed at the edges of the die. The SEM picture of a cross-section, as shown in Figure 17, also verifies this delamination. Underfill delamination is the phenomena of underfill losing adhesion to the silicon die. It is usually initiated at the corner of dies. After initiation, the delamination can rapidly spread over the chip surface toward the center of die. This will degrade the performance of the assembly. As a result, solder joints will undergo a larger amount of shear stress due to the mismatch of CTEs between the chip and PWB. This shear stress would greatly impact the solder joint life and cause solder fatigue.

Figure 16. Typical C-SAM Image Showing delamination.

Silicon Die

Underfill Delamination Underfill

Figure 17. Cross-section Showing Underfill Delamination. 16

A few dies were cross-sectioned to identify the solder fatigue cracks. A typical cross-section SEM picture of a failed solder joint with fatigue cracks is shown in Figure 18. The SEM image indicates the solder fatigue cracks appear not only near the UBM, but also other regions of the solder joint. In the assemblies, bulk underfill cracks, PWB cracks and underfill delamination were also observed after the thermal shock test cycles. Solder can extrude into these cracks and delaminated regions. Because of the solder extrusion, the solder joints lost volume, resulting in faster fatigue or creep behavior. The solder extrusion into underfill bulk cracks between adjacent solder balls can also cause solder shorts. Figure 19 shows an example of the solder shorts. From the previous experiments, the open failure of the PB8 assemblies always occurs earlier than the solder shorts.

Figure 18. Cross-section of Solder Joint Showing Solder Fatigue Crack.

Figure 19. X-ray analysis showing solder shorts. 17

Summary Fluxing underfills offer an alternative to capillary flow underfills in the assembly of flip chip on laminate. Successful assembly requires development of optimized placement parameters to eliminate placement-induced voids. The parameters will be a function of the specific die and underfill used. The reflow profile can be optimized using predictive software for complex PWBs with a wide range of component sizes and thermal masses. Care must be used to establish the proper constraints for the software. References 1. Daniel Baldwin, Paul N. Houston, M. Deladisma, Larry Crane, and Mark, M. Kornaski., Processing and Reliability of Fast Flow, Snap-Cure UnderfillsPart I: Processing and Moisture Sensitivity, IEEE Transaction on Electronics Packaging Manufacturing, Vol. 23, No. 4 October 2000, pp 259-266 2. Jing Qi, R. Wayne Johnson, Erin Yaeger, Mark Konarski, Todd Doody, Z. Andrew Szczepaniak, and Larry Crane, Manufacturability Issues in Flip Chip on Laminate Assembly, International Journal of Microcircuits and Electronic Packaging, Vol. 22, No. 3, 3rd Qtr., 1999, pp. 270--279. 3. R. Pennisi, Adhesive and Encapsulating Material with Fluxing Properties, U. S. Patent 5 128 746 4. D. R. Gamota and C. M. Melton,, The Development of Reflowable Materials Systems to Integrate the Reflow and Underfill Dispensing Processes for DCA/FCOB Assembly, IEEE Transactions on Components, Packaging, and Manufacturing Technology, Part C: Manufacturing, Vol. 20, No. 3, 1997, pp. 183-187. 5. D. R. Gamota and C. M. Melton, Materials to Integrate the Solder Reflow and Underfill Encapsulation Processes for Flip Chip on Board Assembly, IEEE Transactions on Components, Packaging, and Manufacturing Technology, Part C: Manufacturing, Vol. 21, No. 1, 1998, pp. 57-65. 6. Doug Katze, No-Flow Fluxing Underfill Process Characterization, Proceedings of the 2001 APEX Conference, San Diego, CA, January 14-18 2001, pp. MT2-2 1 to MT2-2 9. 7. Michael A. Previti, No-Flow Underfill: A Reliability and Failure Mode Analysis, Proceedings of the 2001 APEX Conference, San Diego, CA, January 14-18 2001, pp. MT2-1 1 to MT2-1 5. 8. N. W. Pascarella and D. F. Baldwin, Cost Analysis for Low Cost High Throughput Next Generation Flip Chip Assembly, International Journal of Microcircuits & Electronic Packaging, Vol. 20, No. 4, 1997, pp. 571-577. 9. Renzhe Zhao, Prasanna Kulkarni, Yun Zhang, R. Wayne Johnson, Paul Krug, Erin Yaeger and Larry Crane, Assembly with Fluxing Underfills: Modeling and Experimentation, presented at the IMAPS Topical Workshop on Flip Chip Technology, Austin TX, June 18-20 2001. Acknowledgements The authors would like to recognize Siemens Dematic, Speedline Camalot and Heller Industries for providing equipment used in this research. The project is funded by NIST ATP program under Cooperative Agreement #70NANB8H007.

18