Sender: |
|
X-To: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:22:22 +0100 |
Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I think you should be using Type 4.
We now buy type 4 at the price we used to buy type 3 and now only use
type 4. This has removed problems of having to relife paste or throw it
away (then buy more to throw away!).
The transfer of all type 3 usage to type 4 has been virtually
transparent other than some small quality improvements.
Rex
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amol Kane
(Asteelflash,US)
Sent: 16 August 2012 18:41
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] CSP BGAs
Yes. You are correct. we are currently using type three solderpaste with
a 4 mil stencil stepped to 3 mils for this part. I want to see if the
problem alleviates by going to a square aperture vs. the round one I
currently have to increase the solder deposit volume.
Thank you,
Amol
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mike Fenner
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 1:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] CSP BGAs
I think I see where you are coming from. I think your intuited concern
is about relatively few big balls sitting on a pad with not enough flux.
All stencil grade solder pastes are about 50% solder/50% flux by volume
and this doesn't change on or by being printed [on different pad sizes].
Smaller apertures might require smaller balls and thinner stencils, but
a type 4 powder paste is still around 50% v/v.
Specified weight per cents will vary according to alloy to maintain the
50/50 volume relationship; and slightly with powder size to maintain
rheology. This latter is to accommodate the change in packing densities
of different powder sizes.
Powder size is determined by aperture size. As a rule of thumb select
powder to have 6 or more (largest size) balls to line up across minimum
pad.
T4 powder has a higher surface area than T3, but if you are buying your
paste from a recognized supplier this will not translate into higher
oxide content.
If going to finer powder/smaller apertures then you will need to also
reduce stencil thickness to maintain wall height to aperture ratio.
Hope this helps.
Regards
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amol Kane
(Asteelflash,US)
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 8:34 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [TN] CSP BGAs
Dear Technetters,
We are going to be assembling some lead-free 1.6x0.8 mm micro BGAs with
0.5mm pitch and 0.17mm dia board pads. Anybody else have experience with
this small a package?....I am concerned that there won't be sufficient
flux in the tiny solder deposit to clean the oxides during reflow,
leading to graping and/or head in pillow situation. Do I need a dip
fluxer for the part to do a flux only attachment, or to augment the
amount of flux in the solderpaste-solder bump system? I am told I have
no time to do DOEs to determine stencil and reflow parameters, so I am
turning to technet for help.....any thoughts?
Regards,
Amol
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
[log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
[log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
[log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
[log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
|
|
|