TECHNET Archives

August 2013

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Stadem, Richard D." <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Stadem, Richard D.
Date:
Wed, 7 Aug 2013 19:37:47 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (261 lines)
I agree with that, Dave!

-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David D. Hillman
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 1:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] QFN solder voiding

Hi Bob - I think we can sum up Richard's, your and my experience with QFNs as they require good due diligence and attention to achieve good reliability and manufacturability. The use of QFN components should be properly investigated and characterized prior to implementation on production product. The IPC-7093 standard is a great resource for that task.

Dave



From:   Bob Landman <[log in to unmask]>
To:     <[log in to unmask]>
Date:   08/07/2013 11:54 AM
Subject:        Re: [TN] QFN solder voiding
Sent by:        TechNet <[log in to unmask]>



I'm 100% with Dave on this one. We mfg industrial fiberoptic 
communications equipment.  We can't avoid TQFNs as the laser transmitters 
and photodiode receiver ICs are only available in TQFN packages or die (we 
do not use die). 

I'm checking with the IC manufacturer as the package datasheet isn't clear 
about this; that we purchase gold plated padded QFN and TQFN devices.

We specify that 63/37 Sn/Pb water soluable solderpaste be used on our ENIG 
boards.  An older design is HASL tin/lead. 

We've been using these parts since 2002 and have never had a reliability 
problem with either the center pad nor peripheral pads. We specify that 
the peripheral board pads be slightly extended beyond the package for 
probing and assurance that solder is attaching to all the pads.  The 
center pad is the tricky part. Either a cross of paste or if Mydata paste 
jet is used, a thinner layer of paste is applied to the center pad or the 
solder on this pad will elevate the package so it won't evenly solder the 
peripheral pads.

We do not do RoHS nor do we trust no-clean solder flux.  Our boards are 
all put through a standard water wash process.  We don't want any 
dentrites (or tin whiskers).

Bob Landman

-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stadem, Richard D.
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 11:50 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] QFN solder voiding

I respect the information in the alternative response. If all of the steps 
Dave lists below are followed, the components should be reliable.
But they definitely are more problematic, so if a leaded package is 
available, I would choose that over the QFN. While the X-ray image may 
show the resultant belly pad SJ quite clearly, it cannot always tell you 
that you have full solder wetting on the PWB pad AND the QFN belly pad.  A 
laminar X-ray may be required. I have seen too many examples of a dome of 
solder under the component wetted to the board pad but not to the bottom 
of the component. This can happen if the aperture reduction that is 
required is too much, or if for whatever reason the solder on the 
peripheral pads hold the component up such that the wetting does not occur 
on the belly pad, or the amount of paste on the belly pad is too thin due 
to a printer set-up issue, or the part reflows with a slight tilt, 
or...........
So if there is any variation in the process, the reliability immediately 
goes south.

From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 9:45 AM
To: TechNet E-Mail Forum; Stadem, Richard D.
Subject: Re: [TN] QFN solder voiding

Hi team! Ok, let me provide an alternative response to Richard's position. 
We have used QFNs on many avionics products -both commercial and military 
- for over 5 years. Using the IPC-9701 specification test protocols, QFNs 
with soldered center pads have been demonstrated to be as reliable as BGAs 
under -55C to +125C thermal cycling conditions. QFNs do require processing 
focus as the solder paste print and reflow profiles are critical to having 
acceptable solder joint integrity and process yield success.  One of the 
critical parameters to having acceptable solder joint integrity is the 
soldering of center pad on the QFN packages. The soldered center pad 
creates a large solder joint that can offset the CTE mismatch - several 
industry studies have shown that QFNs without soldered center pads have 
lower solder joint integrity than their counterparts.  I recommend you 
look at two reference sources: (1) the IPC-7093 standard which covers the 
Design and Assembly of Bottom Terminated  Components which includes QFNs; 
(2) The NASA DoD Lead-free Solder Project did extensive testing covering 
thermal cycle, vibration and drop shock with a test vehicle that included 
QFNs.  The link to those reports is:

http://teerm.nasa.gov/nasa_dodleadfreeelectronics_proj2.htm

Read thru the information and then decide if QFN component technology is 
applicable for your product. Good Luck.

Dave Hillman
Rockwell Collins
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>



From:        "Stadem, Richard D." <[log in to unmask]<
mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
To:        <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Date:        08/07/2013 07:13 AM
Subject:        Re: [TN] QFN solder voiding
Sent by:        TechNet <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
________________________________



We do not use QFNs if at all possible. Their reliability issues are very 
well known and well-documented.  Their use is discouraged in the military 
electronics/high rel industry.
And before all of you folks out there tell me "oh, we use them all the 
time, but you have to know how", well, we know how, but why bother?
As an industry consultant outside of GD, I have been involved in countless 
numbers of calls for QFN issues. I know how to set up a reliable assembly 
process for them, but again, why bother with all of that extra cost?
Bottom line is that there is a reduced reliability inherent with using a 
package that has radically different CTE than the substrate it is soldered 
to, they have no compliant leads to absorb some of the CTE mismatch, the 
wetting characteristics are difficult to balance across all of the 
peripheral pads, and voiding is almost always an issue.
With stand-off mitigations, the issues are much improved, but only at 
extra cost and it requires two stage processing.

-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kerr, Bryan (UK)
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 6:53 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [TN] QFN solder voiding

Hi Wayne

Interesting. We are using the same kind of materials to process and 
unfortunately have many more than one to fit so hand tin is not an option. 
Previous work by myself has shown that extending time above liquidus makes 
no real difference to voiding levels. For high rel processes using mildly 
active fluxes it may be that commercial QFN's with tin finishes are simply 
not compatible if voids are to be minimised ? As you say, stronger water 
based fluxes would give you a different result I'm sure - opens up the 
process window but not an option for some.

Anyone any thoughts on how much voiding on a peripheral pad would be an 
issue ? Any thoughts on QFN reliability in general (with or without stand 
off mitigations !)

Regards

Bryan

-----Original Message-----
From: Wayne Thayer [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 07 August 2013 12:45
To: TechNet E-Mail Forum; Kerr, Bryan (UK)
Subject: RE: QFN solder voiding

----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- This message 
originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner 
or from the internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters for instructions 
on reporting suspicious email messages.
--------------------------------------------------------

Hi Bryan-

I've had problems with those.  I think the main problem is stripping the 
tin oxide.  I speculated that perhaps because I was using Rosin flux and 
Pb based soldering temperatures, it didn't strip that oxide as well or 
quickly as higher temperatures with more highly active aqueous fluxes. Try 
extending the time above liquidus.

On the other hand, if you only have to make one, you can hand tin, or even 
bump, the pads on the QFN, and then reflow.  For me, that has always led 
to the most void-free joints on these parts.

Wayne Thayer

-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kerr, Bryan (UK)
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 7:38 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [TN] QFN solder voiding

Hi Folks

I am familiar with most of the industry thoughts and standards on voiding 
in the centre paddle of QFN's but has anyone any experience with voiding 
in the peripheral pads ? From my experience this can vary fairly widely 
and there are no standards that I know of which would cover this - unless 
anyone can enlighten me ?

Bryan Kerr
Principal Quality Engineer
CMA Lab and Process Engineering
BAE Systems Maritime Services
Manufacturing Hillend
Hillend Industrial Estate
Hillend
Nr Dunfermline
Fife
Scotland
KY11 9HQ
01383-836097
********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient 
and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please 
delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or 
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

______________________________________________________________________
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]<
mailto:[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]<
mailto:[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]<
mailto:[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 Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] 
______________________________________________________________________

ATOM RSS1 RSS2