Hi Dwight - your experience has been my experience but our latest testing
is beginning to show we may want to challenge the NSMD convention for
components that are 0.3mm or smaller. There may be a solder
volume/component size/CTE relationship for thermal cycle conditions where
the smaller technologies are not as influenced as our knowledge of 0.4mm or
larger. Lots more testing to do but I am starting to think we might have a
rule of thumb for smaller versus larger on SMD and NSMD configurations.

Dave

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Mattix, Dwight <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Interesting.  That's 180 out from my .4, .35mm and .3mm experience on
> larger packages.  That included drop and Izod impacts as well done to a
> Jedec package qual standard.
>
> What size package and pin count?  Being flip chip I'd imagine pretty low
> pin count and not necessarily a symmetrical placement of balls like in a
> full array BGA?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MacFadden, Todd [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 8:12 AM
> To: Mattix, Dwight <[log in to unmask]>; TechNet E-Mail Forum <
> [log in to unmask]>
> Subject: RE: [TN] .031 PCB and WLCSP
>
> Hi Dwight,
>
> That is what we thought as well, but for 0.4mm pitch flip chips, we get
> better solder joint reliability with solder mask defined pads than with
> Cu-defined pads. Our hypothesis is that the greater standoff height and
> more consistent solder joint shape associated with SM-defined configuration
> outweighs the benefit of the increased bond area, but inconsistent solder
> joint shape with Cu-defined configuration.
>
> Granted, this improvement was noted for temp cycling. I can't speak to
> drop. I really think Curt is going to need some sort of staking or
> underfill for that remote control application.
>
> Todd
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mattix, Dwight [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 10:17 AM
> To: TechNet E-Mail Forum; MacFadden, Todd
> Subject: RE: [TN] .031 PCB and WLCSP
>
> S/M define pads on a ball and no underfill or corner staking?   Standby
> for cracked solder joints.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of MacFadden, Todd
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 5:10 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] .031 PCB and WLCSP
>
> Without underfill in this application your greatest challenge for solder
> joint reliability will likely be from drop rather than cyclic strain and
> fatigue. It's a small device (9x9mm) so that risk may be relatively low,
> but here are some things you may consider:
>
> * PCB-side solder joint area should match the device side pad size area
> (i.e., UBM). The UBM diameter will be smaller than the 0.2mm ball diameter
> (you may need to ask the device supplier for this info since it's not
> usually provided on the datasheet).
>
> * Use solder mask defined pads because: (1) a Cu-defined PCB pad <0.2mm is
> not possible by most PCB fabricators if there are uvias in the pads; (2)
> solder area of the PCB pads should be of consistent size; this is not
> possible with Cu-defined pads due to exit traces, which draw solder away
> and distort the shape of solder joints inconsistently. Solder mask defined
> also allows for larger Cu pad, for which the PCB fabricator will thank you.
>
> * Is corner staking an option? In the absence of full underfill, your best
> bet to pass drop test may be to apply epoxy dots or lines on the corners.
>
> Good luck!
> Todd
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Todd MacFadden
> Component Reliability Engineering
> Bose Corporation
> 1 New York Ave, MS 415
> Framingham, MA 01701
> 508.766.6259
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Curt McNamara
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 6:56 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [TN] .031 PCB and WLCSP
>
> I am reviewing a design with a .4 mm pitch, .2 mm ball WLCSP (9x9) on a 4
> layer .031 FR4 pcb.
>
> These will be used like a remote control, so there will be force applied,
> however there are supports for the PCB.
>
> Due to the presence of switches with cleaning restrictions, underfill is
> not possible.
>
> Looking for any comments on potential reliability concerns. The design
> could be changed to .064 if that would help.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
>     Curt
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 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] 
______________________________________________________________________