By Topic

Double bump flip-chip assembly

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$31 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

4 Author(s)
Yan, K.W. ; Lab. for Electron. Assembly & Packaging, Auburn Univ., AL, USA ; Johnson, R.W. ; Stapleton, R. ; Ghosh, K.

Capillary underfill remains the dominate process for underfilling Hip-chip die both in packages and for direct chip attach (DCA) on printed circuit board (PCB) assemblies. Capillary underfill requires a post reflow dispense and cure operation, and the underflow time increases with increasing die area and decreasing die-to-substrate spacing. Fluxing or no-How underfills are dispensed prior to die placement and cure during the solder reflow cycle. Since filler particles in the fluxing underfill can be trapped between the solder ball and the substrate pad during placement, the filler content of fluxing underfills is typically limited to <20% or assembly yield drops dramatically. At 20% filler concentration, the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the underfill is near that of the bulk resin (50-80 ppm/°C). In this paper, a double bump Hip-chip process is described. A filled capillary underfill is coated onto a wafer and cured. The wafer is then polished to expose the solder bumps. A second solder bump is formed over the original bump by stencil printing solder paste. After dicing, the die is assembled to the PCB using unfilled fluxing underfill. In the resulting structure, the low CTE underfill is near the low CTE Si die, and the higher CTE underfill is in contact with the PCB. In addition, the standoff height is increased compared to a conventional single bump assembly. In air-to-air thermal shock tests, the double bump assembly was ∼ 1.5 X more reliable than the conventional single bump construction with fluxing underfill. Modeling results are also presented.

Published in:

Electronics Packaging Manufacturing, IEEE Transactions on  (Volume:29 ,  Issue: 2 )