020905 1

P. Tumne1 e-mail: ptumne1@binghamton.edu

V. Venkatadri Department of Systems Science and Industrial Engineering, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY 13902-6000

S. Kudtarkar M. Delaus Analog Devices, Inc., Wilmington, MA 01887

D. Santos R. Havens K. Srihari Department of Systems Science and Industrial Engineering, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY 13902-6000

Effect of Design Parameters on Drop Test Performance of Wafer Level Chip Scale Packages Today’s consumer market demands electronics that are smaller, faster, and cheaper. To cater to these demands, novel materials, new designs, and new packaging technologies are introduced frequently. Wafer level chip scale package (WLCSP) is one of the emerging package technologies that have the key advantages of reduced cost and smaller footprint. The portable consumer electronics are frequently dropped; hence, the emphasis of reliability is shifting toward the study of effects of mechanical shock loading increasingly.

Mechanical loading typically induces brittle fractures (also known as intermetallic failures) between the solder bumps and the bond pads at the silicon die side. This type of failure mechanism is typically characterized by the board level drop test. WLCSP is a variant of the flip-chip interconnection technique. In WLCSPs, the active side of the die is inverted and connected to the printed circuit board (PCB) by solder balls. The size of these solder balls is typically large enough (300 lm pre-reflow for 0.5-mm pitch and 250 lm pre-reflow for 0.4-mm pitch) to avoid the use of underfill that is required for the flipchip interconnects. Several variations are incorporated in the package design parameters to meet the performance, reliability, and footprint requirements of the package assembly.

The design parameters investigated in this effort are solder ball compositions with different silver (Ag) contents, backside lamination with different thicknesses, WLCSP type— direct and redistribution layer (RDL), bond pad thickness, and sputtered versus electroplated under bump metallurgy (UBM) deposition methods for 8 8, 9 9, and 10 10 array sizes. The test vehicles built using these design parameters were drop tested using Joint Electron Devices Engineering Council (JEDEC) recommended test boards and conditions as per JESD22-B11. Cross-sectional analysis was used to identify, confirm, and segregate the intermetallic and bulk solder failures. The objective of this research was to quantify the effects and interactions of WLCSP design parameters through drop test.

The drop test data were collected and treated as a right censored data. Further, it was analyzed by fitting empirical distributions using the grouped and ungrouped data approach. Data analysis showed that design parameters had a significant effect on the drop performance and played a vital role in influencing the package reliability.

[DOI: 10.1115/1.4005906] Keywords: WLCSP, drop testing, reliability data analysis, solder

1

Introduction

The semiconductor industry has transitioned from various conventional packages to WLCSP in the recent years. The main advantage of WLCSP technology is saving the “real estate,” which is crucial in acquiring a space, primarily in the portable consumer market. The products in this market space are more susceptible to mechanical loading than thermomechanical type of failure. Hence, this market space demands the solder joints to have the ability to sustain mechanical loading. This kind of solder joint reliability is characterized by board level drop test [1–5].

WLCSP is assembled at the wafer level and could potentially have the following design variations: • • • • • •

direct bump versus RDL process use of backside lamination bond pad stack-up variations different lead (Pb) free solder compositions total package height UBM, thickness, and deposition methods

1 Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Electronic and Photonic Packaging Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ELECTRONIC PACKAGING. Manuscript received July 31, 2011; final manuscript received November 15, 2011; published online June 11, 2012.

Assoc. Editor: Dr. Madhusudan Iyengar.

Journal of Electronic Packaging

Further, these packages in most end-user applications are mounted on boards without underfill. This research paper considers all of these aforementioned parameters and studies their effect on the solder joint integrity. The study, in this paper, is restricted to the mechanical shock type of failures, hence using board level drop test. Both, analytical and statistical approaches are used to study the effects of mechanical loading on the solder joints.

2

Experimental Procedure

WLCSPs were mounted on Joint Electron Devices Engineering Council (JEDEC) standard drop test boards by standard surface mounting procedure. JEDEC boards have multilayer buildup technology (1 þ 6 þ 1) stack-up and are double sided with a via in pad (primary side) and no via in pad (secondary side). Further, each side can accommodate 15 components of the same type in three rows with five column format [6]. All the test results reported in this paper were conducted on the no via in pad (secondary side). The test condition used was JESD22-B111–1500 g, 0.5 ms. The sample size was four boards (60 test vehicles) per “leg.” The drop test was conducted until each board recorded 80% (12 or more failures), and the failure criterion was intermittent discontinuity of resistance greater than 1000 X lasting for 1 ls or longer for three successive events. The different legs used for this research work are summarized in Table 1.

C 2012 by ASME Copyright V

JUNE 2012, Vol. 134 / 020905-1

Downloaded From: http://electronicpackaging.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jepae4/26326/ on 01/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org

Table 1

Design test matrix Legs

Parameters Array size Solder alloy Bump pitch (mm) Attach Package height (lm) UBM Top metal (lm) Backside laminate (lm) Board thickness (mm)

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

8 8 SAC 396 0.5 D 600 EP Std. 22 1

8 8 SAC 396 0.5 R 600 EP Std. 22 1

8 8 SAC 396 0.4 D 500 EP Std. 22 1

8 8 SAC 396 0.4 R 500 EP Std. 22 1

9 9 SAC 266 0.5 D 600 S Thick 40 1

9 9 SAC 105 0.5 D 600 S Thick 40 1

10 10 SAC 405 0.4 R 500 S Std. 40 0.8

10 10 SAC 105 0.4 R 500 S Std. 40 1

10 10 SAC 405 0.4 R 600 S Std. 40 1

9 9 SAC 405 0.4 R 500 S Std. 40 0.8

Drop Test Data Analysis

In reliability prediction of drop or shock type of testing, Weibull distribution is widely used in the industry. It may have been a good statistical fit for Pb based alloys, but it fails to provide a good fit for Pb free solder alloys and does not match with the physical significance due to the complexity in the failure modes and mechanisms [7]. Furthermore, such prediction methodology may lead to unrealistic deviation from the true reliability estimates and may overestimate or underestimate the reliability. Another approach for the data analysis is using the grouped and ungrouped methods to make conclusion on the reliability estimates. In grouped data analysis, data are grouped in different classes as the total number of components failed within that class. In ungrouped type of data analysis, the data are used as a direct observation of the number of drops to failure [8]. Even in the grouped and ungrouped type of data analyses, the observation was that the reliability predictions could varywhen using multiply censored data [9]. However, in the current research, the data used were singly censored (right censored), because the test was terminated after reaching 80% failures.

Brittle fracture failure mode is dominant in drop testing [10]. In such cases, use of Neville distribution is supported by physical evidence of the brittle failures [11–13]. In this current work, Neville distribution was fitted to all ten legs of right censored drop test data. The probability of failure of a component within 30 drops of failure (criteria as per JESD22-B11 standard) was estimated using the cumulative distribution function of Neville distribution fitted for all the ten legs. These probabilities were used to estimate the parts per million (PPM) levels of each leg.

4

Fig. 1

Grouped versus ungrouped data analysis

Results

Each leg in the test matrix passed minimum JEDEC standard requirement of no failures until 30 drops. Both, grouped and ungrouped data analyses were conducted on all ten legs. Equation and procedure for the grouped and ungrouped data analyses are described elsewhere [14]. For singly censored data, there were no significant differences in the reliability estimates between the grouped and ungrouped data (see Fig. 1). Since grouped data were slightly conservative, they were used for comparison and reliability prediction throughout the paper. The drop test results are plotted using reliability (Ri) on y-axis and number of drops to failure on the abscissas. Each of the design parameters is discussed separately and corresponding legs are compared.

4.1 Effect of Solder Alloy. Sn-Ag-Cu solder alloys with varying percentage of Ag were used in this study. Figure 2(a) shows the comparison between SAC 105 and SAC 266 for a 9 9 direct array with similar design. Components with lower Ag content (SAC 105) sustained more drops. In Fig. 2(b), a comparison between the low and high Ag contents (SAC 105 and SAC 405) on the 10 10 RDL array size shows that SAC 105 has performed 020905-2 / Vol. 134, JUNE 2012

Fig. 2 Effects of solder alloy: (a) leg 5 versus leg 6—SAC 266 versus SAC 105 and (b) leg 8 versus leg 9—SAC 105 versus SAC 405

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://electronicpackaging.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jepae4/26326/ on 01/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org

Fig. 3 Effect of pad pitch and package height (leg 1 versus leg 3—0.5 mm pitch versus 0.4 mm)

better than SAC 405. Comparing the results for different array sizes (9 9 and 10 10), from Figs. 2(a) and 2(b), it is very clear that solder alloy with lower Ag content performed better irrespective of the array size and attach method (direct versus RDL).

4.2 Effect of Pitch and Package Height. Pad pitch varied at two levels (0.4 mm and 0.5 mm). Along with pad pitch, the package height also varied. For 0.4 mm pitch, the package height was 500 lm, whereas for 0.5 mm pitch it was 600 lm. Package height of 600 lm has a silicon die with greater thickness than that for 500 lm package height. Thin silicon provided a better drop performance than thick silicon. Figure 3 shows an increase in the pad pitch and package height, which led to significant reduction in number of drops to failures.

4.3 Effect of Array Size. Various array sizes such as 8 8, 9 9, and 10 10 were used in this study. Comparison was made when there was minimal variation in the design parameters between the legs for two different array sizes. Figure 4 shows comparison between 9 9 and 10 10. Smaller array size (9 9) shows better performance than larger array size (10 10). The stress observed in the outermost solder joint is greater in a 10 10 array compared to a 9 9 array due to the larger distance from neutral point for a 10 10 array.

Fig. 5 Effects of WLCSP type: (a) leg 1 versus leg 2—Direct versus RDL for 0.5 mm pitch and (b) leg 3 versus leg 4—Direct versus RDL for 0.4 mm pitch

number of failures in short time intervals as shown in Fig. 5(a).

Further, this difference is less pronounced when similar comparison is made at a pitch of 0.4 mm with a package height of 500 lm between direct and RDL attach methods. Figure 5(b) shows that the reliability curves are not significantly different.

4.4 Effect of WLCSP Type. In this case, the effect of WLCSP type was studied at two different pitches and package heights. It was found that at a 0.5 mm pitch and package height of 600 lm, RDL shows better performance than direct type of design. Direct type of design on the 0.5 mm pitch and package height of 600 lm has a steeper reliability curve indicating large

4.5 Effect of UBM Thickness. In this research, UBM deposition methods used were sputtered and plated types. Another difference within these legs is the backside laminate coat thickness.

Plated UBM has thin backside laminate; on the other hand, sputtered UBM has a thick backside laminate. Plated UBM has higher reliability than sputtered UBM despite that plated UBM has 3.9% Ag and sputtered UBM has 2.6% Ag content in the alloy as shown in Fig. 6. This indicates that the type of UBM deposition method used in the WLCSP can significantly affect the drop performance.

Small array size, and twice-thick overall plated UBM than sputtered UBM, possibly increased the performance. This further

Fig. 4 Effect of array size (leg 7 versus leg 10—10 3 10 versus 9 3 9 array)

Fig. 6 Effect of UBM and top metal thickness (leg 1 versus leg 5—plated UBM with standard top metal versus sputtered UBM with thick top metal)

Journal of Electronic Packaging

JUNE 2012, Vol. 134 / 020905-3

Downloaded From: http://electronicpackaging.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jepae4/26326/ on 01/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org

Fig. 7 Effect of board thickness (leg 7 versus leg 9—0.8 mm versus 1.0 mm)

indicates that at higher silver percentage, the type of UBM deposition method is a significant factor that can affect the drop test performance.

Fig. 9 Partial bulk and intermetallic failure in SAC 105 on RDL at 200 3 (leg 8)

In drop testing, failures were detected by in situ resistance monitoring using an event detector and further analyzed by mechanical polishing of components at failed locations. Different design configurations have failure modes within and near the component side of the solder joint. Since silicon is more rigid than the printed circuit board (PCB) board, it is common in mechanical shock type of asymmetric loading that the bump region near silicon will face larger stress than that on the PCB side [14]. In the case of comparison between the effects of the solder alloy composition, the lower silver percentage alloy showed better drop performance than higher silver percentage. This observation can be attributed to the

fact that lower silver percentage alloy is softer [15,16] and has lower elastic modulus [17]. In comparison between SAC 105 and SAC 405, the type of intermetallic formed could be regarded similar due to same UBM and thickness. However, presence of greater silver percentage makes the alloy stiffer and hence exerts more stress in the intermetallic region [15,16]. Hence, the failure mode observed is the separation between the intermetallic and UBM region (see Fig. 8—Leg 9 with SAC 405 solder alloy) whereas in SAC 105 solder alloy, the failure mode is in the region near to intermetallic and partially through the bulk solder (see Fig. 9). The crack observed in the bulk region extends as the board is dropped until 80% of the components on that board have failed. Further, when SAC 105 was compared with SAC 266 on sputtered type of UBM, the failure location was partially confined to the intermetallic region for lower silver percentage alloy and complete intermetallic separation for higher silver percentage (see Fig. 10). Thus, as the silver percentage increases from 1% to 4%, the failure location shifted from partial bulk to separation in the UBM and interface.

The pitch and package height variation have shown transition in failure modes as well. Components with 0.4 mm pitch and package height of 500 lm showed separation between the plated UBM and bond pad metal (Fig. 11), whereas components with 0.5 mm pitch and 600 lm height had failures occurring on the side traces of the PCB (Fig. 12). Thus, shift in the maximum stress location is due to change in the geometry. Moreover, PCB trace cracks occurred earlier than UBM separation, which indicates that

Fig. 8 Separation between intermetallic and UBM in SAC 405 on RDL at 200 3 (leg 9)

Fig. 10 Complete intermetallic failure in SAC105 at 200 3 (leg 6—Direct type with sputtered UBM)

4.6 Effect of Board Thickness. Two different board thicknesses were evaluated. Thinner board (0.8 mm) showed better performance than thicker board (1 mm) (see Fig. 7). Another difference between these two legs was the package height.

Thicker board had larger package height of 600 lm, whereas thinner board had a package height of 500 lm. This further confirms that thin silicon helps in increasing the drop performance. Less number of components failed on the thinner board, while others have been censored and hence reliability curve stops between 600 and 800 drops, whereas for thicker board the number of failures increased as the drops increased.

5

Discussion

020905-4 / Vol. 134, JUNE 2012

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://electronicpackaging.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jepae4/26326/ on 01/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org

Fig. 14 Crack in the RDL layer with plated UBM at 1000 3 (legs 2 and 4)

Fig. 11 Complete separation in intermetallic in SAC 266 at 200 3 (leg 5—Direct type with sputtered UBM) Fig. 15 Separation between intermetallic and UBM for 0.8 mm thick board with 10 3 10 array at 400 3 (leg 7)

Fig. 12 Separation between UBM and bond pad for 0.4 mm pitch and 500 lm package height at 1000 3 (leg 3)

UBM to bond pad adhesion could resist greater stress before separation.

Further, the type of WLCSP has shown varying results at different pitch conditions and UBM deposition methods. Direct type with plated UBM has shown transition in failure mode to trace cracking on the PCB side as seen in Fig. 13, whereas in RDL with plated UBM has shown to have failures in the RDL on the components side as shown in Fig. 14. Similar type of failure mode was seen in the RDL type WLCSPs with plated UBM when moving from 0.5 mm to 0.4 mm pitch. However, Direct and RDL types with sputtered UBM have shown to produce only interfacial failures at the component side. Thus, type of UBM deposition method and its thickness shifts the stress locations, in which case RDL with plated UBM can withstand larger number of drops to failure

Fig. 13 Trace crack on the board side for 0.5 mm pitch and 600 lm package height at 200 3 (leg 1)

Journal of Electronic Packaging

than other configurations. Another observation related to the type of plating can be seen by comparing Figs. 11 and 12. Components with sputtered UBM tend to have crack path through the intermetallic at the component side, whereas for plated UBM the separation mode shifts between the UBM and the bond pad. This can be attributed to greater thickness of plated UBM as compared to sputtered UBM. Board thickness has also shown an effect on the drop testing results. Comparison with the components for different board thicknesses showed that thinner boards lasted longer; however, the failure modes are similar as shown in Figs. 15 and 16. Finally, array size also affects the drop performance, due to the increase in the distance from neutral point, the outermost solder joint experiences greater stress in larger arrays than in smaller one. Comparisons between 9 9 mm and 10 10 mm components from Figs.

16 and 15, respectively, show that the failure modes were similar, i.e., separation between the intermetallic region and UBM. To make overall comparison between all the legs used in this study, Neville distribution was used to model the actual failure data in terms of number of drops to failure. For all ten legs, Neville distribution showed a good fit for the right censored data when compared to the Weibull distribution data (see Figs. 17(a) and 17(b)). Shape and scale parameters of the fitted Neville distribution were estimated for all ten legs. Based on the shape and scale parameters, the PPM levels were calculated, which give the estimate of number of components, which will fail, in million parts tested before 30 drops. The shape and scale parameters of all ten legs are summarized in Table 2. Lower the PPM value better will be the design combination to sustain mechanical shock. Leg 6 shows the lowest PPM value and leg 7 shows the highest PPM value.

Fig. 16 Separation between intermetallic and UBM for 0.8 mm board with 9 3 9 array at 400 3 (leg 10)

JUNE 2012, Vol. 134 / 020905-5

Downloaded From: http://electronicpackaging.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jepae4/26326/ on 01/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org

Table 3 Effect of design parameters on drop test performance of WLCSP—summary Design parameters Array Solder alloy

Pitch (mm) Package height (lm) WLCSP type 0.5 mm pitch 0.4 mm pitch

Comparison

More reliable

9 9 10 10 9 9 Leg 10 Leg 7 Leg 10 SAC105 SAC266 SAC105 Leg 6 Leg 5 Leg 6 SAC 105 SAC 405 SAC 105 Leg 8 Leg 9 Leg 8 0.5 0.4 0.4 600 500 500 Leg 1 Leg 3 Leg 3 Direct RDL RDL Leg 1 Leg 2 Leg 2 Leg 3 Leg 4 Leg 4

Comments Smaller array size is better Low Ag content alloy is better

Smaller bump pitch and smaller package height is better Direct shows higher reliability at lower number of drops. RDL is better at higher number of drops and large pitch UBM Plated Sputtered Plated Plated UBM, std. top metal thickness, thin Top metal Std. Thick Std. backside laminate, Backside Thin Thick Thin and smaller array size. laminate The effect of alloy is Array size 8 8 9 9 8 8 Alloy SAC396 SAC266 SAC396 less significant due to smaller difference in Leg 1 Leg 5 Leg 1 the percentage of Ag content Board thickness 0.8 1.0 0.8 Thinner board with (mm) smaller package Leg 7 Leg 9 Leg 7 height (500 lm) with same pitch is better

Fig. 17 Probability plots for: (a) Neville distribution (leg 9) and (b) Weibull distribution (leg 9) Table 2

Leg 6 Leg l Leg 5 Leg 3 Leg 2 Leg 4 Leg 8 Leg 9 Leg 10 Leg 7

6

PPM calculation using Neville Distribution

Scale Parameter (B)

Shape Parameter (D)

P(drops 30)

PPM

6.6690 6.9933 6.5249 7.9399 7.4609 8.0034 6.4138 5.6675 8.2063 6.3014

0.3368 0.3538 0.4762 0.6186 0.7572 0.9238 0.8288 0.7974 1.2922 1.3560

0.6291 0.6313 0.6807 0.7031 0.7507 0.7825 0.7912 0.7990 0.8530 0.9006

629065 631347 680732 703124 750728 782500 791198 799039 853016 900563

Conclusions

Drop test was performed on WLCSPs to analyze the effect of various design parameters. Grouped data analysis on the right censored type data has shown better reliability estimates. The results obtained from the Neville distribution to fit the data and the PPM values calculated are in conformance with the results obtained from grouped data reliability curve. Design variables in WLCSPs have shown significant effect on the drop performance. The results are summarized in Table 3 and explained below: (1) Smaller array size was better; this can be attributed to less distance from neutral point.

(2) Low Ag content alloy showed better performance. Increase in silver percentage showed transition in failure mode from partial bulk to complete intermetallic separation.

(3) Smaller pitch and package heights had shown better reliability.

020905-6 / Vol. 134, JUNE 2012

(4) WLCSPs with RDL at 0.5 mm pitch have better reliability when compared to direct WLCSP. However, this difference is less significant when the pitch is reduced from 0.5 to 0.4 mm.

(5) Plated UBM has shown good drop test results, even with higher Ag content of 3.9% as compared to sputtered UBM with lower Ag content of 2.6%.

(6) Variation in the failure modes was observed for different design configurations. Direct and RDL types of attach with sputtered UBM have consistently shown intermetallic cracking irrespective of the solder alloy composition. But direct type attach with plated UBM showed trace cracking at board side, and RDL cracking was seen in RDL and plated type of UBM. (7) For comparison between different board thicknesses, smaller package height had consistently shown better performance.

(8) Solder alloy composition has stronger effect on the drop test performance than the other design parameters.

This research effort investigated various design parameters in WLCSPs with respect to drop test performance. Due to greater number of parameters and limited experimental runs, only main effects could be studied. However, these results do provide an indication that there are possible interactions, which will be explored in future along with additional design parameters such as variation in the repassivation thickness and material.

Acknowledgment The authors would like to thank Dr. Kathy O ` Donnell, Steven Natale, and Justin Nyguen for their valuable help in conducting the drop tests and mechanical cross-sections.

References [1] Birzer, C., Rakow, B., Steiner, R., and Walter, J., 2005, “Drop Test Reliability Improvement of Lead-Free Fine Pitch BGA Using Different Solder Ball

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://electronicpackaging.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jepae4/26326/ on 01/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org

[2] [3]

[4]

[5]

[6] [7]

[8] [9]

Composition,” Proceedings of the 55th Electronic Components and Technology Conference, Orlando, FL, pp. 1194–1200.

Yueli, L., 2006, “High Temperature Aging Affects on Lead Free CSPs—Drop Test Reliability,” IPC/JEDEC Conference, Santa Clara, CA. Chiu, T. C., Zeng, K., Stierman, R., Edwards, D., and Ano, K., 2004, “Effect of Thermal Aging on Board Level Drop Reliability for Pb-Free BGA Packages,” Proceeding of the 54th Electronic Components and Technology Conference, Las Vegas, NV, pp. 1256–1262.

Xu, L., and Pang, J. H. L., 2006, “Effect of Intermetallic and Kirkendall Voids Growth on Board Level Drop Reliability for SnAgCu Lead-Free BGA Solder Joint,” Proceedings of the 56th Electronic Components and Technology Conference, San Diego, CA, pp. 275–282.

Wong, E. H., Rajoo, R., Mai, Y. W., Sean, S. K. W., Tsai, K. T., and Yap, L. M., 2005, “Drop Impact: Fundamentals and Impact Characterization of Solder Joints,” Proceedings of the 55th Electronic Components and Technology Conference, Lake Buena Vista, FL, pp. 1202–1209.

JEDEC Standard for Drop Testing—JESD22-B11, 2003, www.jedec.org, accessed November 2009.

Borgesen, P., Cotts, E., Yin, L., Kondos, P., Roggeman, B., Tumne, P., Li, J., and Srihari, K., 2008, “Interconnect Reliability in Medical Microelectronics Applications,” SMTA Medical Electronics Conference, Anaheim, CA. Ebeling, C. E., 1997, An Introduction to Reliability and Maintainability Engineering, McGraw Hill Publishing Company, New York.

Tumne, P., Venkatadri, V., Kudtarkar, S., Delaus, M., Natale, S., Santos, D., Havens, R., and Srihari, K., 2010, “Reliability Analysis of Censored Data for Drop Testing in Wafer Level Chip Scale Packaging (WLCSP),” Proceedings of the 15th Annual International Conference on Industrial Engineering Theory, Applications and Practice, Mexico City, Mexico, Oct. 17–20, 2010.

Journal of Electronic Packaging

[10] Song, F., Lee, S. W. R., Newman, K., Clark, S., and Sykes, B., 2007, “Comparison of Joint Strength and Fracture Energy of Lead Free Solder Balls in High Speed Ball Shear/Pull Tests and Their Correlation With Board Level Drop Test,” 9th Electronics Packaging Technology Conference, Singapore.

[11] Neville, D. J., 1987, “A New Statistical Distribution Function for Fracture Toughness,” Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 410, pp. 421–442.

[12] Neville, D. J., 2008, “A Group of Processes Related to the Poisson Process,” Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 464(2097), pp. 2457–2466.

[13] Neville, D. J., 1990, “Applications of a New Statistical Function for Fracture Toughness to Failures at Microcracks in Brittle Materials,” Int. J. Fracture, 44(2), pp. 79–96.

[14] Alajoki, M., Nguyen, L., and Kivilahti, J., 2005, “Drop Test Reliability of Wafer Level Chip Scale Packages,” Proceedings of the 55th Electronic Components and Technology Conference, Lake Buena Vista, FL, May 31–June 3, pp.

637–644.

[15] Venkatadri, V., Yin, L., Xing, Y., Cotts, K., Srihari, K., and Borgesen, P., 2009, “Accelerating the Effects of Aging on the Reliability of Lead Free Solder Joints in a Quantitative Fashion,” 59th Electronic Components and Technology Conference, San Diego.

[16] Venkatadri, V., Yin, L., Borgesen, P., and Srihari, K., 2010, “Quantitative Assessment of Effects of Long Term Aging on Sn-Ag-Cu Solder Joint Reliability,” IMAPS Mid-Atlantic Microelectronics Conference, Atlantic City, NJ, June 17–18, 2010.

[17] Kim, H., Zhang, M., Kumar, C. M., Suh, D., Liu, P., Kim, D., Xie, M., and Wang, Z., 2007, “Improved Drop Reliability Performance With Lead Free Solders of Low Ag Content and Their Failure Modes,” Proceedings of the 57th Electronic Components and Technology Conference, Reno, NV, May 29–June 1, 2007, pp. 962–996.

JUNE 2012, Vol. 134 / 020905-7

Downloaded From: http://electronicpackaging.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jepae4/26326/ on 01/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org