SMT Assemblies

Why Solder Paste Inspection?

The majority of SMT defects occurs during the solder paste printing process.

According to data from SMTA (The Surface Mount Technology Association),

74% of defects in PCB manufacturing process are related to solder paste.

Assembly Process Defect Chart

Why??Is Printing so Important

1. Production must be more

FLEXIBLE.

2. Mixed technologies, on the same

board.

3. Limited space, Assembly density 4. Budget reductions

5. Quality demand

6. No rework permitted

Processes continue to be challenged

If that weren't

enough…….

Miniaturization

Stainless SteelFG/PHD

Nickel

1. Láser Cut

2. Local support

3. Rapid Deliveries

1. Laser Cut

2. Local support

3. Rapid Deliveries

4. Improved “Paste

Release”*

Stencil Options

Both have Laser Cuts but “Ni” is famed for the improved “Paste Release” element.

Electroformed, EF, EFAB

1. Production process

2. Superior “Paste

Release”* properties

3. Delivery issues

4. Product Revision

5. NO re-work

6. Mechanical seal

Stencil Options

The Mechanical seal is different EF vs SS/Ni Laser cut

EFABLaser Cut

The trends indicate that the “Normal” is:

EF produces more “Bridging”

“SS/Ni” produce more insufficiencies

Concept of the “NANO” Stencil

1.Laser cut, SS

2.Additional Processing “NANO”

3. Improved Paste deposit definition.

4.Reduction in consumables

5. Improved Aspect Ratio performance

NOTE: We went back to “Laser Cuts”

2 concepts exist

“Onsite” Towellette

1) Vendor application

2) No Rework

3) Limited durability

4) Delivery constraints

5) Extra sensative to Customer

process

6) Stencil wash methods limit

“NANO” effectivity.

7) Maintenance Costs

1) Applied locally by

customer

1) Process is subjective

to customer

application process.

2) “Nano” Maintenance

3) Additional expenses

4) Lifecycle…Subjective

5) Another factor in

Production fails

Topical “Coating”

The real world of Manufacturing Limits the

Enhancements /BenefitsOf the “Nano “Processed Stencils

THE CONCEPT.. “Nano Stencil” Improves the “Paste Release” ……The Paste release is

critical to support the challenges which compromises the ASPECT RATIO Calcs for

our Mfg world/marketplace. …….But….

2 concepts exist

“Onsite” Towellette

1) Vendor application

2) No Rework

3) Limited durability

4) Delivery constraints

5) Extra sensative to Customer

process

6) Stencil wash methods limit

“NANO” effectivity.

7) Maintenance Costs

1) Applied locally by

customer

1) Process is subjective

to customer

application process.

2) “Nano” Maintenance

3) Additional expenses

4) Lifecycle…Subjective

5) Another factor in

Production fails

Topical “Coating”

The real world of Manufacturing Limits the

Enhancements /BenefitsOf the “Nano “Processed Stencils

2 concepts exist

“Onsite” Towellette

1) Vendor application

2) No Rework

3) Limited durability

4) Delivery constraints

5) Extra sensative to Customer

process

6) Stencil wash methods limit

“NANO” effectivity.

7) Maintenance Costs

1) Applied locally by

customer

1) Process is subjective

to customer

application process.

2) “Nano” Maintenance

3) Additional expenses

4) Lifecycle…Subjective

5) Another factor in

Production fails

Topical “Coating”

2013 Q1Proprietary documents for

Mexico/EU Generated

2013 Q1Proprietary documents in USA

Generated

2010 Q4ProJect formalized

2012 Q1Cobra Launched

2012 Q2Sales Began

2012 Q3Revised New process to improve Adherance

2013 Q1Cobra “TX” CreatedLower Cost COBRA

2013 Q2The 2 New Cobra’s were

introduced to Market

2011 Q2Trademark established

2013 Q1InterLatin Received recognition

CONACYT- Stimulation for Innovation

Since Q32013 Sales Started

• ALL TopLINE Nanos (Coatings and Towllette) vs “COBRA 3.0 & TX”

– Sensative to stencil wash

– Wearing of the “COATING”

– Aplication type “Coating”

– On time Delivery

– Componentes

– “Nano” waste management

– Outperforms any Nano, Eform, Ni stencil

– ECO-Friendly

Product ComparisonAsked customers, “What issues do you encounter with current SMT print

solutions”

• ALL TopLINE Nanos vs “COBRA 3.0 y TX”

– Sensative to stencil wash

– Wearing of the “COATING”

– Aplication type “Coating”

– On time Delivery

– Componentes

– “Nano” waste management

– Outperforms any Nano, Eform, Ni stencil

– ECO-Friendly

Product ComparisonWhen we compared the 3.0 and TX to customer

needs….

• ALL TopLINE Nanos, “Cobra HD” vs “COBRA 3.0 y TX”

– Sensative to stencil wash

– Wearing of the “COATING”

– Aplication type “Coating”

– On time Delivery

– Componentes

– “Nano” waste management

– Outperforms any Nano, Eform, Ni stencil

– ECO-Friendly

– Cobra…Lasts the Life of the Stencil !!!!

Product Comparison

REX Customer

“COBRA, BGA “.35”, AR .49, Paste

type 3 mesh,

Over 17000 assemblies, zero fail.

Mechanical or Electrical.”

GDL Site

Increased ICT Yield 60% to 75%. Excellent paste release

GDL Site

We compared COBRA with E-Fab stencil. COBRA had a

better release of solder paste,

we reduced problems in our printing process

SPC data reflects the same stencil print, volume, without and with COBRA process

Automotive Customer Requirement: Use Eform Std as minimum requirmentsThey had 3D SPI inline

Volume MeasurementsCpK >/= 1.6

Std Dev </= 816 mil pitch QFP

ANY SPC sine wave is representative only

The customer was using an Efab Stencil:(Customer Actual results) 65% of designed aperture deposition.

Efab 100% of established SPI volumeCpk: 1.56

Std Dev= 11

Automotive Customer Requirement: Use Eform Std as minimum requirmentsThey had 3D SPI inline

Volume MeasurementsCpK >/= 1.6

Std Dev </= 816 mil pitch QFP

EFab

This denotes an effect caused by the USC while using EF but did not affect COBRA print quality

ANY SPC sine wave is representative only

The common concern…..

EFab

COBRA 3.0

This denotes an effect caused by the USC while using EF but did not affect COBRA print quality

ANY SPC sine wave is representative only

InterLatin produced a COBRA 3.0Simply taking the Paste from the Efab Stencil and loading it onto the COBRA

Restarted the production process….The results….

Automotive Customer Requirement: Use Eform Std as minimum requirmentsThey had 3D SPI inline

Volume MeasurementsCpK >/= 1.6

Std Dev </= 816 mil pitch QFP

EFab

COBRA 3.0

This denotes an effect caused by the USC while using EF but did not affect COBRA print quality

The SPC sine wave is representative only

Final Comparison: (Customer Actual results) 65% of designed aperture deposition.

Efab 100% of established SPI volumeCpk: 1.56

Std Dev= 11

COBRA 115% Volume compared to EfabCpK: 2

Std Dev= 6

Note: NOT even the underscreen cleaners elements interfered with the COBRA print quality

10 months LATER

Automotive Customer Requirement: Use Eform Std as minimum requirmentsThey had 3D SPI inline

Volume MeasurementsCpK >/= 1.6

Std Dev </= 816 mil pitch QFP

EFab

COBRA 3.0

This denotes an effect caused by the USC while using EF but did not affect COBRA print quality

The SPC sine wave is representative only

Final results: (Customer Actual results) 65% of designed apeture deposition.Efab 100% of established SPI volume

Cpk: 1.56Std Dev= 11

COBRA 115% Volume compared to EfabCpK: 2

Std Dev= 6

Note: NOT even the underscreen cleaners elements interfered with the COBRA print quality

I only changed the Stencil

What we Did, June 2014

• Created a test vehicle, representing current assembly challenges, for our customers

• Setup an SMT printer, Fully automated

• Programmed Solder Paste Inspection system, fully automated

• Made one common stencil design, IAW industry standards…..NO special designs

• 5 mils material used

• ONLY changed the Stencil

PHD Results SQFP 0.3mm Pitch

SQFP 12mil pitch

EFab SQFP 0.3mm Pitch

PHD COBRA 3.0 71 SQFP 0.3mm

SQFP 12mil pitch

PHD uBGA 0.4mm

uBGA 16mil pitch

EFAB uBGA 0.4mm

uBGA 16mil pitch

PHD COBRA 3.0 71 uBGA 0.4mm.jpg

PHD COBRA TX 71 CAP 0402

CAP 0402

PHD CAP 0402

EFAB CAP 0402

PHD COBRA 3.0 71 CAP 0402

CAP 0402

CAP 0201

EFab CAP 0201

PHD COBRA 3.0 71 CAP 0201

PHD COBRA TX 71 CAP 0201

GraciasMerci

Obrigado

Danke