Prediction of void occurrence during capillary underfill encapsulation process is vital to avoid package failure due to incomplete filling during the encapsulation process. Two design variables, namely the gap height and package orientations, together with different types of industrial standard design of dispensing methods were identified as possible influences to the void formation in encapsulated package. In this paper, all these factors have been closely related to the void formation and subsequently the best chip design has been formulated to improve package reliability. From the study, air entrapment is clearly visualized in the experiment, which can be detrimental as it contains trapped oxygen, which can combust at high temperature.
A series of experiments eventually showed higher possibility of air void formation by U-type dispensing method compared with the L-type dispensing method. In addition, it is found that the chip design parameters that include the scaling size and ball grid array orientation have an effect on the size of void formed. Our experimental findings were validated using lattice-Boltzmann method simulation and great consensus is found between both approaches. These findings provide additional insights to the electronic packaging developer to effectively reduce the formation of void during encapsulation process.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access
This research work was partly supported by both the FRGS Grant FRGS/1/2015/TK03/USM/03/2 and Short Term Grant 60313020 from the Division of Research and Innovation, Universiti Sains Malaysia. Additionally, the authors would like to appreciate the financial support provided by USM Fellowship award.
Ardebili H and Pecht M G 2009 Encapsulation process technology. In: Encapsulation Technologies for Electronic Applications, chapter 3. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 129–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang Z and Wong C P 2004 Recent advances in flip-chip underfill: materials, process, and reliability. IEEE Trans. Adv. Packag. 27(3): 515–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong N F, Aizat A, Ishak M H H, Abdullah M Z and Abdul Aziz M S 2016 Effect of thermocapillary action in the underfill encapsulation of multi-stack ball grid array. Microelectron. Reliab. 66: 143–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wan J W, Zhang W J and Bergstrom D J 2007 Recent advances in modeling the underfill process in flip-chip packaging. Microelectron. J. 38: 67–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wan J W, Zhang W J and Bergstrom D J 2008 Experimental verification of models for underfill flow driven by capillary forces in flip-chip packaging. Microelectron. Reliab. 48: 425–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yao X J, Wang Z D, Zhang W J and Zhou X Y 2014 A new model for permeability of porous medium in the case of flip-chip packaging. IEEE Trans. Comp. Packag. Manuf. Technol. 4(8): 1265–1275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yao X J, Wang Z D and Zhang W J 2014 A new analysis of the capillary driving pressure for underfill flow in flip-chip packaging. IEEE Trans. Comp. Packag. Manuf. Technol. 4(9): 1534–1544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen Y K, Huang S T, Chen C J and Yu S 2006 Study on flow visualization of flip chip encapsulation process for numerical simulation. Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 33: 151–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gwon H R, Lee H J, Kim J M, Shin Y E and Lee S H 2014 Dynamic behavior of capillary-driven encapsulation flow characteristics for different injection types in flip chip packaging. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 28(1): 167–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aizat A, Haslinda M S, Ishak M H H, Nurfatin A S, Abdullah M Z and Che Ani F 2016 Effect of ILU dispensing types for different solder bump arrangements on CUF encapsulation process. Microelectron. Eng. 163: 83–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khor C Y, Abdullah M Z, Tony Tan H J, Leong W C and Ramdan D 2012 Investigation of the fluid/structure interaction phenomenon in IC packaging. Microelectron. Reliab. 52: 241–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khor C Y and Abdullah M Z 2013 Analysis of fluid/structure interaction: influence of silicon chip thickness in moulded packaging. Microelectron. Reliab. 53: 334–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khor C Y, Abdullah M Z, Lau C S, Leong W C and Abdul Aziz M S 2014 Influence of solder bump arrangements on molded IC encapsulation. Microelectron. Reliab. 54: 796–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aizat A, Ishak M H H, Abdullah M Z, Che Ani F and Khor S F 2016 Lattice Boltzmann method study of BGA bump arrangements on void formation. Microelectron. Reliab. 56: 170–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishak M H H, Abdullah M Z and Aizat A 2016 Lattice Boltzmann method study of effect three dimensional stacking-chip package layout on micro-void formation during encapsulation process. Microelectron. Reliab. 65: 205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aizat A, Gan Z L, Ishak M H H, Abdullah M Z and Khor S F 2016 Lattice Boltzmann method of different BGA orientations on I-type dispensing method. PLoS ONE 11(7): e0159357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aizat A, Abdullah M Z, Ishak M H H, Nurfatin A S and Khor S F 2015 Lattice Boltzmann and finite volume simulations of multiphase flow in BGA encapsulation process. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 10(17): 7354–7360Google Scholar
Guo X R and Young W B 2015 Vacuum effect on the void formation of the molded underfill process in flip chip packaging. Microelectron. Reliab. 55(3–4): 613–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khor C Y, Abdullah M Z, Ariff Z M and Leong W C 2012 Effect of stacking chips and inlet positions on void formation in the encapsulation of 3D stacked flip-chip package. Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 39(5): 670–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar