Do thinner boards require a different transport mode?
Just when we think we have reached the limit on shrinking substrate thicknesses, tighter pad spaces and higher component densities, the industry says, “Not so fast!” Today’s mobile phone boards average a remarkable 0.6mm thickness, with as many as 1,000 components packed into a 20mm x 80mm space. Over the past five years, advanced equipment sets have accelerated transport, tooling, vision systems, inspection capabilities and platform controls, all of which have certainly made producing high-quality products with ultra-small dimensions possible. However, in the stencil printing world, even more may be required to ensure maximum board stability during the print operation.
Traditionally, the mode of transport – bringing the PCB or pallet into the machine – has been achieved on some form of rubberized belt. This will no doubt continue as the solution for the assembly line. Inside the printer, however, not only is the board brought into the machine on the belt, but the substrate is clamped to the belt to hold it stationary, present it to the stencil and print. This has worked very well for years and is fine for multiple product builds. For mobile phones and other handheld products, however, current and future dimensions dictate a new paradigm. What are 600µm-thick phone PCBs today likely will continue to get thinner and, even at their current architectures, are susceptible to any type of undulation or extra pressure. Clamping thin, small boards or pallets to a rubber belt can result in movement, twisting or bowing at the substrate edges and potential print accuracy issues. There are flat belt options, which have been the interim solution for thin board printing, but the belts are still constructed from rubber and not completely rigid. Finally, belts are subject to wear; they eventually lose elasticity and require replacement. Without proper maintenance, even greater instability can occur.
Is a wet cycle necessary after every print? Maybe not.
In the previous installment of screen printing hacks, we discussed some proven workarounds for alignment issues. This month – and based on some recent customer observations – the advice centers on understencil cleaning, how lack of control can adversely impact this sub-process of printing and the overall result, and a few suggestions for correcting the problems.
Here’s the backstory: A customer printing very small dimensions – 200µm square apertures with spaces of 130µm, on average – was experiencing sub-4 Sigma results on some NPI designs. Transfer efficiency was low, and there was a large standard deviation across devices and the PCBs, so a lot of inconsistent paste-on-pad volume. Our team developed new stencil designs and tested them in a lab environment with our SPI, yielding excellent results. After making some machine calibration adjustments onsite at the customer and integrating the new stencils, however, there still wasn’t tremendous uptick in the process; improvement was observed but not at the expected level. Let the troubleshooting continue! We turned our attention to the cleaning process.
Not sure how to tackle an alignment issue? These tips might help set you straight.
In today’s slang, a “life hack” is any trick, shortcut, or proven workaround for a given task that increases productivity and efficiency. And, as regular readers will be acutely aware, this column’s focus is all about improving printing productivity and efficiency. So, I thought a series of “screen-printing hacks” might be helpful to engineers, no matter the level of experience. Throughout 2020, this space will periodically delve into various screen-printing hacks; an issue central to a good print outcome will be identified, and I’ll cover some ways to get the process back on track if something goes awry. The first installment of our screen-printing hack series is alignment.
The goal for the printing process is 100% alignment; the solder paste must align with the feature (the pad) on the substrate. When the solder paste inspection (SPI) system indicates this is not the case and offsets (paste not centered on the pad) are present, an alignment issue is most likely the culprit. Where do you start? Here’s a list of the most common causes and potential fixes; i.e., hacks:
Achieving printing nirvana is largely dependent on solder paste material, print speed and deposit release.
Ahhhhh … screen printing utopia. We process engineers strive for this existence. In a perfect process, printed solder paste would emerge from the stencil as exact replicas of the aperture shape: nice, flat, brick-like deposits. And, while modern printers and advanced materials get us close, solder paste is still, well, solder paste. The materials are not inks; they have a grain structure that is getting smaller in size and distribution and is suspended in flux. Try as we might, with these particles, there will be material undulation at best, and flat paste surfaces will likely never be a certainty.
With printing, we must be pragmatic. It’s not a digital process, and many variables come into play. The goal, of course, is to fill all the apertures on the stencil fully with solder paste to obtain the best deposit shape and volume possible. This is easier said than done, as the range of aperture sizes across a stencil can be broad, with 1mm square, 300µm and 200µm openings next to one another. Each of those apertures – from the very large to the very small – must be filled. Since printing with different thickness stencils is a nonstarter (generally and practically speaking), compromise is required, and that challenges our utopian ideal. Squeegee pressure, stencil thickness, print speed and separation speed must be balanced to accommodate variations in required deposit sizes. When all inputs aren’t optimized and in perfect balance, solder deposit shape differences can have the potential to introduce process problems. Known in the printing world as “dog ears” on square or rectangular deposits and “witch hats” on circular deposits (FIGURE 1), these solder paste deposit peaks may be defect bugbears, especially in the world of high-density, miniaturized assemblies.
How proper investigative work can alleviate misguided print process adjustments.
Printing is arguably one of the most sensitive processes within the entire PCB assembly operation. Not surprisingly, stencil printing’s multi-input interdependency and sensitivity have become more pronounced as miniaturization has taken hold. Even slight variations can cause process shifts, a reality our team was reminded of while conducting recent internal testing.
Our engineers set up a test with a really long board run to evaluate time to bridge, a fairly standard analysis used to understand how many PCBs can be printed for a particular product until solder paste bridging begins to appear. The evaluation, which was performed using a relatively complex ASM test board, was proceeding beautifully until we noticed a sudden shift in the output. The measurable Sigma shift went from a process running at 4 Sigma (1.33 Cpk) to 3 Sigma (1.0 Cpk). The engineer running the evaluation was looking at the process window and robustness, beginning at a 10,000 ft. view with a box plot, which gives reasonable stability insight across the entire run. When a more granular examination of the data was conducted, the data spike appeared on three boards in the batch, with one PCB being more extreme.
Which holds up better: mesh-mounted or mechanically tensioned, mesh-free frames?
Ah, stencil tension. A subject near and dear to my heart and one I’ve written about before in this space. In fact, we covered the subject a few years back, when we discussed how the loss of tension on a conventional mesh-mounted stencil can adversely impact printing results and why other solutions may prove superior. In recent years, studies undertaken to evaluate the impact of stencil tension on print performance have, indeed, confirmed these assumptions.
Before we get into the outcomes of our company’s work, let’s review the basics of conventional mesh-mounted frame stencils and mechanically tensioned, mesh-free frame systems. To be fair, mesh-mounted stencils are the industry standard. They are the predominant stencil type employed for electronics assembly. The alternative approach is mechanically tensioned, single-frame solutions that allow manufacturers to use one frame alongside multiple foils for various assemblies.