"Detecting Defects as Early as

Possible to Reduce the Cost

of Rework and Repair

Joe Belmonte
Project Manager
Speedline Technologies
Advanced Process Development
Franklin, Massachusetts
USA
Jbelmonte@Speedlinetech.com

Agenda

Cost of a defect
Where are the defects?
Impact of solder paste printing defects on first pass yield
Preventing defect versus Reacting to defects
Solder paste inspection
2D and 3D solder paste inspection
2D and 3D inspection systems
Closed loop process control
Conclusions
Questions

Cost of a Defect

Sources of defect cost

Repair
Rework
Defects and damage created by rework & repair (lead free)

ESD
Handling
Excessive heat

Scrap
Returns
Warranty
Delivery delays
Customer dissatisfaction
Lost business

To minimize these costs it is imperative to discover

defects as early in the process as possible

Cost of a Defect

Defects are becoming more difficult to find and

components are becoming more difficult to rework/repair

Smaller
0201
01005
.4mm Chip Scale Packages (CSP)
Micro Ball Grid Arrays (BGA)
More Complex
Column Grid Arrays
High Pin Count Quad Flat Packs (QFP)
More Expensive
Complex Micro Processors
Custom Semi Conductors (ASIC)

The lead free process will add to the creation of defects

because the lead free materials do not solder as well

Cost of a Defect
Study Number 1 (USA Based Modem Manufacturer)
Defect Discover Process Step
*Cost of Defect
Prior to reflow soldering
$0.44
After reflow and prior to ICT
$1.65
In circuit test (ICT)
$2.33
Final product assembly
$49.73
In the field (after shipment)
$550.00
(1,250 times more costly than prior to reflow soldering)
*All cost in USA Dollars
*Labor cost only. Does include component/material
replacement cost

Cost of a Defect
Study Number 2 (Major AOI Equipment Supplier)
Defect Discover Process Step
*Cost of Defect
Prior to reflow soldering
$0.50
After reflow and prior to ICT
$5.00
In circuit test (ICT)
$35.00
In the field (after shipment)
$350.00
(700 times more costly than after reflow soldering)
*All cost in USA Dollars

Cost of a Defect
Study Number 3 (Second Major AOI
Equipment Supplier)
Assy

System
Test

WIP

WIP

WIP

WIP

WIP

FT

WIP

ICT

WIP

AOI

WIP

SMT

Repair

Repair

Repair

Repair

$1

$6

$36

$216

Is Solder Paste Inspection (SPI)

Worth the Cost Investment?
Consider the following example:
You place 4000 BGAs per day either on 1000 boards (4
BGAs per board) or on 4000 boards (1 BGA per board)
Your manufacturing process runs 365 days per year
Your defect rate is 100ppm
Your BGAs costs $100 each
Your BGAs have 250 pins each
Your BGA rework costs $100 per BGA
You now have 36,500 BGA pin defects per year or 100
BGA pin defects per day. Lets assume the defects
occur on ten boards a day. Your resulting rework and
parts scrap costs would be $2,000/day or $730,000/year!

Is SPI Worth the Cost Investment?

If solder paste inspection

prevented even a portion of
these defects, significant cost
savings can be realized.
Washing a pasted board or
cleaning a stencil makes
more sense than reworking or
scrapping a loaded board
with expensive BGAs.
Solder paste inspection may
pay for itself.

%BGA defects
prevented with
SPI (from
example)

Savings / Year

100%

$730K

90%

$657K

80%
70%
60%

$584K
$511K
$438K

50%

$365K

40%

$292K

30%

$219K

20%
10%

$146K
$73K

0%

$0

Where are the Defects?

Opportunity for a Defect

One for every solder joint
One for ever component
Total defect opportunities equals number of component leads
plus 1
Example:
256 pin Quad Flat Pack (QFP)
256 solder joint opportunities
1 component opportunity
257 total opportunities for a defect
Vast majority of defect opportunities (generally in excess of 75%)
are controlled by the solder paste printing process and soldering
processes (reflow and wave soldering)
One high volume manufacturers six month study indicates the
average percentage of defect opportunities from the screen
printing process, reflow process, and wave soldering process was
84.08%

Where are the Defects?

yNo solder
yInsufficient solder

Paste
inspection
Component
Inspection
(Optical, X-Ray,
yComponent
Some Electrical)
Functional test

yExcessive solder

70 - 80%
y-

yBridging
yMissing part
yMissing part
yOffset part
yOffset part
yReversed part
yReversed part
yWrong part
yOut of spec
yFaulty part
yHandling damage

20 - 30%

Impact of Solder Paste Printing Process Quality on

First Pass Yield
Effects of Solder Joint DPMO (Defects per Million
Opportunities) on Assembly Level Yields on a Printed
Circuit Assembly with 3000 Solder Joints
Solder Joint DPMO
5
10
25
50
100

Printed Circuit Assembly Yield

98.5%
97.0%
92.5%
85.0%
70.0%

Types of Defects

Special & Common Causes

SPECIAL
CAUSE!!

UCL
COMMON
CAUSES!!

LCL
SPECIAL
CAUSE!!

Identification of Special and

Common Causes

Corrective Action :
SPC rule violations
"Special Causes - changes, anomalies, unusual events"
"Common Cause - Shift in mean, trend in mean, increased
variability "
Implement contaminate plan, and monitor for repeat
occurrences.
-Stop defects from escaping to next process
-Keep process in operation while permanent corrective action is
implemented

For repeat occurrences tie specific cause to corrective action

using problem solving methods.

Never change operating parameters

for Special Cause Variations

Defect Elimination Strategies

Proactive Strategy
Preventing defects from occurring
Reactive Strategy
Finding defects that have occurred
(Solving the same problems every day)

In reducing defects and achieving World

Class Quality there is
no substitute for good engineers doing
good engineering work, training,
coaching, and
process discipline!!!

How to Minimize Defects

Prevent Defects from Occurring (Proactive)

Process design

Develop stable repeatable processes using statistical studies

such as formal design of experiments (DOE)
Identify and quantify all critical operating parameters (pressure,
speed, temperature, etc.)

Implement Statistical Process Control (SPC)

Monitor each processes critical output to insure your
process is in in control

React to all out of control situations by stopping the process

and implementing corrective action (containment plan)
Use SPC data to drive permanent corrective action

How to Minimize Defects

Prevent Defects from Occurring (Proactive)

Characterize all processes (reduce process variation)

Understand the capability of each process

Conduct experimentation and studies to increase the
process capability (Cp and Cpk)

Find Defects that have Occurred (Reactive)

Implement effective inspection and test
processes

Design an effective test and inspection process

Select and implement the most effective equipment to
achieve test and inspection process goals

Cost of Defect Summary

Develop processes to minimize defects from ever

occurring (Proactive)

Find defects as early in the process as possible

(Reactive)

Monitor the process

Monitor the product

Focus on solder paste printing

This process has the highest opportunities for defects

Even a small reduction in defects in this process will reduce all
the cost associated with correcting defects and improve the
quality of the entire process and first pass yield of all products

Process Characterization Methodology

Involves :
Management Commitment to Statistical Data Analysis and Problem Solving.
Implement SPC to monitor key process parameters.
Daily Quality Meetings.
Root Cause Corrective Actions.
Measurement Systems Analysis.
Design of Experiments
Continuous Process Improvements.
SPC Audits.

Process Characterization Methodology

Results :
Reducing Defect Rate (dpu), Cycle Time, Repair costs and
increasing Productivity.
Increasing the time the process is in an ideal state.
Decreasing the process variability.
Increasing the time that the process characteristics mean
remains at its target value or remains constant at acceptable level.
Reducing the number of out of control conditions on SPC charts.

Condition
1
2

Capability
A =
B
=
Cpk = C
0.5 B

Cp =

2.0

2.0

2.0

1.5

LSL

Condition 2:
Distribution Average
Shifted 1.5s from the
Nominal Specification

USL

A
Condition 1: Distribution
Average Centered on
Normal Specification

LCL
-6s

LSL

-5s -4s

UCL

-3s -2s -1s

Nominal

1s

2s

3s

4s

5s 6s

USL

Solder Paste Inspection

Why use Solder Paste

Inspection Systems

Many solder joint defects are caused by solder paste

printing

Solder paste volume and registration for miniature

components such as 0201 and CSP is critical

Components are becoming more difficult and

expensive to rework
The cost of in the printing process is the least
expensive defect to correct
This inspection process can be used real time as a
process control and process monitoring tool

Determining Your Solder Paste Inspection Needs

What is the most challenging Packaging Technology you are
dealing with? 0603s,0402s,0201s?, 15mil Pitch QFPs?, Etc.
What is the smallest deposit size you are dealing with?
What kind of quality controls do you have in place today for your
printing operation? Do you have any manual or automated
solder paste inspection equipment currently? 2D or 3D ?
Do you feel your printing equipment, and processes are under
control?
Would you agree that the correct volume and registration of
solder paste is paramount in creating the strongest, and most
reliable solder joint geometry?

Determining Your Solder Paste Inspection Needs

Are your customers interested in having you inspect all
critical deposits of solder paste on their boards? Does 2D or
3D matter to them?
Has your Pb-free production or experimentation experiencing an
increase in solder paste related defects?
Do you think SPI would help you win more business? Produce
higher quality modules?
What are you solder paste printing process cycle time
requirements?

Determining Your Solder Paste Inspection Needs

Capability

Why It Is Needed

Speed / Throughput

Keep up with line beat rates

100% Inspection

Find systemic and random defects on all deposits on all boards

3D

Volume can only be measured with 3D

Resolution / Accuracy

Trends for smaller components, BGAs, and CSPs leads to smaller

deposit sizes

Measurement Repeatability

Eliminates false failures and allows process characterization

Ease of Programming

Need programs ready at start up and for prototyping

System Uptime

Can not have a process control tool go down

SPC

Need to be able to view and alarm on trends in the process

2 Dimensional (2D)
and
3 Dimensional (3D)
Solder paste Inspection

Defect Identification

Bridge
Slump/ Large height
variation
Paste to pad offset/
Misaligned print

Volume high or low/

Height high or low
Insufficient coverage/
Excess coverage
Smear

Solder Paste Problems and Solutions

SPI Measurement

Possible Cause

Action

Paste to Pad Offset

Mis-aligned stencil
Bad stencil or boards

Adjust screen printer

Measure stencil and boards

Bridge

Excess paste
Damaged apertures

Collect 3D data
Inspect stencil

Smear

Poor handling
Paste on back of stencil Snap-off height too high

Clean stencil

Insufficient Coverage

Dried paste on stencil apertures, Paste volume on printer

too low Squeegee speed too fast

Clean stencil
Add fresh paste Adjust printer

Excess Coverage

Poor aperture gasketing due to excessive squeegee

pressure, debris on board, or damaged aperture

Adjust printer
Clean stencil & board
Inspect stencil

Volume High
Height High

Contamination at board/stencil interface

Warped stencil

Clean stencil & board

Inspect stencil

Slump

Squeegee speed too fast

Paste temp too high
Paste has absorbed moisture

Adjust printer

Large Height
Variation

Warped stencil
Separation control speed too fast
Squeegee speed too fast

Inspect stencil
Adjust printer

Volume Low
Height Low

Polymer blades scoop out paste

Squeegee speed too fast

Adjust printer

Paste to Pad Offset / Misaligned Print

SPI Measurement

Possible Cause

Action

Paste to Pad Offset

Mis-aligned stencil
Bad stencil or boards

Adjust screen printer

Measure stencil and boards

2D

Offset defect
Potential area defect

3D

Potential volume defect

Potential height defect

Solder Bridge
SPI Measurement

Possible Cause

Action

Bridge

Excess paste
Damaged apertures

Collect 3D data
Inspect stencil

2D

Offset good
Potential area defect if bridge area is large

3D

Volume defect
Potential height defect

Solder Smear
SPI Measurement

Possible Cause

Action

Smear

Poor handling
Paste on back of stencil Snap-off height too high

Clean stencil

2D

Offset good
Potential area defect if smear area is large

3D

Potential volume defect

Height defect

Insufficient Paste Coverage/

Excess Paste Coverage
SPI Measurement

Possible Cause

Action

Insufficient
Coverage

Dried paste on stencil apertures, Paste volume on

printer too low Squeegee speed too fast

Clean stencil
Add fresh paste Adjust printer

Excess Coverage

Poor aperture gasketing due to excessive squeegee

pressure, debris on board, or damaged aperture

Adjust printer
Clean stencil & board
Inspect stencil

2D

Offset good
Area defect

3D

Volume defect
Potential height defect

Volume High or Low /

Height High or Low
SPI Measurement

Possible Cause

Action

Volume High
Height High

Contamination at board/stencil interface

Warped stencil

Clean stencil & board

Inspect stencil

Volume Low
Height Low

Polymer blades scoop out paste

Squeegee speed too fast

Adjust printer

2D

Offset good
Area good

3D

Volume defect
Height defect

Slump / Large Height Variation

SPI Measurement

Possible Cause

Action

Slump

Squeegee speed too fast

Paste temp too high
Paste has absorbed moisture

Adjust printer

Large Height
Variation

Warped stencil
Separation control speed too fast
Squeegee speed too fast

Inspect stencil
Adjust printer

2D

Offset good
Potential area defect

3D

Volume defect
Height defect

Conclusions
Both

2D and 3D provide valuable

process information
Some overlap exists between 2D defect
calls and 3D defect calls
3D inspection provides volume
measurements

2D and 3D Inspection Systems

2D Inspection (Existing Technology)

Can evaluate features in two dimensions, length and width (X and

Y axis)
Primarily designed to evaluate the solder paste coverage on the
printed circuit board pad
Uses vision Grey Scale to distinguish between printed circuit
board pad and printed solder paste
Before printing system learns pads on printed circuit board
User defines acceptable solder paste coverage
Must consider aperture size versus printed circuit board pad
size
Can be incorporated into the solder paste printing equipment or as
a separate in line or off line machine
Must consider cycle time requirement in selecting equipment

Enhanced 2D with BridgeVision

(Newly Introduced Technology)
A printer-based 2D inspection system augmented with texture-based analysis
of bridging and paste transfer.
Texture-based system provides:

Most accurate analysis taught from stencil apertures reduces false positives

Programmable limits enable threshold values for application matching.

Minimal impact to cycle time as compared to competing solutions

Ease of use:

Teach function is modeled after the contrast based 2D system

Programmable limits are set on a % basis

What is inspected is selectable for each taught device

Yield improvement:

Identifies paste transfer and bridging defects early in the process line

Prevents unnecessary downstream processing and final yield defects

Current Inspection Architecture

Image
Acquisition
Paste Recognition (dual threshold)
limited to pad area only

2-D

2-D coverage of
pad only
Outputs and SPC

Image
Acquisition
Paste Recognition (texture based)
over gap only

Bridge
Detection

Bridge Detection Analysis (gap cover

and span in gap)
Outputs and SPC

Enhanced 2D with BridgeVisionTM

Features
Option coupled with enhanced 2D inspection
Shift from contrast to texture based
inspection (patent-pending)
Able to look at area and span features
Capabilities
Minimal impact to 2D cycle time = fastest
bridge detecting 2D in the market
0.016 (.4mm) pitch capability
Functions include Auto shutter speed
adjustment to optimize image gathering
Programmable limits to alarm for both span
(spike penetration) and area (% of gap
covered)

Lighting Effects (continued)

User Defined Inputs

1) Maximum Amount of Paste to be Allowed in the Gap
2) Minimum Width to be Considered a Significant Bridge Feature
3) Maximum Span of a Significant Bridge Feature Across the Gap

Typical Parameters
1) Maximum Paste Allowed in Gap

= 55% of the total gap area

2) Minimum Bridge Width

= 10 pixels wide (6.6 mil, 168 micron)

3) Maximum Span of Bridge

= 70% of the width of the gap

Gap Projection and

Sliding Average

10

Paste-Only Tile
20

Gap
Projection

Area under
the curve

30

Sliding
Average
(10
pixels)

Gap Length in
Pixels

40

50

Run-Time Tile

Weighted Projection

60
70

User
Defined
Span
Limit
(70%)

80
90

100

Gap ROI

Gap Span in Pixels

10

Outputs
1) Surface area of gap covered by paste: Gap Cover (%)
2) Length of gap covered by bridge feature after sliding averaging:
Span (%)
3) Flag: Excess Gap Cover if paste coverage of the gap
exceeds Maximum Paste Allowed in Gap
4) Flag: Bridge Feature Detected if span exceeds Maximum
Span of Bridge Allowed
5) SPC data: Span and Gap coverage (maximum, minimum,
average) per device

Bridge Detection Impact on Cycle Time per Device

2D
X
X

Bridge Detection Cycle Time (sec)

25.93
31.63
X
34.5

Bridge Prevention Study

Agenda

Purpose of study, Basic Idea

Board Inspection
Test Matrix, Observations and Results
Stencil Inspection
Test and Observations
Conclusions

Purpose

Stencil Printing- Main source of end-of-line defects

Investigation of a potential inspection technique to

predict and prevent bridging

Gap Cover or Span(%)

Idea
Bridging Trend
Threshold

A
Board Number

2A

Printed Circuit Board Inspection

Test Matrix
FOLLOWING TYPES OF BOARDS AND SOLDER PASTES WERE
USED:
BOARD TYPES

MPM GOLD BOARDS (6 MIL GAP WIDTH)

ALPHA BOARDS (8 MIL GAP WIDTH)
3 UP BOARDS (8 MIL GAP WIDTH)
SOLDER PASTE TYPES

OMNIX 5000
LR735
OMNIX 6023

Conclusions

No trend permitting prediction of bridge defects could be

found regardless of paste and board combination.
There is a significant gap-to-gap variation
Board inspection is not sufficient for predicting bridging

Based on these conclusions we decided to investigate

the paste inspection on stencil to predict and prevent
bridge defects

Stencil Inspection

Tests and Observations

Exp.3: Closing the loop on stencil wiping
Trigger wipe only when necessary: (maximum gap coverage>
60%)
Bridging appears to be under control with less stencil wipe
cycles than in Exp:2 ( 4 vs. 7 over 100 prints)
No Stencil Wipe

Closed loop ( maximum gap coverage>60%)

Gap Cover(Stencil) vs Bridge Span(Board)

Gap Cover(Stencil) vs Bridge Span(Board)- No Stencil Wipe

Wipe performed with 60% threshold on Maximum Gap Cover (Stencil)

120

120

Maximum Gap Cover (Stencil)

Maximum Bridge Span (Board)

Maximum Bridge Span (Board)

Maximum Gap Coverage (Stencil)

100

Board Number

97

100

94

91

88

85

82

79

76

73

70

67

64

61

58

55

52

49

46

43

40

37

34

31

28

25

22

19

16

13

97

93

89

85

81

77

73

69

65

61

57

53

49

45

41

37

33

29

25

21

17

13

20

40

20

Board Number

Threshold for Stencil

Wipe

10

40

60

60

80

Gap Cover, Bridge Span (%)

80

Gap Cover, Bridge Span (%)

100

Conclusions
It is difficult to predict bridging by inspecting the boards
The stencil contamination shows a uniform trend
Bridging can be predicted and controlled by inspecting
stencil using our texture-based analysis of bridging and
paste transfer.

Potential Bridge Prevention Technique

STENCIL

BOARD

Gap Cover(Stencil) vs Bridge Span(Board)

Gap Cover(Stencil) vs Bridge Span(Board)- No Stencil Wipe

Wipe performed with 60% threshold on Maximum Gap Cover (Stencil)

120

120

Maximum Bridge Span (Board)

Maximum Gap Cover (Stencil)

Maximum Gap Coverage (Stencil)

Maximum Bridge Span (Board)

100

Board Number

97

100

94

91

88

85

82

79

76

73

70

67

64

61

58

55

52

49

46

43

40

37

34

31

28

25

22

19

16

13

97

93

89

85

81

77

73

69

65

61

57

53

49

45

41

37

33

29

25

21

17

13

20

40

20

Board Number

Threshold for Stencil

Wipe

10

40

60

60

80

Gap Cover, Bridge Span (%)

80

Gap Cover, Bridge Span (%)

100

3D Inspection (Existing Technology)

Can evaluate features in three dimensions, length, width, and

height (X, Y, and Z axis)
Primarily designed to evaluate the solder paste coverage, height
and/or volume on the printed circuit board pad
Uses a laser to define height and/or volume of printed solder
paste
Before printing system learns pads on printed circuit board
User defines acceptable solder paste height and/or volume
Must consider aperture size and stencil thickness
Can be incorporated into the solder paste printing equipment or as
a separate in line or off line machine
Must consider cycle time requirement in selecting equipment

Close Loop Printer

Equipment Control

Closed Loop Control System

(Developing Technology)
Closed loop printer control:
Optimizes volumes of solder deposits which ultimately results in more reliable
solder joints
Stabilizes the print process when perturbations occur
Stencil Printer

Inspection System

Feedback
Control

Placement Machine

Reflow Oven

Close Loop Printer Control

Height distribution
without control
20

FS
BS

Frequency

Frequency

20

Height distribution
with control

10

FS
BS

10

0
3.5

4.5

5.5

Height

BS = Back Squeegee Stroke

FS = Front Squeegee Stroke

3.5

4.5

Height

5.5

Cpk Analysis for OM5K

2.5

2.0

Cpk

1.5

1.0

Cpk improvement observed when close loop control is used

0.5

CL

WC

0.0
0

12

16

20

24

28

Pad Number

Cpk analysis performed for each pad for BGA 36 Component

Specification Limit for Cpk +/- 1.0 mil from Target

32

36

Close Loop Printer Control

90

6.2

With Control

9.0

No Control

With Control

6.0

8.0

85

5.8

7.0

80

5.4

75

5.2
5.0

70

4.8
4.6

65

4.4

6.0

Cp / Cpk Index

5.6

Temperature (F)

Average Height (mils)

No Control

5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

Cp

4.2
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Board Number

70

80

90

60
100

Cpk
Volume

Cp

Cpk
Height

Conclusions

Finding defects as early in the process as possible will provide

significant cost reductions and increased first pass yield
Calculate and understand the cost of a defect in your operation
Understand how your process is performing at all times
The primary effort must be in formal process design and
development and continuous process improvement to prevent
defects from occurring.
Focus on monitoring the process (SPC) not monitoring the product
(Reactive versus Proactive Culture)
React as quickly as possible to process out of control situations
Implement a containment plan to insure the defects do not escape
while you are developing permanent corrective action

Conclusions

A formal test and inspection process design should be evaluated

and implemented
Test and inspection equipment should only be selected after the
test and inspection process design is approved
There is excellent test and inspection equipment available from a
number of suppliers. Ask for accuracy and repeatability data.

Insure the equipment has the necessary precision and speed

An effective continuous improvement program must be

established to drive permanent corrective action from defect and
SPC data.
Follow the development of Closed-loop Process Control Systems
that will be effective in monitoring and controlling a process
Work with your equipment and materials suppliers to understand
how to optimize the performance of their products

Thank You!!!!