1 / 28

Feasibility Study and Proposal for 34x34 Singulated BGAs in 3x7 JEDEC Tray Applied on BP3000-HD

Feasibility Study and Proposal for 34x34 Singulated BGAs in 3x7 JEDEC Tray Applied on BP3000-HD. Prepared by : ASM BP Product Team Date : 28 th Feb, 2005. Background / Request.

solada
Download Presentation

Feasibility Study and Proposal for 34x34 Singulated BGAs in 3x7 JEDEC Tray Applied on BP3000-HD

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Feasibility Study and Proposal for 34x34 Singulated BGAs in 3x7 JEDEC Tray Applied on BP3000-HD Prepared by : ASM BP Product Team Date : 28th Feb, 2005

  2. Background / Request • BP3000-HD’s capability of handling 5mm KOZ packages in traditional 2x5 JEDEC tray was proven with SpringdaleG/ GrantsdaleG/ Genting6 tooling kits. • Also, handling of 2mm KOZ package in traditional 2x5 JEDEC tray has been proven with Lakeport tooling kits. • Recently Intel proposed 2mm KOZ package in 3x7 JEDEC tray for BP3000-HD’s capability assessment. New tray design is aimed for UPH improvement. Compared to traditional 2x5 tray, the new tray design results in over 100% increase in number of units per tray.

  3. 7 columns 3 rows Background / Request • The 2mm KOZ package (Lakeport) and 3x7 JEDEC tray that Intel proposed for BP3000-HD assessment KOZ Lakeport package 34mmX34mm 2mm KOZ 1202 I/Os, 0.5mm balls Intel proposed 3x7 plastic JEDEC tray

  4. Define problems (1) • Tray problem 1: Not enough recess openings • The 3x7 tray has only 4 recess openings per package pocket (vs 8 openings for Gulisan ~1400 I/Os). Thus it only allow 4 grippers for clamping, and the clamping force estimated is not large enough to overcome the flux sticking force for ~1200 I/Os in 0.5mm ball size. For comparison, traditional trays can allocate 8 grippers to provide large clamping force 3x7 tray has only 4 recess openings to allocate 4 grippers

  5. Define problems (2) • Tray problem 2: Narrow recess opening • Recess opening depth of 3x7 tray is 2.5mm only, which is not wide enough to allocate a rigid gripper with reasonable clearance between tray and package. For comparison, traditional trays have wide enough recess opening (6mm) to allocate a rigid gripper Recess opening in 3x7 tray is too narrow (2.5mm) to allocate a rigid gripper

  6. Define problems (3) • Tray problem 3: Short package alignment length • The maximum length for package alignment by gripper edge is limited to ~ 8mm, which is relatively short with reference to a 34mm package. It may affect alignment performance and thus placement accuracy. For comparison, traditional tray has ~30mm for package alignment 3x7 tray has only ~8mm in length for package alignment

  7. Less material remained between pockets Define problems (4) • Tray problem 4: Tray weakness • Tray is inherently weak because of much less material remained between pockets. It has the concerns of structural stability and long terms reliability.

  8. Define problems (5) • Dual rows placement • In order to handle the 3x7 tray in BP3000-HD with high throughput, one of the BP module should handle ball attach for two package rows, and the other BP module to handle the remaining single row. • However, placement width required for dual rows placement is ~75mm, which exceeds the present placement width capability of 65mm. Require 75mm placement width for dual rows placement

  9. Define problems (5) • Dual rows placement (con’t) • Firstly, placement width is limited by BSU sweeper and holder for ball preparation. • Secondly, it is limited by the optical system embedded in pick head for missing ball detection. • Also, it is required to redesign the pneumatic system in Pick and BSU heads to handle enlarged placement area BSU sweeper Pick head with optical system inside for missing ball detection BSU holder

  10. Pocket pitch of 3x7 tray is 41 – 43mm Illustration of a gripper mechanism to clamp and support one Gulisan unit Define problems (6) • Spatial constraint for gripper mechanism • Traditional trays have pocket pitches (X & Y) in ~60mm. For 3x7 tray, pocket pitches reduce to 41 – 43mm in both directions. • It is a critical spatial constraint to accommodate the gripper mechanisms (equipped with package tilting detector) for 34mm packages in 41 – 43mm pitch distance

  11. Define problems (6) • Spatial constraint for gripper mechanism (con’t) • Unless the push block elevator assy is modified to reserve space for gripper mechanism, there is little chance to solve spatial constraint problem. Push block elevator assy

  12. Define problems (7) • Tooling kits incompatibility • As one BP module performs dual rows placement and the other BP module performs single row placement, tooling kits for BP-Left and BP-Right will become incompatible. • List of incompatible parts • Ball head templates and holders • Pin head templates and holders • Pick head template and holders • Push block tooling sets

  13. Define problems (8) • Increase of inspection time • FOV is not large enough for multi-package inspection. Inspection time will increase as each tray carries 21 units instead of 10. • Estimated to have ~6 to 8 seconds increase in cycle time.

  14. New tray design proposal • We propose new tray design to solve the above mentioned tray problems. • However, inherent weakness because of much less material remained between pockets cannot be enhanced.

  15. New tray design proposal (con’t) • Proposed changes in tray design • Increase the no. of recess openings from 4 to 8 for each package pocket, such that each package have 8 grippers to provide large enough package clamping force. • Increase recess opening depth from 2.5mm to 5mm to reserve space for grippers • Increase length reference gripper edge for package alignment from ~8mm to ~26mm Reference Gripper

  16. Proposal (1): 3x7 Tray – Dual BPs • Proposal (1) Use 3x7 Tray – Dual BPs • Keep two BP modules in BP3000-HD • One BP module handles two rows (one placement at one time) and the other BP module handles one row. • Prerequisite • Tray modification as discussed • Tasks involved • BSU sweeper redesign Required • Missing ball optical system redesign Required • Pick head redesign Required • BSU/Pick head pneumatic redesign Required • Push block elevator assy redesign Required • Tooling kits (clamping set) design (3x7) Required • s/w change for host system No

  17. Proposal (1): 3x7 Tray – Dual BPs • Pros • High UPH ~ 2960 - 3215 (Assume cycle time ~ 23.5 – 25.5s) • Cons • Incompatible tooling kits between BP-left and BP-right • Smaller process windows as placement area enlarged • Substantial design changes to systems • High cost of system change • High cost of tooling kit • Long development and debug time (~ 22 wks or more) • Not suggest for field upgrade

  18. Proposal (1): 3x7 Tray – Dual BPs • Potential risks and Confidence level • Tray structural stability and long terms reliability • Gripper mechanism spatial constraint and its stability in terms of package alignment and clamping forces • Come up with conceptual design • Low confidence level ~ 50%

  19. Proposal (2): 2x7 Tray – Dual BPs • Proposal (2) Use 2x7 Tray – Dual BPs • Keep two BP modules in BP3000-HD • Remove one row from the proposed tray. Handling method will be same as traditional 2x5 tray with each BP handle a single row. • Prerequisite • Tray modification as discussed • Tasks involved • BSU sweeper redesign No • Missing ball optical system redesign No • Pick head redesign No • BSU/Pick head pneumatic redesign No • Push block elevator assy redesign Required • Tooling kits (clamping set) design Required • s/w change for host system No

  20. Proposal (2): 2x7 Tray – Dual BPs • Pros • Compatible tooling kits between BP-left and BP-right • No change to placement area and thus less impact to process windows • Lower cost of system change • Lower cost of tooling kit • Shorter development and debug time (~ 14 weeks) • Possible for field upgrade • Cons • Comparatively lower UPH ~ 2520 - 2650 (Assume cycle time ~ 19 – 20s)

  21. Proposal (2): 2x7 Tray – Dual BPs • Potential risks and Confidence level • Less concerns in stability of tray structure and gripper mechanism compared to Proposal 1 • Higher confidence level ~ 70%

  22. Proposal (3): 3x7 Tray – Triple BPs • Proposal (3) Use 3x7 Tray – Triple BPs • Add one more BP in BP3000-HD (i.e. totally 3 BPs) • Handling method will be same as traditional 2x5 tray with each BP handle a single row. • Prerequisite • Tray modification as discussed • Tasks involved • BSU sweeper redesign No • Missing ball optical system redesign No • Pick head redesign No • BSU/Pick head pneumatic redesign No • Push block elevator assy redesign Required • Tooling kits (clamping set) design Required • s/w change Required and minor h/w change for host system

  23. BP1 BP2 BP3 Proposal (3): 3x7 Tray – Triple BPs Illustration of BP3000-HD with 3 BP modules

  24. Proposal (3): 3x7 Tray – Triple BPs • Pros • High UPH ~ 2960 - 3215 (Similar to proposal 1) • Compatible tooling kits between BP modules • No change to placement area and thus less impact to process windows • Shorter development and debug time (~ 15 weeks) • Possible for field upgrade, but more complicated than that of proposal 2 • Cons • Higher cost of system change • Larger foot print

  25. Proposal (3): 3x7 Tray – Triple BPs • Potential risks and Confidence level • Less concerns in stability of gripper mechanism compared to Proposal 1 • Higher confidence level ~ 70%

  26. Summary of 3 Propsals

  27. Technical Recommendations • Proposal 1 is too risky, and thus not suggested • Proposal 2 is suggested to consider • UPH is lower, but already improved by 25%, comparing with original case • Cost of change is the lowest • 1.4 USD / 1% UPH increase • Proposal 3 is suggested to consider • UPH is high, and improved by 50%, comparing with original case • Cost of change is higher • 2.4 USD / 1% UPH increase

  28. Business Concerns • Cost of system change • Only for special systems for handling 3x7 trays? • What about Intel CE requirements ??? • Will this be applied to all systems in field ??? • Cost of new tooling kits • Change in contract price for base system with enhanced capabilities

More Related