Media Kit
For advertisements and demographics
click here
Current Advertisers
 Publisher's Letter
My APEX Perspective: Running Hot and Cold

 Assembly Lines
APEX 2001: It's Déjà Vu All Over Again

 Electronic Trends
Stacked Packages Are Becoming a High-Volume Product

 Standards
Why Are There So Many Chip-Scale Package Ball Diameters?

 Market Observer

Inventory Overhang Brings Pause to Semiconductor Assembly and Test Sector

 Harvey Miller's Notebook
Y2K Was Just Practice for the Year 2001

 CSP Automation
Bumping-Up Manufacturing Capacity Can Quickly Add to the Bottom Line

 On Test
If the Real Estate People Can Connect, Why Can't We?

 Industry News
Company News
Apex 2001
Apex Photo Album
Packaging Foundries
People in the News
Calendar of Events
Editorial Index

 Features
Dispensing Systems: Smaller CSPs Demand New Features, Greater Automation
Automated Dispensing Equipment Suppliers

Solder Ball Placement

Solder Ball Placement Equipment Suppliers

An Expert Looks at the Issues: Alec J. Babiarz on Fluid Dispensing

 Tutorial
Dispensing: The Materials, Processes and Tools Needed To Achieve Manufacturing Success

 Technical Forum
Beyond Flip-Chip, Underfills Enhance CSP Reliability

Effects of Pb Contamination on Lead-Free Sn/Ag/Bi Solder
 Tools & Technologies
Universal Offering Fully Integrated Systems and more...

 Technology Report
The Emerging Copper Revolution Will Impact ICs with Critical Dimensions Smaller than 100 nm

 Patents
This Interposer Package's Enhanced Substrate Acts as a Decoupling Capacitor and Conditions Each Signal I/O

 Archives
2001
Jan-Feb March April
May-June July  
2000
Jan-Feb Mar-Apr May-June
July-Aug Sept-Oct Nov-Dec
1999
Jan-Feb Mar-Apr May-June
July-Aug Sept-Oct Nov-Dec
1998
  Mar-Apr May-June
July-Aug Sept-Oct Nov-Dec


Subscription

 
Current Issue
An Independent Journal Dedicated to the Advancement of Chip - Scale Electronics
March 2001

Why Are There So Many Chip-Scale Package Ball Diameters?

Mark Bird
Contributing Editor

It seems that with each new CSP package family (or variation of a present family), a different ball diameter is defined.

This subject, in fact, was an agenda item assigned to the JEDEC Committee at a joint EIAJ/JEDEC meeting held in Portland, Ore., last year, where JEDEC explained why there are different ball diameters for various pitches in its CSP specifications. (The JEDEC presentation is shown in the table.)

The table is a summary of all present JEDEC chip-scale package outlines, including all JEDEC Design Guides that have different eutectic ball sizes defined.

The nominal pitches covered are 0.50, 0.65, 0.75, 0.80 and 1.00 mm, while the eutectic ball nominal diameters covered are 0.60, 0.50, 0.45, 0.40 and 0.30 mm (each of these has a tolerance of ± 0.05 mm).

All specifications listed in the table are JEDEC Design Guide Standards (95-1 Sec. X) or Package Outlines (Registrations MO-XXX and Standards MS-XXX). The specifications are available, without charge, from the JEDEC web site [jedec.org].

The table illustrates that as the lead pitch becomes finer, the number of different options (in terms of ball size) are reduced. This is because the ball's physical size is limited by the lead pitch to prevent shorting during CSP mounting. Thus, at the finest pitch of 0.50 mm, only one ball diameter option is recommended (0.30 mm). At the 0.80 mm pitch, however, four different sizes can be employed (0.30, 0.40, 0.45 and 0.50 mm).

CSP Ball Diameter Vs. Pitch
  Ball Diameter    
Pitch Min. Nominal Max. Co-Planarity Specifications
1.00 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.20 MO-151, MO-192, MS-028, 95-1 Sec 14
  0.40 0.45 0.50 0.12 MO-216
0.80 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.12 MO-205, 95-1 Sec 5, 95-1 Sec 6
  0.40 0.45 0.50 0.12 MO-216, MO-219, 95-1 Sec 5, 95-1 Sec 6, 95-1 Sec 7
  0.35 0.40 0.45 0.10 MO-210, 95-1 Sec 5, 95-1 Sec 6, 95-1 Sec 7
  0.25 0.30 0.35 0.08 95-1 Sec 4, 95-1 Sec 5, 95-1 Sec 7
0.75 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.12 MO-207, 95-1 Sec 7
  0.25 0.30 0.35 0.08 MO-207, 95-1 Sec 7
0.65 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.10 MO-207, 95-1 Sec 5, 95-1 Sec 6, 95-1 Sec 7
  0.25 0.30 0.35 0.08 MO-207, 95-1 Sec 5, 95-1 Sec 6, 95-1 Sec 7
0.50 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.08 MO-195, MO-207, 95-1 Sec 5, 95-1 Sec 6, 95-1 Sec 7

Ball Diameter Drives Co-Planarity

The summary table indicates that the eutectic ball diameter, not the pitch, drives the co-planarity requirement-something that is not normally seen when looking at a specification. The larger the ball diameter, the larger the volume of solder needed, and the greater the lack of co-planarity tolerable in board assembly.

The major consideration, not obvious in the table, is the end user's package overall profile height requirement. Package overall profile height is defined as the distance from the bottom of the ball (seating plane of the package) to the highest point of the package.

The overall profile height is specified as a maximum value, and is normally driven by the end customer's application require-ments. The lower the profile height needed, the smaller the ball diameter must be.

Due to the low profile height requirements of portable products, many JEDEC package outlines have been created with the same body sizes, pitches and ball counts, although they possess different ball diameters.

In general, the largest ball diameter possible should always be selected to provide the best solder joint reliability for the overall profile height and pitch requirements.

Obviously, even with the JEDEC CSP Design Guides in place, there will be (and are) ball diameters that differ from those found in the table. The many possible variations will continue to defy total standardization.

While it may not be readily apparent, a number of standard ball diameters have been adopted for use by the industry. Moreover, as end users' overall profile height requirements continue to become smaller, CSP ball diameter variations will necessarily follow the same trend.

Mr. Bird is an Amkor Technology Fellow and the director of technical marketing at Amkor in Chandler, Ariz. [mbird@amkor.com]
 
Copyright © 2001