Quietly, HDPUG Gaining Members, Performing Research Print E-mail
Written by Mike Buetow   
Wednesday, 30 January 2013 02:18

Operating mostly under the radar – although not necessarily by design – the High Density Packaging Users Group in now well into its second decade of pushing electronics manufacturing technology forward. Now 40 members strong, and primarily OEM driven, HDPUG is led by executive director Marshall Andrews. No stranger to consortia work, Andrews spent about 12 years at MCC, the US-based computer consortium, and later was founding CEO of ITRI, a consortium for promoting and enhancing PCB fabricators and technology. He spoke with editor in chief Mike Buetow in January. 

MB: How are you defining “packaging” these days? In other words, where does the scope of your work start and stop?
MA: It’s pretty loose, as you can imagine. Our projects generally deal with mounting of the package device through the final product to the customer. All the mechanical activities that occur through that flow. We deal with board manufacturing, assembly, and the materials that deal with those areas; design. We cover systems-level manufacturing; we built a laptop PC and put it through some tests. We have touched a few things in semi packaging, but not a whole lot. Some thermal electromigration projects concerning the attachment of the device to the board. The sweet spot is around the board and the assembly.

MB: You share many members with iNEMI. How do you coordinate with that organization?
MA: We do have several members that are in both organizations. They are very adverse to duplication of efforts. If they see something that borders on what iNEMI is doing, they let us know, and we talk to iNEMI to be sure there is no overlap.

MB: Has anything learned from your ITRI days informed what you are doing now?
MA: I’ve used a lot of what I learned from ITRI to help HDP. The involvement and direction of the OEMs [is] a very important part of making this work. They are the ultimate customer. In ITRI, we tried to take out the middle [Ed.: ITRI was fabricator-driven], and without the direction of the OEMs, that was a real weakness. The OEM participation is a real incentive for the rest of the supply chain to jump on board.

MB: Tell me about your current projects.
MA: HDP has 22 active projects, eight of which are open to any companies – member or nonmember. Any initial project is open to all companies. When implementation starts, we close it to members only, as we are getting into the results generation, which is what the members pay for. If a company is interested only in one project and does not wish to join but is willing to contribute resources that the project needs, with the approval and support of the HDP board, they are allowed to participate in the implementation stage.

MB: Could you give us an example of something HDP is currently working on?
MA: One thing we’ve seen is Pb-free and halogen-free activities have driven a surge in new and improved PCB materials. We and formed a group to look at the properties of these new materials for their suitability in Pb-free assembly. In the first round, we built boards out of a number of different materials, put them through reflow, and tested them. Only one material, and it was an expensive one, met all the requirements. We fed that info back to the materials suppliers. Then we launched another round, and some of materials passed the requirements. We are now in the third round, and more [materials] are meeting all the requirements. If each member had done this on their own, it would have cost them a great deal of money.

Now, I want to note that in setting all these requirements, we don’t use pass/fail criteria. Some applications don’t require all the strenuous performance attributes we put into these specifications. So doing it that way helps the member understand, “I don’t need all this [performance]; I can go down a layer or two and save some money with some lower-cost materials.” That was a strong payback.

It also gave very good direction to the materials suppliers, so they could improve their products.

MB: Who set the specifications for performance?
MA: It was a consensus of the participating companies, but driven by industry specifications. We didn’t say, “We want to do 300˚C because it’s fun.” We stuck to temperatures supported by industry specifications. We ended up with six reflow cycles: side 1 assembly, side 2 assembly, removal and repair, etc. That gave us an opportunity to say: if this material passed three cycles, and that’s all I need, that’s fine.

MB: Were testing protocols based on industry standard or specific to the project?
MA: We used industry standards for temperature cycling, DMA, thermal shock and so forth. We did use IST testing as part of it. In the process, we learned what it took for IST to correctly simulate thermal cycle, and redesigned the IST coupon so we no longer do thermal cycle at all. If you run IST correctly, it’s an excellent simulator of temperature cycling. Learning that was an unintended benefit.

MB: How do you account for regional variances in the manufacturing environment? A facility in a high humidity locale might have different results than one elsewhere, for example.
The environment is a big, important part of what we do. Take the case of our Warpage Project. We’re not going to change the package styles and designs, so what can we improve or adjust to improve yield with what we are seeing today? The build environment is a very big part of that. We are looking at solders and fluxes, and how they affect yields. Also, temperature ramps.

MB: Do you give feedback to the standards organizations?
MA: We don’t do standards. Our work is to develop information for the standards developers. If there’s some activity that we think will benefit the standards, we try to get them involved. We have a high-speed project, for example, that looks at high-speed test. We are bringing them along with the project and hope what we learn will become part of the standard.

MB: How long does the typical project take?
MA: We set our projects up so they have fixed start and finish dates. A typical project will last, from the beginning of idea to the finish, one to two years. Most are aimed at issues members are facing right now.

Last Updated on Wednesday, 30 January 2013 22:35




CB Login



English French German Italian Portuguese Russian Spanish

Printed Circuit Design & Fab Magazine on Facebook