For 01005 parts, some apertures are better than others.

Continuous reduction in component size has been at the forefront of electronics product innovation, assembly process development and the industry conversation for years. Readers will no doubt recall the papers presented, tools developed, and processes modified to accommodate the “coming soon” metric 03015 and 0201 components. That preparation is essential. In my opinion, however, it is more likely than not that widespread use of these ultra-small chips is far in the future; it will come, but probably not in the next generation.

Another reality presents, perhaps, a more immediate challenge: increasing component density beyond current norms. Realistically, for next-generation mobile phones and wearables, the primary consumers of the most miniaturized components, board designs will continue to incorporate the 01005 chip (metric 0402). There are a gracious plenty of reasons for this, not the least of which are cost and component availability. The challenge for product designers is how to get the most function from chips that may be larger than they would prefer. What’s the solution? Squeeze the 01005s closer together, of course!

To continue reading, please log in or register using the link in the upper right corner of the page.

An RFID tag can log everything from storage location to print strokes.

Outside of sheer printing machine capability, the stencil is arguably the next most important element of the printing process. Stencil material, thickness, aperture integrity, sidewall smoothness (or lack thereof), and tension all play a role in the quality of the solder paste deposit. And, like all consumables, metal stencils have a lifetime: They do not last forever. Unless a stencil is damaged, tension loss is the factor that most often determines when a stencil has run its course. A properly tensioned stencil enables a good, solid release of the paste deposits onto the board. Alternatively, a stencil that has lost tension and has begun to “sag” may result in defects such as “dog ears”¹, bridges, or insufficient paste on pad, to name a few.

Today, stencil tension is more important than ever. Historically, when stencil thicknesses averaged 200µm, one was far more likely to retire a stencil from damage than from wear. Now, however, with the exceptionally thin 60µm foils required for miniaturized designs, tension loss can occur sooner, as repeated stencil pressure during the print stroke eventually reduces stencil elasticity. As has been addressed in this column, there is a proven correlation to changing tension and the output of the printing process.²

To continue reading, please log in or register using the link in the upper right corner of the page.

Multitasking platforms are becoming the standard.

While productivity – manufacturing more product, more efficiently in less time – has been center stage in electronics assembly for decades, today’s razor-thin margins, coupled with the requirement for limited human intervention, have put an exclamation point on managing output proficiency. (This is especially true as the world restricts building access and maintains safe personal distances.) An optimized stencil printing process, as I’ve said many times, comes down to depositing the right volume in the right place at the right time. These are the three pillars of the print operation. Ultimately, for maximum productivity, a manufacturing operation needs a stencil printer that is always available and, when it is available, efficient and reliable.

It wasn’t long ago the bottleneck on the production line was usually the placement machine, so the stencil printer was generally available and had plenty of time to run the print routine. With recent modular approaches to manufacturing line setups, however, this is no longer the case. Placement platforms have exponentially improved speed. The printer now must maintain a much faster pace; this starts with mechanics and cycle time. In mass production settings, getting a printer down to a core cycle time of five seconds has become a necessity.

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.