0
Research Papers

Influence of Gap Height in Flip Chip Underfill Process With Non-Newtonian Flow Between Two Parallel Plates

[+] Author and Article Information
C. Y. Khor1

 School of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Engineering Campus, 14300 Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysiacykhor_1985@hotmail.com

M. Z. Abdullah

 School of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Engineering Campus, 14300 Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia

M. Abdul Mujeebu

 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Anjuman Institute of Technology and Management, 581320 Bhatkal, Karnataka, India

1

Corresponding author.

J. Electron. Packag 134(1), 011003 (Mar 19, 2012) (6 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4005914 History: Received January 04, 2011; Revised December 05, 2011; Published March 07, 2012; Online March 19, 2012

In this paper, the finite volume method (FVM) is used for the simulation of flip chip underfill process by considering non-Newtonian flow between two parallel plates that emulate the silicon die and the substrate. 3D model of two parallel plates of size 12.75 mm × 9.5 mm with gap heights of 5 μm, 15 μm, 25 μm, 35 μm, 45 μm, and 85 μm are developed and simulated by computational fluid dynamic (CFD) code, fluent 6.3.26. The flow is modeled by using power law model and volume of fluid (VOF) technique is applied for flow front tracking. The effect of change in height of the gap between the plates on the underfill process is mainly studied in the present work. It is observed that the gap height has significant influence on the melt filling time and pressure drop, as the gap height decreases filling time and pressure drop increase. The simulation results are compared with previous experimental results and found in good conformity.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2012 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Meshed model of two parallel plates

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Flow direction and flow front advancement (xf ) during underfill process

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Flow front advancements versus filling time for different number of nodes

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Filled volumes versus filling time for different number of nodes

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Comparison of experimental [9] and simulated flow fronts at filling times of 10, 30, and 50 s for 45 μm of gap height

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Comparison of experimental [9] and simulated flow fronts at filling times of 10, 30, and 50 s for 85 μm of gap height

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Comparison of experimental [9] and simulation results for a gap height, 45 μm

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Comparison of experimental [9] and simulation results for a gap height, 85 μm

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Flow front advancements and percentage of volume versus filling time for different gap heights

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Comparison of flow front profiles for 5 μm to 35 μm gap height

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Filling time versus gap height

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Length of parallel plates versus filling time for different gap heights

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Pressure drop profile for different gap height at 80 s of filling time

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Effect of gap height to pressure drop at 80 s of filling time

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In