0
Research Papers

Comparison of Warpage Measurement Capabilities and Results Obtained by Using Laser and Digital Fringe Projection Methods

[+] Author and Article Information
Sungbum Kang

School of Mechanical Engineering,
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA 30332

I. Charles Ume

School of Mechanical Engineering,
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA 30332
e-mail: charles.ume@me.gatech.edu

Contributed by the Electronic and Photonic Packaging Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ELECTRONIC PACKAGING. Manuscript received July 22, 2013; final manuscript received April 11, 2014; published online May 12, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Sandeep Tonapi.

J. Electron. Packag 136(3), 031007 (May 12, 2014) (5 pages) Paper No: EP-13-1074; doi: 10.1115/1.4027425 History: Received July 22, 2013; Revised April 11, 2014

Electronic packaged devices are becoming increasingly smaller in size and higher in density while requiring higher performance and superior reliability. Warpage is one of the crucial factors for the thermomechanical reliability of electronic packages and warpage control becomes a more crucial process during the printed wiring board (PWB) fabrication and package assembly processes. This requirement necessitates more accurate methods of measuring warpage. The fringe projection methods are recent trends for measuring the warpage of chip packages, PWBs, and PWB assemblies (PWBAs) because of their noncontact, full-field, and high-resolution measurement capabilities. This paper presents a comparison of two fringe projection methods: laser fringe projection (LFP) (projection moiré) and digital fringe projection (DFP). Experimental results show that digital fringe projection has higher practical resolution, and better accuracy and precision than laser fringe projection.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Grating images obtained from the (a) LFP and (b) DFP systems

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

The setups of the (a) LFP and (b) DFP systems

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

(a) A grating image obtained from the LFP system, (b) the ideal sinusoidal pattern image for (a), (c) a grating image obtained from the DFP system, and (d) the ideal sinusoidal pattern image for (c)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

The recorded grating images, the filtered grating images, and the ideal sinusoidal pattern images

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Three-dimensional plots of the results of the warpage measurement obtained by using the (a) LFP, (b) DFP, and (c) commercial shadow moiré systems

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