Solder Joint Formation Simulation and Finite Element Analysis

Gary K. Mui, Xiaohua Wu, Kai X. Hu, Chao-Pin Yeh, Karl Wyatt
Applied Simulation and Modeling Research, Corporate Software Center
Motorola Inc.
1303 E. Algonquin Road
Mail drop: ILO VAN2
Schaumburg, Ill. 60 196
(voice) 847-538-7196, (fax) 847-538-5178, (email) agm005@email.mot.com

Jim Steger, Land Mobile Products Sector, Motorola, Inc.

Abstract reflow process. The majority of existing research efforts on

The solder joint formation during reflow and related
subsequent solder joint reliability of surface mounted
electronic devices are critical issues in the field of electronic
packaging. Solder joint reflow and reliability are highly
dependent on joint configuration which are govemed by bond
pad size, alloy material, solder paste volume, l e d h m e
geometry, and lea&ame/pad alignment, etc. The objective d
this work is to develop numerical models and methods to: 1)
simulate the solder joint formation during the reflow process;
2) determine the stresdstrain distribution within the joint; and
3) further predict the reliability of the solder joints. The solder
joint formation process during the solidification stage can be
simulated using the Surface Evolver program developed by
University of Minnesota. The thermomechanical
force/displacement (or stress/strain) analysis can be carried out
using ANSYS, a general purpose Finite Element Analysis
program. The effort also include the linking of the two
programs. Examples of applications of this work include study
of components falling off during second (facing down) reflow,
and thermal stress analysis (due to CTE mismatch) of PQFP
mounted on FR4 PWB.
Introduction
solder materials and joint behavior in electronic packaging
industry have been experimentally oriented. Based on
experimental tests, it is difficult to predict a proper solder
joint geometry which is physically dictated by
thermomechanical loading conditions of the reflow process,
material properties of the solder alloy, solder volume and
wetting characteristics, pad and lead frame configurations, and
other manufacturing effects. It is desirable to develop analytical
and numerical oriented models that can predict the
equilibrium shape of molten solder and subsequent reliability
for a given set of package design parameters.
The analyses consist of three parts: 1) simulating the solder
joint formation during the reflow process; 2) determining the
stresdstrain distribution within the joint; and 3) predicting
the reliability (fatigue life) of the solder joints. The solder
joint formation process during the solidification stage is
simulated using the Surface Evolver, a software tool developed
by University of Minnesota. Surface Evolver can determine the
final solder joint shape, restoring forces, and self aligning
forces during reflow. The final shape predicted by Surface
Evolver is expressed in a surface mesh. This 2D surface mesh
can be converted into a 3D volume mesh for next step finite
element analysis with the ANSYS program.

Reliability of solder joints has been a focus of electronic
packaging research (Lau, 1991) in recent years. In fact a solder
joint provides structural support, heat conduction path, and
electrical signal transmission between the different levels of
packaging. In general, solder joint reliability depends on the
thermomechanical and mechanical behavior of solder material
and the geometrical configuration of the joint (Charles and
Clatterbaugh, 1990, Engelmeir, 1993, Ikegami, 1992).
Success in determining both the desirable solder materials and
the optimal solder joint geometrical shape during package
development can ensure a satisfactory reliability performance of
the package. However, because of the poor physical
understanding of solder wetting and forming process, the
solder joint geometry is usually not known prior to the solder
Description of Surface Evolver
Surface Evolver (Brakke, 1995) is an interactive s o h a r e
tool for analyzing liquid surface shape by incorporating the
concept of “surface tension” (or “surface energy”). Since
surface effects (surface tension, wetting phenomenon, etc.)
govem the solder joint formation phenomenon encountered in
electronic packaging applications, this simulation tool is very
suitable for predicting solder joint configuration during reflow.
Surface Evolver uses vertex-edge-facet surface elements.
Surfaces are associated with the “skin” of bodies. The tool
approximates the solder surface with triangular facets and
positions these facets until a local minimum of the total

0-7803-3857-X/97 $4.00 01997 IEEE 436 1997 Electronic Components and Technology Conference
energy is achieved. The total energy of a solder droplet
consists of surface energy (surface tension), gravitational
potential energy, and the potential energy associated with
other external forces. The surface energy normally is more
dominant than the other energy terms in the case of solder
joints. Surface Evolver uses the Variational Principle in which
the geometric constraints of the problem must be satisfied.
First, any admissible surface must meet the following two
obvious geometry constraints: (1) the molten solder cannot
penetrate a solid contact surface; and (2) the volume bounded
by surrounding surfaces of the solids is equal to the initial
solder volume available to form the joint. Other physical
constraints that must be satisfied include the particular
wettability conditions that exist where the f k solder surface
contacts the solid surfaces (Heinrich, 1994).
Examples of predicted joint geometries for gullwing and J-
leads using Surface Evolver were discussed by Racz and
Szekely (1993). In these examples, Surface Evolver was
implemented to create design guidelines for selecting an
optimal amount of solder volume for gullwing and J-lead
joints in terms of wettable surface areas on the leads and pads.
This paper presents the continuation of such solder joint
formation analyses with finite element analysis.
Component Falling Off During Second Reflow (Surface
Evolver Only)
To address the problems of components falling-off
encountered during the second reflow (when the component is
upside down), it is desirable to find out what restoring fbrce
the solder exerts due to the component weight. The restoring
force of the molten solder is the force that the solder exerts to
stabilize itself, or to retum itself to the equilibrium state, with
the introduction of an extemal load (for this case, weight of the
component). With Surface Evolver, a numerical solution can
be used to determine whether a stable solder joint can be
formed given a certain solder volume and pad/!ead geometry.
For this particular application, Surface Evolver was used to
estimate the restoring force in a solder that bridges between a
rectangle pad and the component lead with a square base
surface. It is assumed that the solder is perfectly wettable to
the pad and lead (Figure 1).
i forces versus displacements on the solder lower boundary
gravity force
I I
Figure 1: Solder joint during second reflow with component
weight.
437
A way to solve this problem is to determine the restoring
force the solder exerts when its lower boundary is shifted
downward by an offset. Diffmnt offsets (represented by H in
Figure 2) on solder lower boundary correspond to diEaent
solder joint geometric profiles and Werent restoring forces
while maintaining the same solder volume and substrate pad
size.
~ ~~~
Figure 2: Different displacements (H) correspond to different
solder geometry shapes.
In this study, the lower plane (lead plane) was incrementally
shifted downward. The energy at each increment would be
minimized, and at the same time, the energy is also
differentiated to obtain the restoring force. The restoring fbm
is defined as:
SE
F .=-= 6Esu+etension + ‘”gravio + ‘‘pressure
6H 6H
(1)
where 6E is the variation of the total energy for a certain
displacement, including the variation of surface ttmsion on the
solder surface, gravitational energy of the solder volume and
pressure energy related for (any solder volume change. Each
part of eq. (1) can be expressed as:
- + +
/ 6 H = -P6V/6H = -P/jSh . dA
6Epressure
(2)
+ z, - z
where h = ,i is a variationall vector field
ztop - ( Z t m e + H)
which is a perturbation function, leaving the solder upper
boundary fixed and gives a unit offset to the lower boundary.
In this component reflow example, the size of the PWB
copper pad is 0.05” X 0.07”. The component has four leads
with a contact surface of 0.04” X 0.04”. The solder paste
thickness before the reflow process is 10 mil. The solder
material used is 63Sn-37Pb, which has the surface tension of
490 dynekm at 225°C. Figure 3 shows Berent restoring
(interface with lead) for one solder joint. These forces were
calculated based on W i n t lead contact surfaces with a
constant solder volume. The total weight of the (componentis
0.8218 gram. Assuming that the weight is distributed
1997 Electronic Coniponents and Technology Conference
uniformly by the four leads (reasonable due to symmetry), the
gravity force exerted by each lead is 201 dynes (the dash line
on Figure 3). In this plot, a force displacement curve initially
slopes upward - force increases with displacement. A
maximum point is then reached - the point of maximum
stability. Then the curve slopes downward - force decreases
with displacement which indicates instability (the joint will
not support any higher load). Thus by comparing the
maximum point to the component weight, it can be judged
whether or not any such solder joint can keep the component
from falling off during second reflow.
Solder Restoring Force vs. Displacement
+--30.048~0.
Solder displacement in - I (mm)
Figure 3: Solder restoring force variations with different
displacements and lead plane sizes.
The following important observations were obtained h m
these results:
(1) The current design with a 0.04” X 0.04” lead contact
surface (dark solid line with circle marks) will provide an
adequate restoring force to withstand the gravity force. To
hold the component in place during reflow, only a very slight
displacement offset (0.01 mm) will occur.
(2) Decreasing lead contact surface area will lead to a smaller
restoring force. It is predicted that the lead contact s u r f m area
can be as small as 0.036” x 0.04”, yet it can still generate
enough restoring forces to support the gravity force (with a
0.03 mm displacement).
(3) Increasing lead contact surface area is an effective way to
increase the restoring force for any component with a larger
weight when both the pad size and the solder volume are
fxed. For example, if the lead surface area is increased to
0.044” X 0.04”, the restoring force at zero displacement can
reach 220 dynes. For this lead configuration design, a negative
displacement causing a smaller gap between pad and lead
438
plane will occur to hold the component with 0.8218 gram
weight.
Based on the same principle, the forces corresponding to
varying solder paste volumes for a fixed padlead size and a
fured joint height can also be calculated accordingly. Figure 4
shows this study, where the pad size and lead size are fixed as
0.07” X 0.07” and 0.05” X 0.05”, respectively, and the joint
height is fixed at 10 mil (0.254 mm). The original solder
volume is 0.595 mm3 (VO)for a 10 mil solder thickness.
However, Figure 4 shows that the maximum restoring force
occurs at a solder volume of 0.8V0,rather than Vo itself.
Restoring Force vs. Solder Volume
250 I I I
I I I I
P
Solder Volume (xW)
Figure 4: Solder restoring force variations with different
solder volumes for fixed pad / lead plane size and joint height.
These calculations have revealed a relationship between the
restoring force and the shift of solder along the gravity
direction. It also showed that the size of solder pad and
component lead, the volume, and the materiel properties of the
solder such as density and surface tension, all play an
important role. The results can be very u s e l l to resolve the
problem of the components falling off during the second
reflow.
Large Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) Shield Falling
Off During Second Reflow (Surface Evolver and A N S Y S )
In the previous component example, symmetry allowed an
isolated single solder joint to represent the entire system
(weight divided evenly among four leads). The analysis was
performed using Surface Evolver only. For the case of a large
EM1 shield, see Figure 5 , no such symmetry exist, and a
combination of Surface Evolver and FEA by ANSYS is
required. In Figure 5, the EM1 shield is approximately 2.2 x
5.8 cm and weighing approximately 4650 dynes. It has a
1997 Electronic Components and Technology Conference
continuous perimeter which is soldered onto the PWB. On
the PWB, there are 38 pads matching the footprint of the
shield, thus there are 38 solder joints. Among these joints are
8 types which are distinguished by pad geometry and solder
volume. Figure 6 shows the padjoint types, labeled as 1.1,
1.2, ..., 2.1, ..., etc.
Figure 5: EM1 shield (bottom) and matching footprint on
PWB (top).
% .e-
Figure 6: Types of pad and solder joints.
The first step of this analysis is the same as the previous
case: calculate the restoring force versus displacement
(downward shifting of the solder pad) for each of the eight
joint types. The solder material used is 62Sn-36Pb-2Ag,
which has the surface tension of 390 dynelcm. The solder
paste thickness for each pad is 0.01524 cm (0.006 in.). Figure
7 shows the eight force-displacement curves calculated by
Surface Evolver. Here again, the highest points on these fonx-
displacement curves are the points of instability, where a joint
will not hold any higher load. It is assumed that the solder is
perfectly wettable to the pad and shield lip. It is noted that the
size of solder padshield lip, solder volume, and the material
properties of the solder such as density and surface tension, all
play an important role. This first step is a very important step
439
in the eventual calculation of the total system level restoring
force of the shield using ANSYS.
Resto 19 Force vs, Shift on1 -z
7-
z
.f 0.3
I
0.2
0. I
0.0020 0.0040 0.&60
Shift an - 2 (inch)
Figure 7: Restoring forces for 8 joint types of EM1 shield.
Even with the restoring force determined for each joint,
whether or not the EM1 will fall during second reflow is not
yet filly determined. Without symmetry, it can not be
assumed that the weight of the shield is evenly distributed
among all the joints. Since the joints have dii&mt forCS
displacement characteristics, the shield is, in effect, being
supported by “springs” with widely W a m t non-linear
“stiffness”. A system level model is required to fdly simulate
the weight of the shield being distributed among the many
joints and joint types. Such a model is built using ANSYS,
see Figure 8.
Figure 8: ANSYS Finite Element Model of IEMI shield
supported by non-linear springs.
The shield itself was modeled as a 3D shell (SHELL63
elements), with an outline approximately matching that of the
actual shield. The stiffness of this shell is defined to be several
orders of magnitude above ithose of the solder joints to factor
out deformation within the shield itself. The thickness of the
shell is arbitrarily set to one. This shell is supported by 38
non-linear springs (COMBIN39 elements) on its perimeter.
The location of each spring corresponds to the center of each
1997 Electronic Components and Technology Conference
solder pad. One end of a spring is attached to the shell (EM
shield); the other end is fixed (the PWB do not deform). In
I
:”
6oo
Figure 8, the locations for the springs can be identified by the
triangular “fixed-node” symbols. The force-deflection curves 300
for these springs are simply taken to be the restoring fom
curves calculated by Surface Evolver (Figure 7). Alternately,
the solder joints can be modeled as links (LINK8 elements) 200 t I-surf-evo1:type4 1 I
with non-linear stresdstrain material properties. If the cross-
sectional area is defined as one, and the distance between the

:“I
two nodes is also one, the stresdstrain data pairs are identical 0 0.005 0.01 0.015

to force-deflection.

By loading the shield’s weight statically at the shield’s 400

center of the gravity, the reaction force for each solder joint is
derived. Figure 9 plots each restoring force curve (solid line)
from Evolver and each solder joint’s final reaction force (solid
circle) fiom ANSYS. Eight such plots are shown for the 8
joint types. The number of solid circle(s) in each plot reflect
the number of joints for that particular joint types.
0 0.005
I
, ansys:joints5
-surf-evol:type5

0.01 0.015

I
600

500

400
400

I
300
300

200

100 4ansys:jointsl
100
/-surf-evol:typeIl

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015

6 0 0 --

5 0 0 --

400 ~~

3 0 0 --
500
6oo
400

300
I
z o o --
200

100

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015

400

300

[.ansys:joints3
ansys:jointse
1-surt-evol:typeC
I-surf-evo1:type.e 1
0
0 0.005 o.on 0-015
0 0.- 0.01 0.01

Figure 9: Surface Evolver restoring force and ANSYS reaction

force.

440 1997 Electronic Components and Technology Conference

 completely imported, the hriangular surfice mesh is then
Comparing the ANSYS reaction force (solid circle) with the converted into a volumetric itet-mesh within ANSYS. These
solder joint restoring force (solid line), it is shown that the steps are illustrated in Figure 10. For stress analysis, a higher
final reaction force of every solder joint surrounding the shield order parabolic element type is used for solution accuracy.
is adequate enough to withstand the gravity force during the
second reflow process, for this particular case. The one joint of
highest concem is #3.1 (at the upper right comer of Figure 6).
Read in Surface
This joint has reached 71% of the maximum restoring fbrce ISurface Evolver Output: I IANSYS Input:
that this solder joint type could exert, see Figure 9 third plot. lytices x,y,z eypoints
This safety margin might be insufficient since there are other 0.0.0.1.0.3
. . k.1.0.0.0.1.0.3
. . . .

unaccounted loads during reflow which could cause the shield

to fall off - such as vibration. The study can also be extended
to determine if the shield is safe fiom falling if any joint(s),
such as #3.1, were to open. That is, to see if the weight might
Vertices
vl ,v2
if- numstr, line, 1 $L, kl, k2

be redistributed to the other 37 joints such that none of these I: v5, v3

V9,V20 II numstr,line,2 $L,k5,k3
numstr, line, 3 SL,k9, k20
joints would reach the maximum restoring force, in which
case, the problem can be assumed safe.
letc. I letc.
Solder Joint Shape and Stress Analysis

The last application of the current study is the solder joint

formation prediction by Surface Evolver followed by stress Generate Vo1u:me from Surface
analysis of the joint by ANSYS FEA. This is important for
analysis of post-reflow solder stress/strain developed under the
asel,s,area,,all
Iva.al1 I
field conditions. Clearly, the stresdstrain levels will depend Mesh the Volume
on the solidified solder configurations, including size, shape,
vmesh,all
and position. Most solder joint reliability studies by FEA
mainly assumed certain solder joint geometry, which may be
Figure 10: Converting S d a c e Evolver’s surface triangular
measured from actual solder joints. With Surface Evolver,
mesh into ANSYS’s volumetric tetrahedral mesh.
solder joint shape with a given molten solder volume and a
specific leadpad geometry can actually be predicted. The
This modeling flow has been successfully demonstrated in
predicted surface geometries can then be fed into ANSYS for a
the current study. Figure 11 shows two solder shapes
detailed finite element stredstrain analysis. This method has
produced by Surface Evolver, where both cases have identical
the potential of eliminating the intermehate experimental step
boundary conditions and solder volumes, with lead contact
for making and measuring the geometry of solder joints. The
surface of 1.3 x 1.3 mm2 and pad contact surfice of 1.9 x 1.9
benefit in cycle time reduction becomes tremendous if wide
mm’. The only difference between the two case.;‘ is that the
ranges ofpad, lead, solder volume, etc., values, were to be
joint height in (a) is 0.254 run (where the solder joint shape
included in any design optimization.
is outward-bulged), and in (b) is 0.354 mm (where the shape
is inward-bulged). The soldler material used is 63Sn-37Pb,
Surface Evolver is capable of producing both a surfixe
which has the surface tension of 490 dyne/cm.
representation (triangular mesh), as well as a volumetric
(tetrahedral mesh) representation of the final solder joint shape.
In practice, however, the tet-mesh usually contain some
elements (sometimes a large percentage) which are too
severely distorted and would be disallowed by ANSYS. Thus
importing Surface Evolver’s tet-mesh typically leave “holes”
in the solder joint, and the success rate of mesh “repairing” is
very slight. Another way is to import only the triangular
surface mesh from Surface Evolver into ANSYS. This usually
has a better chance of achieving a complete import, or I I
successhl mesh repair if needed. The surface “mesh” here is Figure 11: Two solder joint shapes from Surface Evolver.
not the same as a finite element mesh, but simply a listing of
triangular faces which forms the skin of a volume. Once These two solder surface shapes resulting fiom Surface
Evolver were then converted into 3-D ANSYS models

441 1997 ElectronicComponents and Technology Conference

following the steps in Figure 10. This particular example
studied is that of the solder joint of a PQFP assembly on
PWB. The PQFP assembly consists of four major parts: FR-4
PWB, copper lead, eutectic solder joint, and the molding
compound (encapsulant). With the solder joint geometry
calculated by Surface Evolver, the other parts of the model are
generated around and extending fiom the joint. The geometry
of these other parts are quite fixed and known. Figure 12
shows the completed PQFP (one lead slice) model.
Figure 12: 3D ANSYS model of PQFP - one lead slice.
Now the model can be setup to perform any type of stress or
thermal analysis. A study of thermal stress induced by CTE
mismatch among the different materials was carried out. There
are three major sources which produce thermomechanical
stresses in the solder joint: (1) the global CTE mismatch
between the PWB and the component; (2) the local CTE
mismatch between the lead and the solder; and (3) the local
CTE mismatch between the pad and the solder. The material
properties are assumed as temperature-independent, linear
elastic. The coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) and the
Young's Modulus of the molding componenpe 22 p p d C
and 14 GPa respectively. The g u h w g 3 e a d is made of Alloy
42, which has a CTE of 5.2 ppm/"C and a Young's Modulus
of 145 GPa. The CTE of the copper pad is 17 ppm/"C. The
Young's Modulus of the copper is 121 GPa. The PWB an in-
plane CTE of 20.5 p p d C and Young's Modulus of 14 GPa.
A temperature change of 200°C was imposed on the models,
and the resulting stress levels are plotted in Figure 13. The
maximum von Mises stress for (a) was found to be 118 MPa,
for@) 142 MPa. This simple study indicates that increasing
solder joint height, but keeping solder volume the same, will
result in higher stress and ultimately reduced reliability.
I (4 (b)
Figure 13: ANSYS FEA, stress distribution.
442
Summary and Conclusion
This study developed a chained analysis methodology: 1)
input solder reflow parameter set, 2) calculate solder joint
shape by Surface Evolver, 3) convert 2D mesh to 3D, 4)
complete 3D finite element model, 5) apply load, 6) calculate
stresshtrain by ANSYS, and 7) predict reliability.
This methodology has been applied to the simulation of
components falling off the PWB during second reflow. For
case of symmetry, Surface Evolver alone is capable of
determining likelihood of falling based on restoring force
calculation. For more complicated structures like an E M
shield, the restoring forces versus deflection (solder joint
elongation under weight) calculated by Surface Evolver are
inputted into ANSYS for a system level analysis to identify
which of the multiple solder joint(s) are in danger of being
open which may lead to complete falling off of the shield.
Lastly, stress analysis by ANSYS FEA was performed on
solder joint whose shape was calculated by Surface Evolver
beforehand. Such linking of solder joint formation prediction
with stress analysis can replace the step of physically
measuring solder joint geometry as a prerequisite for
performing any solder joint reliability study by simulation
and modeling.
The examples presented in this paper demonstrate the wide
range of electronic packaging applications which can take
advantage of this analytical methodology. The ultimate goal
of this research is to create an integrated simulation and
modeling tool for designing robust solder interconnects that
meets the quality and reliability requirements
References:
1. Brakke, K. A., 1995: Surface Evolver Manual, version
1.99. The Geometsy Center, 1300 S. Second St.,
Minneapolis, MN 55454.
2. Charles, H. K. and G. V. Clatterbaugh, 1990: Solder-
joint reliability - design implications from finite element
modeling and experimental testing. Journal of
Electronic Packaging, 112(2): 135-146.
3. Engelmeir, W., 1993: Generic reliability figures of merit
design tools for surface mount solder attachments. IEEE
Transactions on Components, Hybirds and
Manufacturing echnology, 16(1): 103-112.
4. Goldmann, L. S . , 1972: Self-alignment capability of
controlled collapse chip joining. Proc. 22nd Electronic
Component Conference.
5 . Heinrich, S. M., 1994: Prediction of
SolderJointGeometry. Chapter 5 of the Book " The
Mechanics of Solder Alloy - Interconnects", 158-198, Van
Nostrand Rheinhold, New York, 1994.
1997 Electronic Components and Technology Conference
~

6 . Ikegami, K., 1992: Some topics of mechanical problems

in electronic packaging. In Advances in Electronic
Packaging - Proceedings of the I992 Joint
ASME/JSME Conference on Electronic Packaging, 567-
573.
7. Lau, J. H., 1991: Solder Joint Reliability: Theory and
Applications. Van Nostrand Rheinhold, New York,
1991.
8. Patra, S. K., and Y. C. Lee, 1991: Quasi-static modeling
of the self- alignment mechanism in flip-chip soldering -
Part I: single solder joint. Journal of Electronic
Packaging, 113, 337-342.
9. Racz, L.M., and J. Szekely, 1993: Determination of
equilibrium shapes and optimal volume of solder
droplets in the assembly of surfice mounted integrated
circuits. Trans. Iron and Steel Institute of Japan
International, Vol. 33, No.2
10. Satoh, R., M. Oshima, H. Komura, I. Ishi, and K.
Serizawa, 1983: Development of a new micro-solder
bonding method for VLSIs. IEPS, 45-46 1.
11. ANSYS Users Manual, ANSYS, Inc.

443 1997 Electronic Components and Technology Conference