Guest
 Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2026 3:42 am Post subject: PCT Failures on BGA Package |
 |
| We did PCT on a BGA device and found SCAN failure during ATE. No continuity and leakage failure and obvious package failures found after FA. JEDEC standard says that PCT should not be applied to laminated devices, such as BGA. Can I dismiss the failures? |
|
Guest
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2026 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
| hi,
yes, jedec says that pct shouldn't be done on laminate packages. but companies do it just the same on these packages. it's common to see published rel data with no pct failures for bga. i think they do it so they can brag if there will be no failures. my opinion is if you do a test and see failures, you must investigate it. anyway, you already did due diligence by looking at what the nature of the scan failures is. if you really think that this is not a rel issue after your investigation, then i think it's ok not to include these in your 'official' rel report. some companies just use pct data for bga for their internal information only. im just curious - why did you perform pct if you don't want to use the data anyway? shy guy |
|
Guest
| Posted: Sun Sep 26, 2026 8:26 pm Post subject: PCT failure on BGA packages |
|
| Hi,
Apropos, where exactly on the JEDEC spec. does it say that PCT is not applicable for laminated packges? What is the exact quote that refers to it? |
|
Joined: 01 Sep 2026
Posts: 2
| Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2026 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
| Hi Rel Gal,
If it fail at scan or slow func. It's a big Rel issue, specially for SoC parts. Consult the TPE/PE in concern regarding the failure. This is a big issue if your performing you package/new product qual. Regards, Flipflop _________________ God Bless.... Flipflop |
|
  |
Guest
| Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2026 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
| rel gal,
jedec a-102 unbiased autoclave section 2. scope: "...However, this test should not be applied on laminate or tape based packages i.e. FR4 material, polyimide tape, or equivalent..." 
migs |
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2026 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
| Hi Migs,
So, in your understanding, would that definition ("laminated..etc.") would include sandwhich structured CSP packages (and not just board-assembly materials, for instance, FR4), but ALL laminated structures? |
|
Guest
| Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2026 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
| not my interpretation but our company's. we still do pct but in the rel report we put a note saying its not required. hw about you, how do you interpret a-102-c?
migs |
|
Guest
| Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2026 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
| i'm having a major problem putting my finger on exactly what the difference is between failures observed after TH and those observed after PCT. They seem to stimulate different failure mechanisms although roughly speaking they both wind up corroded and delaminated but the failure features are different- hence my interest in the validity of the PCT.
BTW, I do believe the PCT serves very good purposes such as adhesion strength, but not as standard rel data. |
|