Table Of ContentA Publication of Cahners Publishing Company, Inc.
ADVANCES IN
Volume 3
ELECTRONIC CIRCUIT PACKAGING
Proceedings of the Third International
Electronic Circuit Packaging Symposium
sponsored by the University of Colorado,
EDN (Electrical Design News), and Design News,
held at Boulder, Colorado, August 15-17, 1962
Edited by Lawrence L. Rosine, Editor, EON
SPRINGER SCIENCE+ BUSINESS MEDIA, LLC 1963
ISBN 978-1-4899-7296-5 ISBN 978-1-4899-7309-2 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4899-7309-2
©Copyright 1963
Springer Science+B usiness Media New York
Originally published by Rogers Publishing Company, Inc. in 1963
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1963
All rights reserved
No part of this publication may be reproduced
in any form without written permission
from the publisher
FOREWORD
The Third International Electronic Circuit Packaging Symposium was unique in
a number of ways, particularly in its scope and in the approach taken in some of the
presentations. For instance, one of the particularly interesting papers was "Design
ing and Packaging Electronic Modular Enclosures That Never Leave the Ground."
Here we were shown how a large system console could be packaged to meet the
"convenience" needs of the operator. Thus, personnel considerations became impor
tant in the package and one of the determining factors in the design.
A number of excellent papers on small packaged circuits were presented. These
covered thin-film techniques, interconnections between microcircuits, methods of
assembly, deposition, etc.
A lively evening session provided an opportunity for proponents of both solder
ing and welding to propound the merits of their respective methods. Remarks from
the floor were recorded and are included in these Proceedings.
Otl:ter features of this symposium were papers on control panel packaging,
methods of computing fan or blower sizes for adequate cooling, chemical milling,
adhesive bonding, and seals.
Thus, all phases of packaging electronics were discussed in the individual papers
and subsequent question and answer periods. In this volume, as in the previous two,
we have assembled some of the most up-to-date information available in the field.
We hope that readers will be able to use this information as an aid in solving their
own packaging problems.
Suggestions that will help us to improve the future symposia or the published
Proceedings will always be appreciated. The Electronic Circuit Packaging Symposium
is held for you, the packaging engineer. You have made it a success with your papers,
your attendance, and your purchase of the Proceedings.
Lawrence L. Rosine, Editor
EDN (Electrical Design News)
iii
CONTENTS
RALPH LEIGH CLARK
Keynote Address 1
ROBERT 0. LINK
Economic Aspects of Display Panel Packaging 9
VINCENT J. GALATI
Designing and Packaging Electronic Modular Enclosures That Never Leave
the Ground 21
FRANKM. JOYNER, JR.
Flexibility in Control/Display Panel Packaging 42
STU ALESHIRE
Packaging the Lenkurt 76A Microwave Radio 55
LoUIS R. CRITELLI
Packaging for Maintainability of an Airborne Computer: A Case History 72
A. H. COLEMAN AND H. K. SAUER
DigitalMicromodular Equipment (MICROPAC) Design Concepts 85
RICHARD MOELLER
Selection of Packaging Materials for Oceanographic Instruments 115
R. D. CICCONE AND E. J. LoRENZ
A Unique Approach to Welded Packaging 134
BRUCE R. McFADDEN
INTERCON-Prefabricated Weldable Circuitry 153
GREGORY G. GEBERT
How Altitude Affects Forced Air Cooling Requirements of Electronic
Equipment 168
ART SHAFRAN
Space Seal Study 182
JOHN H. KING, JR.
An Analysis of Forced Convection Heat Transfer in High-Density Circuit
Packages 194
DONALD L. COCHRAN
Transient Thermal Analysis of the Weld-Pak Package 213
FREDERICK BASSETT
Packaging of Electronic Systems Utilizing Commercially Available Inte-
grated Circuits 231
v
vi Contents
CLIFFORD K. LODDER AND JOHN E. VINESKI
A Packaging Method for Thin Film Microelectronic Systems 244
FRANKLIN L. FEIGIN
Microcircuitry: An Approach to the Fabrication of Microelectronic Circuitry 264
KENNETH L. JONES AND EDWARD F. UBER
Microelectronics and Megaheadaches 277
J. R. GooDYKOONTZ, F. T. BREWEN, B. D. BROCK, AND J. C. HEINDL
Microelectronic Connections 295
JAMES F. CAMPBELL
Mechanical Design of Electronic Circuit Packages for Missile Environments 320
FRANKLIN T. JARVIS
A Composite Approach for Packaging Interim Analog Electronics 338
T. E. KIRCHNER, G. L. DAELMANS, AND J. s. INGBER
Miniaturization of IF Circuitry 352
R. D. ZIMMER AND F. A. KoTTWITZ
The IMP-A New Concept in Miniature Module Construction 364
STEPHEN A. SLENKER
High-Frequency Analog Circuitry 371
J.P. KARPUK AND E. A. ERICKSON
The Design of a Chemically Milled and Adhesive-Bonded Airborne In-
dicator Unit . 384
FRED C. HEIDENRICH
Design for Automation 403
BoB G. BENDER AND RoY W. DREYER
Status Report: "Swiss Cheese" Method of Circuit Packaging 419
c. HUETTEN AND L. P. SWEANY
Electronic Networks from Pellets 430
Panel Discussion 449
Keynote Address
RALPH LEIGH CLARK
Assistant Director, Defense Research and Engineering for Communications
Department of Defense
I am most appreciative of the opportunity to participate in this Symposium
and also to add my word of welcome. Beyond our mutual interests in the Sym
posium we have a great deal in common. As I judge from your program, a large
percentage of the people attending are working on defense-related projects. This
is to be expected as the total government procurement of electronics during the
last fiscal year (which just ended on June 30) was estimated to be about 10 billion
dollars. That makes it a substantial industry. Of this total, a large amount, the
lion's share, was for the defense department and various defense agencies although,
of course, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Federal
Aviation Agency use a good deal of similar equipment. You will see from my
background, and from what I shall say, that most of my experience has been in
the field of systems rather than in the field of components. But I have had enough
experience with systems to know that systems are built up from components and
that if the components do not work, neither will the systems.
My section of the office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering
is concerned with research and development related to automated support of
command and control systems and long-haul communicatiorts. I will talk a little
about command control because it is a subject you see in the lay press as well
as in the trade press. President Kennedy has said quite a bit regarding the
importance of the adequacy of command and control in some of his recent press
conferences and budget messages. As we interpret it in the Defense Department,
command control covers the total capability of a commander to order his forces
and control his weapons, and the object of the exercise, of course, for our whole
defense program is the deployment and command of weapons to keep the peace.
Now broadly these systems include the commander's staff and facilities at his
command headquarters, communications to subordinate commands, the staff and
facilities under the control of these subordinate commanders, etc., down through
the several echelons to the combatant forces. If we look at it another way, a
command and control system is the sum of the people, the machines, and the
organizational structure in which both work, as well as the procedures for carrying
out tasks which are dictated by the assigned mission of the particular command.
In this complex organization, men are assisted by automatic information
1
2 Ralph Leigh Clark
processing systems (including input-output equipment and display gear) and by
extensive communication systems. The communications with which we are
especially concerned are those systems that tie these widely dispersed command
centers together instantaneously and on a worldwide basis. The system supporting
the defense command structure is made up of the communication systems built
by the three military departments and the extensive transmission and switching
systems which we lease from the common carriers (we lease a very substantial
amoun·~ of communications capability from all the common carriers). The Defense
Communications Agency, a new organ created by the previous administration just
before the present administration came in, is busily putting together all these
resources to form what we call the Defense Communication System, which will
eventually look very much like the Long Lines Department of AT & T. This
system will give ready access to the numerous channels and support many different
modes of transmission.
Now in what way is our office, that is, the office of the Director of Defense
Research and Engineering, concerned with this complex of problems? The Re
organization Act of 1958 assigned the Director broad responsibilities: (1) to be
the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense on scientific and technical matters,
(2) to supervise all research and engineering activities of the Department of
Defense, and (3) to direct and control research and engineering activities that the
Secretary thinks should be centrally managed. The advisory function consists
principally in giving the Secretary of Defense technical information and recom
mendations on broad problems that often include many important facets of the
subject aside from the purely technical considerations. An example of these are
the questions concerning the B-70 or the RS-70; the bomber or reconnaissance
strike system about which we have seen a good deal in the press recently. Here
problems may involve the proper technical performance of the system and its
potential for improvement, the validity of cost and time estimates for completing
the development, the assessment of possible weapon developments to counter or
neutralize a new system's effectiveness, or a comparison of a new system's capa
bilities with those of other systems. Questions of weapons systems, military
usefulness, the political and psychological implications of having or not having it,
and whether the country can afford it or not are not matters generally considered
in the technical field.
The director's supervisory function entails the management of defense pro
grams on research, development, test, and evaluation (which we shorten to call
RDT & E) and exerts a strong impact on the military departments and their
activities. Here the director's authority is to approve, disapprove, or modify
defense research, development and technical evaluation projects, and programs
to eliminate unpromising or unnecessarily duplicative programs and to support
or initiate promising ones. The formal procedures and techniques for screening
and approving major development projects, or groups of projects, are related to
the 5-year plan recently established by the Assistant Secretary of Defense Con
troller. In the case of major programs, decisions on research and development
matters or decisions on RDT & E programs are made by the Secretary of Defense,
Keynote Address 3
based on recommendations of the Director. On smaller programs, the director is
authorized to act in his own name. In addition to preparing recommendations on
the 5-year program package each year, the Director reviews and approves the
overall RDT & E program to be included in the Department of Defense budget.
He also approves the release of funds to implement those programs when the
appropriation acts are passed.
Recently the Director of Defense Research and Engineering was assigned
more direct and specific responsibility with respect to the development of command
and control systems and communications satellite systems. In the field of com
mand-control, we will provide direct policy guidance and technical direction,
review plans, assign responsibilities, consolidate the technical support budgets
for the entire national military command system, and monitor the expenditures.
We will continue to guide the Defense Communications Agencies (DCA) in
managing systems development. The DCA has been given the responsibility
for detailed system development for the national military command system.
In the communication satellite program, the job of developing and launching
all space elements of the systems has been assigned to the Air Force. The ground
environment is the responsibility of the Army, and the Defense Communications
Agency resolves interface problems and makes certain that the system is effectively
integrated into the Defense Communication System because the big problem with
the communication satellite system is going to involve not only the satellite system
itself but its integration into the overall communication system. The Director
of Defense Research and Engineering will back up the Defense Communications
Agency in its tasks and serve as arbiter in expediting the whole system.
Now this seven or eight minutes of introduction may sound a little unrelated
-a bit dry to some who are concerned largely with specifics of electronic systems,
etc., but I think it helps to set a background for what I intend to say next. Having
set the stage by reviewing the responsibilities of the Director, let me turn to a
discussion of the three systems with which my office is particularly concerned at
this time: (1) automated support of command and control, (2) automatic switching
for long-haul communications, and (3) the communication satellites.
These somewhat different, though related, systems have several characteristics
in common. In all probability we will not have a large number of any of these
systems. Quantity production will not generally be a major factor in the enter
prise, although in the computers supporting the command and control systems
and in the central logic and switching elements of the switching systems, there
may be substantial quantities of similar modules, many of them, however, of
highly specialized nature. Another characteristic of great importance is the need
in all these systems for the greatest possible reliability, availability, and accuracy
of operation. The technical command and control systems supporting our major
headquarters must operate 24 hr a day and must be ready on a moment's notice to
provide information, transmit instructions, and control operations. We cannot
shut down a control center while we locate and replace a faulty module in a com
puter, nor can we tell the commander to wait while we find a bad transistor in the
disp!ay system. Because the systems · furnishing communications for the
4 Ralph Leigh Clark
command centers are integral parts of the command support system, they have to
perform with the same high degree of reliability and accuracy. When an order
has to be sent from Omaha to the SAC fleet or when an air defense control center
has to direct a weapon, the communications must work. If you wake up in the
night and find your house on fire, the whole telephone system, including its
intricate automatic switching devices, is expected to work in calling help.
There is an even greater demand for reliability with the components of com
munication satellite systems because once a satellite is in orbit it either operates
or another one has to be put in its place. If communication satellite systems are
to be economically practical for commercial uses, or even attainable for purposes
of defense, the whole satellites mean-time-to-failure must be measured in terms
of years, rather than months or weeks. Now, satisfying these stringent require
ments poses a major challenge to the electronics industry and component selection
and packaging are critical factors in meeting the requirements. The spacecraft of
a satellite system (such as Advent, the defense communication satellite program
that we have been recently supporting) contains 15,000 to 18,000 separate parts,
the number depending on how a mechanical part is identified. Even though any
single component may have a very long mean-time-to-failure such a complex
aggregation of the presently available elements cannot be expected to have a high
degree of reliability. It is apparent that although cost is always a factor in any of
these systems, and anything else we procure for the government, the excellence
of the product is the critical controlling element of the program. If a command
center fails, or if its critical communications fail when needed, there may be no
chance to repair the system and try again. If a communication satellite fails at
a crucial time, essential communications will be interrupted. Since the vital element
of reliability in system design starts with the electronic components, their aggre
gation in the circuits, and then into subsystems or system packages, the importance
of your work in this field is obvious. Much is being done to understand the
mechanisms of component failure and the means of improving component relia
bility. On the other hand, under current pressures for reduced size and weight,
new processing techniques and new methods of fabricating complete electronic
circuits are being developed rapidly and these pose more new problems in the
control of quality and operational life.
Now, we might take a look at these command centers to see what kind of
electronic machinery we are talking about. Usually there is a large computer that
most of you would recognize by name-an IBM 7090, CDC-1604, or a comparable
product of Philco, Sylvania, Burroughs, or other equally competent manufacturer.
Some of the centers may also have perhaps as alternates or as essential parts of the
systems specialized computers, such as the Sage FSQ-7 or the FSQ-32 of SAC-
465L system. Ordinarily there is extensive auxiliary tape storage and often high
speed disc memories. Sometimes a specialized computer is needed for switching
between computers, because more and more of these centers are using a number
of computers to perform different jobs in order to increase the basic capacity,
improve reliability, and eliminate down-time.
In command centers we also find extensive modulation, demodulation
