DESIGNERCOUNCIL Archives

March 2000

DesignerCouncil@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Mitch Morey <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
DesignerCouncil E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Thu, 30 Mar 2000 13:50:32 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (152 lines)
Thanks for your info Ray, but I haven't had a fabricator explain that
issue to me yet, and I'm not aware of any of my boards failing over the
years, 'course I don't do military/space application boards, so I don't
worry about stress testing the boards. I think the industry is well
matured to put out quality product, and my current PC boards all utilize
plated shut vias. I have heard you arguement before though. :)

Mitch

---------Included Message----------
>      Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:57:57 -0800
>      From: "Ray Humphrey" <[log in to unmask]>
>      Reply-To: "Ray Humphrey" <[log in to unmask]>
>      To: "DesignerCouncil E-Mail Forum." <[log in to unmask]>,
<[log in to unmask]>
>      Subject: RE: [DC] signal via padstacks
>
>      Mitch,
>      I would disagree with the idea of -.013 tolerance on a .013 hole.
Plating a
>      hole shut allows for the possibility of trapping contaminants
inside the
>      barrel, which can leach and/or cause cracking of the barrel
during wave
>      soldering, due to pressure build-up.  Hole barrels plate from the
outside to
>      the inside, sometimes leaving a void in the middle.  A better
approach is to
>      specify a tolerance of -.008, still giving the fabricator plenty
of room
>      with no possibility of a trapping problem.  (I use a .025 pad
with a .012,
>      +.003/-.009 hole.)
>
>      Ray
>
>
>      -----Original Message-----
>      From: DesignerCouncil [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Mitch
>      Morey
>      Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 10:43 AM
>      To: [log in to unmask]
>      Subject: Re: [DC] signal via padstacks
>
>
>      Hi Tom,
>
>      I don't have a problem with what your predecessors did in the
past. Seen
>      it many times so far. One suggestion I might make is to increase
your
>      tolerance range on the .013" finished holes to be +.003/-.013
That
>      would allow the fabrciators to do a couple things. 1) They could
plate
>      the vias shut, assuring them the .001 plating required; or 2) to
use a
>      smaller drill to meet the application. Either way, it's a sure
win for
>      you, and will make the fab house happier, especially if your
boards are
>      very dense. But, for .062 boards, what you've used in the past
still
>      sounds plenty reasonable to me. Heck, I've seen a .096" board
with .015"
>      finished holes with .025" pads! Did it work? Yup, 'cuz they also
spec'd
>      +.003/-.015" finshed tolerance.  :)
>
>      Good luck.
>
>      Mitch
>      Sr PCB Designer
>      San Diego, CA
>
>      ---------Included Message----------
>      >      Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:18:52 -0500
>      >      From: "Frayda, Tom" <[log in to unmask]>
>      >      Reply-To: "DesignerCouncil E-Mail Forum."
>      <[log in to unmask]>, "Frayda, Tom"
<[log in to unmask]>
>      >      To: <[log in to unmask]>
>      >      Subject: [DC] signal via padstacks
>      >
>      >
>      >      I would like to take an informal survey of what folks are
>      commonly
>      >      specifying for standard signal via padstacks for 0.062"
thick, 1
>      oz copper,
>      >      2-4 layer boards.
>      >
>      >      I am in the process of revamping our decal libraries to
comply
>      with IPC
>      >      Level B producibility (as much as realistically possible)
and am
>      troubled by
>      >      the 0.013" +/-0.003" Dia. finished hole / 0.025" Dia. pad
that
>      was specified
>      >      by my predecessors.  This doesn't even meet Level C and I
am
>      concerned about
>      >      the possibility of breakout.  However, to the best of my
>      knowledge, breakout
>      >      with these vias has not been a problem in the past.
>      >
>      >      Also, since this via is currently being used, I do not
want to
>      increase the
>      >      pad size, but would rather decrease the finished hole
size.  What
>      is the
>      >      minimum finished hole size that won't drive up the cost
with your
>      particular
>      >      fabricator?
>      >
>      >      Your comments on this would be appreciated.
>      >
>      >
>      >          - Tom
>      >
>      >
>      >      *******************************************
>      >             Thomas A. Frayda,  C.I.D.
>      >             PCB Designer
>      >             Detection Systems, Inc.
>      >             130 Perinton Parkway
>      >             Fairport, NY 14450-9199
>      >             www.detectionsys.com
<http://www.detectionsys.com/>
>      >             www.dsworld.com <http://www.dsworld.com/>
>      >             TEL: 716-223-4060 x4365
>      >             FAX: 716-421-4263
>      >             E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>      <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>      >      *******************************************
>      >
>      >
>      ---------End of Included Message----------
>      _____________________________________________________________
>      Tired of limited space on Yahoo and Hotmail?
>      Free 100 Meg email account available at http://www.dacafe.com
>
---------End of Included Message----------
_____________________________________________________________
Tired of limited space on Yahoo and Hotmail?
Free 100 Meg email account available at http://www.dacafe.com

ATOM RSS1 RSS2