Randy
While as you say the requirement may be needed, writing a spec without a
test method is like going to war without a weapon. Every spec needs an
associated test method that can be used by both the supplier and customer
with good expectation of obtaining conquerable results. At this time I am
unaware of a suitable test method for this measurement. Do you have a
suggestion?
Best regards
Lee
I. Lee Parker, Ph.D.
JLP Consultants LLC
804 779 3389
----- Original Message -----
From: "Reed, Randy" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] IPC-6012B Bow and Twist Requirements
I recommend we implement the spec for bow & twist for the areas that require
the tolerance. I am sure the board shops will develop methods to meet the
need or they can make the business decision to throw the entire board away.
We every new requirement that has a potential for a major yield loss (loss
$$), engineering and know how have prevailed to provide accurate answers to
meet the need.
Randy Reed
Merix Corporation
-----Original Message-----
From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Mahanna
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 6:15 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] IPC-6012B Bow and Twist Requirements
Mike,
Nail on the head.
Localized and/or "precise" measures of flatness would probably require
optical flats (shadow moiré). Additionally, to have any chance of
mitigating risks that have been mentioned, you would probably need
computerized data acquisition and analysis, heated chamber, loaders and
unloaders...
I would think the ROI for most would not add up. Although I know that there
is at least one complete implementation commercially available.
Chris
Chris Mahanna
Quality Manager
Robisan Laboratory Inc.
6502 E 21st Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46219
phone 317.353.6249
fax 317.917.2379
-----Original Message-----
From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Mike Hill
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 8:28 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] IPC-6012B Bow and Twist Requirements
Do we have an IPC test method to cover the measurement of localized
flatness? If not, do we need one?
Mike Hill
-----Original Message-----
From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Montgomery,
Scott D
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 6:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] IPC-6012B Bow and Twist Requirements
I also concur that not all designs need to be tighten.
If there is a concern for bow and twist for a specific family of
components, we will define a localized flatness for those component
areas on the fab drawing. This has worked very well. My recollection is
that less than 5% of our boards were scraped by the fabricator due to
out-of-spec flatness.
Thanks
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Harvey [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 2:43 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] IPC-6012B Bow and Twist Requirements
Concur.
If a design requires a tighter tolerance than they should identify that
on the print or by spec.
Forcing all product to that will drive up cost for all.
True story some designs do need a tighter tolerance.
-----Original Message-----
From: Franklin D Asbell [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] IPC-6012B Bow and Twist Requirements
I don't believe tightening these requirements would benefit all
companies as a whole. The problems I've seen experienced are isolated to
specific designs, on specific equipment.
I would propose something more clarified in respect to customers (i.e.
assemblers) and suppliers reviewing designs more closely together.
Customer A may have equipment to handle a certain amount of warp (as
noted below) while Customer B may not, Customer B could then tighten
this specific tolerance to a certain supplier who might make adjustments
for a certain amount of additional processing or even yields.
A general tightening of bow/twist may cause acceptable product to be
scrapped that might otherwise be used if pre-fabrication including
fabrication requirements discussions were performed.
Franklin D Asbell
-----Original Message-----
From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Perry
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 2:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [IPC-600-6012] IPC-6012B Bow and Twist Requirements
Colleagues,
IPC continues to receive queries from industry as to whether or not
there will be a tightening of the bow and twist requirements for printed
boards that are given in both IPC-2221A and IPC-6012B.
I would like the members of this forum to provide their feedback on
these requests.
There are currently two arenas where we are getting requests for
alteration to the requirements: BGA devices and screen printing
technology.
Regarding BGA technology, Don Dupriest of Lockheed Martin Missiles and
Fire Control provided a .ppt file at the IPCWorks 2005 meeting for these
groups where the recommendation for bow and twist acceptance for
isolated BGA areas is 0.50%.
This presentation file is available at
http://www.ipc.org/committeedetail.asp?Committee=D-33A
Within "Drafts", under the titled "PCB Bow and Twist - BGA Devices"
Regarding screen printing technology, we recently received the following
request:
We had a board that was slightly warped, make contact with and damage
the camera in one of our screen printers. Of course, when I measured the
bow and twist, it was well within acceptable limits for bow and twist.
My question is this: Are the bow and twist specifications tight enough?
For over 15 years, I have been "jumped on" by the line operators and
maintenance guys to fixed warped boards only to find that the boards are
usually not any where near the limits. Since I have worked for multiple
companies, I see that this is an industry wide dilemma. Board
manufacturers typically can hold bow and twist requirements, but
different SMA machines (especially screen printers) aren't able to run a
board that has bow or twist near but within the specification limits.
Should I be asking why machines built for the surface mount industry
can't run boards that meet industry specifications, or if the
specifications that once fit, are in need of revision?
Larry D. Roberts
Quality Engineer
Andrew Corporation
Thanks for taking the time to review and respond to these industry
requests.
Regards,
John Perry
Technical Project Manager
IPC
3000 Lakeside Drive # 309S
Bannockburn, IL 60015
[log in to unmask]
1-847-597-2818 (P)
1-847-615-7105 (F)
1-847-615-7100 (Main)
________________________________________________________________________
____
_
Scanned by Sanmina-SCI eShield
________________________________________________________________________
____
_
________________________________________________________________________
_____
Scanned by Sanmina-SCI eShield
________________________________________________________________________
_____
|
