Subject: | |
From: | simon.ipc.org!pbni.attmail.com!PBN!PBN1!JMcGee (John McGee) |
Date: | Wed, 20 Nov 1996 13:26:00 +0000 |
Content-Type: | Text/Plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
G'day Technetters-
I'd like to 'springboard' from what Mark Weiler wrote, way back on
Thursday, October 10, 1996 :
> We are building a board that has 8 layers with multiple ground
planes...
> making it difficult to optimize the wave solder profile to get 100%
fill...
> ... on the top side of the board.
>
> The IPC A-610 rev B specification calls out 75% fill as being
acceptable
> (table 4-1, pg. 52) on through hole solder joints....
>
> Is a solder joint that is 75% filled over the wave stronger (more
reliable)
> than a solder joint that has been touched up to get to 100% with a
fillet?
>
> What is the effect to long term reliability of touching up a through
hole
> solder joint?
>
> I would really like some reference material on this subject if anyone
has
> a source.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark Weiler
> [log in to unmask]
> 512-728-8323
>******************
The questions raised have been bugging me for a while, too. And some
from a slightly different perspective, as well...
IPC-A-610B, Table 4-1 calls out 75% fill as the minimum acceptable condition
for class 3 assemblies. If Class 2, however, would it be appropriate to
apply
the exception of Fig. 4-2, when internal conductive layers are involved?
Or is it incorrect to assess any of the internal layers as corresponding to
the
heatsink plane unless one of those layers is specifically called out as
such?
At some point, it seems, the internal (non-"heatsink") layers will introduce
the cumulative effects comparable to those introduced by a heatsink plane.
Is it expected that solder process modifications can and should be varied
to accomodate any number of current carrying layers and still accomplish
the required fill?
Is "fill" is merely a visual indicator of the wetting success and the
integrity of
the PTH, or is there something less obvious to this requirement?
Or am I missing something...like *the point entirely* ?
Thanks for any and all help! (And, Mark - thanks for the boost.)
***************************************************************************
* TechNet mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 *
***************************************************************************
* To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to: *
* [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text. *
***************************************************************************
|
|
|