That's why I keep saying that it's better to spend a little money and get images of the boards a company is getting :-)
Regards,
Vladimir
SENTEC Testing Laboratory Inc.
11 Canadian Road, Unit 7.
Scarborough, ON M1R 5G1
Tel: (647) 495-8727
Cell: (416) 899-1882
www.sentec.ca
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Kondner <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:46:28
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [TN] IPC-1710A: Does this really Slice and Dice like on TV?
Hi,
I was curious and Google found a 45 page copy of the vendor qualifications
form.
Maybe someone can fill me in here:
1. What does it cost a company, mine or the vendor, to complete and
review this form?
(Me thinks a lot.)
2. And if we do this how does it affect the quality of boards we will
get from the vendor?
(Me thinks not much, if anything.)
3. Will the vendor charge more money if they have to complete this
kind of paper work?
(Me things they will charge more.)
Now every question on this form is completely valid and each makes sense.
But I wonder if it also makes cents?
It reminds me of some ISO companies I know. After making a product for 3
year they shift PCB vendors. They cannot find their board files or gerbers
so they call me as I did the PCB design. Now who knows what changes might
have been made in those 3 years, I don’t. But this is an ISO registered
company?
Other than a marketing point is their ISO 9000 registration doing much?
Or is ISO 9000 just a scam to make companies in the US as inefficient as
some other company or geographic community? J
Thanks,
Bob K.
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stadem, Richard D.
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:10 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Inspecting Class 3 Assemblies
That would be a question for IPC. On the back of every single IPC standard
is a user feedback form. You may wish to submit one of those to the IPC to
get their tree updated before Christmas.
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [ <mailto:[log in to unmask]> mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Robert DeQuattro
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 8:36 AM
To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Inspecting Class 3 Assemblies
In the IPC specification tree, they do not list this the 1710A, or do I just
have an outdated doc.
Thanks,
Bob DeQuattro
Quality Manager
VR Industries, Inc
333 Strawberry Field Road | Warwick, RI 02886
T: 401-732-6800 ext 45| F: 401-738-7910
<mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] |
<http://www.vrindustries.com> www.vrindustries.com
ISO 9001 & 13485 | CAGE Code: 0RRX5 | ITAR Registered
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized use or
disclosure is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
message.
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [ <mailto:[log in to unmask]> mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Stadem, Richard D.
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 7:53 AM
To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Inspecting Class 3 Assemblies
You can get it directly from the IPC Website, just enter ipc.org in your
browser.
Click on the "Knowledge" icon.
Click on the "Standards" icon.
Scroll down and click on "Free Downloads".
Scroll down and click on IPC-1710A.
Download it. Take it home.
Can't sleep at night? Then read it, no more problems with that.
Equipped with this document, you can now perform audits to verify your
fabricator is doing what they are supposed to be doing so you have no
surprises in YOUR shop, or at least very, very few.
By the way, there are also free IPC standards to ensure the
pre-preg/laminate going into your fabricator's shop are up to snuff. Ask
your fabricator to show you their process control data on the incoming
materials. Good place to start.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rueda, Ernesto [ <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 9:27 PM
To: TechNet E-Mail Forum; Stadem, Richard D.
Subject: RE: [TN] Inspecting Class 3 Assemblies
Hi Richard,
During our PCB proto-type build, we ask our quick-turn board house to
fabricate our pilot boards.
After the pilot builds, we send our order to our other board house for mass
production run.
This is where we see issues during assembly and test.
We are a Class 2 assembly OEM company.
Can I request the copy of the spec that you have?
Thank you.
Ernesto Rueda
SMT Process Engineer
Pelco by Schneider Electric
3500 Pelco Way
Clovis, CA 93612
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [ <mailto:[log in to unmask]> mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Stadem, Richard D.
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:30 PM
To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Inspecting Class 3 Assemblies
Many "top tier" EMS shops do not qualify a PWB fabricator before using it.
Do you know why?
Because they don't know the importance, and even if they did they don't know
HOW!
IPC 1710A tells you exactly how to qualify and how to periodically audit the
fabricator to minimize the chance of getting bad PWBs, and its FREE!
No more disasters. Learn more about this in my presentation at IPC EXPO
2014!
-----Original Message-----
From: Vladimir Igoshev [ <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:47 PM
To: Stadem, Richard D.; TechNet E-Mail Forum
Subject: Re: [TN] Inspecting Class 3 Assemblies
Totally agreed. BUT in real life how many companies qualify a bare board
prior to using it? The best the vast majority of them do is do it to
qualify a board shop and then just rely on the supplier report.
As a result, they can get a good or bad batch. To make things worse even
within a given batch boards may be different!!!
We have a set of test to qualify a bare board and pretty much the only
occasions we are asked to do it are after a disaster happens.
Regards,
Vladimir
SENTEC Testing Laboratory Inc.
11 Canadian Road, Unit 7.
Scarborough, ON M1R 5G1
Tel: (647) 495-8727
Cell: (416) 899-1882
<http://cp.mcafee.com/d/2DRPosrhpujshv7njdTdIL3DC4rECSnxPP2b5PrbMVVx6X9JAQsT
psuK-ryxUITIVNG2zcpggrFecLFOVIP6k46WjzbWsKrvd7eTd7byr_nVdVVVNy_nKnjphjVx4sY-
yeVqWtAklkrIsG7DR8OJMddECQPt-jLuZXTLuVKVIFRfxfXtrjtj4fynDZyod1kBHs01dFTshpdw
LQzh0qmMi33iWq80S55LJek29Ew4zZFgQgcCy0gFjRi1YLErKrXgyY7D8CNa5>
http://cp.mcafee.com/d/2DRPosrhpujshv7njdTdIL3DC4rECSnxPP2b5PrbMVVx6X9JAQsTp
suK-ryxUITIVNG2zcpggrFecLFOVIP6k46WjzbWsKrvd7eTd7byr_nVdVVVNy_nKnjphjVx4sY-y
eVqWtAklkrIsG7DR8OJMddECQPt-jLuZXTLuVKVIFRfxfXtrjtj4fynDZyod1kBHs01dFTshpdwL
Qzh0qmMi33iWq80S55LJek29Ew4zZFgQgcCy0gFjRi1YLErKrXgyY7D8CNa5
-----Original Message-----
From: "Stadem, Richard D." < <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 17:50:49
To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]@sentec.ca>
[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>; TechNet E-Mail
Forum< <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]>
Subject: RE: [TN] Inspecting Class 3 Assemblies
The methods I described in my previous posting are for finding assembly
defects during assembly of the CCA. The proper method for exposing hidden
defects in the PWB itself IS micro-sectioning, using representative coupons.
Bare board test and PWB X-ray are also methods used. But proper process
controls need to be followed long before fabrication of the PWB is even
started.
Look for my presentation on using existing process control methods to
prevent defects, from the beginning of the process (copper foil fabrication
and pre-preg/lamination and others) to the end (acceptability of electronic
enclosures, final assembly into devices, and others). It is tentatively
planned to be at the APEX Design Forum in March 2014.
-----Original Message-----
From: Vladimir Igoshev [ <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 11:18 AM
To: TechNet E-Mail Forum; Stadem, Richard D.
Subject: Re: [TN] Inspecting Class 3 Assemblies
Well, I'm wondering how hidden defects in the board itself are going to be
caught without sectioning.
Just recently we've had few jobs from various customers and all the
assemblies passed the tests but failed in field shortly due to different
board defects.
Regards,
Vladimir
SENTEC Testing Laboratory Inc.
11 Canadian Road, Unit 7.
Scarborough, ON M1R 5G1
Tel: (647) 495-8727
Cell: (416) 899-1882
<http://cp.mcafee.com/d/2DRPoAd38scCQmnAT4nNRQPtPrbMVVx6W9JBUsYMyNsSOYeuohKO
rpd7dSn7HLCUEubdXesqwEP6k46WjzbWsKrcNB11KAUO-DbCTPhPJPhOUC_R-juuusoLRXBQSkk-
oh7ffEzKmKDp55l6X7axVZicHs3jqpJcTvAXTLuZXTKrKratjUj-TmQTkN3UBV_oC3gl9qT00jqt
T4mjobZ8Qg6BI4wMQKCy0dxhrXjB0yq818_qkd439Ew4akZkwvbW6XCT0FZXnjGDt4>
http://cp.mcafee.com/d/2DRPoAd38scCQmnAT4nNRQPtPrbMVVx6W9JBUsYMyNsSOYeuohKOr
pd7dSn7HLCUEubdXesqwEP6k46WjzbWsKrcNB11KAUO-DbCTPhPJPhOUC_R-juuusoLRXBQSkk-o
h7ffEzKmKDp55l6X7axVZicHs3jqpJcTvAXTLuZXTKrKratjUj-TmQTkN3UBV_oC3gl9qT00jqtT
4mjobZ8Qg6BI4wMQKCy0dxhrXjB0yq818_qkd439Ew4akZkwvbW6XCT0FZXnjGDt4
-----Original Message-----
From: "Stadem, Richard D." < <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
[log in to unmask]>
Sender: TechNet < <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 15:55:38
To: < <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: TechNet E-Mail Forum < <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]>,
"Stadem, Richard D."
< <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [TN] Inspecting Class 3 Assemblies
I agree with Mr. Kondner.
A good inspection plan for any kind of volume builds of Class 3 product
should include ALL of the following:
1. Automated SPI in combination with operator inspection after printing of
paste 2. Post-placement AOI 3. Post-Reflow AOI with operator inspection 4.
Final assembly visual inspection 5. X-ray of through-hole soldering, BGAs,
etc.
6. ATP or Flying Probe
7. Full functional test
8. Final visual inspection
This combination will usually catch 99.99 percent of all defects.
But there is a significant cost to implement this particular system. Is it
justifiable? You and your customer need to determine that.
Are all items number 1-8 above really necessary to get 100% final yield? No.
You can get 100% yield without some of the items 1-8 in place sometimes,
perhaps, but never always. It depends on a large number of other factors,
including the training program, documentation control, operator experience,
supply line control, procedures for re-test after rework, etc, etc,.
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [ <mailto:[log in to unmask]> mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Robert Kondner
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 9:22 AM
To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Inspecting Class 3 Assemblies
Eva,
How does any trained eye detect when 0402 resistors had the wrong value
stuffed? Or maybe the tan ceramic caps are mixed? (Neither of these have any
markings.) Or LED orientations?
I think this kind of stuff is impossible by eye.
I have also been hearing that visual inspection is good for low volume but
not good for higher volume. In my mind that is nonsense. I think it all
comes down to the probability of a human missing an inspection point. It
seems that 1 : 10K is a best case miss rate. But a board has THOUSANDS of
inspections points. With a large run I can see fatigue setting in and the
miss ratios can get much worse. But for small quantities there is still a
percentage of missed inspections points. I would ask: What time do you
perform visual inspection? When are operators less fatigued?
I am not suggestion DO NOT INSPECT. It is important to visually inspect. My
experience includes running a small business where I used ICT, I am a big
believer in using ICT. But even ICT will flag a board as good if a joint is
not soldered but currently making contact. Only a visual inspection will see
that. But, in general, when the ICT tester turns on the GREEN light you
might as well ship the unit because it is VERY good.
We do our soldering inspection before ICT. Soldering quality is often global
in nature. The most evil process failure was too little paste at a point.
Bent leads on an Gull Wing parts were also a great evil. But the Rs, Cs and
many L values are tested and powered on ICT tests ring out many IC open
failures.
When people tell me they want "Real High Quality" in final product and they
focus on human inspection I just don't buy it.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [ <mailto:[log in to unmask]> mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Eva J
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 9:01 AM
To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Inspecting Class 3 Assemblies
Bob,
We 100% inspect all product (low volume, high mix, complex designs, class 2
and 3) received from various contract manufacturers and we consistently
identify defects that the contract manufacturer's AOI and X-Ray missed
(Examples: component cant, component damage, laminate issues, solder volume,
missing components, solder balls violating minimum electrical clearance,
head in pillow...........). There is no substitute for the trained eye.
Eva J
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Ioan Tempea <[log in to unmask]
> wrote:
> Bob,
>
> For class 3 boards of that complexity you cannot rely on visual
> inspection to weed out 100% of the quality problems! What you want is
> visual + AOI + X-Ray and also functional test. No functional test, no
> certainty that you've caught everything. On top of it, testing has to
> have a proper coverage.
> Then, you'll need some screening, like thermal shock or burn-in, in
> order to catch infant mortality issues that get away even after having
> done all the above.
>
> And this will, eventually, ensure good quality, which means good
> workmanship. But things don't have to stop here either, as you have no
> idea about the long term reliability of the product, which is
> intimately related to design (Werner would have had many things to say
here).
> So you'll need to wrap it up with proper ESS screening.
>
> But now that I'm done ranting, I see your mandate is to perform
> inspection only. Maybe you could get away with the reliability part,
> but I don't believe you can commit to properly fulfilling your mandate
> without functional test and infant mortality screening. Believe me,
> I've been down that path. 4000 parts and this complexity means that,
> if you judge based on DPMO, there is at least one defect on each board.
Try and find it!
>
> To end on a sweeter note, of course you could commit to the task, if
> not you, somebody else will, but make sure the contract has provisions
> that will allow your company to fight the endless spiral of customer
returns.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ioan Tempea
>
> This e-mail, and any attachments, are intended solely for the use of
> the intended recipient(s) and may contain legally privileged,
> proprietary and/or confidential information. Any use, disclosure,
> dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any
> attachments for any purposes that have not been specifically
> authorized by the sender is strictly prohibited. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by reply
> e-mail and permanently delete all copies and attachments.
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : TechNet [ <mailto:[log in to unmask]> mailto:[log in to unmask]] De la part
de Bob Wettermann
> Envoyé : Tuesday, October 22, 2013 4:16 PM À : <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
[log in to unmask] Objet :
> [TN] Inspecting Class 3 Assemblies
>
> Dear Technetters:
>
> I think these things come in bunches.
>
> We are being asked to perform contract inspection of Class 3 medical PCBs.
> I would categorize this board as "high complexity" with BGAs, UHDI
> connectors, 0201s and about 4,000 parts. There are 100+ boards.
>
> Obviously performing this manually will would take many hours and
> based on previous experience, be only 80% effective using a single set
> of
eyes.
>
> So my question for those of you building IPC-A-610 Class 3 product for
> mil, aerospace or medical is how do you insure that class 3 solder
> joint and other inspection criteria are met? The AOI we have will not
> do the trick!
> The leadless devices and BGAs we will inspect via XRAY. Other ideas
> for doing this "offline"?
>
> Bob W/BEST
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
>
<mailto:[log in to unmask]
__> [log in to unmask]
> ________________
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
<mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
<mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
<mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
<mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
<mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
<mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
<mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
|
