TECHNET Archives

1996

TechNet@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:
"Paul Stolar" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 04 Nov 96 14:57:21 CDT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (107 lines)
     
Jack, 

what is the report number?

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Unidentified subject! (SMT Repair)
Author:  [log in to unmask] at Internet
Date:    11/4/96 2:51 PM


>Date: 04 Nov 1996 09:08:21 -0600
>From: "Millsap, Pete (AZ77)" <[log in to unmask]> 
>To: Technet <[log in to unmask]> (Return requested)
>Subject: Unidentified subject!
>
>The Navy did a surface mount repair study in June 1987.    The conclusion of 
>this study is that the "long term reliability of a solder joint will be 
>jeopardized with multiple rework cycles. With copper dissolving away during 
>thermal processing, the pads will inherently lose their structural 
>compliancy.  The copper goes into solution forming brittle compounds such as 
>Cu6Sn6.  These brittle intermetallic layers may cause long-term solder joint 
>fatiguing problems."  They state that on 2 oz copper  100% of the pad would 
>dissolve in 12 cycles.
>
> My question does anybody know of any recent studies that would support or 
>counter this study.  Do other companies limit the number of heat cycle on a 
>pad?
>
>From the EMPF HelpLine in Indianapolis; prepared by Jack Crawford
     
I was the project manager for the study you refer to while working for the 
Navy base in Keyport, WA. The specific conclusion on the copper solution 
and the itnermetallic was based on a dissolution formulas and other 
engineering documents, and not by test results.
     
Subsequent to that study, a more intense evaluation was completed in 1992 
that involved more actual testing. That was done by the Navy Surface 
Warfare Center, Crane, again coordinated by myself.  We have copies of 
those test results in the EMPF Technical Library, and would be glad to 
share them.
     
In summary, the test utilized a matrix of 3 board types (6 layer FR4, 6 
layer ceramic copper thick film, and a 4 layer copper-invar-copper board) 
with all ceramic components of leadless, J-lead, and gull-lead 
configurations; 20 and 68 I/O 50 mil pitch (hey--it WAS 1991-92). The 
boards were a SEM "D" size, approx 4.6". Some of the large and small 
components were removed and replaced one time, some three times, some not 
at all.  We used large and small components both at the edge and center of 
the boards. Some components were instrumented with internal thermocouples 
to monitor temperatures. We used nitrogen on five of the "state of the art" 
hot gas systems available at that time, and one IR. A sample of the boards 
were subjected to power cycling and magnified visual inspections. 
Additionally, some interconnects were microsectioned.
     
Relative to the info you are asking about, we controlled the heat cycles 
(temp, duration) as tightly as we could. Heat cycles were: (1) HASL (1) 
Attach Components (2) single remove/replace and (6) triple remove/replace. 
We utilized residual solder to eliminate "partial, uncontrolled heat 
cycles" to wick or extract solder from the pads.  We also wanted to see if 
the solder could or shouldn't be reused.
     
The findings were that with controlled cycles at minimal temperatures, 
intermetallic growth was minimal, and there was no reason to suspect or 
predict solder joint fractures with as many as 8 reflows. Additionally, the 
pad thickness didn't seem to decrease at the rate predicted in the first 
study--perhaps the intermetallic actually acted as a barrier to further 
dissolution.
     
The study is dated now, because of changes in flux and solder formulations, 
new heating control and application methodology, and different kinds of 
pad/lead finishes now available, but there is some core info that could very 
well be beneficial to process development.  Anyone is free to discuss this 
further with me at the phone numbers/e-mail numbers in my signature file 
which follows this msg.  Jack
     
***ALL NEW EMPF PHONE NUMBERS***
     
                      Jack Crawford
                  HelpLine Manager
    Electronics Mfg. Productivity Facility
****NEW--317.655.3688--NEW****
*****FAX  317-655-3699 NEW ****
          714 N Senate Ave, Suite 100
         Indianapolis IN  46202-3112
          VISIT OUR HOME PAGE AT:
                http://www.empf.org
            [log in to unmask]
     
     
*************************************************************************** 
* 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.        * 
***************************************************************************
     

***************************************************************************
* 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.        *
***************************************************************************



ATOM RSS1 RSS2