Looks like to me the track was damaged during fabrication. May have to do
a track repair/replacement.  The Spacing
sure looks like it is connected to the bottom. (May be a shadow)   I have
seen broken traces before and had to repair them.  The repair also depends
on the board function. Would check with the customer on their needs.

I am sure someone will have a bit more info..

Randy Bock Sr.
Quality Manager
GMS Naugatuck
203 729-5370  Ext 239
[log in to unmask]





Steve Gregory <[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
05/28/2003 01:53 PM
Please respond to "TechNet E-Mail Forum."; Please respond to SteveZeva

        To:     [log in to unmask]
        cc:
        Subject:        [TN] Trace thickness problem...


Hi all!

I'd like your opinion on something. We're building a prototype assembly
for a customer, and discovered something at final inspection that we
didn't see when we received the bare fabs. We ordered 16-boards in four,
4-up panels.

We found a trace that has a spot where it looks like it didn't plate up
during final plating. Take a look at "Trace Thickness" at
http://www.stevezeva.homestead.com

There's 4-boards we've found that have this problem, 1 on one panel, and 3
on another panel, and of course they're all built up. The 6012 says that
thickness can't be reduced by more than 20% of the minimum conductor
thickness. I can't really tell if it's 20% or 50%.

I've sent pictures both to our customer and the fab vendor. The customer
wants the spot repaired, and there are a number of ways to do that. The
fab vendor says it's not a problem because the stack-up drawing calls out
1-oz. copper after plating on the surface layer, and they said that
there's more like 2-oz. on the surface layer, so there shouldn't be any
problem, at least that's what I was told, I didn't speak to anyone
directly. The stack-up is on my page too, look at "Stack-up"...

The first question that comes to my mind, if 1-oz after plating was called
on the stack-up, why was 2-oz plated? Or is that normal?. The drawing
references our customers internal spec for fabrication, but it uses
MIL-PRF-55110 for references.

What are your opinions about this?

Thanks everyone!

-Steve Gregory-

---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8e
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to
[log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to
[log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700
ext.5315
-----------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8e
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
-----------------------------------------------------