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:
"Jauwhei Hong" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 13 Nov 96 09:52:05 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (63 lines)
Charles:

Besides the board warpage, the lack of contact between the pins and the pads 
after reflow could be also due to a combination of pad size, solder paste volume
(stencil apertures/thickness), component lead coplanarity and lead temperature 
reached at reflow (especially for ceramic devices). Bottom line is that during 
reflow, the molten solder should have enough height to compensate for the lead 
height variation and be able to readily wet all the leads. Hope this helps.

Regards,
[log in to unmask]                                                      
   


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Rule: Pins popping up
Author:  Richard Krug at ftl19
Date:    11/13/96 8:32 AM


Technet:

 I have a board about 13.5" x 4.5" (PC plug in card), .062" thick,
8 layer, FR4, 1 oz copper, 2 power planes, with 16  100 pin  TQFP 
packages (0.5mm lead pitch) spread across the board (2 rows of 8), as 
well as many other PLCC and SOIC devices.

 The problem we are having with these prototypes is that some pins
on the TQFP's pop up durring handling.  The boards seem to be too 
flexable, which probably causes the pins to break off the pads.  Is there 
a way to make the board more rigid besides using board stiffiners?  In 
other words can anything be done as far as changing the board stack up, 
or will using thicker copper help this situation?  Or are there different 
types of FR4 available?  Or is there something I am not looking at?

 Also, what would be a good pad size for the 100 pin TQFP chip? 
Currently I am using 1.2mm x .25mm, but I think the IPC recommends 1.6mm 
x .35mm, but it doesn't look like it would allow any soldermask between 
pads.  Or does anybody even bother with soldermask between pads at .5mm 
pitch?  What is the middle ground?

Thanks in advance!

Charles Wills
[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