The requirement you refer to does not come from an IPC standard. I am
not aware of MTBF data on this type of repairs, maybe other will provide
feedback. I have included below some previous TechNet comment regarding
the lifted land condition.
Regards
__________________________________________________
David W. Bergman, V.P. of Technical Programs
IPC
2215 Sanders Road
Northbrook, IL 60062-6135
847-509-9700 x340 Phone
847-509-9798 Fax
email [log in to unmask]
www http://www.ipc.org
faxback support 800-646-0089
---------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 26 Dec 1996, Todd Jaco wrote:
> Dear IPC,
>
> My company recently was audited by a customer, who insisted that repaired lifted pads and traces constituted immediate MRB action. The customer insisted that no more than three repaired pads or traces should be allowed on a PCB. I am unable to locate a specific reference in any of the IPC standards regarding such a requirement. The test data in IPC-R-700, seems to indicate the relability of the types of repairs tested, but does not infer any standard general or otherwise. Is there any general test data that shows the effectiveness of a repair with respect to the expected lifespan or Mean Time Between Failures of an electronic assembly? I suspect that this should be a customer specific requirement.
>
> Thanks
>
> Todd Jaco
> Quality Manager
> Vertex Control Systems Division
>From [log in to unmask] Fri Dec 27 14:59:00 1996
Date: 16 Jul 1996 14:20:15 -0700
From: Ralph Hersey <[log in to unmask]>
To: IPC Technet <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: FWD>FAB/ASSY- Lifted land c
Mail*Link(r) SMTP FWD>FAB/ASSY: Lifted land criteria
Greg,
For the IPC, the RB-276 is the controlling requirements, therefore, there is
no specified limit.
The RB-276 requirement for "no specified limit" is that there is no published
data supporting that lifted lands have led to function failure(s).
In general, from most of the discussions that have been held in the A-600
committee meetings have centered around two issues:
1) IMO, one of the general feelings is that the lifted land should not be
greater than "one metal thickness" or about 25-35 micrometers. This is
because there should be a number because if the land were "lifted" at an angle
of 45 degrees to the plane of the printed board's surface "it just wouldn't
look right", and most people would feel uncomfortable accepting such a
condition.
2) The second discussion point has been that if the assembly is to be
conformally coated, there may be some contaminants left in the space may lead
to either insulation resistance problems; or the residual contaminants or the
"air void" will lead to possible outgassing or fracturing of the conformal
coating, epecially if subjected to low ambient pressures (aero-space).
Ralph Hersey, e-mail: [log in to unmask]
--------------------------------------
Date: 7/16/96 12:40 PM
From: Gregg Klawson
Hello! We're having a discussion here regarding the inspection criteria for
PWB coupon microsection lifted lands after thermal stress. We're just
cutting over from military procurements to more "commercial" and are trying
to decide what makes sense. The specifications state:
Mil-P-55110E allows a maximum lift of 0.001 inch.
Mil-P-55110D before ammendment 4 allowed a lift of 0.003 inch maximum.
IPC-RB-276 states "lifting allowed" for all classes (no limit).
IPC-A-600D allows a maximum lift of 0.003 inch.
IPC-A-600E allows a maximum lift of ?????
What is the purpose of this requirement? Do we need a limit? If we need a
limit what is the "industry standard" limit from board house and OEM
viewpoints. We've been calling out IPC-RB-276 class 2 with a 0.001 inch
limit. A couple of our board houses tell us 0.003 inch is the "industry
standard". Any and all comments appreciated.
-Gregg Klawson
GTE Government Systems COrp
+1.508.880.1822
mailto:[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. *
***************************************************************************
------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by quickmail.llnl.gov with SMTP;16 Jul 1996 12:38:47 -0700
Received: from ipc.org by simon.ipc.org via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/940406.SGI)
id OAA07341; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 14:24:37 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 14:24:37 -0700
Received: by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0ugEzH-0000LKC; Tue, 16 Jul 96 13:36 CDT
Resent-Sender: [log in to unmask]
Old-Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
X-Sender: [log in to unmask]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 14:47:28 -0400
To: [log in to unmask]
From: Gregg Klawson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: FAB/ASSY: Lifted land criteria
Cc: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
Resent-Message-ID: <"oFXSs.0.ITK.j4-wn"@ipc>
Resent-From: [log in to unmask]
X-Mailing-List: <[log in to unmask]> archive/latest/5222
X-Loop: [log in to unmask]
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: [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. *
***************************************************************************
>From [log in to unmask] Fri Dec 27 14:59:06 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 96 08:58:22 EDT
From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: FAB/ASSY: Lifted land criteria
The subject is the reliability of lifted Lands
Lifted lands are caused by a fracture of the copper-epoxy bond at high
temperature. The mechanism is somewhat complex. Below Tg, epoxy is rigid
with a high modulus; and when a board is heated below Tg, the TCE mismatch
between the copper barrel and epoxy substrate produces elastic (and plastic)
strain in the barrel. However, when the temperature rises above Tg, the epoxy
modulus drops and the elastic stress in the barrel begins to compress the
substrate. The result is that the barrel contracts and the epoxy in the
neighborhood of the barrel is deformed. The board can be viewed as a soft
substrate with rivets that compress local areas causing the surface to puff up
between the rivets. Under these conditions, the lands which are connected to
the substrate bend up. This "hinge" effect is the source of the fatigue
failure that leads to interface cracks during thermal cycling above Tg. When
the board cools, the epoxy contracts and tries to pull the land back down.
However if the barrel to land-barrel hinge is too rigid, the epoxy-copper
adhesion may be inadequate and a lifted land results. By decoupling the land
from the substrate, a lifted land reduces land bending in subsequent thermal
cycles and may actually improve reliability during multiple solder transients.
According to this explanation, lifted lands can be caused by poor copper-epoxy
adhesion, a strong hinge (ie thick plating), or small lands (ie not enough
area for the epoxy to hold onto). Only poor adhesion is a serious threat, and
this can be detected in other ways.
I agree with David Bergman. Lifted lands are a cosmetic problem and there
really needs to be no limit in a cross section examination. I do support a
visual look without magnification after a solder transient (either the board
or a coupon). If lifting can be seen under these conditions, it is a
cosmetic defect and grounds for rejection.
Robert R. Holmes PhD
Lucent Technologies
[log in to unmask]
xxxxxx ORIGINAL COMMENT xxxx
This looks like a fun one and I'm sure the opinions will run strong.
IPC's specifications for lifted lands unfortunately were wagged by the
55110 until they went to the 0.001 requirement. As my buddy the late
George Smith told me once, lifted lands could roll up like window shades
as far as he was concerned. Of much more importance was the integrity of
the knee and whether it was cracked. The rest was irrelevent.
I would stand by the latest 276 requirements as the industry position on
lifted lands.
Regards
__________________________________________________
David W. Bergman, Technical Director
IPC
2215 Sanders Road
Northbrook, IL 60062-6135
847-509-9700 x340 Phone
847-509-9798 Fax
email [log in to unmask]
www http://www.ipc.org
faxback support 800-646-0089
---------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 16 Jul 1996, Gregg Klawson wrote:
> Hello! We're having a discussion here regarding the inspection criteria for
> PWB coupon microsection lifted lands after thermal stress. We're just
> cutting over from military procurements to more "commercial" and are trying
> to decide what makes sense. The specifications state:
>
> Mil-P-55110E allows a maximum lift of 0.001 inch.
> Mil-P-55110D before ammendment 4 allowed a lift of 0.003 inch maximum.
> IPC-RB-276 states "lifting allowed" for all classes (no limit).
> IPC-A-600D allows a maximum lift of 0.003 inch.
> IPC-A-600E allows a maximum lift of ?????
>
> What is the purpose of this requirement? Do we need a limit? If we need a
> limit what is the "industry standard" limit from board house and OEM
> viewpoints. We've been calling out IPC-RB-276 class 2 with a 0.001 inch
> limit. A couple of our board houses tell us 0.003 inch is the "industry
> standard". Any and all comments appreciated.
>
> -Gregg Klawson
> GTE Government Systems COrp
> +1.508.880.1822
> mailto:[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. *
***************************************************************************
>From [log in to unmask] Fri Dec 27 14:59:12 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 18:24:32 -0400
From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re:lifted lands
Lifted lands!!!!:
Those who do not like the lifted land criteria in IPC-RB-276 will probablay
not like the requirement in IPC-6012 (interim final) which allows lifted
lands if not visually seen in the unstressed board inspection. We can find
many reasons why lifted lands are not desirable ( i.e. possible entrapped
fluxes, loosened holes. cracked knees etc, but for product function, I have
never seen a functional failure resulting from lifted lands. We allow
breakouts, 0.002 inch annular ring and the processing solutions to be in
contact with the bare-hole wall for an hour or so l during
desmear/electroless process; these could all result in the same condition
that may result from a lifted land. I feel, as do many others, that lifted
lands are process indicator or a cosmetic defect and not related to the
performance of the board.
Phil Hinton
[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. *
***************************************************************************
* If you are having a problem with the IPC TechNet forum please contact *
* Dmitriy Sklyar at 847-509-9700 ext. 311 or email at [log in to unmask] *
***************************************************************************
|
