No, problem, nothing meant except to understand your requirements.
But like others have noted, the answer to your question is dependent on your particular CCA type, the density of the component population, the types of components you wish to X-ray, and especially the X-ray capability and most importantly, its TYPE.
Now that I understand the question a little better, and understand you are including BGA, CGA, and CCGAs in the word "bottom-termination component" and we are not just discussing LCCs and QFNs and so forth, then the TYPE of X-ray is important.
In your case, a really good micro-laminar 3D X-ray can quickly scan many solder balls or columns in fully automatic mode and will catch most if not all HIP defects, whereas other X-rays primarily designed for analysis can do a better job of performing X-ray analysis of known defects.
I routinely use both a 5DX laminar X-ray and an X-ray such as the Dage XD7500 or better yet, an Yxlon for non-destructive, fully-automated individual ball analysis and confirmation at two of my overseas clients. They are light-years ahead of most US companies in using X-ray, and are particularly adept at coming up with really clever X-ray measurement and detection programming schemes as well.
When you use the term bottom-terminated components I assume leadless castellated components such as QFNs, but BGAs are certainly BTCs as well.
There are some really good new X-ray machines that now have the capability to perform fully automatic ball measurement that can catch HIP defects, but can also perform fully automatic grey-scale imaging at differing angles that allow them to detect and measure NON-ball images also, as well as perform more manual failure analysis functions.
Realize that these machines come with a huge cost, generally at least $170k or more. But you have to figure in the cost of the fully automatic machine capability versus having to have an operator manually X-ray each component. So if you are looking at the difference in cost of $150K for a manual machine versus $185-200k for a fully automatic nanofocus capable machine, the number you really have to justify is the difference between the two, not the full amount. That is because the only other option you have are the X-ray glasses you can buy from the back of a Marvel comic, or subcontract the X-ray service if your need is not forecasted to be a long-term contract requirement. There are many failure analysis labs that can perform the analysis for you, but they are somewhat expensive as well and you don't get the full depreciation, just a cost of doing business reduction which is not as good financially.
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jose A Rios
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 12:38 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] J-STD-001 Space Addendum
easy easy, not my first clambake.
just asking a question regarding sampling thats all.
> On Sep 20, 2016, at 1:12 PM, John Burke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Clearly you have never seen a BGA with one HIP joint?
>
>
> Get Outlook for Android
>
>
>
> From: Stadem, Richard D.
>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 10:07 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [TN] J-STD-001 Space Addendum
>
> To: TechNet E-Mail Forum
>
>
>
> Why in the world are you thinking that each termination requires an individual X-ray? There is no reason for that. -----Original Message----- From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jose A Rios Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 11:33 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [TN] J-STD-001 Space Addendum 6012 for example, does have different sampling allowances at different c=0 rates, depending on the attribute being evaluated. Independent of the sampling rate, my original question was more 'what does the 001 Space Addendum require'. It says to examine hidden solder joints by X-Ray, not debating that, it just doesn’t state the extent. So if you have 300 hidden solder joints on a PWA, would 001 require you do to 300 X-rays….. per PWA. Thats what I was trying to gage. I should’ve also asked to respondents to state whether they are suppliers or users, to try to balance the responses in the absence of a clear direction. Thank you all…. > On Sep 20, 2016, at 12:20 PM, Mattix, Dwight wrote: > > Tru dat. > > > These days, does anybody actually apply dynamic changes to sampling rates based on changing levels of conformance? E.g. the old Mil-Std-105(?) sampling plan standard? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jose A Rios [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 9:14 AM > To: TechNet E-Mail Forum ; Mattix, Dwight > Subject: Re: [TN] J-STD-001 Space Addendum > > What I meant is that when placing replicate devices from the same lot across a pwb during assembly, the cleaning, the paste screening process, reflow process, etc is common to that pwb, hence lending itself to sampling. > >> On Sep 20, 2016, at 11:45 AM, Mattix, Dwight wrote: >> >> Re: "...the processing of the board is the same for the entire PWA??" >> >> Is that the only factor to ponder? >> It would seem to be a first order effect to be sure. >> >> What about other inputs? E.g. >> Variability in surface factors affecting wetting: >> - solderable finish variance from pwb to pwb? >> - Variability in surface cleanliness from pwb to pwb, different lots of pwbs >> - variability in component lead's finish and wettability, different component lots >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stadem, Richard D. >> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 6:20 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: [TN] J-STD-001 Space Addendum >> >> Agreed. The cost is neglible. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Burke >> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 7:00 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: [TN] J-STD-001 Space Addendum >> >> Xray every one of them. >> >> Best regards, >> >> John Burke >> >> >>> On Sep 19, 2016, at 2:52 PM, Joey Rios wrote: >>> >>> Sections 7.5.14, 15 and 16 outlines inspection of hidden solder joints, invoking the use of X-Ray in the Space Addendum. The standard does not explicitly prescribe a sampling extent, so, if an assembly has dozens of the same device, like 50-100 say of such devices (such as a bottom termination component) on a single PWA, is the expectation (J-STD intent) that each of the replicate devices are inspected by X-Ray?? Is that what the industry practices, or is sampling commonly invoked, since the processing of the board is the same for the entire PWA?? >
|
