TECHNET Archives

October 2000

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:
Tom Buschor <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Mon, 30 Oct 2000 08:34:48 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (24 lines)
We have been debating the proper dwell time for thermal cycling tests. Per
IPC-SM-785 it should be 15 minutes (min.). Indeed the majority of
publicized thermal cycling tests use dwells of 10-20 minutes. However,
there are camps that advocate longer dwells (min 30min.) to sufficiently
account for the effects of creep fatigue in solder joints.

What rational/assumption was used for defining the minimum dwell time for
space applications in IPC-785?  Would longer dwell durations significantly
change the cycles-to-failure results? What factors would have to be
considered to assess any compromises?

For reference, our target application is space-borne. Thermal cycling
extremes are -55C and +125C. CTEs between parts & PWB will be matched to
<5ppm/C difference.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases > E-mail 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2