Hi Graham: As you say, dodgy indeed. The issue of SIR testing is an area
that has been a hot bed for debate over the last 30 years and will probably
continue to be for the next 30. Thank you for your inputs, your points are
well made but as always things can be looked or debated from many sides.
Please see response below.
Regards
Michael Barmuta
-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Naisbitt [ mailto:[log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]> ]
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 3:44 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Humiseal 1B31 LOC Compatible with No-Clean?
Ooh! This is a dodgy area...
First - Rick
Your question is the classic: "Is your conformal coating compatible with my
no-clean process?"
The answer is MAYBE!
Remember that a conformal coating - especially those that are qualified to
various standards and specifications - seals in as well as out. They are not
impervious, but allow air that might contain water to migrate in and out
through the film. If there any water soluble residues, especially remaining
salts from preceding processes, will very probably lead to electro-chemical
reactions that could be cause premature product failure.
It is frankly dangerous, or at the very least extremely misleading, for any
flux vendor or coating supplier to claim total compatibility with no-clean
processing.
There is a huge amount of new research data that PROVES this point, and is
why there shall soon be available a new "Process Characterisation" spec..
As to the issue of adhesion - this is a confusing area:
Does the coating stick to the component legs - the bare track - the
component bodies - yet it does not stick to the solder resist for example?
To my experience and knowledge, I have not yet come across an intelligent
conformal coating - so how the hell does it know the difference?
When carrying out some adhesion test, what are you trying to prove?
If the coating is a silicone, I virtually guarantee that the adhesion test
as suggested, will prove positive....but it shouldn't, because nothing
sticks to silicones, especially the adhesive tape used in the test!
If your end-product PASSES all your environmental tests, yet upon subsequent
examination the coating is seen to be peeling from the surface, do you have
a problem?
Now, Mike:
> Rick:
> We ran a fairly in depth study with Kester, looking at the compatibility
of
> their no-clean fluxes and our non-cleaned PCA's with conformal
coating(CC).
> The test used Kester's 256 no-clean solderpaste and the 245 no-clean core
> solder. We looked at them individually and also combined on the same
board.
> This was done for both acrylic and urethane CC. We did not test Humiseal's
> 1B31 LOC acrylic.
>
This should not make much difference as the only change to this product is
the type of solvent used in the formulation to meet EPA VOC limits in the
US
True, however this was just to let Rick know the testing was not done on
his product of question.
> The test consisted of SIR and adhesion.
Urghh! Adhesion tests.
>
> SIR was done on B25 coupons, 65C/85%RH, 168 hours, readings were taken at
> 1,4,7 days under test conditions and recovery after removal from the
> chamber. We did not see any significant difference between controls,
> fluxed/coated and fluxed uncoated boards. They were all within one order
of
> magnitude under test conditions.
> Visual inspection after SIR testing showed some signs of
> blistering/vesication on the boards with 256/245 with urethane coating but
> not on the acrylic. However there was no drop off in SIR on the urethane
> boards.
Ooohhh! This is even more dodgy.
Research has shown many major drawbacks with prevailing SIR test protocols,
which is what I am working hard to address and revise.
I shall not dwell too long here on this issue, but rather invite those who
want more data to contact me off-line. Briefly however:
B25 coupons might not be representative of your end-product.
They are not representative of the end product, however this was a
comparative investigation to look at the effect of no-clean residues in
conjunction with CC and their impact on electrical leakage . Once a set of
materials and processes (laminate, soldermask, flux, soldering, cleaning,
CC) are identified as a likely candidate then they must be tested as a
system on the end product and it 's requirements.
65/85 testing may yield misleading data because at above 40DegC, no-clean
residues volatilise from the surface
This is why went away from 85/85, 40 vs 65 could be debatable. Why not 51,
where is the magic number? I believe it depends on the actual flux you are
testing. We choose 65 since that is the upper temp spec limit for the
assembly.
Dendrites can form and collapse (unless preserved via current limiting
resistors in the test equipment) within 20 minutes or less. Thus making 4
measurements over 7 days might miss huge amounts of electro-chemical
activity that shows failure conditions.
Yes a higher sampling rate is beneficial for capturing short term effects,
however this was an SIR test not electromigration. We did use a current
limiting resistor to limit current to 1 miliamp.
The test voltage used, might not be representative of your end product.
True but again this was comparative testing and not final end product
performance.
The variation that you observed Michael, between the acrylic and urethane,
could be representative of the cured condition of the coating.
>
> The adhesion testing was done per ASTM Method D 3359-92a. They were all
> acceptable however the combined 256 and 245 residues showed the lowest
level
> of adhesion. The 245 alone was better. The acrylic had better adhesion
than
> the urethane.
>
> Conclusion:
> If you are applying the acrylic CC over just the 245 no-clean you "maybe"
> OK. When you start mixing different flux residues with other conformal
> coating chemistries you can create a chemical stew that's not compatible.
> Obviously you also need to consider incoming board cleanliness,
> contamination added by your handling and processing, adhesive properties
of
> the soldermask, electrical requirements of the board, service life and
> conditions of the product, etc etc. So you will need to do some testing
> yourself to qualify the materials and performance.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Michael Barmuta
>
> Staff Engineer
>
> Fluke Corp.
>
> Everett WA
>
> 425-446-6076
>
>
Amen to all that. I should only add that liquid fluxes create undoubtedly
more serious process issues, because they are not as controlled in
application as compared to a paste flux.
Too often we have found customers who, because of poor solder joints, simply
turn up the flux amount and or pre-heat temperature, and thus grossly change
the amount of residues that may be present.
One of the biggest problems we fight are operators who in the belief of
doing good, add supplemental flux over and above what is available from the
core solder. Leaving behind an uncontrolled amount of flux residue in an
widely variable reacted state.
In short - do more testing before you commit. You might want to find out if
your various vendors can help you....
--
Regards, Graham Naisbitt
[log in to unmask]
Mobile: +44 (0)79 6858 2121
Concoat Limited - Engineering Electronics Reliability
Web: www.concoat.co.uk AND www.concoatsystems.com
NOTE: NEW ADDRESS :NOTE
Sales:
Millfield House, Fleet Road
Fleet, Hampshire GU51 3QF UK
Phone: +44 (0)1252 813706
Fax: +44 (0)1252 813709
Manufacturing and Head Office:
Alasan House, Albany Park
Camberley, Surrey GU16 7PH UK
Phone: +44 (0)1276 691100
Fax: +44 (0)1276 691227
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
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> http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site <http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm>
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
