TECHNET Archives

November 2002

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:
Oliver Yeo <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:08:50 +1030
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (71 lines)
Dear All,

Recently a customer added track resistance requirements to their boards.  We
have made boards for them for a number of years and they had a new R & D
Manager start this year.  Apparently, their products have been failing
prematurely in the field and the new R & D Manager has since stipulated that
particular tracks have to meet certain resistance.

eg.     Track width - 1.27mm (50 tho)
        Track Length - 68.9mm
        Copper Thickness - 105um
        Resistivity of copper 0.0000000177 ohm.metre
        Required resistance - less than 9 milli-ohms

The customer is using a four wire resistance measurement method to determine
the resistance.  A known current power supply runs through the board at two
points and the voltage is measured along the track.  Using R=V/I to
determine the resistance.

As a PCB manufacturer we manufacture to plating thickness and the
verification of the resistance is an after process check.   We made some
boards in excess of 105um (plating up from 70um base copper) but they still
did not meet the resistance requirement even when we plate up to 141um.

We know that resistivity of copper is directly proportional to the ambient
temperature of copper and that plated copper have different density than
rolled copper.   But from their mathematical analysis of our copper
thickness, the difference is as much as 35um.  Our microsection has shown
the boards to be 120um and their calculation says that it is only 75um!

The customer is a manufacturer of inverters and transformers.  So my
questions are:

a)      Can the board be re-designed better not to rely so heavily on the
plating?
b)      Would using 105um or 141um base copper achieve this resistance
requirements?
c)      Would redesigning the board to have thicker tracks improve the situation?
d)      Do you think pre-mature failure is due to the 'under' plating or design?

I know this email and the questions are long winded, but I would really
appreciate it if anyone with similar experience can offer suggestions that
can help us as well as the customer achieve their goals.

Thank you.

Oliver Yeo
Quality Manager
IMP Printed Circuits Pty Ltd
Tel : (08) 8262 1444
Fax : (08) 8262 6004
www.imppc.com.au

Attention:
This e-mail message is confidential and privileged. Only the intended
recipient may access or use it. Any distribution, use, dissemination,
reproduction, copying of this e-mail without prior written consent is
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us
immediately by return e-mail and then erase the e-mail.

---------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2