TECHNET Archives

May 2003

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:
Brian Ellis <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Mon, 26 May 2003 09:12:46 +0300
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (223 lines)
Peter

To some extent I agree with you, but not entirely.

Using the pasted area is no better than using the board area. The paste
is deposited on metal. The danger lies on substrate and the paste
chemistry spreads over the substrate during preheat and reflow.

I agree that most current models of equipment do not meet the
requirements of cutting-edge industry. This is why I hatched the
Microcontaminometer in 1983, culminating in the MCM-2 in the late 1980s,
which was able to go down to 50 ng of absolute sodium chloride with a
50% solution (in other words over 4 orders of magnitude more sensitive
than your instrument). The conductivity measuring system was able to
measure 1.5 parts per billion (ppb) of salt in the solution! Multicore,
in their wisdom, decided to abandon this model after they took over the
range. They did make a vague effort in the late 1990s to resuscitate the
idea with the CM-20, I believe, but I don't think that got much beyond
the pre-production stage (I don't know for sure, as there were a lot of
communication difficulties). Maybe Graham Naisbitt of Concoat can tell
you what the current situation is, as I understand they are the present
successors to the Contaminometer legacy (I have absolutely no interest
in it, either technical or financial).

I agree that to calibrate and drive these ultra-sensitive instruments is
not great fun, unless you are a masochist, but they were able to produce
the desired results accurately, with care and, above all, knowledge. I
had several customers for them within the great names of the Swiss watch
industry (including Swatch!), the hybrid circuit industry and component
manufacturers and they were all able to use them without problems, even
if it required a day's training.

I see, in my book pp 316-320, I was suggesting that 0.5 ug/cm2 eq. NaCl
  was necessary, even then (written 1983-5, published 1986, for hybrid
and SM circuits). So, what you are saying has a 20 year history, already!

Hope this helps.

Brian



[log in to unmask] wrote:
> Ah, Glen!
>
> I've been battling this one for far too long now myself, and one of the
> questions I posed was just the one you are posing here - is it imore
> realistic to calculate the solder paste area, since this is where all the
> flux contamination wil be concentrated, or go with the spec requirements
> which gives a cleanliness requirement calculated from 2x entire board area?
>
> I have my own opinion which I'll explain in a moment, but let's look at
> history first. The cleanliness figures in the IPC and MIL specs are now
> over 30 years old and date from the days when components were all PTH and
> wave soldered. With wave soldering, the entire board area is fluxed, and
> with the technology of those days, trace weights, widths and spacings were
> much greater than they are today. Hence the cleanliness level required was
> not as stringent as it needs to be today. The cleanliness level, taken over
> the entire board area made sense then, but has not been updated since to
> account for the much finer traces, closer spacing and SMT technology of
> today. SMT technology, of course, largely uses Convection Reflow soldering
> techniques in which solder paste (flux) is deposited only in localised
> areas.
>
> Doug Pauls from Rockwell Colins will probably give you a very knowledgeable
> answer to your question, but my opinion is this:
>
> a) if you want your boards to meet IPC or MIL spec, it can be easily done
> using the current ROSE test equipment, which also has changed very littlle
> in principle in 30 years. Take whatever reading you get from the machine at
> face value, divide it by the total board area and you have the appropriate
> figure against which to judge if you've passed or failed.  However ...
> b) Industry concensus seems to have it that a much tighter cleanliness
> figure is now required than in days of yore - 0.2ug NaCl eq cm^-2 instead
> of 1.56ug is the figure that's been bandied about, based, I believe, on SIR
> and Ion Chromatography results for modern boards. It's a figure I prefer to
> believe than the IPC spec  figure.
> c) Using the solder pasted area as the divisor for the cleanliness result
> makes the test much harder to pass, but will give you (to my mind) a more
> realistic idea of how clean the fluxed areas are. I think, too, that the
> real truth about overall board cleanliness will lie somewhere in between
> the two areas, though where I cannot say for sure but probably nearer to
> the pasted area than the overall board area.
> d) as boards get smaller and clealiness level requirements become tighter,
> we run into problems with the ROSE testers, which are still happily
> claiming compliance with the IPC and MIL Specs and tend to assume a board
> area that may be much larger than you normally deal with. The problems are
> those of working at the extreme limits of the machines' capabilities. Sure,
> you can continue to do what you do now, which is to test a number of boards
> at the same time to, as you say, give the machine something to measure, but
> I believe it's time that the ROSE tester manufacturers looked to updating
> their technology.
> I've been giving Mike Konrad at Aqueous Technologies a hard time, demanding
> "official" figures for how well their Zero Ion reads at low levels of
> contamination, because from tests I have carried out, machines tend to
> start reading inaccurately when total contamination weights drop much below
> 1000ug NaCl eq. I have boards that measure just over 9" x 6" and have a
> target cleanliness figure of 0.2ug NaCl eq cm^-2. This means that the
> maximum permissible contamination weight must not exceed 143ug per board.
> The ROSE test tank I have is large enough to allow two boards to be tested
> at one time, which means that the machine has to be capable of reading
> accurately 286ug NaCl eq (board area is irrelevant as it's just a divisor
> that you programme into the machine yourself - it doesn't affect the
> machines ability (or otherwise) to detect and measure the contamination
> level. 286ug is well below the level at which the machines seem to read
> accurately, or consistently. The variance at these levels is also great,
> and if my tests are accurate, makes the measurement at these concentrations
> meaningless.
>
> As more people move to "no-clean" technology, the only folks left using
> ROSE testers will be the Class 3 board builders who continue to use
> water-soluble fluxes. Maybe that market is not big enough to justify
> re-evaluating the capabilities of the testers, in which case ways round the
> capability problem have to be found.
>
> Glen, whether you choose to use overall board area or pasted area for your
> cleanliness calculation is up to you. If you want a better idea about the
> board cleanliness, use pasted area, but if you want the boards to pass test
> for shipment, use overall area adn no-one can legitimately criticise you.
>
> Hope some of the other gurus will give me a debate on ROSE tester
> capability.
>
> Peter.
>
>
>
> Glenn Pelkey <[log in to unmask]>  23/05/2003 09:59 PM
> Sent by: TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Please respond to "TechNet E-Mail Forum."; Please respond to glenn.r.pelkey
>
>               To:  [log in to unmask]
>               cc:  (bcc: DUNCAN Peter/Asst Prin Engr/ST Aero/ST Group)
>               Subject: [TN] ROSE for Flip Chip
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Technetters,
>
>
>         My buddy and I have a disagreement on using Resistivity of Solvent
> Extract (ROSE) for measuring cleanliness on a Flip Chip board.  So, we're
> throwing it to league of experts on this forum for feedback
>
>
>         Here's the story:  The board and assembly are very simple.  One
> flip chip die at about 0.002 square inches and one board about 0.490 square
> inches.  Flux is applied only to the flip chip die, reflowed, and DI inline
> washed.
>
>
>         Here's the disagreement:  I say use 2X the surface area of the die
> for the calculation.  My good friend says use 2X the board surface.  Of
> course, you can see one number is much higher than the other in ug/sq inch
> NaCl equiv.  My logic for using only the die area is to understand the
> process cleanliness at that location only, but I recognize the entire board
> surface could be cross contaminated in some manner.  We also loaded the
> machine with 32 of these units to get something measurable.  When we only
> put 4 in, nothing showed up, but the smallest entry for surface area is 0.1
> square inches.
>
>
> Thanks for your input!
>
>
> Glenn
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [This e-mail is confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please delete it and notify us immediately; you should
> not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other
> person. Thank you.]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>

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