Mike,
My information might be out of date but I do remember some studies that
showed that the presence of lead in the copper-silver-tin intermetalic turns
the solder joint more fragile, thus less reliable.
Did you see this phenomenon or have you shown these studies to be
inaccurate?

Best regards,
Yehuda

-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Barmuta, Mike
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 5:34 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] BGAs; SnPb vice SAC Balls

Bogert: We are faced with the same predicament. As a manufacturer of
Test and Measurement equipment we are not covered under RoHS. Hence we
are free to use 63/37 Sn/Pb solderpaste. However we are seeing more and
more BGA's switching over to SAC only availability.

Your statement:" There have been published test studies done that show
that if one solders BGA's having SAC balls in an assembly soldering
process using traditional Sn63 solder, an unreliable solder joint may
exist." Is both true and false.

If you use a traditional Sn/Pb reflow profile it is true. However the
profile can be modified to increase temperature and duration above the
217-219C melting of the SAC alloy. By using the right time, temperature
and flux activation system you can create a homogenous dispersion of the
Sn/Pb throughout the SAC solderball. Thus creating a reliable
solderjoint. This is the route we have chosen to take.

We have conducted metallurgical and reliability testing and are
continuing to run long term reliability testing of SAC BGA's with Sn/Pb
solder. We have not seen any reliability issues.

The real problem is getting all the other components on the PCA to
withstand the higher process temps.


Good luck on whatever direction you take, I know it's a real dilemma.



Regards

Michael Barmuta

Staff Engineer

Fluke Corp.

Everett WA

425-446-6076




-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of - Bogert
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [TN] BGAs; SnPb vice SAC Balls

July 27, 2006

Folks, I have a dilemma regarding the transition to Pb free.

As a military user, we have no intention of transitioning to Pb free
assembly soldering at this time, and probably never, unless industry can
positively provide documented evidence, based on accelerated life
testing acceleration factors, that establish that the use of Pb-free
solders, such as SAC, will provide a product that will meet the same
reliability life requirements that Pb based solders have been proven to
meet, and that this level of reliability can be easily and consistently
achieved on the production floor without hiring a "Rocket Scientist" or
a team of 20 people to establish the soldering process using Pb-free.

Given this, I am frustrated by some BGA manufacturers apparent "Don't
give a dam attitude" about the military users of BGA'S since some folks
are eliminating Pb from solder balls in favor of alloys such as SAC.
Appears they are more interested in their bottom line industrial and
commercial customers than us military folks.  This is understandable
since us military folks constitute a very small % of their overall
business.

Although some manufacturers will still provide Pb BGA balls, some will
only provide SAC balls.  Also if Pb balls are requested, there may be
long lead times involved.

There have been published test studies done that show that if one
solders BGA's having SAC balls in an assembly soldering process using
traditional Sn63 solder, an unreliable solder joint may exist.

Based on the above, our current intent is to prohibit the use of any BGA
that does not use SnPb balls.

My question is, which is the least reliable alternative.  That is,
allowing BGA'S with SAC balls soldered using Sn63 solder, or having
someone take the BGAs and have the SAC balls replaced with SnPb balls?

What suppliers have the capability of doing this ball replacement?

My preference is to stick with the prohibition on non-Pb BGA balls.  The
down side of this is that by doing this, we may not be able to take
advantage of new technology parts that may only use SAC balls.

This Pb free issue is driving up costs.  Since about 50% of the part
manufacturers are eliminating Pb from their part finishes without
changing their part numbers, we are forced to implement XRF testing of
parts received by our OEMs to verify they contain the 3% Pb mandated by
most military specifications.

Just because it is a mil spec part does not mean one will not get Pb
free part terminations.  There have been several recent GIDEP Alerts
that indicate that some mil parts contained pure tin finish, in
violation of the mil spec.

While my experience to date is that part manufacturers who have
transitioned to a Pb free finish such as pure tin have implemented
tin-whisker mitigation methods, there is no guarantee that all folks
have done this.  Additionally, even though JP002 tin whisker mitigation
methods can reduce the risk for growing tin whiskers, if one uses pure
---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a 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/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100
ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------
tin, there is no positive guarantee that a tin whisker will never grow.

This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
and/or proprietary information intended only for the addressee.
Any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance on
the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may
constitute a violation of law.  If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify the sender immediately by responding to
this e-mail, and delete the message from your system.  If you
have any questions about this e-mail please notify the sender
immediately.

---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a 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/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
847-615-7100 ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------

__________ NOD32 1.1683 (20060728) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a 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/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------