TECHNET Archives

July 2009

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:
Graham Naisbitt <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Graham Naisbitt <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:50:27 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (431 lines)
Thanks for the comprehensive feedback Richard, and please excuse my  
ignorance of your knowledge on the subject.

That said, we have a conundrum. On the one hand, solder paste
manufacturers are obligated to conduct tests according to IEC 61189-5
which is, in this instance, an absolute copy of the IPC Test Methods
and have not been updated since 1995.

On the other hand they are out of date!

So, your IPC committee Chairman was attempting to do the updating and
starting with a RR program on Slump Test that we should have completed
by now. For a whole host of reasons this hasn't happened and your
committee simply want to get on with an update that includes for lead-
free alloys. However, as these are Test Methods incorporated in
Standards, we have a number of elements that we must attend to, to
ensure adequate Gauge R&R and all that other good stuff - of which I
am sure you are more than familiar.

As you are far more familiar with current methodology, maybe I can
persuade you to come along to the Chicago meeting in September?

I will try to digest all that you and these reports present but some
help will be required.

Regards

Graham Naisbitt

Email: [log in to unmask]
Phone: +44 (0)12 5252 1500
Web: www.gen3systems.com

On 29 Jul 2009, at 15:35, Stadem, Richard D. wrote:

> I totally understand the tests, Graham, having performed them many
> times. You asked for input, here it is.
>
> Using a solder paste evaluation board such as those from IPC, Topline,
> Practical Components, or the Heraeus Benchmarker II will provide much
> more and much better data than a single 6mm dot of paste agglomerating
> into a single ball or, in the case of the wetting spread test, the
> same
> 6mm dot of paste spreading out on bare copper on a hot plate.
> The Benchmarker board (which I like better than the others)
> essentially
> performs the same type of wetting test on bare copper, except it
> uses a
> series of paste deposits of staggered (increasing) pitch so you can
> easily compare the wetting of one paste versus another by counting the
> number of deposits that bridge together during reflow. It also
> provides
> the same 6mm dot spread and agglomeration test as performed in the 650
> TM.
> Peruse this document to get a good understanding of the tests that can
> be performed, and the grading system.
> http://www.pori.tut.fi/~jusa/students/ett/
> TechnicalInfoF640_V10_05.pdf.
> This test board was agreed by all of the major paste printers to be
> the
> best one to use in a printing competition amongst themselves.
> http://www.ep-teq.com/KohYoung/Comparison%20test%20of%20stencil%20printe
> rs%20at%20the%20SMT%202008.pdf.
>
> However, you need to balance the wetting test results against the
> results for solder paste slumping, which is also included on the
> Heraeus
> test board. Conversely, if you get a paste that fails slumping, it
> could
> perform better on the wetting spread test simply because it was
> impossible to print a good brick. On the other hand, a solder paste
> that
> provides a perfect brick may provide much worse tackiness and will not
> retain components placed with a high-speed turret chipshooter. This is
> the problem with having all of the individual TM650 test methods; any
> solder paste can pass these individual tests to meet minimum
> requirements of the industry, and still be a terrible paste to use
> compared to others.
>
> The Heraeus Benchmarker II test provides a scoring weight for at least
> ten different paste tests, closely aligned with the test methods in
> IPC
> TM650, but better. The Benchmarker test procedure provides test
> methods
> for evaluating wetting spread, agglomeration (anti-spitting), slump at
> room temperature, slump at elevated temperature, slump at high-
> humidity
> conditions, tack time, tackiness (very important for high speed
> turret-style pick and place machines), open stencil life, voiding, SIR
> test, and others I cannot remember.
>
> I have used this method of evaluating solder pastes many times. It is
> much better and much faster than performing all of the individual
> TM650
> test methods, uses the actual processes and reflow methods used for
> production in the user's facility (when was the last time your company
> used a hot plate to reflow SMT parts in production?), and provides a
> much better overall scoring system to determine which of the solder
> pastes will perform best for your particular application(s). The data
> provides information one each solder paste's strengths and weaknesses.
>
> While I much prefer this method for evaluating solder pastes, I
> understand that the TM-650 test methods you are working on are
> designed
> to ensure a solder paste will meet at least the minimum requirements
> to
> be classified as acceptable for use in the industry. I would still
> like
> to see a recommended method of paste performance evaluation using the
> methods I have described within the TM650 manual. I think both are
> needed, tests to verify minimum acceptable performance, and evaluation
> procedures using one or more of the test boards I mentioned.
>
> To summarize, attempting to evaluate multiple pastes using the
> individual test methods described within TM650 using lab equipment
> such
> as hot plates is very time consuming and does not give good clear
> comparison results amongst the paste candidates being tested. Those
> standards only provide a means of determining whether a paste meets
> the
> bare minimum performance levels and are not relevant as to how well
> the
> paste will perform in actual production processes.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Graham Naisbitt
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:49 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] Solder Paste test method mods
>
> Richard and Inge
>
> These tests which, like all Test Methods, you can download free from
> the IPC web site, are intended to be used by the manufacturers of
> solder paste to give you, the user, a minimum expectation that the
> stuff is any good.
>
> The method in question employs an alumina substrate (specimen) onto
> which the paste sample is printed. The specimen is then placed onto a
> preheated hot plate, reflowed and then examined to check out: wetting,
> spread, solder balling and slump.
>
> As none of them cater for lead-free alloys - yet - we are trying to
> lay down new methods and one of these is, as I mentioned, reflow shall
> occur within 20 seconds of hot plate contact and the proposal is 30
> seconds for lead-free.
>
> Why? Because it has been suggested that the lead-free pastes, because
> of the higher melt temperature, use higher boiling point additives in
> the flux.
>
> So - I am curious to know the views on this both from the paste
> manufacturers stand-point and the end user.
>
> I sometimes marble at Dewey's witisisms.....and then chalk them down
> to experience.
>
> Regards
>
> Graham Naisbitt
>
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Phone: +44 (0)12 5252 1500
> Web: www.gen3systems.com
>
> On 28 Jul 2009, at 18:58, Stadem, Richard D. wrote:
>
>> Yes. Some fluxes transfer heat much more readily than others. Not all
>> fluxes are designed to burn off prior to reflow taking place,
>> whether as
>> a standalone flux or as part of solder paste.
>> But I agree that the amount of time is irrelevant; the complete
>> agglomeration (no spitting or congealing) of the deposit is what is
>> critical in the agglomeration test on ceramic or FR-4, and the
>> degree of
>> wetting spread once the paste reaches temperatures above the melting
>> point is what is critical on the wetting test on bare copper. The
>> variation in test apparatus is too widespread to make the time it
>> takes
>> part of a requirement.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Glidden, Kevin
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 12:47 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [TN] Solder Paste test method mods
>>
>> Is time to reflow really dependent upon the flux type? I agree with
>> the
>> others - mass, geometry, and of course the alloy metallurgy.
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Inge [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 1:29 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [TN] Solder Paste test method mods
>>
>> Graham,
>>
>> I can't see the purpose of such a requirement. Time to reflow is
>> dependent
>> on the hotplate's surface condition, the contact surface geometry,
>> used
>> flux
>> and maybe more factors. I have never seen any useful investigations,
>> nor
>> any papers on this matter. The time to reflow on a hotplate...what is
>> the
>> need of that? Heat transfer varies from machine to machine, from
>> process
>> to
>> process.
>>
>> Inge
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Graham Naisbitt" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 5:40 PM
>> Subject: [TN] Solder Paste test method mods
>>
>>
>>> Greg and fellow Techies
>>>
>>> I am in the process of submitting revisions to solder paste tests
>> called
>>> up in TM-650 and need your help.
>>>
>>> In 2.4.43 Solder Ball - 2.4.45 Wetting and 2.4.46 Spread Tests, we
>> need
>>> to allow for lead-free alloys. In each of these there is a quoted
>> time:
>>>
>>> "The reflow shall occur within 20 seconds after the specimen is
>>> placed
>> in
>>> contact with the hot plate."
>>>
>>> The recommendation is to include the following:
>>>
>>> "For lead-free solder pastes, the reflow time shall occur within 30
>>> seconds after the specimen is placed in contact with the hot plate."
>>>
>>> Does anyone out there in Techieland have any objections to this
>> proposed
>>> addition to each of these test methods?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Graham Naisbitt
>>> Managing Director
>>>
>>> E: [log in to unmask]
>>> P: +44 12 5252 1500
>>> F: +44 12 5252 1112
>>> W: www.gen3systems.com
>>>
>>> GEN3 SYSTEMS LIMITED
>>> Incorporating Process Support Products
>>> Unit B2, Armstrong Mall
>>> Southwood Business Park
>>> FARNBOROUGH
>>> Hampshire GU14 0NR - UK
>>>
>>> Engineering Reliability in Electronics
>>>
>>>
>>> Registered Number: 4639449 (England & Wales). Registered Office as
>> above.
>>> DISCLAIMER : This message is intended only for the use of the
>> individual
>>> or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information
>>> which
>> is
>>> privileged, confidential, proprietary, or exempt from disclosure
>> under
>>> applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or the person
>>> responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient,
>>> you
>> are
>>> strictly prohibited from disclosing, distributing, copying, or in
>>> any
>> way
>>> using this message. If you have received this communication in
>>> error,
>>> please notify the sender and destroy and delete any copies you may
>> have
>>> received. Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
>> those
>>> of the author and might not represent those of Gen3 Systems
>>> Limited.
>>> Although Gen3 Systems Limited has taken reasonable precautions to
>> ensure
>>> no viruses present in this email, Gen3 Systems Limited can not
>>> accept
>> the
>>> responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this
>> email
>>> or attachments.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>> Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0
>>> 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
>>> -----------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0
>> 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0
>> 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0
>> 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0
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
-----------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2