Steve,
From the photo it appears you are correct. Squeeze out solder paste. Too much solder. Phil should reduce his aperture and/or decrease stencil thickness
Regards,
George
George M. Wenger
Senior Principal Reliability / FMA Engineer
Andrew Corporation - Wireless Network Solutions
40 Technology Drive, Warren, NJ 07059
(908) 546-4531 Office (732) 309-8964 Mobile
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of stephen gregory
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 8:18 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] solder splash under SMT caps
Hi Phil,
Got your photo. Sorry about the delay in getting it posted but I had to rush off to work after I first replied to you, and now I'm getting a break to get it
posted:
http://stevezeva.homestead.com/1501136_solder_splash.jpg
It sure looks like too much paste to me. Do you know what stencil thickness was used? and what aperture size for the pads were?
You said that there was no soldermask in between the pads, but it sure looks like there's mask there to me...
Steve
________________________________
From: Phil Nutting <[log in to unmask]>
To: Steve Gregory <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Fri, October 5, 2012 12:22:41 PM
Subject: RE: [TN] solder splash under SMT caps
Steve,
Thanks!
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Gregory [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 12:19 PM
To: Phil Nutting; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] solder splash under SMT caps
Phil,
Send the photo my way, I get it posted...
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Nutting
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 9:55 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [TN] solder splash under SMT caps
Here is my question for today.
We have an SMT board that measures 16 inches by 17 inches be 0.062 thick (it is well supported in the end application) with 32 voltage multiplier circuits so the board develops 12.5kV. On the 2225 capacitors we had failures (arcing) under the parts and our customer removed some caps only to find solder splashes. We used the standard IPC pad configuration for a 2225 part (3.7mm
gap) with no solder mask under the capacitor, ENIG finish and I suspect tin/lead paste. I have a photo I will post if Steve Gregory is still offering his site.
Our customer wants us to use a specific capacitor by AVX and the AVX pad layout of 4.6mm gap. Our contract manufacturer wants us to open up the gap between pads by 1mm (essentially the 4.6mm recommended by AVX).
My theory on this failure is the following; (could be any one or a combination of any items listed below) Too much solder paste Incorrect reflow pre-heat Incorrect liquidus temp
I have read John Maxwell's white paper and see that he recommends a larger space, but he didn't see significant performance enhancement above the 1808 part. Refer to http://johansondielectrics.com/technical-notes/application-notes/new-impact-of-pad-design-and-spacing-on-ac-breakdown-performance.html.
I agree that this greater distance will help with arcing, but will it help with the solder splash?
Will separating the pads have that much affect that the solder will be drawn out to the outside visible pads?
Inquiring minds want to know....
Phil Nutting
Design for Manufacturing Engineer
Kaiser Systems, Inc.
126 Sohier Road
Beverly, MA 01915
Phone: 978-922-9300 x1310
Fax: 978-922-8374
e-mail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
www.kaisersystems.com<http://www.kaisersystems.com>
www.linkedin.com/in/philnutting<http://www.linkedin.com/in/philnutting>
________________________________
Note: All the information contained in this e-mail and its attachments is proprietary to Kaiser Systems, Inc. and it may not be reproduced without the prior written permission of sender. If you have received this email in error, please immediately return it to sender and delete the copy you received.
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] ______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] ______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
|
