TECHNET Archives

March 2013

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:
Lum Wee Mei <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Lum Wee Mei <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 19 Mar 2013 00:44:55 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (98 lines)
Gregg,
Noted with thanks.  

Thanks and regards,
~wee mei~


-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gregg Owens
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 8:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] x-ray inspection of PTH barrel fill

Wee Mei:

Class 2 (TWO) will be considering this change to 50% hole fill. And yes, then 7.3.5.1 will have to be revised.

Class 3 will remain at 75% hole fill. 

Also, this is ONLY under consideration for the next revision. No change in current requirements has been made. 

Gregg

-----Original Message-----
From: Lum Wee Mei [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 5:31 PM
To: TechNet E-Mail Forum; Gregg Owens
Subject: RE: x-ray inspection of PTH barrel fill

Greg,
You mentioned that the committee is discussing and will be considering lowering the PTH fill requirements for Class 3 products from 75% to 50% whether or not there is an internal ground plane. If this consideration will to be acceptable under section 7.3.5.1 of IPC-A-610, does that mean Class 3 will now be consider acceptable instead of reject? 

Thanks and regards,
~wee mei~

-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gregg Owens
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 12:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] x-ray inspection of PTH barrel fill

Raye:

The reason the committee has stayed away from x-ray through-hole or other non-BGA solder connections is pragmatic from a standards basis, not necessarily a user basis. 

From the committee's standpoint, we cannot require x-ray inspection of all connections for a visual inspection standard. Not everyone has x-ray available. Next, how do we start to establish criteria for allowable voids (i.e. size and location) in through-hole and SMT connections (even though we know they exist)? Since voids have not proven to be an issue (generally speaking) in through-hole and non-BGA (bottom only terminations), then x-ray was not suggested nor recommended. So that is why you see such specific language / omissions concerning x-ray in the 610. 

The committee is discussing and will be considering lowering the PTH fill requirements for Class 2 products from 75% to 50% whether or not there is an internal ground plane. I have attached the PPT which supports this position. 

Now to your root question. If you have a specific application which requires x-ray (and the components can withstand it), then x-ray away. You will need to some analysis to determine your final acceptance criteria for your connections that are x-rayed. 

I hope this helps. 

Gregg Owens

-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rivera, Raye
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 8:54 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [TN] x-ray inspection of PTH barrel fill

Greetings all,

I would like to ask the group for an opinion on the following question:

Is it appropriate reject a through-hole solder joint as a defect under IPC-A-610E section 7.3.5.1 (barrel fill < 75%) based on x-ray inspection?

The reason for using x-ray is that the component is in the way and preventing visual inspection of the destination side.

I know that 610 is a visual standard. I see that Section 8.3.12 specifically states that x-ray can be used to identify defects in the special case of BGAs. I find no such statement anywhere in section 7. And the standard is quite specific in calling out exactly what magnification and even lighting should be used for inspection. This leads me to believe that x-ray should NOT be used to identify through-hole defects.

Am I reading too much into this? Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Best regards,
Raye Rivera

QA Manager * Canoga Perkins
20600 Prairie Street * Chatsworth * CA 91311-6008
818-678-3872  * [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] ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________
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] 
______________________________________________________________________

ATOM RSS1 RSS2