Paul Reid made me think of rel / life conversation across the 'borders'.
If someone is interested, I have some stuff in
Dropbox380/PWB/Reliability/Reliability of Microelectronics......by a guy
who was a prediction guru in England. It may look as from past time.....
Inge
On 28 May 2013 05:41, Bob Landman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Inge,
>
> A long time ago I read a paper on MIL-STD suggesting its a dodo bird. The
> author, a USAF statistician called the Arrhenius Equation (1889) to be
> an erroneous equation when attempting to apply it to modern complex dense
> silicon integrated circuits.
>
> i have the paper somewhere; I'll find it and share it here.
>
> Cosmic rays, alpha particles, and many other factors now must be included
> in what has become a very uncertain calculation of MTTF.
>
> Bob
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 27, 2013, at 5:22 PM, Inge Hernefjord <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> True. Sinnadurai made such calculations 30 years ago. His
> 'Step-Stress-Testing' was á la mode and we at Ericsson were sent to his
> courses. I remember his standard phrase first minutes : "Learn history and
> you can predict the future". It resulted in a massive failure data
> registering, which was used as a base for our life expectancy predictions.
> Imagine what a job long before computer programs like Nastran, LabView and
> lots more. The guys who managed advanced statistics were gods at that
> time.
>
> The choice of words and definitions and language translations cause
> confusions, but in general we mean same things. Wear out is wear out,
> fatigue is fatigue, Mean time between failures are same, as well as other
> topics like quality conformance, robustness against X and like. As like for
> clothes, there are minor swings how to do.
>
> Thanks for your words, despite wrinkles and bad legs, I try to be updated.
>
> Finally, a prediction question: how long will MIL-STD live?
>
> Inge
>
>
> On 27 May 2013 18:00, Paul Reid <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi Inge,
>
>
> Since Wayne, mentioned IST testing (thank you Wayne) I thought that I
>
> would add some thoughts on using the IST method to predict field life.
>
>
> Jason Furlong (PWB Interconnect Solution) and Michael Freda (Sun, now
>
> Oracle) wrote a couple of papers (Advanced testing using real life
>
> evaluation and statistical data analysis, and, Application of
>
> Reliability/Survivability to Analysis Interconnect Stress Test Data to Make
>
> Life Predictions on Complex, Lead-free Printed Circuit Board Assemblies) on
>
> estimating the Field Life of PWBs by using IST testing at three different
>
> temperatures below the Tg of the material. What they did was to measure IST
>
> coupons cycles to failure, on coupons that had a wear out type of failure
>
> when tested at 130°C 150°C and 170°C. Base on this data they were able to
>
> produce a failure curve that allowed them to estimate the failure rate at
>
> the end use environment (for example 65°C once a day).
>
>
> Subsequent testing demonstrated that this is an accurate method.
>
>
> What you need to do this type of testing is IST coupons on the production
>
> panel. This is a effective method that give you great insight into the
>
> general robustness of the product and possible field life of the PWB.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Paul Reid
>
>
> Program Coordinator
>
>
> PWB Interconnect Solutions Inc.
>
> 235 Stafford Rd., West, Unit 103
>
> Nepean, Ontario Canada, K2H 9C1
>
>
> 613 596 4244 ext. 229
>
>
> Skype paul_reid_pwb
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of
> Wayne Thayer
>
> Sent: May 27, 2013 10:20 AM
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Subject: Re: [TN] Difference berween solder float and solder dip
>
>
> Most others who respond to this group are much more versed in IPC
>
> standards than I am. I do know that when testing out layups it is common
>
> to implement an IPC solder float test where a sample is alternately floated
>
> on molten solder and then pulled off and allowed to cool for a certain
>
> number of cycles, like 3x to 5x. A nice thing about this test with through
>
> holes is that the solder usually wicks into the holes and supports the via
>
> barrel during cross sectioning. This is a stressful test, but doesn't
>
> resemble most usage conditions at all. Running the sample through the
>
> reflow process multiple times is much more similar to actual use. 5x
>
> reflow suggests a unit can take initial soldering plus a couple of rework
>
> cycles.
>
>
> IST is also a great technique for looking at board structure robustness,
>
> but it is expensive to get done and can only be done on a specially
>
> designed sample.
>
>
> While boards which do better on these tests are likely to last longer in
>
> the field, there is no simple or direct relationship from results to field
>
> life. To validate field life is another science.
>
>
> Solder wettabiity by dip testing is something the board assembler cares
>
> about, not the reliability guys.
>
>
> Wayne
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: SARAVANAN R [[log in to unmask]]
>
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 8:22 AM
>
> To: TechNet E-Mail Forum; Wayne Thayer
>
> Subject: Re: [TN] Difference berween solder float and solder dip
>
>
> Dear Mr Wayne Thayer,
>
>
> Some hi reliability agencies asking for solder dip to test the robustness
>
> of the PTH and laminate integrity.
>
> But all the standards talk about solder float & reflow simulation.
>
>
> I am interested in knowing which is the robust test ?. What are the
>
> difference in stress that the specimen is undergoing the two tests?.
>
> regards,
>
>
> R.Saravanan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Wayne Thayer <[log in to unmask]>
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Sent: Sunday, 26 May 2013 11:27 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [TN] Difference berween solder float and solder dip
>
>
> Hi Inge-
>
>
> I'm confused! Is it possible you messed up 1&2? Testing wettability on
>
> components makes sense to me.
>
>
> I thought float was for seeing how robust the circuit board construction
>
> is, although the "popcorn" test was done on components years ago before
>
> people knew how dry components needed to be kept.
>
>
> Wayne
>
> ________________________________________
>
> From: TechNet [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>>]
> on behalf of Inge
>
> Hernefjord [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>
> >]
>
> Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 7:26 AM
>
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>>
>
> Subject: Re: [TN] Difference berween solder float and solder dip
>
>
> Hi Ramakrishnan,
>
>
> 1. Solder dip test tells about the WETTABILITY.
>
>
> 2. Floating test tells about the ALIGNMENT
>
>
> Typically 1. is performed on just a few coupons and NO components, while 2.
>
> is done with many coupons (or PCBs) and WITH components. For getting good
>
> statistics it's not unusual with 10,000 components.
>
>
> Inge
>
>
>
> On 25 May 2013 14:02, Ramakrishnan Saravanan <[log in to unmask]<mailto:
>
> [log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>
> What is the difference between solder dip test and solder float test of
>
> PWB test coupon. What is the difference in stress levels ?
>
>
> regards,
>
>
> R.Saravanan
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> 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]
>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask] <[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]
>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask] <[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]
______________________________________________________________________
|
