TECHNET Archives

November 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:
Guy Ramsey <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Guy Ramsey <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 11 Nov 2013 11:39:30 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (36 lines)
While reading some papers on SnBi solder and SAC solder interaction, I
stumbled onto this set of statements in a 2010 paper  Copyright ACI, The
Lead Free Electronics Manhattan Project - Phase II.  

Intermetallic Fracture

. With Cu supplied by the solder, attaching to Ni pads can be problematic

. (Cu1-xNix)6Sn5 intermetallic IMC forms over a layer of Ni3Sn4 at the Ni
pad

. The Ni atoms are substituted on the Cu lattice

. Weak boundary between intermetallics

. Mechanical shock and handling risk

 

The statements were associated with a image "SnNi and SnNiCu intermetallic
compounds found when using SnAgCu solders," IPC/Soldertech Global 2nd
International Conference on Lead Free Electronics. 

 

We don't do much Pb-free soldering.  But all of our boards, or nearly all,
are gold over nickel.  Is this a real concern?  Wouldn't this kill ENIG as a
SAC compatible finish? 



______________________________________________________________________
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