I agree with Joey assessment this is disturbed glass due to drilling and/or etchback. This is not a craze.
Viasystems Forest Grove has done CAF testing on this anomaly and crazing. As long as the glass bundle does rupture (delamination within the bundle) we have not had CAF test failures (CAF test results). HDPUG may have different results on crazing since they fail material for CAF testing due to transient resistance failures.
Randy
Randy Reed, ASQ CQE
Reliability Lab - N.A.
Viasystems Group, Inc.
Forest Grove, Oregon
Phone: 503.992.4421 Cell: 503.545.0150
Email: [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jose A Rios
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 7:40 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] Crazing
hi paul, in my opinion, what you have here is an artifact of drilling; not a base material or lamination defect, which is how crazing is defined.
this artifact may only be visible in darkfield, normal lighting may not reveal it.
this artifact is further enhanced if etchback is used. its a wicking path that didnt plate up because its too deep.
wicking acceptance criteria is defined for the plated part, not the invisible path that remains....
this would pass group a (lot conformance), but may not perform well if caf tested.
Joey Rios
PWB & Process Quality Eng'r
i3 Electronics
1093 Clark St.
Endicott, NY 13760
Office: 607-755-5896; Cell: 607-206-3642
From: Paul Reid <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>,
Date: 12/06/2013 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] Crazing
Sent by: IPC-600-6012 <[log in to unmask]>
Hi Russ,
I'll try with this email. I think that IPC strips all attachments however.
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: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Russ Shepherd
Sent: December 6, 2013 9:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] Crazing
Hi Paul,
Can you attach the photo to this email string?
Sincerely,
Russ Shepherd
Vice President of Operations
MICROTEK LABORATORIES
-----Original Message-----
From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Reid
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 5:34 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] Crazing
Hi Russ,
Maybe you can help. How do I post pictures to the IPC site?
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: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Russ Shepherd
Sent: December 5, 2013 4:27 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] Crazing
Crazing is an externally observable characteristic. If you see crazing in a microsection it would fall under laminate defects, such as delamination, laminate voids or cracks.
If you have a photo of the condition it might make it easier to comment on.
Sincerely,
Russ Shepherd
Vice President of Operations
MICROTEK LABORATORIES
-----Original Message-----
From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Whittaker, Dewey (EHCOE)
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 1:13 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [IPC-600-6012] Crazing
Was the observation as received or after thermal stress?
Dewey
-----Original Message-----
From: IPC-600-6012 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Reid
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 2:06 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [IPC-600-6012] Crazing
I was just on a conference call where we found crazing (a separation between glass fibers and the epoxy system), in a microsection. The fabricator stated that this had to be evaluated looking at a board macroscopically and could not be evaluated microscopically.
Crazing is called out in IPC-A- 600 in section 2, paragraph 2.3.2 page 18, which is "Externally Observable Characteristics". In A-600 there is picture of a microsection showing the defect but it states that a microsection is not required.
In IPC 6012-2010 crazing is call out in 3.3.2.2, page 12, which states (I am paraphrasing), "Crazing shall not violate greater than 50% of the distance between adjacent conductors..." The document then refers to IPC A 600.
What is your take on their argument that crazing should not be evaluated microscopically as per IPC?
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]
______________________________________________________________________
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] ______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
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] ______________________________________________________________________[attachment
"6494_M_003.jpg" deleted by Jose A Rios/Endicott/EIT] [attachment
"6494_2_1 mod.jpg" deleted by Jose A Rios/Endicott/EIT] [attachment "6494_M_002.jpg" deleted by Jose A Rios/Endicott/EIT]
______________________________________________________________________
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] ______________________________________________________________________
The information contained in this communication and its attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify [log in to unmask] and delete the communication without retaining any copies. Thank you.
Translations of this available:
Traduction disponible chez:
Traducciones disponibles en:
Vertalingen beschikbaar bij:
http://www.viasystems.com/dynamic_page.asp
____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
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]
______________________________________________________________________
|
