TECHNET Archives

December 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:
Paul Reid <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Paul Reid <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:58:14 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (221 lines)
Hi ted,

Thanks for the input.

I think that crazing is a defect that needs to be addressed because of
the tendency for conductive anodic filament growth. Back in the '80s
this was not such a big deal. In 2013 with three mil lines and spacing
and grid sizes of 20 mils, crazing is a big deal.

It's not the magnification. It's the cross section that is the issue.
What the fabricator is saying is that there is no cross section
evaluation for crazing called out in IPC documents.

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]] On Behalf Of Theodore J Tontis
Sent: December 9, 2013 9:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Crazing

Why wouldn't it just be considered a process indicator? 

After all, a process indicator is not a defect and it indicates a
non-desired output that would warrant further investigation or counter
measures to correct? The material is still deemed acceptable just not
ideal.

I do believe it is not a defect and agree if we were to identify every
concern found under magnification above the specified/agreed upon
requirement, there would be a long list of issues to address and costs
would skyrocket.  Isn't that why we have standards for this sort of
thing?

Ted T

-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stadem, Richard D.
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 6:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Crazing

I am not sure I accept that "along the way" theory completely.
Prevalent in all of the IPC standards, all defect categories are
provided a magnification level for inspection. For example, if a
non-metallic particle is seen on the PWB while inspecting solder joints
at 20X magnification on a conformal coated CCA, the inspector is
supposed to switch to the required magnification for the particulate
matter (4X-7X). If the particulate matter cannot be seen at that range,
it is not considered to be a defect. 
If you want to entertain your "along the way" theory, then have fun
counting up the rework hours to strip away the coating, remove the
particles, clean, dry, and re-coat. No matter what you do short of
building all product in a Class 10 clean room, this unnecessary rework
will never end.

Of course, one must understand that there are certain exceptions to
this; I am just saying that you cannot allow an "along the way"
philosophy in the factory. It will put you out of business.
In regards to your example, two questions come to mind:

1. What is the magnification required when inspecting for particulate
matter between conductors at the PWB level, and what is the minimum
electrical clearance between the two traces you describe? If the
material was visible at the required magnification, it was an escape,
and should have been caught at the higher magnification you describe
anyway, and is a real defect.
2. Did you measure the resistance again after the tiny piece of material
was removed, and did it make any difference?


-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gerry Gagnon
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 7:21 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Crazing

Hi Paul,
 
Hope you and Bill B. are doing fine.
 
I am assuming that you you were looking for something else and detected
a "non-conforming" level of crazing.
 
In my mind, this is an easy one because you found the non-conformance
"along the way" while examining your microsection.
 
Let me give you an easier analogy.
 
While examining a region of an IST test coupon in transverse mount, I
find a tiny piece of material bridging two conductors at high mag.
Clearing away  the conductor surfaces enough to measure if there is a
resistance, I get a value in the MegOhm range.
 
Is it a short?
 
Unless things gave changed, Bare board continuity thresholds will not
detect this phenomenon.
Let's also say that innerlayer AOI (if performed) has a very high escape
rate for this type of phenomenon or may not even detect it at all.
 
Is the phenomonon a short per IPC A-610?
My answer is yes, it is an unwanted connection, albeit a high resistance
connection, and is difficult to detect. 
 
Does the fact that I found this short in a cross section under high
magnification, while I was looking for something else, change anything?
 
I don't think so, and I do not think IPC A-610 allows non-conformances
that are found "along the way". 
 
Have a good one.
Gerry
 
 

 
> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:05:41 -0500
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [TN] Crazing
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 
> 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] 
______________________________________________________________________

ATOM RSS1 RSS2