TECHNET Archives

April 2014

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:
Interpretation for IPC 600H for Clause 3.3.2 (Lifted Land - Cross Sectioned)
From:
Joseph Khiew <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Joseph Khiew <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 28 Apr 2014 01:41:51 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (4 lines) 
We found repeated pad lifted after different SMT Reflow temperature (eg: 243 deg C and 233 deg C) at an isolated slot.  The PCB Supplier had claimed that such condition is acceptable as per IPC 600H Clause 3.3.2 (Cross Sections)  - eg: Acceptable - Class 1,2,3 = After thermal stress testing or rework simulation - Lifted lands are allowed. 

Upon consultation with our Customer, such pad lifted cannot be concessed (rejected).  Appreciate advise if such interpretation of Clause 3.3.2 by the Supplier is correct.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2