LISTSERV - TECHNET Archives - LISTSERV.IPC.ORG

TECHNET Archives

April 2014

TechNet@IPC.ORG

	LISTSERV Archives
	TECHNET Home
	TECHNET April 2014

	Log In
	Register

	Subscribe or Unsubscribe

	Search Archives

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 >>]

Subject:	Re: Interpretation for IPC 600H for Clause 3.3.2 (Lifted Land - Cross Sectioned)
From:	Tuyen Tran <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:	TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Tuyen Tran <[log in to unmask]>
Date:	Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:00:59 +0700
Content-Type:	text/plain
Parts/Attachments:	text/plain (1 lines)

Hi Joseph
In IPC 600H criteria clause 3.3.2 only apply for plated through hole not for SMT.

Best regards
Tuyen Tran (CIT-IPC610)

-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joseph Khiew
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 1:42 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [TN] Interpretation for IPC 600H for Clause 3.3.2 (Lifted Land - Cross Sectioned)

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.

______________________________________________________________________
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

LISTSERV.IPC.ORG