Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:09:00 +0000 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Jim
As Dave already mentioned the two possible causes are coplanarity and temperature. Looking at pictures 2 and 4 I'd rather go for coplanarity but in picture 8 it seems to me as if the level of the solder is high enough to wet the pin and the pin is covered by flux (which isn't the case in pictures 2 and 4). This looks like a low temperature issue. It's well possible that you have a combination of several reasons for a failure.
Günter
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Jim West
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 18. November 2014 21:13
> An: [log in to unmask]
> Betreff: [TN] Solder defect
>
> Hi all,
>
> Please see attached links. (Thanks Steve)
> http://stevezeva.homestead.com/IMG00002.jpg
>
> http://stevezeva.homestead.com/IMG00004.jpg
>
> http://stevezeva.homestead.com/IMG00008.jpg
>
> We have recently come across two failures that were the result of one (1) pin
> not soldered on a 144 pin QFP. Looking at the pictures, you'll see no wetting
> and the pin embedded in the solder. We could say it's contamination, but we
> had no issues with any other pins on the QFP. One more thing to add to the
> troubleshooting, the failure is the same pin (36) on the QFP. Do I have a
> warping issue? The pin doesn't appear to be bent, but I have not ruled that
> out until I have better means of verifying. If it's contamination, why only one
> pin? I would think that I would get at lease the heel or toe, or even the sides
> to solder, but in this case no wetting. You can see the pin has made contact
> with the solder due to the indentation. How does this not solder if it has
> made contact with the solder paste? I'm at a loss and we will probably end
> up sending this to a lab, but I'm not sure if we will gain anything from a lab??
>
> We are using leaded solder for this application.
> Photo IMG00002 and 00004 are from the same failure Photo IMG00008 is the
> 2nd failure.
>
> Your thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Jim
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
> ____________
> 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]
______________________________________________________________________
|
|
|