TECHNET Archives

September 2015

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:
Joyce Koo <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
Date:
Wed, 16 Sep 2015 12:17:05 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (132 lines)
it is process and design dependent.  Cisco got a paper out regarding
position of the IC on the front and back side of the PWA in relation to
the type of the package, location to the repair device vs reliability
(impact drop test).  very good paper at IEEE few years ago.  you get not
only the IMC but the grain size effect, etc. etc.  you might want to
repeat it yourself to get your own data.  (I doubt you can just drop in
with someone else's data when PWB layout, density, rework procedure are
all different to your own).
best of luck.
                  jk
> Does IPC STD provide a guideline for IMC formation thickness, ENIG or Cu,
> after 1x, 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x and 6x Forced RW?   IMC formation thickness
> varies by type of solder, SnPb and LF Solder.   Let’s keep the
> discussion going!!!
>
> Victor,
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Vladimir Igoshev
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 9:38 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] BGA Reworked Intermetallic
>
> 10 microns thick layer is a perfect way for a disaster down the road :-).
>
> There are no parameters for E-Ni, but the appearance of the interface and
> a P-enriched layer ‎is important.
>
> Vladimir
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
>   Original Message
> From: Victor Hernandez
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 10:11
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Reply To: TechNet E-Mail Forum
> Subject: Re: [TN] BGA Reworked Intermetallic
>
> On ENIG surface I don't see much of an increase in the IMC formation
> thickness. However, on Cu it is a different story. I have measured IMC
> formation greater than 10 microns. Not sure of the below statement about
> E-NI parameter. Please explain!!!
>
> Victor,
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Vladimir Igoshev
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 8:12 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] BGA Reworked Intermetallic
>
> The "magic" Number should stay the same 1-3 micron but you'd also have to
> keep an eye on what happened to the layer of E-Ni underneath.
>
> Regards,
>
> Vladimir
>
> SENTEC
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
> Original Message
> From: Datacom - Juliano Ribeiro
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 09:09
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Reply To: TechNet E-Mail Forum
> Subject: [TN] BGA Reworked Intermetallic
>
> Hi to all,
>
>
>
> When we reworked the BGA, removed the component of the board and
> replacement another BGA, what's the intermetallic thickness ideal after
> the rework?
>
>
>
> p.s: Our pcb is ENIG finished and the solder is Tin Lead.
>
>
>
> _____________________________
>
> Juliano Bettim Ribeiro
>
> DATACOM
>
> ENGENHARIA DE PROCESSOS
> Rua América Nº 1000 - Eldorado do Sul - RS CEP: 92990-000
> +55 (51) 8446-2135
>
> +55 (51) 3933-3000
>
> Ramal: 3484
> [log in to unmask] www.datacom.ind.br
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 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] 
______________________________________________________________________

ATOM RSS1 RSS2