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:
David Hillman <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, David Hillman <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:49:40 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (150 lines)
Hi folks - I don't have the data (yet, work is in progress) but you would
have to need to have a significantly messed up process to produce an IMC
thick enough to result in a solder joint failure in a electronics product.
I think the "thick IMC" concern is more a myth than a typical industry
failure mode on printed circuit assemblies.

Dave

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Stadem, Richard D. <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> No, that is not possible. The variations in the worldwide electronics
> soldering industry go far beyond what most of us see with typical ENIG,
> IAg, IAuCu (flash gold on copper), HASL, Pb-free HASL, OSP, and ten
> thousand billion different variations of component lead basis metals
> involved. How could anyone possibly characterize all of the different
> combinations and put an appropriate IMF thickness for each one? The charted
> document would be bigger than great-gramma's Bible.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Victor Hernandez
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 9:51 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] BGA Reworked Intermetallic
>
> 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]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>

______________________________________________________________________
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