TECHNET Archives

January 2016

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:
Ricardo Moncaglieri <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Ricardo Moncaglieri <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:45:37 -0300
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (15 lines)
Colleagues,
We are considering in a space (IPC class 3) application assembly, a component similar to case T0 257 whose six gull wing terminals (three on each side and their seals are vitrified) had to be blent more than 10% (IPC J-STD-001 7.1.1) of their diameter (1 diameter) in order to be mounted due to a wrong gerber design
The gull wing terminal zone shape well soldered on the pcb pad was not modified, terminal was bent on its straight zone. Vitrified seal was not affected at all. Thermal plane was fully soldered on thermal plane pad, cause of that rework desoldering component could be more complicated.  Pcb base material is FR4.
Could anyone make me know his/her consideration as per background experience on a case like this one about stress relief performance? Could it have been affected to cause a solder crack under manufacturer specified working conditions? 
Matter here is that we have no enough time to run a stress analysis (ciclic stress simulation on three axes) and reworking as I said upper could be hazardous due to complexity of assembly.
Will appreciate too much your feedback/considerations.
Attached photo is x40 magnified.
Keep awaiting.
brgds,Ricardo

______________________________________________________________________
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