TECHNET Archives

April 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:
Brian Chandler <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Brian Chandler <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 14 Apr 2016 07:29:28 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (16 lines)
Looking through old files from my press fit pins days I found a reference to IEC 60325-5. I also remember there was a military specification that may have since been obsoleted. Anyway the IEC specification relies on cross sections for the criteria. 

My experience with different board finishes was this:

- NiAu - resulted in PTH and annular ring cracks that developed over time.
- Lead Free HASL - tin whiskers developed quite rapidly
- SnPb HASL - passed automotive validation testing
- SMOBC - passed automotive validation testing
- ImAg - passed automotive validation testing for retention force and contact resistance, but had issues with Ag migration

As other have stated, each pin manufacturer has their own recommendation for insertion depth, etc. Pick a well established manufacturer, we tried some not so established suppliers and they did not perform well.

Best of luck,

Brian

ATOM RSS1 RSS2