TECHNET Archives

March 2018

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:
Frank Kimmey <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Frank Kimmey <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 5 Mar 2018 19:21:44 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1 lines)
Hey Jack,

I have always looked at non functional pad removal as an assist to the fabricator (improved drill life).

I would generally look at the stackup to determine how safe it would be to remove pads.

If the stack up uses all equal thicknesses of laminate then leaving pads will distribute the barrel stresses between layers, where removal of pads can cause additional stresses (stress flows to weakest point).

Also, as stated before there can be other issues to account for, i.e. were the vias modeled for high speed or impedance?

I personally feel that if there is impedance, thermal (CTE driven) or mixed material issues then vias should not be removed.

If a simpler circuit then who cares.

For a 20 year life with lots of thermal shifts I would probably want the added ribs to give additional strength to the vias and require they be left in.

Either way, once you decide, it is worth adding to your drawing notes to be clear as to your expectations of the final product.

Good Luck in the fog,

FNK



Frank N Kimmey CID+

Electrical Engineer/PCB Design



Verifone

1400 W Stanford Ranch Road

Rocklin, CA 95765

T: 916-625-1818

M: 916-833-9877



-----Original Message-----

From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jack Olson

Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 10:01 AM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: [EXT] Re: [TN] Non Functioning pads



Since I was surprised by the answers, I am willing to do some studying on the issue because I thought we had that one nailed down.

But just for the sake of a starting point, what if we had:



   - a typical 8-layer board with vias that are 5:1 max aspect ratio (13 or

   20mil)

   - 1000 boards a year (low volume, not worried about cost of drill bits)

   - high thermal cycling in automotive environment



Would you leave the internal non-functional pads or remove them if you wanted the boards to last 20 years?

What is the MOST ROBUST choice?

Sorry for the repeat question, I thought this issue was settled!



Jack (aka "the new guy")



p.s. that's a joke, because every time I think I know everything, I get slapped!



On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Jack Olson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:



> I hear ya, brother. and don't think I am arguing with the value of

> doing the work, but (here I go anyway) One of the major benefits of

> having the IPC in our industry is that every new circuit board

> designer that comes along, who doesn't know whether to put that note

> on his fabrication drawing or not, can learn from the experience of

> others here. He doesn't have to repeat expensive tests just to verify

> what is already understood by the consensus of other members that have

> already contributed time and effort and resources to study the issue.

> (but I hear ya!)

>

> Jbro

>

> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Dwight Mattix

> <[log in to unmask]>

> wrote:

>

>> Yeah, I blew past the thread to busy to contribute last week.

>>

>> All else being equal retaining non-functional pads tends to increase

>> time to barrel wearout from circumferential cracking at/near the

>> midline.  One notion being that the pads make for a local lower resin

>> content region around the via (less expansive dielectric acting on

>> the copper column to wear it out).

>>

>> Non-func pads don't seem to have much bearing on the actual post

>> interconnect reliability.  Multiwire anyone?  (speaking of dinosaurs).

>>

>> But back to the barrel wearout thing...  All things are rarely equal.

>> So if you actually build it and test it (due diligence? That's crazy

>> talk. Who has time or money for that anymore?), I'd wager you'll get mixed results.

>>  A lot depends on factors like the fabricator's drilling and hole

>> prep skill, the aspect ratio, material involved, copper weights of

>> the included NF-pads etc.

>>

>> Leaving non-func pads in, increases the drilling challenge. That

>> increases things that disrupt the hole and factor in to it's ultimate

>> reliability. For example, a rougher hole wall is very likely to be

>> part of the effect of leaving NF pads in. That introduces stress

>> risers in the holewall topography that can accelerate copper wearout

>> and crack propogation.

>>

>> So all of that say the original question, "It depends."   :)

>>

>> Do your due diligence. If it really matters, build it and test it.

>> Better yet, build it both ways and test it. Even better, build both

>> ways at more than one fab and test it.  You'll be illuminated and

>> smarter at the end of the exercise than 99 of 100 veteran pwb tech

>> people seen walking the floor with tacky polo shirts, broken down

>> posture and done-lops last week at IPC/APEX.

>>

>> cheers,

>> dw

>>

>> -----Original Message-----

>> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jack Olson

>> Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 7:49 AM

>> To: [log in to unmask]

>> Subject: Re: [TN] Non Functioning pads

>>

>> I must be behind-the-times on this one.

>> Werner Englemaier used to talk about this all the time, and from my

>> memory an analogy might be similar to comparing a simple rivet to a

>> "rivet with ribs". If your goal is a robust product (which a lot of

>> Class 3's are) then it seems like you would want the extra support.

>> (I'm not making a statement, I'm repeating what I was taught). I'm

>> pretty sure I've heard Gary Ferrari recommend keeping them in at

>> least a half a dozen times in his seminars. Aren't the most common failures in boards related to vias?

>>

>> Maybe I have more learnin' to do on this one, but I'm surprised that

>> NO ONE responded in favor of keeping the unconnected internal pads

>>

>> Well, since we are talking about vias, I was also advised to require

>> 1mil hole wall plating, even though the standard is 0.8 (I think).

>> But for the same reason, the stronger we can make our vias, the less "most common"

>> failures we will have, right? (At Caterpillar, we want the most

>> robust product we can get for the money) Am I sounding like an old dinosaur now?

>>

>> but really, is EVERYONE removing unconnected inner layer pads?

>> Is "increasing the longevity of drill bits" the dominant theme now?

>>

>> onward thru the fog,

>> Jack

>>

>>

>> .

>> On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 11:12:22 -0600, Larry <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>>

>> >Is there any reason I cannot remove non functioning pads on the

>> >inner

>> layers for an Class 3 PCB?

>> >

>> >Many thanks,

>> >

>> >Larry

>>

>

>



*********************************************************

This electronic message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee. The information in this electronic message is confidential and proprietary, and may include privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this electronic message and any attachments and notify the sender of the error. Please be aware that any unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachments is strictly prohibited.


ATOM RSS1 RSS2