TECHNET Archives

September 2018

TechNet@IPC.ORG
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Guy Ramsey <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 5 Sep 2018 17:17:44 +0000
Reply-To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, "Stadem, Richard D" <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
<[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Re: Ni intermetallic thickness target
From:
"Stadem, Richard D" <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version:
1.0
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
base64
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1 lines) 
What is the finish plating?



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

From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Guy Ramsey

Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2018 11:59 AM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: [TN] Ni intermetallic thickness target



Recently, I was reviewing a lab report. It concluded that the manufacturer

should increase the IMC thickness as a part of process changes . . .

It stated that, while there are no industry specifications for IMC

thickness it s generally accepted that for Pb-free assemblies the IMC

thickness should be in the 20 to 120 uin range. It seems to be critical of

a process that produces IMC between 10 and 70 uin on pads across a single

device.

Does anybody have reference papers or texts that would support this target

and process critique?

ATOM RSS1 RSS2