TECHNET Archives

September 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:
Guy Ramsey <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Guy Ramsey <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 5 Sep 2018 12:58:32 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (10 lines)
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