Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0tA0jL-0000I7C; Mon, 30 Oct 95 14:22 CST |
Old-Return-Path: |
<miso!ccmail.dsccc.com!jsmetana> |
Date: |
Mon, 30 Oct 95 13:06:09 CST |
Precedence: |
list |
X-Loop: |
|
Resent-Sender: |
|
X-Status: |
|
Status: |
O |
X-Mailing-List: |
|
From [log in to unmask] Sat Apr 27 15: |
16:16 1996 |
TO: |
|
Return-Path: |
|
Resent-Message-ID: |
<"QmFiY.0.sp9.PGJbm"@ipc> |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Resent-From: |
|
Message-Id: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
In reference to Ni-Pd finished IC leads, the HDP Users group (specifically the
Telecom Working Group) was formally addressed in the October meeting by a number
of IC suppliers (TI, National, AMD, Amkor, and others) about the acceptability
of this finish in addition to Tin-lead. Much discussion followed the final
concensus was - briefly condensed as follows:
Ni-Pd does not perform as well in solderability testing using wetting balance or
other techniques. This also shows up visually making solder joints appear "dry"
since they do not wet to the same degree. Some of the companies expressed how
this was causing them problems today.
The only data presented by TI on solder joint quality was solder joint strength
testing which has no bearing on long term reliability of the solder joint. The
criteria required by all was N-50 thermal cycle data.
The final resolution came down to:
z The Telecom Working Group today accepts Ni-Pd lead finishes from TI, not
because we want to, but because we have to - or live without parts.
z Assuming reliability data is good, we would rather have "all" Ni-Pd rather
than mix parts with Tin-lead, such that the inspection criteria can be
consistent.
z Reliability data is really insufficient on this lead finish and needs to be
provided and presented to the group. TI will review to see if they have the N-50
data for thermal cycling.
z The method for testing this should be per the criteria for new package
qualification being defined by the BGA subcommittee - see above.
Joe Smetana
DSC Communications
All opinions expressed here are soley my own and do not necessarily reflect the
position of DSC Communications.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Palladium plated IC leads.
Author: GEILAND at DSC-1100
Date: 10/27/95 07:59 AM
Joe:
Wasn't this an issue at the HPD user's conference?
Ge
______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________
Subject: Palladium plated IC leads.
Author: [log in to unmask] at SMTPLINK
Date: 10/26/95 14:29
The appearance of the palladium plated lead IC solder joints continues
to create anxieties with our customers. This occurs because they see
a solder connection profile which is different than would result from
a pb/sn plated lead connection. Texas Instruments has published a
booklet demonstrating and discussing the differences, but this is not
completely sufficient to convince some of our customers.
Is there any 'work in progress' material available from IPC and/or
other sources which can be used to graphically educate auditors and
customers about acceptable appearances of palladium plated lead solder
joints? Now our auditors and customers reference the IPC-A-610 Rev. B
manual.
Thank you.
Myron Papiz
MSL
|
|
|