TECHNET Archives

1995

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:
"JSMETANA" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 30 Oct 95 08:39:55 CST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (73 lines)

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




ATOM RSS1 RSS2