Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0uRhWg-0000OeC; Thu, 6 Jun 96 11:03 CDT |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII |
Old-Return-Path: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 6 Jun 1996 11:05:50 -0500 |
Precedence: |
list |
Resent-From: |
|
Resent-Sender: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Status: |
O |
X-Mailing-List: |
|
From [log in to unmask] Fri Jun 7 09: |
45:18 1996 |
TO: |
|
Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
X-Status: |
|
Content-Description: |
cc:Mail note part |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
X-Loop: |
|
Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Resent-Message-ID: |
<"YSei-2.0.LsA.y4mjn"@ipc> |
Message-Id: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
To TechNet,
I have had a problem with a sample PCB evaluation and I hope someone
can help me with some supporting data.
The problem is that the evaluation board had a shear crack in the
barrel of a 12mil small via hole after 100 cycles of thermal shock.
What we discovered is that the hole had been plugged on both sides
with soldermask (not my idea). We feel like the expansion of the
trapped air eventually caused the barrel to shear. What I need is
some confirming data to show that the theory is correct.
In the past, we had some boards which were plugged on both sides with
mask (but not thermal shocked). The resultant after reflow was that
one side of the plug popped (outgassing) and that the barrel did not
crack. Was the difference in resultants due to the cycling at lower
temperature (-65C ~ +125C) vs. short term exposure at high temp (270C
for ~7 secs.)?
Any opinions or sources of data would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
in advance for all your responses.
Roger Held
Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc.
[log in to unmask]
(405) 360-5500 x142
|
|
|