Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
From [log in to unmask] Fri Oct 11 13: |
21:41 1996 |
Old-Return-Path: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 11 Oct 1996 10:44:01 -0500 |
Precedence: |
list |
Resent-From: |
|
Resent-Sender: |
|
X-Status: |
|
Status: |
O |
X-Mailing-List: |
|
X-Sender: |
|
TO: |
|
Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
X-Loop: |
|
Resent-Message-ID: |
<"JaIZ1.0.QvF.7OdNo"@ipc> |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0vBkTI-0000RMC; Fri, 11 Oct 96 11:30 CDT |
Cc: |
|
X-Mailer: |
Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) |
Message-Id: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Mark: As far as I know the most definitive study done on this was about 10
years ago by Roger Wild of the IBM house (Federal Systems Divison I think).
He found (if memory serves me correctly and that is always a little "iffy"),
by monitoring for failures during extended thermal cycling, that an unfilled
pth was the most reliable, a pth hole with 100% solder fill was next most
reliable, and a pth with 50% solder fill was next most reliable. An epoxy
filled hole was in the data somewhere, but I don't remember where. Seems
like the reliability difference between the 50% and 100% hole fill was
concluded to be attributable to the 100% fill cresting over the (topside)
knee of the pth and thereby providing some Z-axis reinforcement. My guess
would be that 75% hole fill would fall into the reduced reliabilty arena
associated with 50% hole fill. The practice of filling the hole is dubious
from the standpoint of achieving a reliabiltiy improvement. What is the
end-item thermal environment of the pwa. I no longer have a copy of the
report, you might call the IBM Tech. Library and see if it is available
through them. Regards, Jim Moffitt/EMPF
At 01:03 PM 10/10/96 CDT, you wrote:
>X400-Trace: us*attmail*dell computer; Arrival 10 Oct 96 13:03 CDT
> Action: Relayed
>Priority: normal
>P1-Message-Id: us*attmail*dell computer;0844970605/1999172055/1
>Original-Encoded-Information-Types: IA5-Text
>P1-Recipients: [log in to unmask]
>From: Mark Weiler <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Message-Id: <@m400gw.dell.com>
>Subject: Through Hole wave Vs. rework
>Resent-Message-ID: <"wU8EO3.0.zBD.WAKNo"@ipc>
>Resent-From: [log in to unmask]
>X-Mailing-List: <[log in to unmask]> archive/latest/6802
>X-Loop: [log in to unmask]
>Precedence: list
>Resent-Sender: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> We are building a board that has 8 layers with multiple ground planes,
this
> combined with Entek plus coating and a no clean process is making it
> difficult to optimize the wave solder profile to get 100% fill with a
> fillet on all pins on the top side of the board.
>
> The IPC A-610 rev B specification calls out 75% fill as being acceptable
> (table 4-1, pg. 52) on through hole solder joints. We are pushing our
> subcontractors to get 100% fill with a fillet on each pin.
>
> Since we are setting our expectations to 100% fill on these solder joints
> the subcontractor is having to touch up some of the solder joints to meet
> this requirement (they are touching up the pin from the solder side
letting
> the solder flow through the board to the top) Thus my question...
>
> Is a solder joint that is 75% filled over the wave stronger (more
reliable)
> than a solder joint that has been touched up to get to 100% with a
fillet?
>
> What is the effect to long term reliability of touching up a through hole
> solder joint?
>
> I would really like some reference material on this subject if anyone
has a
> source.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark Weiler
> [log in to unmask]
> 512-728-8323
>
>***************************************************************************
>* TechNet mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 *
>***************************************************************************
>* To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to: *
>* [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text. *
>***************************************************************************
>
>
***************************************************************************
* TechNet mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 *
***************************************************************************
* To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to: *
* [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text. *
***************************************************************************
|
|
|