TECHNET Archives

March 1998

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:
SteveZeva <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Sun, 1 Mar 1998 10:04:23 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (69 lines)
Hello David,

     I have experienced a few problems from "witness marks"...but I've never
done a detailed study on the impact they have during assembly. I will try and
answer some of your questions though.

>>1. Are these damages causing problems at the assembly process? what
>>kind?

Yes they do on occasion. Mostly when the pitch gets below 20-mils, and
occasionally with 20-mil pitch pads. The problem that I've seen is when the
pin contact location hasn't been centered on the pads...it will sometimes push
a small burr of material off to one side and cause shorts to an adjacent pad
during reflow.

>>2. Are the damages affecting the assembly yield?

Yes, from the reason I stated above...

>>3. If yes, is there any data about the % of savings at the assembly
>>stage if these damages are avoided?

As I said in the beginning, I've never studied the actual cost of such
problems. It doesn't seem to occur often enough to warrant a study. On
occasion however, I have run accross entire lots of boards that have had the
problem, but we've always just worked through the issue, and notified our
customer of the problem. They would go back to their board shop and have them
make sure that they avoid the same problem on future board fabrication.

>>4. Have the assebly people learn to live with these defects, overcoming
>>the problems? what is the cost of such overoming? would elimination of
>>these damages save money by avoiding to use these measures?

Yes we have, by reworking the affected joints. Again, I don't know what the
costs are...and of course money would be saved if the problem were to be
eliminated.

>>5. Will a contactless bare board electrical test system, causing no
>>damage at all will be an advantage to assembly people? in what sense?

That's a pretty obvious question...of course, to eliminate the problem I
stated.

>>6. What would assembly people be will to do to push further such
>>technology of bare board testing?

Probably not much...it's not something we have any control over. This solution
is for the board manufacturers. If a board vendor can't provide a board that
doesn't have the kind of witness marks that cause manufacturing defects, they
will lose business plain and simple. We on the assembly side just learn to
deal with it. If it seems to happen over and over again, I would try and
encourage purchasing to find another vendor.

                                           I hope this helps a bit...

                                              -Steve Gregory-

################################################################
TechNet E-Mail Forum provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
################################################################
To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in the body:
To subscribe:   SUBSCRIBE TechNet <your full name>
To unsubscribe:   SIGNOFF TechNet 
################################################################
Please visit IPC web site (http://jefry.ipc.org/forum.htm) for additional information.
For the technical support contact Dmitriy Sklyar at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.311
################################################################


ATOM RSS1 RSS2