TECHNET Archives

May 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:
John Waite <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Tue, 19 May 1998 19:19:10 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (67 lines)
A couple of suggestions regarding this:

1) remember that on the vias you can work with a "max" hole size (in most cases).  In other
words, a .018" via would be drilled at .018" or less, depending on your comfort level (most shops
will go to .0125").  A component hole must be drilled .006" to .009" over the bottom end of the
tolerance (based on +-.003" tolerance) to insure lead fit.  This in itself should gain you
approx. .006" to .009" pad diameter reduction.

2) A teardrop placement towards the circuit will allow you to still maintain annular ring in the
event of hole movement towards the circuit.  Many design and CAM station software have this
feature available.

JOHN WAITE

Paul Gould wrote:

> Can anyone help with a query on land around via holes. I have a copy of
> IPC-A-600 Rev E Aug 1995 which states for plated through holes the
> minimum land between the track and pad and hole must not be less than
> 0.002" as a minimum standard. This means that misregistration towards
> the track is not acceptable if the pad is reduced below 0.002" even if
> there is no actual breakout. On the other hand, the hole is allowed to
> break  out of the pad in any other direction by as much as half the
> diameter. Clearly the two are incompatible with each other since with
> registration that bad there is bound to be breakout towards tracks in
> some areas.
>
> Has there been a revision specifically for via holes only, or is there
> any other specification relating to landless via holes as this criteria
> is impossible to meet on some designs. The implications of meeting this
> spec are to increase via pad size and/or reduce hole size which has
> implications for design density and manufacturing cost.
>
> Any views on this would be greatly appreciated. For production drilling
> on large panels, what minimum land do you think would be needed at the
> outset to guarantee minimum annular 0.002" on the finished panel taking
> account of drill size and etch reduction also?
>
> Best Regards
> --
> Paul Gould
> [log in to unmask]
> Isle of Wight,UK
>
> ################################################################
> 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
> ################################################################

################################################################
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 technical support contact Hugo Scaramuzza at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.312
################################################################


ATOM RSS1 RSS2