TECHNET Archives

October 1999

TechNet@IPC.ORG
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Re: Annular ring requirement by IPC
From:
Alain Savard <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:34:02 -0400
Content-Type:
multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01BF199F.B9C30B08"
MIME-Version:
1.0
Reply-To:
"TechNet E-Mail Forum." <[log in to unmask]>, Alain Savard <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (520 bytes) , Annular Ring breakout at joinction.jpg (8 kB) 
Reliability is the answer. A more complete annular ring gives a stronger
joint
both electrically and mechanically. Vibrations may pose a problem in the
z-axis.

Alain Savard, B.Sc.
Chemical Process Analyst
CAE Electronics Ltd.
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Patel [mailto:[log in to unmask]]

I have the basic question:
Why do we need annular ring on inner layers? If the answer is no then why
IPC is asking for 1 mil annular ring on Class 3 products. The problem arisen
due to microBGA application.
re,
ken patel

ATOM RSS1 RSS2