Hi folks - I don't have the data (yet, work is in progress) but you would have to need to have a significantly messed up process to produce an IMC thick enough to result in a solder joint failure in a electronics product. I think the "thick IMC" concern is more a myth than a typical industry failure mode on printed circuit assemblies. Dave On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Stadem, Richard D. < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > No, that is not possible. The variations in the worldwide electronics > soldering industry go far beyond what most of us see with typical ENIG, > IAg, IAuCu (flash gold on copper), HASL, Pb-free HASL, OSP, and ten > thousand billion different variations of component lead basis metals > involved. How could anyone possibly characterize all of the different > combinations and put an appropriate IMF thickness for each one? The charted > document would be bigger than great-gramma's Bible. > > -----Original Message----- > From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Victor Hernandez > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 9:51 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [TN] BGA Reworked Intermetallic > > Does IPC STD provide a guideline for IMC formation thickness, ENIG or Cu, > after 1x, 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x and 6x Forced RW? IMC formation thickness varies > by type of solder, SnPb and LF Solder. Let’s keep the discussion going!!! > > Victor, > > -----Original Message----- > From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Vladimir Igoshev > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 9:38 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [TN] BGA Reworked Intermetallic > > 10 microns thick layer is a perfect way for a disaster down the road :-). > > There are no parameters for E-Ni, but the appearance of the interface and > a P-enriched layer is important. > > Vladimir > > Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network. > Original Message > From: Victor Hernandez > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 10:11 > To: [log in to unmask] > Reply To: TechNet E-Mail Forum > Subject: Re: [TN] BGA Reworked Intermetallic > > On ENIG surface I don't see much of an increase in the IMC formation > thickness. However, on Cu it is a different story. I have measured IMC > formation greater than 10 microns. Not sure of the below statement about > E-NI parameter. Please explain!!! > > Victor, > > -----Original Message----- > From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Vladimir Igoshev > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 8:12 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [TN] BGA Reworked Intermetallic > > The "magic" Number should stay the same 1-3 micron but you'd also have to > keep an eye on what happened to the layer of E-Ni underneath. > > Regards, > > Vladimir > > SENTEC > > Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network. > Original Message > From: Datacom - Juliano Ribeiro > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 09:09 > To: [log in to unmask] > Reply To: TechNet E-Mail Forum > Subject: [TN] BGA Reworked Intermetallic > > Hi to all, > > > > When we reworked the BGA, removed the component of the board and > replacement another BGA, what's the intermetallic thickness ideal after the > rework? > > > > p.s: Our pcb is ENIG finished and the solder is Tin Lead. > > > > _____________________________ > > Juliano Bettim Ribeiro > > DATACOM > > ENGENHARIA DE PROCESSOS > Rua América Nº 1000 - Eldorado do Sul - RS CEP: 92990-000 > +55 (51) 8446-2135 > > +55 (51) 3933-3000 > > Ramal: 3484 > [log in to unmask] www.datacom.ind.br > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. > For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] > ______________________________________________________________________ > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. > For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] > ______________________________________________________________________ > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. > For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] > ______________________________________________________________________ > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. > For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] > ______________________________________________________________________ > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. > For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] > ______________________________________________________________________ > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. > For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] > ______________________________________________________________________ > ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] ______________________________________________________________________