Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #461561 > unrolled thread

Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-24 10:06 -0700
    Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC JM <dontreplytothis173@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 19:29 +0100
      Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-25 16:56 -0700
        Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-25 21:54 -0400
          Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-26 08:07 -0700
            Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 12:36 -0400
              Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-26 09:53 -0700
    Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC speff <spehro@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 11:30 -0700
      Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-25 16:59 -0700
    Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC JM <dontreplytothis173@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 19:41 +0100
      Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC Klaus Kragelund <klauskvik@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-24 13:51 -0700
        Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-25 17:01 -0700
      Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-25 17:00 -0700
        Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC JM <dontreplytothis173@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 02:04 +0100
          Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-26 08:12 -0700

#461561 — Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC

Folks,

Just had a discussion with a contract manufacturer. They were of the 
opinion that a solder joint where there is complete circumferential 
inward capillary on the component side but regular wicking on the solder 
side is acceptable. This is consumer stuff and I am more used to the 
hi-rel industry where this is not deemed acceptable because nobody would 
know how deep the inward capillary action goes.

I do not have IPC manuals and usually it does not apply to my stuff. A 
web search only brings up examples that talk just about one side at a 
time. Any pointers?

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#461567

On 24/05/2017 18:06, Joerg wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Just had a discussion with a contract manufacturer. They were of the
> opinion that a solder joint where there is complete circumferential
> inward capillary on the component side but regular wicking on the solder
> side is acceptable. This is consumer stuff and I am more used to the
> hi-rel industry where this is not deemed acceptable because nobody would
> know how deep the inward capillary action goes.
>
> I do not have IPC manuals and usually it does not apply to my stuff. A
> web search only brings up examples that talk just about one side at a
> time. Any pointers?
>

IPC-A-610 class 2,3 would require >= 75% vertical hole fill.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461751

On 2017-05-24 11:29, JM wrote:
> On 24/05/2017 18:06, Joerg wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> Just had a discussion with a contract manufacturer. They were of the
>> opinion that a solder joint where there is complete circumferential
>> inward capillary on the component side but regular wicking on the solder
>> side is acceptable. This is consumer stuff and I am more used to the
>> hi-rel industry where this is not deemed acceptable because nobody would
>> know how deep the inward capillary action goes.
>>
>> I do not have IPC manuals and usually it does not apply to my stuff. A
>> web search only brings up examples that talk just about one side at a
>> time. Any pointers?
>>
>
> IPC-A-610 class 2,3 would require >= 75% vertical hole fill.
>

I know but they don't talk about 360 degree capillary effect on one 
side. I don't mean a valley with would be ok and still wetted but really 
at the pin. In all companies I've ever been at that was flagged as 
unacceptable.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461759

Joerg wrote on 5/25/2017 7:56 PM:
> On 2017-05-24 11:29, JM wrote:
>> On 24/05/2017 18:06, Joerg wrote:
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> Just had a discussion with a contract manufacturer. They were of the
>>> opinion that a solder joint where there is complete circumferential
>>> inward capillary on the component side but regular wicking on the solder
>>> side is acceptable. This is consumer stuff and I am more used to the
>>> hi-rel industry where this is not deemed acceptable because nobody would
>>> know how deep the inward capillary action goes.
>>>
>>> I do not have IPC manuals and usually it does not apply to my stuff. A
>>> web search only brings up examples that talk just about one side at a
>>> time. Any pointers?
>>>
>>
>> IPC-A-610 class 2,3 would require >= 75% vertical hole fill.
>>
>
> I know but they don't talk about 360 degree capillary effect on one
> side. I don't mean a valley with would be ok and still wetted but really
> at the pin. In all companies I've ever been at that was flagged as
> unacceptable.

At what kind of facility is this being soldered?

My boards are built at a smaller facility and they typically find issues 
on a few boards that get hand touched up to fix.  I spoke with a 
Motorola guy back when they made a boatload of cell phones and he said 
they don't do anything other than test.  So they optimize their process 
so they have very few failures and little problem with reliability.  I'm 
wondering what they can do to improve their process enough that it's not 
worth doing either an automatic camera inspection.

Seems to me it shouldn't be hard to control the process well enough that 
defects are rare.  Any idea what can go wrong that causes these issues?

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461809

On 2017-05-25 18:54, rickman wrote:
> Joerg wrote on 5/25/2017 7:56 PM:
>> On 2017-05-24 11:29, JM wrote:
>>> On 24/05/2017 18:06, Joerg wrote:
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> Just had a discussion with a contract manufacturer. They were of the
>>>> opinion that a solder joint where there is complete circumferential
>>>> inward capillary on the component side but regular wicking on the
>>>> solder
>>>> side is acceptable. This is consumer stuff and I am more used to the
>>>> hi-rel industry where this is not deemed acceptable because nobody
>>>> would
>>>> know how deep the inward capillary action goes.
>>>>
>>>> I do not have IPC manuals and usually it does not apply to my stuff. A
>>>> web search only brings up examples that talk just about one side at a
>>>> time. Any pointers?
>>>>
>>>
>>> IPC-A-610 class 2,3 would require >= 75% vertical hole fill.
>>>
>>
>> I know but they don't talk about 360 degree capillary effect on one
>> side. I don't mean a valley with would be ok and still wetted but really
>> at the pin. In all companies I've ever been at that was flagged as
>> unacceptable.
>
> At what kind of facility is this being soldered?
>

A contract assembler but I can't reveal which one.


> My boards are built at a smaller facility and they typically find issues
> on a few boards that get hand touched up to fix.  I spoke with a
> Motorola guy back when they made a boatload of cell phones and he said
> they don't do anything other than test.  So they optimize their process
> so they have very few failures and little problem with reliability.  I'm
> wondering what they can do to improve their process enough that it's not
> worth doing either an automatic camera inspection.
>
> Seems to me it shouldn't be hard to control the process well enough that
> defects are rare.  Any idea what can go wrong that causes these issues?
>

It's a hand-soldered part so probably dependent on who did the 
particular job. Their automated SMT soldering process is always nice and 
of superb quality.

I am looking for some ironclad written standard. What I have seen in IPC 
usually talks about one side only, how the solder joint should look. It 
doesn't state cases where the solder side looks great but the component 
side indicates a potential failure down the road, only about barrel 
fill. I know when it can fail and usually does in the field but there is 
a slight "convincement issue" :-)

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461826

Joerg wrote on 5/26/2017 11:07 AM:
> On 2017-05-25 18:54, rickman wrote:
>> Joerg wrote on 5/25/2017 7:56 PM:
>>> On 2017-05-24 11:29, JM wrote:
>>>> On 24/05/2017 18:06, Joerg wrote:
>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Just had a discussion with a contract manufacturer. They were of the
>>>>> opinion that a solder joint where there is complete circumferential
>>>>> inward capillary on the component side but regular wicking on the
>>>>> solder
>>>>> side is acceptable. This is consumer stuff and I am more used to the
>>>>> hi-rel industry where this is not deemed acceptable because nobody
>>>>> would
>>>>> know how deep the inward capillary action goes.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not have IPC manuals and usually it does not apply to my stuff. A
>>>>> web search only brings up examples that talk just about one side at a
>>>>> time. Any pointers?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IPC-A-610 class 2,3 would require >= 75% vertical hole fill.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I know but they don't talk about 360 degree capillary effect on one
>>> side. I don't mean a valley with would be ok and still wetted but really
>>> at the pin. In all companies I've ever been at that was flagged as
>>> unacceptable.
>>
>> At what kind of facility is this being soldered?
>>
>
> A contract assembler but I can't reveal which one.
>
>
>> My boards are built at a smaller facility and they typically find issues
>> on a few boards that get hand touched up to fix.  I spoke with a
>> Motorola guy back when they made a boatload of cell phones and he said
>> they don't do anything other than test.  So they optimize their process
>> so they have very few failures and little problem with reliability.  I'm
>> wondering what they can do to improve their process enough that it's not
>> worth doing either an automatic camera inspection.
>>
>> Seems to me it shouldn't be hard to control the process well enough that
>> defects are rare.  Any idea what can go wrong that causes these issues?
>>
>
> It's a hand-soldered part so probably dependent on who did the
> particular job. Their automated SMT soldering process is always nice and
> of superb quality.
>
> I am looking for some ironclad written standard. What I have seen in IPC
> usually talks about one side only, how the solder joint should look. It
> doesn't state cases where the solder side looks great but the component
> side indicates a potential failure down the road, only about barrel
> fill. I know when it can fail and usually does in the field but there is
> a slight "convincement issue" :-)

I thought the link JM posted had the full spec including both sides.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461831

On 2017-05-26 09:36, rickman wrote:
> Joerg wrote on 5/26/2017 11:07 AM:
>> On 2017-05-25 18:54, rickman wrote:

[...]

>>> My boards are built at a smaller facility and they typically find issues
>>> on a few boards that get hand touched up to fix.  I spoke with a
>>> Motorola guy back when they made a boatload of cell phones and he said
>>> they don't do anything other than test.  So they optimize their process
>>> so they have very few failures and little problem with reliability.  I'm
>>> wondering what they can do to improve their process enough that it's not
>>> worth doing either an automatic camera inspection.
>>>
>>> Seems to me it shouldn't be hard to control the process well enough that
>>> defects are rare.  Any idea what can go wrong that causes these issues?
>>>
>>
>> It's a hand-soldered part so probably dependent on who did the
>> particular job. Their automated SMT soldering process is always nice and
>> of superb quality.
>>
>> I am looking for some ironclad written standard. What I have seen in IPC
>> usually talks about one side only, how the solder joint should look. It
>> doesn't state cases where the solder side looks great but the component
>> side indicates a potential failure down the road, only about barrel
>> fill. I know when it can fail and usually does in the field but there is
>> a slight "convincement issue" :-)
>
> I thought the link JM posted had the full spec including both sides.
>

Yes, it does. I just could not read it because of a time-out issue. 
Today I could.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461568

On Wednesday, 24 May 2017 13:06:54 UTC-4, Joerg  wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> Just had a discussion with a contract manufacturer. They were of the 
> opinion that a solder joint where there is complete circumferential 
> inward capillary on the component side but regular wicking on the solder 
> side is acceptable. This is consumer stuff and I am more used to the 
> hi-rel industry where this is not deemed acceptable because nobody would 
> know how deep the inward capillary action goes.
> 
> I do not have IPC manuals and usually it does not apply to my stuff. A 
> web search only brings up examples that talk just about one side at a 
> time. Any pointers?
> 
> -- 
> Regards, Joerg
> 
> http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Doing some stuff with  J-STD for satellites- 

I don't have the IPC docs with me, but from a draft of IPC-A-610E 

Class 1 & 2 solder side minimum 270° fillet and wetting
Class 3        "        minimum 330°

Class 2 component side minimum minimum 180° wetting on lead and barrel
Class 3  "             minimum 270°

Space/Military is Class 3/A, which adds some stuff to Class 3, mostly to do with staking and gold issues (replacing some older NASA etc. specs). 

Anyway, I would say if you can't inspect the fillet on the solder (secondary) side and verify it covers 270° at least, it would be a failure even for Class 1, and even if the primary side looks okay. 

Class 1: 

"This is the most lenient when it comes to allowing potential defects. Think of the electronics assembly in a very cheap toy, for example. The PCBA will be hidden well away within some stuffing or plastic enclosure and, as a result, the quality of solder joints or component positions won’t be a priority. It won’t be expected to last very long and often, has to be assembled to a specific price – usually translating to "as cheap as possible", whilst ensuring it still functions as expected."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461752

On 2017-05-24 11:30, speff wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 May 2017 13:06:54 UTC-4, Joerg  wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> Just had a discussion with a contract manufacturer. They were of
>> the opinion that a solder joint where there is complete
>> circumferential inward capillary on the component side but regular
>> wicking on the solder side is acceptable. This is consumer stuff
>> and I am more used to the hi-rel industry where this is not deemed
>> acceptable because nobody would know how deep the inward capillary
>> action goes.
>>
>> I do not have IPC manuals and usually it does not apply to my
>> stuff. A web search only brings up examples that talk just about
>> one side at a time. Any pointers?
>>
>> -- Regards, Joerg
>>
>> http://www.analogconsultants.com/
>
> Doing some stuff with  J-STD for satellites-
>
> I don't have the IPC docs with me, but from a draft of IPC-A-610E
>
> Class 1 & 2 solder side minimum 270° fillet and wetting Class 3
> "        minimum 330°
>
> Class 2 component side minimum minimum 180° wetting on lead and
> barrel


Aha! Now we are getting somewhere. If you happen to be within reach of 
the IPC binder and have the time, could you look up which paragraph? I 
don't have IPC documentation because my stuff is usually governed by 
other standards and I don't have much to do with actual production.


> Class 3  "             minimum 270°
>
> Space/Military is Class 3/A, which adds some stuff to Class 3, mostly
> to do with staking and gold issues (replacing some older NASA etc.
> specs).
>
> Anyway, I would say if you can't inspect the fillet on the solder
> (secondary) side and verify it covers 270° at least, it would be a
> failure even for Class 1, and even if the primary side looks okay.
>
> Class 1:
>
> "This is the most lenient when it comes to allowing potential
> defects. Think of the electronics assembly in a very cheap toy, for
> example. The PCBA will be hidden well away within some stuffing or
> plastic enclosure and, as a result, the quality of solder joints or
> component positions won’t be a priority. It won’t be expected to last
> very long and often, has to be assembled to a specific price –
> usually translating to "as cheap as possible", whilst ensuring it
> still functions as expected."
>

This is more for commercial grade stuff.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461575

On 24/05/2017 18:06, Joerg wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Just had a discussion with a contract manufacturer. They were of the
> opinion that a solder joint where there is complete circumferential
> inward capillary on the component side but regular wicking on the solder
> side is acceptable. This is consumer stuff and I am more used to the
> hi-rel industry where this is not deemed acceptable because nobody would
> know how deep the inward capillary action goes.
>
> I do not have IPC manuals and usually it does not apply to my stuff. A
> web search only brings up examples that talk just about one side at a
> time. Any pointers?
>

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0pmth1yw9kp8m8w/For%20Joerg.pdf?dl=0

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461585

We do industrial products and AFAICR we use minimum 70% via fill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461754

On 2017-05-24 13:51, Klaus Kragelund wrote:
> We do industrial products and AFAICR we use minimum 70% via fill
>

It's not about via fill or what is often called barrel fill in America 
(I always get thirsty when I hear that ...). It's about downward 
capillary around the pin, from the component side down into the solder. 
Like a fence post that looks loose. IME that is a recipe for transport 
failure and we had exactly that happen.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461753

On 2017-05-24 11:41, JM wrote:
> On 24/05/2017 18:06, Joerg wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> Just had a discussion with a contract manufacturer. They were of the
>> opinion that a solder joint where there is complete circumferential
>> inward capillary on the component side but regular wicking on the solder
>> side is acceptable. This is consumer stuff and I am more used to the
>> hi-rel industry where this is not deemed acceptable because nobody would
>> know how deep the inward capillary action goes.
>>
>> I do not have IPC manuals and usually it does not apply to my stuff. A
>> web search only brings up examples that talk just about one side at a
>> time. Any pointers?
>>
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/0pmth1yw9kp8m8w/For%20Joerg.pdf?dl=0


Only says "We can’t find what you’re looking for" :-(

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461756

On 26/05/2017 01:00, Joerg wrote:
> On 2017-05-24 11:41, JM wrote:
>> On 24/05/2017 18:06, Joerg wrote:
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> Just had a discussion with a contract manufacturer. They were of the
>>> opinion that a solder joint where there is complete circumferential
>>> inward capillary on the component side but regular wicking on the solder
>>> side is acceptable. This is consumer stuff and I am more used to the
>>> hi-rel industry where this is not deemed acceptable because nobody would
>>> know how deep the inward capillary action goes.
>>>
>>> I do not have IPC manuals and usually it does not apply to my stuff. A
>>> web search only brings up examples that talk just about one side at a
>>> time. Any pointers?
>>>
>>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/0pmth1yw9kp8m8w/For%20Joerg.pdf?dl=0
>
>
> Only says "We can’t find what you’re looking for" :-(
>

These links have a timeout.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/d3xpyn3ksjjbtl8/For%20Joerg.pdf?dl=0

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461811

On 2017-05-25 18:04, JM wrote:
> On 26/05/2017 01:00, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2017-05-24 11:41, JM wrote:
>>> On 24/05/2017 18:06, Joerg wrote:
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> Just had a discussion with a contract manufacturer. They were of the
>>>> opinion that a solder joint where there is complete circumferential
>>>> inward capillary on the component side but regular wicking on the
>>>> solder
>>>> side is acceptable. This is consumer stuff and I am more used to the
>>>> hi-rel industry where this is not deemed acceptable because nobody
>>>> would
>>>> know how deep the inward capillary action goes.
>>>>
>>>> I do not have IPC manuals and usually it does not apply to my stuff. A
>>>> web search only brings up examples that talk just about one side at a
>>>> time. Any pointers?
>>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/0pmth1yw9kp8m8w/For%20Joerg.pdf?dl=0
>>
>>
>> Only says "We can’t find what you’re looking for" :-(
>>
>
> These links have a timeout.
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/d3xpyn3ksjjbtl8/For%20Joerg.pdf?dl=0


Thanks, that's it!

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web