Groups > sci.electronics.design > #461759

Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC

From	rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	sci.electronics.design
Subject	Re: Acceptable thru-hole solder joints, IPC
Date	2017-05-25 21:54 -0400
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<og81ls$ond$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<eolst8Fnsc1U1@mid.individual.net> <og4j7p$dl2$1@dont-email.me> <eop98uFhdejU3@mid.individual.net>

Show all headers | View raw

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

Thread

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

csiph-web