LATE COMMENTS TABLE 1 ACTION ITEMS

Transcription

1 IPC-A-610F Compiled Comments August 2012 LATE COMMENTS Commenters name, Reference Recommendation Reason for Recommendation Committee Resolution There are four tables in this comment list. Table 1 lists all action comments. Table 2 lists new and unresolved comments and comments resolved at the most recent meeting. Table 3 lists all comments requiring IPC or graphics committee action. Table 4 lists all closed comments. These comments and changes were to correct editorial errors that were missed in publication of Rev E or non-criteria items that have been identified during training or translations. Blen Talbot, L-3 Comm. TABLE 1 ACTION ITEMS Commenters name, Reference 0 Recommendation Reason for Recommendation Committee Resolution IPC Staff User suggestion that Figure 4-11 would provide better representation if there was a PCB in the picture. Action for committee members to provide photo or drawing IPC Staff [IPC] D2,3 bullet Overlap should inverse of the A2,3 bullet for multiple pieces of sleeving. Timothy Bajuscik, Ansaldo STS USA [Talbot] Acceptable Class 2,3: delete the last bullet The standard specifies that adhesive should be 50% (L) and 25% (D), but it does not give any specifics for how much should be in contact with the mounting surface. It only states that Adhesion to mounting surface is evident. In the attached, I tried to illustrate the scenario. Why doesn t the standard specify how much of the adhesive needs to be in contact with the mounting surface? The statement Multiple pieces of sleeving overlap each other by at least 3 cable diameters, or 13 mm [0.5 inch], whichever is larger. Is not within the scope of the clause. Suggested text from Joe Kane: Acceptable 1, 2, 3 On any unsleeved horizontally mounted component, the staking material adheres to the component body and the mounting surface and extends at least 25% up the component diameter (D), for at least 50% of the component length (L) Sleeving placement/sleeving overlap are the same topic in this clause. First recommendation Accepted <Sep2011> New information added for shrink sleeving need to be reviewed/added to 610.<Feb2012> Task group of Jennifer D, Joe K, Jack, and Tino will review further. Open for now <<FEB2012>> 8/7/12-Jennifer Day sent recommendation to Team. This meets the intent but it doesn t provide much mechanical support. Defect 1, 2, 3 On any unsleeved horizontally mounted component, the staking material does not adhere to the component body and the mounting surface or extend at least 25% up the component diameter (D), for at least 50% of the component length (L) Suggestion from Jennifer Day Acceptable Class 1,2,3 On an unsleeved horizontally mounted component the staking material adheres to the component at least 50% of its length (L) and 25% of its diameter (D) on one side.

2 Commenters name, David Nelson, Raytheon David Nelson, Raytheon David Nelson, Raytheon Reference 0 Recommendation Reason for Recommendation Committee Resolution Eliminate Process Indicator Class 2 Add Class 2 to Acceptable-Class 1 The build-up of staking material does not exceed 50% of the component diameter and continuous adhesion fillet to the mounting surface and component shall be a minimum of 25% and approximately centered on the body of component. Bring into agreement with -001, Figure Remove or replace Doesn t show any of the defect criteria clearly. No solder present (Class 1 and 2). Doesn t show insufficient to clinch and sorry, don t know how to do this. Accepted<<FEB2012> Floyd B to make a figure for Defect condition. <FEB2012> Accepted w/modification Figure moved to Acceptable<<FEB2012> Floyd B to make a figure for Defect condition. <FEB2012> Figure Label examples with appropriate Class Specifics eliminate confusion. See for example. REVISIT TO CLARIFY Staff resolution: Accepted <<FEB2012> but no changes in draft. Leader resolution: Reject, drawing is defining L Shirley Leyva, EMT Figure jumper wire routing is in error. All 3 jumpers have sharp bends, not per Table 4-1, 2 X outside diameter bend radius for insulated wire. Single conductor wire for jumpers cannot have sharp or kinked bends, it creates fractures in the wire. Figure is correct. IPC Staff A1.2.3 suggestion from beta class; 2 nd bullet bring in SMT lap solder to land criteria. Ray Cirimele, STI Electronics Remove Figure as Target, it should be Defect. This is causing confusion with operators and customers. Discussion about first bullet and related defect. Is it the wire length that has to be from edge of land to knee or the solder fillet? Is it ok to have 25% of lead end unsoldered and still meet the 75% soldered criteria? Swap the locations on the page of Figure 8-44 and Figure 8-44 has no point of reference to determine the size of the device. It may or may not be larger than a Figure to be modified by Gregg Owens <FEB2012> ACTION: Debbie Wade, ART to develop suggested wording. <Sep2011> IPC to move 844 and 845 together. Defect Condition moved down with no figure. Figure 8-45 definitely exceeds the 2:1 Width to Height ratio. Floyd B to submit defect figure.<feb2012> David Nelson, Raytheon Figure Add top view drawing showing thermal plane connection attributes (End joint width, Side overhang and End overhang) There is no error in the text of the document, but it would be better to have the condition figure next to the associated text. Clarification Accepted; note added to table. IPC ACTION to add all dimensions to dwg Floyd Bergagnolli ACTION to submit drawing<feb2012> 2

3 IPC Staff T1,2,3 has criteria for lead and solder. A1,2,3 and D1,2,3 only has criteria for min lead length; no solder criteria John De Leeuw, SubCom Provide additional information for chip resistor top coating damage for components below IPC Staff D1,2,3 wording is cumbersome and hard for users to understand. Can this be simplified? We have 0805 resistor with damage to the top adhesive coating that extends about.007" from the edge. There doesn't appear to be any exposed element. The criteria for chipout in the top surface define acceptable damage for 1206 and larger components. It says nothing about damage in resistors smaller than Does this mean no damage regardless of size is acceptable below that size? If so, why is this particular size the "threshold?" Is there some place else in the 610 criteria that indicates acceptability of this for Class 3? ACTION: Debbie Wade, ART to develop suggested wording. <Sep2011> Action completed 9/20/2011, recommendation put into draft for committee review.<sep2011> Action item still open waiting for Debbie per committee. <Feb2012> Gregg Owens Kathy Johnston Joe Kane Floyd B. to wordsmith and submit figures <FEB2012> ACTION: IPC staff to separate edge delamination and haloing criteria for next draft. <Sep2011> Anitha Sinkfield, Delphi Electronics & Safety I would like to discuss incorporation of these images and possibly some of the wording into the next revision of 610. We have to address bubbles in coating with our customers frequently, and I believe some revision to that section may make the discussions clearer. Proposal at the end of these comments TABLE 2 NEW & OPEN COMMENTS Comment to be submitted to 600 & 6012 Committee<FEB2012> Staff: Aug 2012 who has this action and what comment to be submitted? Aug No splitting yet because this is on the synergy list. Subcommittee Dan and Teresa, Linda W, John M and Bruce Hughes to review images and make recommendations. <FEB2012> Commenters name, Ray Cirimele, STI Electronics Reference Recommendation Reason for Recommendation Committee Resolution Table 4-1 Change the Cable Type of the 6 th row down from CATS Ethernet cable to CAT 5 Ethernet cable Additional statement added to this section in the 620B on 2/27/ / B changed PI Class 2 to a Defect for wire strands exceeding 1 wire diameter 620B Committee 2/ B Committee 2/2012 IPC Staff The new table added Feb 2012 meeting needs a text reference. 3 Typo

4 Commenters name, Omar Karin Hernandez Alexander Phillips- Guardado, Electronic Evolution Tech Raul Sanchez, Kimball Electronics Neil Wolford, Logic PD Neil Wolford, Logic PD Reference Recommendation Reason for Recommendation Committee Resolution new 19 Heat Stake on Flexible and Rigid PCBA Criteria and pictures added to the end of these comments Table 7-3, Figure 7-75, Figure in accordance to Table 7-4 and Figure 7-85 Recommendation: It looks like the exception of Figure 7-85 in relation of Table 7-4 about the fillet convex contradicts Table 7-3 and Figure 7-77 about lead protrusion that requires the end of the lead to be discernible in the solder and define the absent of that as a defect even for class 1. Can you guys revise this criterion and if possible help me understand it better I didn't see any clear definition for PTH solder joint about voids criteria related to the joint itself Reference Figure 7-90 in A1A2A3 and move D1D2D3 down so that it is not in line with Figure Remove from chapter 7. Could be moved to section Kris Troxel Maybe this is better in Section 9 for component damage. Add a section to define damage to area array components. To include: Defect: Component exhibiting physical damage before or after assembly, including any of the following: Cracked, broken, or delaminated substrate Cracked, broken, or scorched solder mask on the substrate Cracked or broken epoxy overmold Discolored or contaminated metal heat slug Separation of the heat slug from the substrate Kris Troxel Add a definition of dead gold fingers. We are an electronic manufacturing service provider and this criteria present a challenge to understand and the need to process our product as rework plus improvement of PTH soldering process. After X section we observed some voids in the solder on the barrel. We met the fill criteria, but we do not know the exact criteria for this. Picture appears to be showing a surface mount component. It is in the through hole jumper wire section. There is no current definition of a damaged BGA. No current definition for dead fingers or definition of acceptance criteria. Already marked for 610F corrections. Add that missing dead fingers are acceptable. Add Defect - Damage or defects on dead fingers that adversely affect insertion (for example, due to burred or lifted edges)\ 4

5 Commenters name, Reference Recommendation Reason for Recommendation Committee Resolution Kris Troxel new 26 Add new criteria Gold Fingers - Surface Damage to Fingers Defects: Largest dimension of a single defect (scratches, pinholes, pits) or the aggregate sum of the largest dimensions of several defects on a finger is 0.4 mm (0.016 in) or greater. More than five defects (scratches, pinholes, pits) on each side of the board, per set of fingers that plug into a connector. Surface defects in the contact area that expose base metal. Defects that project up from or out of the contact surface area. (The contact area is defined as shown in Figure 10-2 of 610E.) IPC staff Notes next to Figures 8-4 and 8-45 say to move figure away from Defect. Are they to be removed completely? If not, where are they to be moved to? Debbie Wade, ART Additional jumper criteria added to the draft for committee review. Neil Wolford, Logic PD Kirk Van Dreel, Plexus Standardize wording between bullets 1 of A2A3 and D2D3 for crazing. One currently talks about noncommon conductors and the other internal conductors. Noncommon conductors would also include external conductors. I presume crazing would not be an issue for external conductors. Crazing bullet 3 seems to be missing some wording between...and conductive pattern????? or more than... Not sure what the change should be. Error existed in Rev D also Proposed conformal coating criteria is added at the end of these comments Clarification for bullet 1 and complete requirement for bullet 3. 5

6 Commenters name, Reference Recommendation Reason for Recommendation Committee Resolution Young Park, I-SAC When you see figure 2, you will find out that the labeling is a little lifted from the surface because of a thick head of the screw under the label, making the labeling not so smooth. Is there any standard for a lifting of labeling due to a screw used for the item? Frank Kriesch, Diehl Aerospace Omar Karin Hernandez Mark Sorensen, ONYX (provided by Tino Gonzalez) It is required to state that the provision of the minimum dimensions have to work together. Minimum solder joint width must be determined at the minimum solder joint height 8.x new 33 Add criteria for SMT Compress Component Soldering Criteria and pictures added to the end of these comments Add criteria for tilt & raise Target - Class 1,2,3 Component is perpendicular and base is parallel to board. Clearance between base of component and board surface/land is equal to solder thickness. Acceptable - Class 1,2,3 Component tilt does not violate minimum electrical clearance. Process Indicator - Class 2,3 Component tilt / raise does not violate form fit and function for component application.. Defect - Class 1,2,3 Violates minimum electrical clearance. Component tilt / raise violate form fit and function for component application. I'm with the opinion of Teresa Rowe that both aspect of minimum requirement have to work together, otherwise you could have insufficient solder joints, but being acceptable according to IPC-A-610 aspects. Pictures provided but embedded in pdf file; need separate pictures 6

7 TABLE 3 IPC AND GRAPHICS COMMITTEE ACTION Commenters name, Reference Recommendation Reason for Recommendation Committee Resolution IPC Staff Figures 4-56 and Both are good pix but each have IPC Action attributes for both Target and A1,2,3 conditions. No matter which order they are inserted it can be confusing. Recommend removing white space between Target and A1,2,3.and adding keys in both figs for all attributes and referencing the keys in the bullets as appropriate. IPC Staff Figure 6-11; add arrow pointing at circumferential crack. IPC Action Meeting Sep T1,2,3 bring in J001E Figure 5-13 IPC Staff Figure 8-6, correct pix to show 25% height IPC Action IPC Staff Modify Fig bottom view to add insulation spacing IPC Action like top view. Meeting Feb Figure 4-56 IPC action to add keys to figures and bullets IPC Action Meeting Feb Figure 4-57 IPC action to add keys to figures and bullets IPC Action IPC staff Correct Figure 7-3; C2 R0 R5 so a wrong component IPC Action (Defect) is being shown. IPC staff Need to assure the correct pix with four views is used IPC Action IPC staff IPC action modify top bend in middle view to match other IPC Action two components Meeting Feb E Fig 8-6 IPC action to correct dwg to show 25% IPC Action height Meeting Feb Figure IPC action to delete K from IPC Action illustration<feb2012> Meeting Feb Figure IPC action to add all dimensions to IPC Action drawing <Feb2012> Meeting Feb Figure IPC action to modify bottom view to IPC Action add insulation spacing like top view Meeting Feb Figure 12-4 IPC action to rekey bottom right to f and make insulation damage more obvious IPC Action 7

8 TABLE 4 RESOLVED COMMENTS Commenters name, Reference Recommendation Reason for Recommendation Committee Resolution IPC Staff Table 1-1 add 6010 series and A-600 Added to Sep 2011 draft. Editorial agree J DAY IPC Staff Title correction: Process Control Methodologies Added to Sep 2011 draft. Editorial agree J DAY IPC Staff Combined Conditions; last sentence, The manufacturer is responsible for identification of such conditions. Add words to clarify that this needs to involve customer/user that knows the end use environment. Add sentence to end of paragraph: Mel Parrish provided clarification for comment to consider. J DAY. Accepted with modification <Sep2011> IPC Staff Leaching definition; delete. Leaching is a cause, not the defect. Reference to leaching was deleted from component damage and this definition isn t needed now. Thomas Fick, Safari Ckts John Borneman, Delphi Electronics However, when an item is refereed it should be at the magnification called out based on the items classification from Table REMOVE THROUGH AND SECTION 3.2. Leave brief intro and reference to Industry standards as shown below in section 3.1. Suppliers of ESD sensitive electronic assemblies should reference industry standards such as ANSI/ESD S20.20 and IEC The customer/user will identify additional limitations of combined conditions where there is significant concern based upon end use environment and product performance requirements. I believe that the reason for allowing higher magnification is so the inspector doesn t need to constantly change magnification levels as they scan an assembly. However, this means that mixed technology boards are penalized, since thru hole parts are inspected at higher magnification. Items that wouldn t be defects at lower magnification now get classified as a defect. Delphi is finding that some of our customers understand the value of IPC 610, but do are confused when IPC standards seem to conflict with other more accepted Industry standards. IPC 610 (current rev) is globally known and recognized as the standard for workmanship issues. In the case of ESD control, IPC 610 should not attempt to recreate or compete with something that others (ESDA and IEC) are doing better. Accepted to delete <Sep2011> The current revision states that magnification may be used for the entire assembly. This is not a requirement. Action: Debbie Wade, ART will provide explanation to the commenter. <Sep2011> Accepted with modification<<feb2012>> Section was determined to be helpful. Sections will be retained but a statement emphasizing that this is only a general section. For full ESD information the user of the document is referred to ANSI ESD IPC Staff User suggested addition of defect for burred hardware. Is there a definition in T-50? J DAY The task group doesn t feel that a definition is necessary.<sep2011> IPC Staff Figure 4-11 key 1 Lock washer, sharp edge towards flat washer. The first words properly identify the item; the rest of the words are criteria and should be a bullet rather than in the key. Propose new A1,2,3 bullet: Sharp edges of lock washer, if present, are mounted towards the flat washer. Slight modification made to the key under the figure to clarify it is not criteria, just what is being shown. The first bullet next to this figure adequately defines the William Novak, Honeywell AZ Keith Walker, EEI Mfg Svcs requirement. <Sep2011> D1,2,3 Flat washing missing should ref Fig Draft references 4-13 & 4-15 <Sep2011> According to the definitions of overlapped & overwrapped Criteria modified <Sep2011> wire, D1,2,3 second bullet should be overwrapped, not overlapped.

9 Commenters name, Les Bogert, Bechtel Plant Machinery Inc. Reference Recommendation Reason for Recommendation Committee Resolution (new) 60 Proposed addition; Hardware Installation Threaded Fasteners Other Threaded Items In addition to threaded fasteners used for installation of an item onto an assembly, there are other types of threaded items that may be used on individual parts within an assembly. These may require tightening to a specified torque value, or standard industry practice, to preclude loosening or part damage. Such items include, but are not limited to, connector coupling nuts, connector strain relief clamps/potting/molding boots, etc., fuse holder mounting nuts, and any other similar threaded items. Where torque values are not specified, follow standard industry practices. However, some of these threaded items may be made of plastic or other material that can be damaged if excessive torque is applied during assembly; and for these items, it may be necessary to tighten the item to a specified torque value. Acceptable Class 1, 2, 3 Threaded items are tight. Torque value, if specified, is within limits. No evidence of damage resulting from over-tightening of the threaded item. Insert figure 9-5 from IPC/WHMA-A-620, except delete the arrows. If the figure is available showing the top of the connector include it here. The intent is to show the connector strain relief installed on the connector body. Insert figure 9-14 AND 12-4 from IPC/WHMA-A-620, except doctor the figures so they only show the threaded portion of the connectors action from Sep2011 meeting: Accepted with Modification. The title of the section was changed to Threaded Fasteners and Other Threaded Hardware. Also added damage criteria to 9.13<<FEB2012>> Michael Booth, Teledyne Defect Class 1, 2, 3 Threaded items are not tight. Torque value, if specified, is not within limits. Evidence of damage resulting from over-tightening of the threaded item Please find attached an improvement form with supporting documents for IPC-a-610e I believe there is a conflict between the jackpost mounting in IPC-610 and the applicable mil stds. IPC Staff Replace terms secondary and primary side with protrusion and insertion side as more applicable to pins that could be inserted from either side. William Novak, Honeywell AZ IPC Staff Table 4-1; discovered during training development. The rows Coaxial cables and Coaxial Flexible Cable are the same thing according to Note 3 but the bend radius requirements are different, 5X and 10X. Les Bogert, Bechtel Plant Machinery Inc. 9 Committee did not accept the proposal for multiple criteria for different MilSpec connectors. This criteria is written toward typical connector installatons. <Sept2011> Accepted <Sep2010> Retitle from routing: to Wire Bundle Routing For consistency Accepted with modification <Sep2011> Resolved through table update <Sep2011> Where did the value of 1 inch for fiber optic cable bend radius in Table 4-1 come from? Normally, we spec bend radius as a function of the cable diameter. Also, if you look at MIL-PRF-85045/13 and /15 for shipboard type fiber optic cables, they mandate X16 bend radius for long term application and Table 4-1 uses X15. Not sure if we need to fix anything as part of 610F. I assume as part of synergy with 620, we will make the tables in both documents the same. Withdrawn but recommended to 610F telecom task group<<feb2012>> IPC Staff Adjust title to current terminology: Swaged Hardware Accepted <Sep2011> Terminal Base to Land Pad Gap IPC Staff Separate the Acceptable criteria by class to align to the Accepted <Sep2011>

10 Commenters name, Reference Recommendation Reason for Recommendation Committee Resolution defect criteria that is already different by class. Suggestion is in the draft. IPC Staff A1,2,3 add key references to Fig 6-2. Added to Sep 2011 draft. Editorial agree J DAY Terminal is bent, but the top edge (1) does not extend beyond the base (2). IPC Staff Table 6-1 isn t referenced in the text. Suggestion: Added to Sep 2011 draft. Editorial agree J DAY These solder acceptance criteria, summarized in Table 6-1, are applicable to flared flange and flat set swaged hardware. IPC Staff Table 6-1, Editorial, item C change in to on Added to Sep 2011 draft. Editorial agree J DAY IPC Staff Defect 1,2,3 and Defect 3, delete bullets about splits. This Added to Sep 2011 draft. Editorial agree J DAY is the solder section; split criteria is in IPC Staff Table 6-1 item B isn t referenced with acceptable or defect Accepted <Sep2011> bullets. Suggestion added to draft. IPC Staff Table 6-1 Item D isn t referenced with acceptable or defect Accepted <Sep2011> bullets. Current bullets are too generic; there are separate criteria for flare set and flat set eyelets. Suggestion added to draft. IPC Staff The first two bullets in D2,3 are the same as the bullet in Accepted with modification Ray Cirimele, STI Electronics Blen Talbot, L-3 Comm. Blen Talbot, L-3 Comm. D1. Change D1 to D1,2, Table 6-2 Change Note 1 from No damaged strands for wires used at a potential of 6 kv or greater. To No damaged strands for wires used for high voltage. 6 kv was what used to be the break point for it to be considered high voltage. The term high voltage will vary by design and application. We have to consider conductor spacing as well as voltage. <Sep2011> Not accepted Removing the requirement would possibly remove safety net for wires used above 6kV but not specified as High Voltage<<FEB2012>> Delete (not shown) and reference Figure 6-64B. Clarification Agree Editorial J DAY To the definition of overwrap add the text of Note 1 located in J-STD-001, below Table 5-3, A wire that is wrapped more than 360º and remains in contact with the terminal post is considered an overwrap or spiral wrap and is not a defect. Needed for clarification and consistency between the documents. In 610 it doesn t state that overwrap is not a Defect. Committee did not want to expand the definition. The criteria for acceptability is covered in the bullets. <Sep2011> Joseph Kane, BAE Systems To the definition of overlap add the text of Note 1 located in J-STD-001, below Table 5-3, A wire that is wrapped more than 360º and crosses over itself, i.e., does not remain in contact with the terminal post is an overlap is defect Change: Defect Class 1,2 Solder is wetted less than 100% of the lead to terminal contact area when the wrap is more than 90 and less than 180. Defect Class 1,2,3 Less than 75% fillet of the lead to terminal contact when the wrap is 180 or more. Replace with the following: Defect Class 1,2 10 Corrects inconsistent requirements and aligns with J-STD-001E Section 5.5. Note that with the existing 610E requirement, for Classes 1 and 2, if the wrap is 179, then a fillet of 179 is required, while if the wrap is 180, only 135 (75% of 180 ) of wetted fillet is required. Also, if the wrap is more than 180, then 610E is Committee did not agree to this recommendation <Sep2011>

11 Commenters name, Joseph Kane, BAE Systems Reference Recommendation Reason for Recommendation Committee Resolution Solder is wetted less than 90 along the circumference of the lead-toterminal wrap. Defect Class 3 Solder is wetted less than 135 along the circumference of the lead-toterminal wrap Change: Defect Class 1,2,3 Less than 100% fillet of the lead to terminal contact when the wrap is less than 180 (not shown). Less than 75% fillet of the lead to terminal contact when the wrap is 180 or more (not shown). Replace with the following: Defect Class 1,2,3 Solder is wetted less than 90 along the circumference of the lead-to-terminal wrap. IPC Staff D1,2 editorial: Depression of solder between the terminal and the wrap of the wire Joseph Kane, BAE Systems Joseph Kane, BAE Systems Change: Defect Class 1,2,3 Less than 100% fillet of the lead to terminal contact when the wrap is less than 180. Less than 75% fillet of the lead to terminal contact when the wrap is 180 or more. Replace with the following: Defect Class 1,2,3 Solder is wetted less than 90 along the circumference of the lead-to-terminal wrap Change: Defect Class 1,2,3 Less than 100% fillet of the lead to terminal contact when the wrap is less than 180. Less than 75% fillet of the lead to terminal contact when the wrap is 180 or more. Replace with the following: Defect Class 1,2 Solder is wetted less than 90 along the circumference of the lead-to-terminal wrap. Defect Class 3 Solder is wetted less than 135 along the circumference of the lead-to-terminal wrap. Blen Talbot, L Figure 6-119; Delete the figure of a coax termination on Comm. the right side of the picture. IPC Staff Wrong term: Criteria are given for only the actual mounting or placement of components or wires on electronic assemblies and to standoff spacers. 11 much more stringent than J-1E for all three classes. Simplifies requirements and aligns with J-STD-001E Section 5.5. As 610E is now, 179 of wrap requires more wetted fillet than 180 or more of wrap. There isn t any post on pierced/perforated. Added to Sep 2011 draft. Simplifies requirements and aligns with J-STD-001E Section 5.5. As 610E is now, 179 of wrap requires more wetted fillet than 180 or more of wrap. Simplifies requirements and aligns with J-STD-001E Section 5.5. As 610E is now, 179 of wrap requires more wetted fillet than 180 or more of wrap. It s not a cup terminal Added to Sep 2011 draft. Committee did not agree to this recommendation <Sep2011> Editorial Agree J DAY Committee did not agree to this recommendation <Sep2011> Committee did not agree to this recommendation <Sep2011> Accepted to delete the figure <Sep2011> Editorial Agree J DAY IPC Staff Intro; two places change to correct term: 14 usually cannot Common term is clearance (C). Added to Sep 2011 Editorial Agree J DAY

12 Commenters name, Reference Recommendation Reason for Recommendation Committee Resolution meet the maximum clearance requirements of a straightlegged vertical - radial leaded component, see Maximum clearance between component and board surface IPC Staff A1P2D3 align to J001: Lead bends less than 1 lead diameter or thickness but not less than 0.8 mm [0.031 in] away from body seal. IPC Staff T1,2,3 delete last bullet (min elect clearance). There is a defect bullet and normally MEC issues are only covered in defect or change to common terminology: Spacing between land and Uninsulated component body exceeds does not violate minimum electrical clearance. Search on does not violate shows sometimes under Target, a little more often under Acceptable. These should standardize; recommend under Acceptable. IPC Staff Last bullet is repeat of last bullet in N1P2D3; delete from this location IPC Staff Comment from beta class: Not always wires; sometimes metal straps. Suggest adding a bullet that the attaching wire/strap meets establish securing criteria. IPC Staff Intro sentence: change should not to shall not and delete electrical clearance; there s already a defect bullet. IPC Staff Intro; editorial: Leads greater than 1.3 mm (.050 inch) should not be bent nor formed for mounting purposes. draft. Added to Sep 2011 draft. Added to Sep 2011 draft. Added to Sep 2011 draft. Editorial Agree J DAY Accepted to delete this bullet from Target <Sep2011> Editorial Agree J DAY Criteria modified <Sep2011> Editorial Agree J DAY This is talking about thickness of lead and lead length - need clarification - verified with Mel P. Recommend changing to Leads with thickness greater than. J.DAY Is this referring to thick leads that should not be bent or short leads that should not be bent? Needs clarification IPC Staff A1P2,3 Delete last bullet; fillet lift acceptable in Accepted <Sep2011> Ted Labowski, Microboard Processing Inc The current requirement is 75% vertical solder fill regardless of soldering process (intrusive) or lead length (leads shorter than the board thickness). When performing intrusive soldering with a component whose lead is shorter than the thickness of the board, solder will not extend beyond the end of the lead. IPC Staff Also ; Change name: Primary Solder Destination Side - Lead to Barrel (B) Also A1,2,3 IPC Staff Also ; Change name: Solder Source Side - Land Area Coverage (C) My is running into a problem with trying to intrusive solder a combination SMT/through hole connector. Specifically, the through hole ground pins in the connector only extend approximately 50% through the board thickness. Criteria are applicable to any soldering process (wave, intrusive, hand). The committee agreed to change the terms in 610E Table 7-4 but the section headers didn t get changed. This aligns everything. Criteria are applicable to any soldering process (wave, intrusive, hand). The committee agreed to change the terms in 610E Table 7-4 but the section headers didn t get changed. This aligns everything. Criteria modified <Sep2011> Committee did not agree to add this. <Sep2011> Accepted <Sep2011> Accepted <Sep2011> IPC Staff Also ; Change name: Secondary Solder Criteria are applicable to any soldering process (wave, Accepted <Sep2011> Source Side - Land Area Coverage (C) intrusive, hand). The committee agreed to change the Also T1,2,3 & A1,2,3 terms in 610E Table 7-4 but the section headers didn t get changed. This aligns everything. IPC Staff A1,2,3 second bullet editorial; add see Added to Sep 2011 draft. Editorial Agree J DAY 12

13 Commenters name, Reference Recommendation Reason for Recommendation Committee Resolution IPC Staff Fig key 2 Clinch This is only pointing to a clinch; criteria shouldn t be in Editorial Agree J DAY keys under figures. Class 3 requirement is elsewhere. Added to Sep 2011 draft. Jan Kolsters, Phillips Lighting Committee did not agree to add this. <Sep2011> Kathy Palumbo, PA&LS, LLC David Boyle, Northrop Grumman Table 7-7; For class 1 and 2 the only rule is that fillet and wetting of lead and land should be at leads should be at least 270 degrees. Propsal for clinched leads on unsupported holes is to demand for a complete joint under the clinched part of the lead. For the rest the hole may be open VIA in Pad for SOT23 style part with flat leads (similar to a flat lug lead) with no foot. (photo) They have a via in the pad that is affecting another lead. They also have vias in the pad on what looks like a D-PAK device in the Thermal connection. There is a note on Page 8-15 Note 6 that covers the VIA in Pad, but this note is only placed under the 1, 3, & 5 sided Chip Components. This note is also in the BGA section for voiding issues that it can cause. This note should be on the other tables so it applies to any device with a VIA in the pad, OR the solder fillet requirement for all the other lead shapes should be met regardless of the VIA in the pad. A VIA in a pad always scavenges solder from the required fillet area and the fillet size should be based on what you need for reliability for your end use environment Create a sub-category within Section 8 that sets LCCs, PBGAs, QFNs, and other self-centering devices apart from nonself-centering devices such as QFPs and CBGAs. 2. Establish zero (0) inches and/or percent as the permitted amount of side misalignment for Class III self-aligning devices. 13 The strength of a joint of clinched leads on unsupported holes comes mainly from the part under the clinhed part of the lead. As it is stated in the current document a joint of 270 degrees but not soldered under the clinched part would be ok. This would be, however a very weak joint! IPC-610, Sect 8 covers SMD, including castellated, area array, and other bottom side terminated devices. The paste on which these parts are placed, when reflowed, creates a friction free surface that floats special parts like LCCs, LGAs, etc. So long as a series of process variables are within bounds, the surface tension forces at work during reflow will shift these parts into perfect alignment with the land. This shift is automatic, and tells the examiner that the solder paste has fully liquefied. It is a metric that speaks volumes about the part, the PWB, and the processes used to solder one to the other. The opposite is also true. Misalignment of these parts says that something is off the solder paste did not reach liquidous long enough; there was too little solder paste printed to float the part; the part or land did not wet properly; and other unacceptable conditions. With the exception of PBGAs, IPC-610 today accepts LCCs, QFNs, and power FET type devices even if misaligned by 25% of the land width. For whatever reason misalignment was originally allowed, the effect is to allow improperly soldered devices on Class III, high reliability assemblies. If wetting is the most important aspect of soldering, perfect alignment of self-aligning parts is the proof that such wetting has occurred, and that other crucial aspects of the assembly process have taken place as well. Misaligned parts, by their very existence, mask at least one and possibly many undesirable characteristics. For these and other reasons, self-aligning parts should only be accepted when perfectly aligned with their lands. Intent of the note was deleted from Tables 8-2, 8-3 & 8-11 and added as a general comment in Chapter 8 introduction. <Sep2011> The committee did not agree that separate criteria should be necessary for self-centering parts. Maximum overhang criteria is still applicable. <Sep2011> IPC Staff Into; editorial to add words: The widths of the component Added to Sep 2011 draft. I agree that this editorial

14 Commenters name, Robert Ninokata, ZNYX Networks Reference Recommendation Reason for Recommendation Committee Resolution termination and land width are (W) and (P) The widths of the component termination (W) and land width (P) respectively Under what ruling would a ferrite bead in a 0805 case fall? Component data sheet for this device is available. Is it safe to assume it should be similar to the resistor ruling for damage as stated in 9.3 if there is no damage to the resistive element? ACTION: Floyd Bertagnolli, STM to research damage allowance for this type of component. <Sep2011> Action completed 10/1/2011: Q1. Is the body a solid block of ferrite with a center metal piece, connecting the two metal terminations, or a standard ferrite toroid within molded plastic body? A1. Our parts are made with the solid block of ferrite. A2. Our parts do have conductors running through them that connect to terminations. IPC Staff A1,2; add for clarity: Minimum fillet height (F) exhibits wetting on the vertical surface(s) of the component termination. IPC Staff correct bullets to align to table: A1,2,3 25% or less voiding of any ball in the x-ray image area. D1,2,3 More than 25% voiding of any ball in the x- ray image area. Peter Phillips, Haloing of non-plated thru holes in polyamide PWBs is causing concern Honeywell Aerospace both at the PWB supplier and the PWB user. As you are aware, polyamide David Miles, TE SubCom Added to Sep 2011 draft. Added to Sep 2011 draft. Sub-Committee Leo Lambert, Mel Parrish, Sharon Ventress and Bruce Hughes is reviewing. <Aug2011> is a brittle glasslike material and not as forgiving as the FR-4, etc BOW My concern is the acceptability of an assembled board with Spherical Bow and how board mounting conditions apply. I have spoken with Leo Lambert (EPTAC) and he suggested that the criteria for was intended for boards that are rack mounted on slides with a connection to a backplane. Thus the board is not constrained except for the connector edge. In our product we have an 8.25" x 7" rectangular board that is mounted onto an aluminum chassis and secured with 16 screws around the perimeter plus 2 additional in the middle. We have a batch of boards from our supplier with 0.040" to 0.050" of spherical bow in the middle w.r.t. the edges. The board does not sit flat on the chassis. Thus I believe it violates the Fit requirement (from Form, Fit, or Function). We must be inducing stress into the board when we torque the 18 screws. My concern is how to apply to our specific circumstances and would like to see further criteria included that would clearly cover the differences between a board that is secured to a chassis versus one installed in a rack. There is no comment for the document as this is a question. Floyd completed the actions item as above. Submitter will be notified of the answers.<<feb2012>> Editorial Agree J DAY Editorial agree J DAY Not accepted on subcommittee recommendation.<<feb2012>> The committee feels that the statement in the existing note sufficiently covers these concerns: It may be necessary to confirm through testing that bow and twist has not created stress that will result in solder connection fracture or component damage. <Sep2011> 14

15 Commenters name, Reference Recommendation Reason for Recommendation Committee Resolution IPC Staff Paragraph about RFID is extraneous and has nothing to do with applied Accepted <Sep2011> markings. RFID is covered in This paragraph should be deleted from IPC Staff D1,2,3 first bullet; references to & left over from Rev D. These notes were reviewed on 9/09 for Fixed <Sep2011> Rev E is still correct but should have been referenced. J DAY Joseph Kane, BAE Systems By Fig change: Acceptable Class 1,2 Defect Class 3 There is no clear reason why minor cracking as shown in Figure should be a defect. In , for Class Accepted with modification <Sep2011> Cracking of solder mask. 3, flaking (which is cracking with loss Replace with the following: Acceptable Class 1,2,3 of adhesion) is a process indicator only if it expose copper, and a defect only if Cracking of solder mask without loss of adhesion. it bridges conductors. Ray Cirimele, STI Electronics Mike Green, Lockheed Martin Table 10-1 The coating thickness charts should be identical. The coating thickness tables in IPC-A- 610, J-STD-001, and IPC-CC-830 are all different as a result of rounding and transcription errors new 110 Add all of the following: Insulation Coating Insulation Coating-General Insulation Coating- Coverage All of the considerations used for conformal coating are applicable for insulation coating, except the surface where insulation coating is applied is generally not smooth enough for a uniform coating surface. Thin coating is not a target attribute. See Insulation Coating-Thickness Acceptable: Complete coverage with no exposed metal Defect: Exposed metal Note: The thickness requirements of do not apply. This material is used to provide insulation to an exposed conductor when conformal coating is insufficient to provide enough protection and encapsulation is too much. The uses of the material are to protect active electronics from conductive FOD of various types and to provide a partial moisture barrier. The material used is frequently a conformal coat like material with a thickener added. It may be painted on with a brush to a thickness of.020 minimum. Examples of using the material are on bolted solder lugs where the edge surface is not fully protected by conformal coating., component cases that are electively active, and wire terminations, particularly movable wires. It does not replace Conformal Coat. It establishes requirements for a different adhesive function. It also provides description for the new term, Insulation Coating. This process is used when conformal coat is insufficient and encapsulation is too much. We use a thicker adhesive and paint it on with a brush. Note: A change to IPC-T-50H is concomitant. Not accepted. CC-830 is a material qualification document. J001 is a process document. The tables are not intended to be identical<<feb2012>> Accepted with minor modifications. <Sep2011> 15

16 Commenters name, Reference Recommendation Reason for Recommendation Committee Resolution IPC Staff Intro; delete paragraph and numbered items referring to discrete wire Accepted <Sep20111> boards. Delete the sentence about Section 5; there is no soldering in this chapter. IPC Staff Reword T1,2,3 to clarify that 50% more turn means 50% more of one turn, not 50% more of the minimum number of turns in Table Criteria modified <Sep2011> IPC Staff Figure key 1: 1. Initial contact corner Added to Sep 2011 draft. Editorial Agree J DAY IPC Staff D2,3 delete last bullet; this clause is insulation damage, not insulation Recommend to move defect to section Deleted <Sep2011> clearance J.DAY IPC Staff Delete clause about connector wire dress. It s not relevant to this chapter and there isn t any other appropriate place is this document. This and all other wired connector criteria is adequately covered in 620. Accepted <Sep20111> IPC Staff T1,2,3 delete 3 rd bullet. Redundant to last bullet that is worded better. Added to Sep 2011 draft. Editorial Agree J DAY 16

17 Comment from Anitha Sinkfield, MTT Leader - Coatings & Adhesives, Delphi Electronics and Safety This workmanship standard is a clarification/addition to 610E Conformal Coating Coverage/Bubbles and is based on Delphi E&S Manufacturing Technology Team internal process development. Target Description Coating is smooth, even and completely free of bubbles or voids. Acceptable Description (1) The few and scattered bubbles do not expose conductors, provide at least the minimum coating thickness between conductors, and do not provide a moisture path to the surface. Figure 1 Figure 2 No foreign material is imbedded into the coating. (Figures 3 and 4) Figure 3 Figure 4 17

18 (2) Bubble between the conductors does not provide conductive path between leads. There still exists at least one mil (0.001 ) of coating over conductor (Figures 4 and 5) Figure 5 Figure 6 (3) A continuous layer of coating seals the length of a lead and bubbles are the result of air being trapped behind the leads. (Figures 8 and 9) Air void behind leads (acceptable) Bubbles on top of package are without consequence Figure 7 Figure 8 Unacceptable Description (1) Bubbles provide a conductive path between leads and reduce coating thickness to less than 1 mil (0.001 ) (Figures 10 and 11) Figure 9 18

19 (2) Surface void, or so-called fish eye, that expose the conductor, and leave a moisture path to the circuit trace. (Figures 10, 11 and 12) Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Process Indicator Description (1) This depiction shows numerous, although shallow, bubbles that provide at least one mil (0.001 ) of coating over the conductor trace. Although acceptable, this condition is difficult to evaluate, and should be corrected as soon as possible. Figure 13 (2) These numerous bubbles are only on the laminate, and do not form a continuous path between conductors. Although acceptable, this is indicative of improper machine set-up, and should be corrected as soon as possible Figure 14 19

20 (3) The bubbles do not expose conductors, and provide at least the minimum coating thickness between separate conductor traces, and do not provide a moisture path to the surface. This is a marginal condition that reveals improper machine set-up, and/or processing problems (such as flipping the assembly too soon after spraying side- 1) and thus should be corrected as soon as possible Figure 15 Figure 16 20

21 Comment from Omar Karin Hernandez, Flextronics Guadalojara, submitted through Tino Gonzalez SMT Compress Component Soldering IDEAL Solder joint is equal to component termination width. Note: These criteria apply for square or circular PCBA pads. Acceptable Class 1 & 2 Solder joint width (C) is minimum 50% of component termination width (W) or 50% land width (P) Acceptable Class 3 Solder joint width (C) is minimum 75% of component termination width (W) or 75% land width (P) 21

22 Defect Class 1, 2 & 3 Solder joint is less than minimum acceptable 22

23 Comment from Omar Karin Hernandez, Flextronics Guadalojara, submitted through Tino Gonzalez Heat Stake on Flexible and Rigid PCBA IDEAL Heat Stake swaged that is processed should be evident on 360 of the circumference. Plastic should be adhered to PCBA and does not touch any solder join or circuit connection. Acceptable Class 1 Process Indicator Class 2 & 3 Heat Stake adhesion is evident on 270 of the circumference. There are some plastic residues around it does not affecting any form, fit or function. 23

24 Defect Class 1, 2 & 3 Heat Stake adhesion is not evident at least than 270 of the circumference. Heat Stake Adhesion to the PCB is not evident. The Plastic interferes with the formation of a solder connection. The Plastic affects form, fit & function. 24

25 Comment from Kirk Van Dreel, Plexus Figure 10-x 10.8 PCB Coverage Requirements Target - Class 1,2,3 Evidence of complete coating coverage of all PCB surfaces not designated as keep out zones. All board edges have evidence of coverage and do not expose any inner or outer layers. Figure 10-x Acceptable - Class 1,2 Defect - Class 3 Evidence of complete coating coverage of all exposed metal surfaces not designated as keep out zones. Evidence of coating extending onto surrounding PCB perimeter of all coated metal surfaces at least 1 width of the smallest land/conductor dimension. Figure 10-x 25

26 Figure 10-x Defect Class, 1,2,3 Evidence of exposed metal surfaces not designated as a keep out zone. Board edges have evidence of exposed inner or outer layers. Figure 10-x 26

27 Comment from Kirk Van Dreel, Plexus 10.8.X Conformal Coating Component Coverage Requirements Figure 10-x Target - Class 1,2,3 Evidence of complete and uniform coating coverage of all component surfaces not designated as keep out zones. Figure 10-x Acceptable - Class 1,2 Defect - Class 3 Any component surface lacking a metal conductor without 100% coating coverage. Figure 10-x Defect - Class 1,2,3 Incomplete coating on the component body surface (typically a side) where the metal lead makes contact. Evidence of incomplete coating coverage of all metal surfaces not designated as keep out zones. Figure 10-x 27

28 Comment from Kirk Van Dreel, Plexus Soldering Anomalies Disturbed Solder PTH Disturbed Solder Figure 5-x Target - Class 1,2,3 Uniform surface between the joint lead and the solder pad. Figure 5-x Acceptable - Class 1,2,3 Radial or irregular patterns on the solder surface are related to gain and imc solidification and are normal for solder joints. 28

29 Figure 5-x Defect - Class 1,2,3 Concentric solidification patterns on one or both sides of the joint. Figure 5-x 29

30 Soldering Anomalies [Lead Free] Hot Tear/Shrink Hole Figure 5-x Target - Class 1,2,3 Uniform surface between the joint lead and the solder pad. Figure 5-x Acceptable - Class 1,2,3 A hot tear or shrinkage void exists in the bulk solder and does not terminate on the land or lead. Figure 5-x Defect - Class 1,2,3 The hot tear terminates at a lead or the PCB land pattern and the bottom of the hot tear cannot be seen. On the manufacturing floor it is difficult to distinguish between cracks and hot tears. Since a crack on a PTH starts at a feature (i.e. land or pad) this clarification will aid in this distinction between the two effects. 30