Electronics Forum | Wed Jun 07 09:26:09 EDT 2006 | amol_kane
can you also please tell us the section in IPC-610?...is this in RevD? also, does this also give the solder volume for BGAs? Thanks, Amol
Electronics Forum | Wed Nov 29 11:46:57 EST 2006 | slthomas
IPC 610 *C* states that the solder thickness requirement is a properly wetted termination is evident. Fillet height is another aspect and is usually specific to the package but is some function of solder thickness plus a percentage of lead height. D
Electronics Forum | Wed Jan 03 15:57:38 EST 2007 | realchunks
Is there a seperate guideline for Pin In Paste process in IPC? I have IPC610 year 2000 rev C (I know rev D is out). Or do most people use the thruough hole part of the Guideline as their criteria?
Electronics Forum | Thu May 20 21:16:46 EDT 2010 | erli
Hi Pat According IPC-610D voids biger 25% are considered defects. You need verify you Pre Heat and try to reduce the ramp. Its very importante verify if the BGA`s are avoid hummity. Erli
Electronics Forum | Fri Jan 26 16:24:10 EST 2007 | Bob R.
Whether there's a fillet or not depends on the component type. Most have a fillet but some, such as QFN's, don't necessarily have one. Have a look at IPC-610D Workmanship Standards to understand when you should expect one and when you shouldn't. T
Electronics Forum | Mon Feb 20 04:59:40 EST 2006 | Loco
For visual inspection table 1-2 seems to be in order here. If you can not see the bottom using 1.8 and table 1-2, it clearly would be a defect and rework would be the only option Well, my thoughts anyway, wonder if someone has other thoughts on thi
Electronics Forum | Thu Oct 26 11:49:54 EDT 2006 | sms_don
CW, The good news is that you are not trying to use SAC paste with SnPb balls for that would be a void generator due to the ball being liquidous while the SAC paste is still in a flux cleaning stage. Two points to consider: One, voids are not an i
Electronics Forum | Thu Mar 03 16:33:24 EST 2005 | pjc
Revision D has over 730 new and updated illustrations of acceptability criteria and has been critically reviewed for clarity and accuracy. The document synchronizes to the requirements expressed in other industry consensus documents and is used with
Electronics Forum | Sat Feb 18 15:40:45 EST 2006 | Cmiller
Switch to SN100C (no pun intended). I cant help with the SAC 305 issues but we should have a wave with SN100 running very soon. I will let you all know how that goes. Please report back on the x-sectioning and share the results. I have heard some v
Electronics Forum | Tue Nov 28 15:10:50 EST 2006 | M. Sanders
Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of IPC-A-610 D on hand, however, I believe in IPC-610, this �floating height� between lead and pad has no maximum specification restriction. As long as there is no voiding, it is still acceptable for all 3 classes.
.gif)
.png)
