PCBA IC Component rework

Subscribe to Thread

Our supplier is suggesting the 'removal and replacement' of ... - Aug 31, 2004 by

there is always risk in rework, multiple heat cycles, overa... - Aug 31, 2004 by RDR

The re-use of any component has commercial implications as w... - Sep 24, 2004 by

Nick's point is well taken and quite true but finding reflow... - Sep 24, 2004 by

Six Sigma QE

#30301

PCBA IC Component rework | 31 August, 2004

Our supplier is suggesting the 'removal and replacement' of programmable IC components to reduce cost. The removed components will be placed on other boards as well. Is there a risk in reworking programable IC components. Thank you.

reply »

RDR

#30303

PCBA IC Component rework | 31 August, 2004

there is always risk in rework, multiple heat cycles, overall temp, physical damage, etc... As far as I know the risks are the same with a programmed part as with any other part. If there is great concern or multiple rework actions you may want to implement sockets for these parts. I am curious about the "cost reduction" aspect of this.

Russ

reply »

Nick Prince

#30695

PCBA IC Component rework | 24 September, 2004

The re-use of any component has commercial implications as weel. If you check the data sheet for the component in question you will find the reflow profile, usually there will be a "Max No of Reflows". I have never seen this number higher than 2. If the assembly is double side then the divice may already have had 2 reflows. Then you take it off, then replace it, that double the recommended limits. There is a warrenty issue here. The chip manufacturer will not honour the warrenty of a reworked and replaced device that exceeds the No. of reflows. (How they find out is another matter!) My advice, dont do it in a commercial application.

reply »

HOSS

#30696

PCBA IC Component rework | 24 September, 2004

Nick's point is well taken and quite true but finding reflow specs in an IC mfgr's datasheet is not very common. You may need to call the mfgr's tech support group.

reply »