Email This Page to a Friend
Date:
October 27, 2009 01:56 PM
Author:
Julie
Subject: defects in pcb manufacturing
I work for a CEM. We are having some quality issues with some pcb's that came from China. (I know, big surprise)
Can anyone with pcb manufacturing experience look at some pictures I have and give me an opinion as to what could go wrong in the pcb manufacturing process that would cause these "defects" I put defects in quotation marks because our China supplier is trying to tell us these boards meet IPC-A-600 standards. They say it is strictly cosmetic and will not effect the board functionally. Attached is a couple pic's. Any & all help will be greatly appreciated.
Attachments:
(http://www.smtnet.com/Forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=1&Message_ID=60196)
Date:
October 27, 2009 10:52 PM
Author:
davef
Subject: defects in pcb manufacturing
Top picture: We're not wild about the 'poor registration,' the differing thickness of the solder mask, and the crud all over the board. But, then again, we don't have a basis for rejection.
Bottom picture: No basis for rejection
Help us out, what don't you like about these boards?
(http://www.smtnet.com/Forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=1&Message_ID=60203)
Date:
October 28, 2009 04:02 AM
Author:
Loco
Subject: defects in pcb manufacturing
solderresist has a big offset?
(http://www.smtnet.com/Forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=1&Message_ID=60205)
Date:
October 28, 2009 07:26 AM
Author:
Julie
Subject: defects in pcb manufacturing
I don't like these boards for a couple different reasons.
1. They may be fine functionally but they look like crap.
2. What is our customer going to think when we deliver boards that look like this? They will probably wonder the same thing I do... boards that look this bad on the surface how are they under the mask?
Thanks for your comments/opinions.
(http://www.smtnet.com/Forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=1&Message_ID=60207)
Date:
October 28, 2009 09:28 AM
Author:
SteveO
Subject: defects in pcb manufacturing
I agree with you. Personally, I would either return them and look for a new supplier or scrap these boards. Unless your customer provided these boards and gave you the go ahead to populate them, they will not be too pleased about the build.
(http://www.smtnet.com/Forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=1&Message_ID=60208)
Date:
October 29, 2009 06:33 PM
Author:
Comatose
Subject: defects in pcb manufacturing
The top picture probably won't run. You have black soldermask dramatically misregistered and overlapping what look a lot like fids. Either your machines are going to pitch a fit and not find the fid or they're going to center on the soldermask outline. Neither is going to leave you with acceptable results.
(http://www.smtnet.com/Forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=1&Message_ID=60226)
Date:
October 30, 2009 10:36 AM
Author:
Richard
Subject: defects in pcb manufacturing
Hi,
I see a huge solder mask shift on chip comp pads. This would result in mid-chip solder balls or solder beads. Overall, the solder mask workmanship is not acceptable. Mask is on pad.
(http://www.smtnet.com/Forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=1&Message_ID=60236)
Date:
November 01, 2009 01:33 AM
Author:
isd.jww
Subject: defects in pcb manufacturing
Just my opinion:
Top pic - Solder mask registration WAY too far off, without a doubt I would reject.
Bottom pic - I would worry that there was/is a contamination that caused the poor looking mask. This may be cosmetic only, but unknown. I would reject them. If the PCB fab company will not remake the boards for you then get a new fab company. There are plenty of good ones out there.
No need to accept sub-par boards. Your customer will not care to hear excuses if these boards fail during/after assembly.
(http://www.smtnet.com/Forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=1&Message_ID=60246)
Date:
November 01, 2009 11:34 PM
Author:
Jeong Ju-young
Subject: defects in pcb manufacturing
Hello Julie
Yr supplier is saying that these boards meet the requirement of IPC-A-610. I think that you need to check this requirements at least. But, it does dot mean that these are acceptable.
Thanks.
(http://www.smtnet.com/Forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=1&Message_ID=60254)
Date:
November 01, 2009 11:51 PM
Author:
BoardHouse
Subject: defects in pcb manufacturing
Hi Julie,
My opinion is that the top board would not pass IPC, solder mask encroachment on pads.
Second board is what we call Orange peel,this can be caused two way's. 1) the solder mask was not tack dried enough prior to imaging which caused artwork to stick to panel during imaging. 2) these could have been hand screened on a table (Not by a screen coater) and the screen was sticking to the boards do to uneven pressure by the operator.
top board would be easily rejected due to poor registration.
Bottom board looks like crap and could be rejected due to uneven solder mask thickness and poor quality control.
I would agree to other comments that if this is typical quality that your are receiving from this shop, I would investigate other suppliers.
My Disclosure:
I am a Direct salesman for a Taiwan board supplier.
Like in the US their are good and bad shops. I would say that 99% of shops in Taiwan & China would not find this product acceptable.
Best Regards,
Mike Dupont
Active Sales Associates Inc.
(http://www.smtnet.com/Forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=1&Message_ID=60258)
Date:
November 02, 2009 07:16 AM
Author:
Umar
Subject: defects in pcb manufacturing
Base on the top picture condition, seems like the boards condition is a lot with solder splash or solder ball which is per IPC-610 is under reject (under 5.6.2)for class 3 product.
While the picture 2 is showing those the solder resist is not melt properly during PWB manufacturing side, that's condition as per IPC-610 also under rejectable for class 3 product, check under clause 10.5.1.
Before you decide that condition is better to know what's kind class your manufacturing process been build and adopt.
(http://www.smtnet.com/Forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=1&Message_ID=60260)
Date:
November 02, 2009 10:02 PM
Author:
BoardHouse
Subject: defects in pcb manufacturing
Umar - the boards are not assembled - so Solder splash is not applicable.
Solder resist does not Melt it cures.
As a board supplier I would not want my clients to adapt if they are receiving crap product, I would expect them to leave.
(http://www.smtnet.com/Forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=1&Message_ID=60271)
Date:
November 03, 2009 12:49 AM
Author:
Manuel
Subject: defects in pcb manufacturing
Davef, you really make me laugh!!! pretty funny sarcastic way to represent the typical supplier response...
If we could have a "The things (Top 10) that you will hear about your PCB supplier"
(http://www.smtnet.com/Forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=1&Message_ID=60273)
Date:
November 03, 2009 06:23 AM
Author:
Josh
Subject: defects in pcb manufacturing
Has anyone ever done a tape test to see if the solder resist pulls away from the PCB? Is this an acceptable method for testing solder resist acceptability?
This is an issue I am experiencing with our PCBs. I am receiving boards with excess solder on the fiducials. I'm sure this is from the HASL process, but is there an IPC spec for the height of the HASL finish on the fids?
Attachments:
(http://www.smtnet.com/Forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=1&Message_ID=60276)
Date:
November 03, 2009 06:09 PM
Author:
BLT Circuit Services Ltd
Subject: defects in pcb manufacturing
I think most have summed up the first pictures also is the drillng looking like it is misregistered as well.
Better to do a solvent test to determine resist cure not the old stuff the newer chemicals show under cure problem much better. Try your stencil cleaning solvent if its decent material then it will remove undercured residue's, this is still a big problem to the assembly industry
HASL not flat anyway so go to ENIG or similar for flatness and long term reliability
cheers
greg
blt
(http://www.smtnet.com/Forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=1&Message_ID=60288)
Date:
November 03, 2009 08:00 PM
Author:
davef
Subject: defects in pcb manufacturing
Solder Mask Adhesion Pull Test Tape List
IPC-TM-650 Test Method 2.4.28.1, Adhesion, Solder Resist (Mask), Tape Test Method, defines the procedure for determining the adhesion of solder resists (masks) used over melting metals, (such as solder plated and reflowed solder printed boards both prior to and after soldering), nonmelting metals, and printed board substrates.
The test method requires a roll of pressure sensitive self-adhesive film tape 1.3 cm [0.5 in] wide exhibiting an adhesive strength of at least 44 N/100 mm [40 oz-force/in] but no more than 66 N/100 mm [60 oz-force/in] as tested per ASTM D3330. This web page provides a non-comprehensive list of tapes meeting this requirement.
This list is dynamic and IPC recognizes that other applicable tape brands may exist and will be included as IPC is notified. None of the brands listed below are endorsed by IPC.
If you are familiar with another tape brand that meets these requirements, IPC encourages your input. Please provide your name, e-mail address, and company name when providing a written e-mail to JohnPerry@ipc.org . When providing information on an applicable tape brand, please include the company website (if available) in addition to the brand name.
Brand Name||Brand Web Site||Adhesive Strength
3M Scotch 600||http://www.3m.com||44 N/100 mm [40 oz-force/in]
3M Scotch 371||http://www.3m.com||44 N/100 mm [40 oz-force/in]
3M Polyester Film Tape 853||http://www.3m.com||52 N/100 mm [48 oz-force/in]
(http://www.smtnet.com/Forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=1&Message_ID=60290)
Date:
November 03, 2009 11:00 PM
Author:
davef
Subject: defects in pcb manufacturing
Thank you, Manuel
(http://www.smtnet.com/Forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=1&Message_ID=60292)
