IPC Plating Sub-committee 4-14: Surface Finish Specifications


Reading time ( words)

IPC specifications are reference documents to be called out by designers and OEMs. Designers may take exception with one or more items in the specification to ensure that the product meets the requirements of its intended use. The acronym AAUBUS (as agreed upon between user and supplier) is part of any specification.

Specifications are consensus documents. They are agreed upon by a panel of interested industry participants composed of suppliers, manufacturers, assembly houses (CMs) and end-users. The IPC Plating Sub-committee 4-14 is no exception.

When there is consensus, the committee documents it in a specification. In cases where no consensus is readily arrived at, the committee undergoes its own testing in what is commonly referred to as a round-robin (RR) study. In an RR investigation, an agreed-upon test vehicle (TV) is designed and manufactured. TVs are then sent around to the different suppliers who deposit the agreed upon thicknesses to be investigated.  The TVs are collected and the deposit thicknesses are verified and documented. The TVs are then coded. The TVs are sent around again to the different testing sites that test for the desired attribute like soldering, contacting and wire bonding capabilities of different finish thicknesses. The data is then collected, sorted out and documented. At this point, a new attempt at consensus is made and upon arrival, the thickness specification is set.

A draft is prepared after consensus is complete. The draft is then posted for peer review. Any IPC member can review the document and suggest technical or editorial changes. All comments are then reviewed and all issues resolved before the final draft is issued. At this time the IPC takes on the task of publishing the document in its final format.

The IPC Plating Sub-committee 4-14 has been active since 2001. It is co-chaired by me and Gerard O’Brien of ST and S Group. The IPC liaison is Tom Newton. The sub-committee has an extensive member list composed of OEMs, contract assemblers, board manufacturers, and chemical suppliers, as well as labs and consultants.

To read this entire article, which appeared in the April issue of The PCB Design Magazine, click here.

Share


Suggested Items

Who Really Owns the PCB Layout? Part 2

02/07/2018 | Paul Taubman, Nine Dot Connects
In Part 1 of this series, Paul Taubman made the bold statement that the PCB layout is just as much a mechanical effort as it is an electrical one. In Part 2, he threads the needle, explaining why he believes that a PCB truly a mechatronic design, and why mechanical engineers may be more prepared to take on the PCB layout.

Thermal Management Update with Doug Brooks

01/22/2018 | Andy Shaughnessy, PCBDesign007
I had the opportunity to talk with our contributor Doug Brooks recently. He has been doing some research on temperature effects on PCB traces over the last few years, and I wanted to check the status of his latest thermal efforts. He discussed his work with Dr. Johannes Adam, why temperature charts based on a trace in isolation are inaccurate, and how the industry remained so wrong about PCB temperatures for so long.

Mike Jouppi Discusses his Drive for Better Thermal Data

01/12/2018 | Andy Shaughnessy, PCB Design007
If you mention thermal management in a group of PCB designers and design engineers, Mike Jouppi’s name usually pops up. Mike is an engineer and founder of the Thermal Management LLC consulting firm. He spent years updating IPC’s charts on current-carrying capacity, which had been unchanged since the 1950s. I recently caught up with Mike and asked him to give us his views on the state of thermal management, as well as the tools and standards related to thermal design.



Copyright © 2018 I-Connect007. All rights reserved.