SMT007 Magazine


Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 38 of 121

September 2016 • SMT Magazine 39 the same board layout and components from the prior study. Many potential factors for in- clusion in the DOE were considered. The fac- tors chosen for consideration are described in Table 1. Each test vehicle consisted of a PCB with each of the package types attached (quan- tities of each described below). There were four "flavors" of boards for the four combi- nations of pad size/board finish. Each as- sembler was provided with two replicants of each board type, for a total of eight test ve- hicles. An assembled test vehicle is shown in Figure 3. Component Packages The components used in this study are summarized on Table 2. Measurements of the length and height of the solderable termina- tions were measured as illustrated in Figures 1 or 2 below, for leaded and chip devices respec- tively. Figure 3: Photograph of an assembled test vehicle. Figure 1: Termination height and length measurements for leaded devices. Figure 2: Termination height and length measurement for chip devices. MITIGATION OF PURE TIN RISK BY TIN-LEAD SMT REFLOW

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of SMT007 Magazine - SMT-Sept2016