Comparison of Ionic Contamination Test Methods To Determine Their Ability To Reliably Predict Performance RisksAuthors: Phil Isaacs, Jennifer Porto, Dave Braun and Terry Munson
Company: IBM Corporation and Foresite, Inc.
Date Published: 2/6/2017 Conference: Pan Pacific Symposium
One alternative method is Resistivity of Solvent Extract, ROSE,1 testing. This method is primarily aimed at product which has gone through a cleaning process just prior to the test. However, in printed circuit board assemblies, PCBAs, there has been a shift from water wash fluxes followed by cleaning, to a process that utilizes no-clean flux with no cleaning. If ROSE testing is used in conjunction with noclean flux, it often will lead to false fails, because no-clean fluxes are known to contain ionic residues.
Another more recent test is the Critical Cleanliness Control, C3,2 test, which is designed to test specific regions on a PCBA that may be prone to ionic contamination related failures. In this paper, a direct comparison will be made between ROSE testing, SIR testing and C3 testing. The test results will be augmented by a detailed visual inspection, Ion Chromatography, IC, testing, and other tests, as required.
No-clean, Flux, Process, Fails, SIR, ROSE, C3 and IC
Members download articles for free:
Not a member yet?
What else do you get when you join SMTA? Read about all of the benefits that go along with membership.
Notice: Sharing of articles is restricted to just your immediate work group. Downloaded papers should not be stored on an external network or shared on the internet.