cleaning and cleanliness test program phase 1 test results

IPC-TR-580 PUBLISHED OCTOBER 1989

CLEANING AND CLEANLINESS TEST PROGRAM PHASE 1 TEST RESULTS A joint program sponsored by the EPAIDODIIPC Ad Hoc Solvents

-- ;king ?:s:t;;. , h . ~ t5nch::;e: , -3~i i11g w a s performed !- * ' I zctronic Manufacturing Produstiv~ty Faciljty (EMPF) in Ridgecres~, LA; and the Naval Avionics Center (NAC) in Indianapolis.

Published by: IPC 7380 N. Lincoln Avenue Lincolnwood, IL 60646 PHONE: (3121 677-2850 FAX: (312) 677-9570

This report is published for informational purposes only. It is based on data voluntarily contributed by members of the IPC. The IPC disclaims all liability of any kind for the use, application, or adaptation of the material published in ihis document.

0 IPC 1989 Published October 1889 1 K

Cleaning and Cleanliness Test Program

Phase I Test Results

FINAL D R A F T

Resu l ts o f t h e B e n c h m a r k Test ing P r o g r a m

f o r Evaluat ing Cleanl iness Capab i l i t y o f CFC-113

A joint program sponsored by the E?A'A:DODilPC Ad Hoc Solvents working group. The Senchmirk testing was performed by the Electronic Manufacturing Productivity Facility (EIV1PF) in Ridgecrest, CA, and the Naval Avionics Center (NAC) in Indianapolis.

Abs t rac t

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) have been used widely in the electronics indusiry throughout the years, but have come under tremendous scrutiny lately as the prime culprit in sireiospheric ozone depleiion. A joint Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Defense (DOD), and the lnstituie for Interconnecting and Packaging Electronic Circuits (IPC) test program was developed to evaluate alternatives which reduce the level of CFCs used in electronics manufacturing cleaning processes. The results of the test program's first phase are presented.

Acknow ledgemen t

The industry owes thanks to the following individuals who helped to write the final report:

Doug Pauls, NAC Kathy Johnson, Hexacon Phil Wittmer, Magnavox Heather Getty, Honeywell (Formally EMPF) David Bergman, IPC Robin Sellers, NAC Tim Crawford, EMPF

Contents

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 1 Backgroundllntroduction and Objectives 1

............................. Section 2 Test Program Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 3 Conclusions and Recommendations 9

............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 4 Statistical Analysis .. 13

................................................................... Section 5 Ionic Testing 18

......................................................... Section 6 Residual Rosin Testing 20

................................... Section 7 Surface Insulation Resistance Testing 25

................... ........... Section 8 HPLC Testing for Organic Residues ... 33

Section 9 Other Work .......................................................................... 39

................................................................ Component Lift Off Procedure 39

.................................... Residual Rosin Test Optimization Experiments 39

............................................................... Visual Inspection/Photography 40

Extended Surface Insulation Resistance Test ....................................... 41

Boxplots ..................................................................................................... 41

....................... ................. ........ Section 10 Phase 2 and 3 Testing .. ...... 56

.......................................................................... Section 11 Boxplots 57

.......................................................................... Section 12 Ap~cnd ix 73

12.1 References ...................................................................................... 73

12.2 Bibliography ............................................................................... 73

...................................................... 12.3 Residual Rosin Test Procedure 73

.................. 12.4 Analysis by HPLC of PWB Residues after Defluxing 74

.......................... 12.5 Test Procedure for IPC-B-36 ContinuityIShorts 75

....................................................................... 12.6 SIR Test Procedure 75

............................................................ 12.7 Equipment List EMPFINAC 79

................................ 12.8 Process SimilaritieslDifferences EMPFlNAC 80

12.9 . ~emperature Profiles Vapor Phase and Wave Solder ................... 82

................................................................ 12.10 Materials Analysis. NAC 84

12.1 1 March 30. 1989 Test Program ................................................. 85

Section 1

Background/lntroduction and Objectives B a c k g r o u n d

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) have been iden- :died as the major contributor io the global environmental problem of stratospheric ozone depletion. According to the ozone depletion theory and scientific evidence, fully halogenaied CFCs and halons are building up in ;he troposphere and slo\vly migrating to the stratosphere, where photodecomposition of the CFC molecules releases chlorine. This chlorine then catalytically converts ozone to molecular oxygen in a set of reactions which result in the destruction of approximately 100,000 molecules of ozone for every mole- cule of CFC. It is estimated that for each 1 % depletion in the ozone layer, there will be an 1.5 to 2.0% increase in ultraviolet radiation at the earth's surface. According to the EPA, the global impact of ozone depletion will be observed by several changes (Reference 1): increase in the incidence of skin cancers; suppression of the human immune response system; increase in incidence of cataracts;

September 1987. Countries continue to sign and ratify the accord. The Protocol defines elght speclfic ozone-depleting materials (sep- irated into two groups), and a control sched- ule for reducing the use of these materials. The current timetable is listed in Table 1. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed the domestic regulations necessary for tae 'Jnited States to meet the Mont- real Protocol.

Ozone depletion is a critical concern. Simula- tions predicting the ozone levels over the next hundred years now indicate that even with complete compliance to the Montreal Proto- col, the ozone level will continue to decrease. The EPA has stated in their report, Future Concentrations of Stratospheric Chlorine and Bromine, that because of long atmospheric residence times and transport delays to the stratosphere, stratospheric chlorine levels \vould continue to grow for about six to eight years even if emissions were totally eliminated.

damage to crops; damage to aquatic organ- As a result of these recent scientific studies isms; increases in ground level ozone; and and projections, additional controls on a11 increased global warming. ozone depleting compounds may be neces- Due to the global impact of stratospheric sary to stabilize ozone levels. The EPA has ozone depletion, the Montreal Protocol on issued a number of notices with regards to Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer possible changes in the scope, timetable, was formulated an3 signed by 24 naiiocs on and siringerlcy of regulations related io the

Table 1 Montreal Protocol Provision Summary and Timetable

CFC issue. An Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), Federal Register, 12 August 1988 contained the fo!lo\ving state- ment: "EPA expressly does not view shifting away from CFC-1 13 to other chlorinated solvents, which are currently under regulatory scrutiny by EPA, as an acceptable solution to protecting the ozone layer." In addition, the EPA is currently evaluating the possibility of regulating, l,l, 1 -trichloroethane and carbon tetrachloribe.

Group I Fully Halogenated (CFCs)

CFC - 11 (CFCI,)

CFC - 12 (FC2C12)

CFC - 1 13 (C2F3C13)

CFC - 1 14 (C2C12F,)

CFC - 1 15 (C2CIF5)

Entry into Force - 1 January 1989

Group I - Fully Halogenated CFCs 1 July 1989 - Freeze at 1986 production

levels 1 July 1993 - 20% Reduction of 1986

production levels 1 July 1998 - 50% Reduction of 1986

production levels

I n t r o d u c t i o n a n d Ob jec t i ves

Group II Halons

Halon - 121 1 (FC,BrCI)

Halon - 1301 (FC,Br)

Ealon - 2402 (C2F,Br2)

Group Il - Halons 1 February 1992 - Freeze at 1986

production levels

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) have been used by the electronics industry for many years. CFC-113 and it's azeotropeslblends have been the solvent of choice because of their stability, relatively low toxicity, and their ability to remove contamination with little or no post -c leaning deposi t ion o f residues. Although eight chemicals are controlled by the Montreal Protocol, CFC-113 is the chemical that has the greatest impact on the electronics industry. In 1986, the cleaning of printed wiring assemblies (PWAs) accounted for the consumption of approximately 35% of the total 150 million pounds of CFC-1 13 produced in the United States.

Trade controls All CFC and halon bulk imports will be banned on 1 January 1990. All CFC and halon exports will be banned 7 .January 1993. All listed products containing CFCs and haloos'will be banned w~thin 3 years of entry into force (1 January 1992). A ban is being considered for products made with, but not containing, CFCs and halons w~thin 5 years of entry into force (1 January 1994).

The Ad H o c So lven ts W o r k i n g

G r o u p ' s C l e a n i n g a n d Cleanl iness

Tes t P r o g r a m

In March 1988, Dr. Stephen Andersen, Chief of the Technology and Economics Branch, Global Change Division, EPA, and a group of industry and military representatives formed the Ad Hoc Solvents \Working Group. The purpose of this initial meeting was to determine a method for evaluating alternative cleaning materials and for implementing these alternatives into manufacturing facilities as quickly as possible. A comprehensive test program was needed to evaluate the performance of new cleaning materials and processes., It was also considered important to examine the environmental, health, and safety issues associated with alternative materials. eo able 2 lists the various groups represented on the Ad Hoc Solvents Working Group.

Current military specifications were identified as one of the major stumbling blocks to the acceptance of alternative cleaning materials.

Table 2 Ad Hoc Solvents Working Group Participants

solvent/Alternative Chemical Producers Defense Contractors (cont.)

Advanced Chemical Technology IBM Allied.Signal Litton Alpha Metals Lockheed ByPas of Toledo Magnavox Chem-Tech International Martin Marietta Dow Chemical h/lotorola Dubois Chemicals Mc Donnell Aircraft Du Pont Raytheon E nvirosolv Sunstrand ~.

GAF Chemical Texas Instruments Hurri-Kleen Corp. ICI Chemicals Commercial Equipment Manufacturers

Kester Solder Apple Computer London Chemical AT&T . .

Martin Marietta Labs Delco : -.%:: Mirachem Digital Equipment Orange-Sol Inc. Ericsson Pennwalt Corp. Telecom Petroferm Ford Unitech International Northern Telecom Van Waters & Rogers

Government AgencieslOther FluxlEquiprnent Manufacturers DESC "--:-' Alpha Metals DoD Baron Blakeslee EPA Georgia Institute of Technology Branson International Conservation Center Detrex Foundation (ICF) Electronic Controls Design NASA Electrovert Naval \'deapons Support Center - Crane Exxon Chemical Navy - Electronics Manufacturing Forward Technologies Productivity Facility (EMPF) Gram Corporation Navy - Naval Avionics Center (NAC) Hollis Automation Robisan Laboratories Kester Solder Sandia National Laboratories London Chemical Underwriters Laboratories Stoelting U.S. Army Unique Industries U.S. Air Force

Defense Contractors Industry Associations

Boeinr; Insti!c:e :n; !r:9.:: .- -: -* . .":g and Gens:../ C:;,,-,a;:>;.-s ..,-.,.... . .. - .. . . . -, . . , cui:s ;!?C;) Gene:al Eiectric i.!zlcc;ina;e; Sohen: I ~ I ~ J s : ! ~ Association Grumman Aerospace (HSIA) Honeywell Hughes Aircraft

Military specifications limit the type of cleaning ma:?rials allowed in the manufacture of Depar~ment of Defense IDOD) printed wir~ng assemb:;es, and historically the amount of time required to modify specifications has been long. In addition, because of their accessibility and visibility, military specifica- tionsin many cases, are considered industry standards and can drive the commercial market. For these reasons, it was the consensus of the Ad Hoc Solvents Working Group to plan a research project which would receive both the military's apprwal and participation.

Early in the planning stages, a briefing was held at the Pentagon to inform military representatives regarding the Ad Hoc Solvents Working Group's plans. The military con-

curred with ;he plan and promiszd to be ence 2 ) Deputy Assist~nt Secretary of :esponsi\e wi,zn t h s time came to modify Defense (Environment) Parker pledged the appropriale specifications. At ibis meet- prompt acceptance of neiv cleaning pro- ing, Dr. Donald Fox, Office of rhe Secretary cesses at a United Nations Environment Pro- of Defense, said that if the use of alternatives gram meeting at the Hague. and substitutes for CFC-113 provided equal or better performance characteristics, and at the same time, protected the environment, then it was an all-win situation which can expect the complete support of DOD.

In a letter dated 18 May 1988, Mr. Peter Yur- cisin, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Production and Logistics, Director Standardization and Data Management, stated that his office would "serve as a clear- ing house for DOD and military service review a ~ i : w,i[ be the con:sr,t point fc. formal acceptance of the final plan." (Refer-

Section 2

Test Program Details The Ad Hoc Solvenls LVork~ng Group developed a three-phase program. Each phase is outlined belo\\!.

Phase 1: Benchmark Testing

a. The actual benchmark test was preceded by a dry run or screening lest to correct procedural problems prior to the benchmark.

b. The cleaning of standard printed board assemblies us ing an exist ing ni tro- methane stabilized CFC-113lmethanol azeotrope to establish benchmark reference values.

c. Announcement of benchmark test results

Phase 2: Limited Alternative Cleaning Media Evaluation

a. Selection of a limited number of test facilities

b. Selection of alternative cleaning media

c. Duplication of the entire benchmark assembly process except for the cleaning medium, cleaning process and process equipment

d. Cleaning of standard printed board assemblies using the selected alternative cleaning media for comparison w i th benchrna: k

Phase 3: Alternative Technology Testing

a. Review of benchmark results and limited alternative cleaning evaluation

b. Modification of the test plan if required

c. Determination of the mixture of fabrication, assembly process, cleaning materials, and cleaning processes for evaluation to reduce variables for test

d. Evaluate the capability of alternative fluxes, soldering processes,.fusing processes, etc.

B e n c h m a r k A p p r o a c h

To characterize the performance of new alternative cleaning materials and processes,

it was riecessary to establish the performance of an existing CFC-based cleaning material as a benchmark data set. This benchmark data set will be used for comparison to the alternative cleaning materials and processes. Each new cleaning process must have results which equal or improve the benchmark test results.

An industry standard test assembly (IPC-B- 36) was designed to generate data evaluating both through-hole and surface mount technologies. A photo of the test board is shown in Figure 1. The board was config- ured on 0.060-inch thick FR-4 laminate, with - - overall dimensions of 4 inches by 4 inches. The board was divided into four quadrants. Via holes were included (Figure 2) on all four quadrants l o allow the flux to flow up underneath the components during wave soldering thus simulating current through-hole technology. The via holes on quadrants C and D were linked together in a daisy chain pattern to obtain surface insulation resistance (SIR) data indicative of a cleaning materiallprocess for through-hole technology. The quadrants A and B, representing surface mount tech- noiocv cleaning challenges, have pairs of SI3 con~uc:or lines (of equal lerlgth) inside and outside of the component land areas. Comb patterns were centrally located in each of the four quadrants. The comb patterns were iniended to obtain SIR data underneath the components if the quadrant ivas assembled.

For Phase 1 testing, quad ran;^ A and D \ritere populaied for process sequences C and D. These processing sequences will be discussed later. The components used in Phase 1 were 68-pin leadless ceramic chip carriers (without internal circuitry), 0.050-inch pitch, (Figure 3). Guard traces were added to the test board design to minimize leakage currents between different test points during electrical measurements. A fixed standoff was incorporated into the board design. This standoff consisted of a copper land (0.060- inch diameter) and a solder mask dot (0.040-inch diameter). The total height of the copper land and the solder mask was' 0.005-inch.

Ionic cleanliness, residual rosin, and SIR Figure 1

Figure 2

tests were required for Phase 1 of the pro- oram. T5e ia-,:; .,,.,-./~.-.~cs :;::t \,>,:$ y:~: :3

determine quafi:::a~i~~aly the ir;.~ount o i issic'- ual ionic contamination on the test assembly after each assembly sequence. Quantifying the amount of rosin remaining on the test assembly after each assembly sequence was done with the residual rosin test. The SIR test rvas very complex. A voltage was appl~ed to two conductiie traces that were closely spaced. The SIR value obtained related to the current leakage between the conductive traces. Ten measurements were required for each 'test assembly. These ten measurements corresponded to the different traces on each board.

Assembb materials (flux and solder paste) were selected to provide higher than normal levels of contamination on the test assembb allowing a discrimination of marginal processes would be easier to determine. Rosin Activated (RA) flux and RA solder paste were used. It was felt that residues from RA' flux. would be easier to detect fcr.pecialh/ during ionic testing) than RMA flux. Other assembk

processes were selected, not necesssrily as The b ~ s ! ?:ocsss, !;;t ss: :he e?slcs: :CI c?r'- trol and reproduce. it is aniici;;s:e3 :hat this test process will be duplicated many times and therefore consistency of process was a primary concern.

Test M o n i t o r i n g a n d Validation Team

(TMVTI

A Test Ii4onitoring and Validation Team (TMVT) was estsblished to attend some portion of the testing and validate test results. Table 3 lists the members of the TMVT. This TMVT becomes especially important i n Phase 2 when multiple test sites are allowed. A minimum of five members (one from each major group) is required for obser~t ion of testing.

Phase 1

The Electronics Manufacturing Productivity Facility (EMPF) in Ridgecrest, California was selected as the primary test site for !he Phase 1 testing. The EMPF is a Kaiy facrllty

Ihat performs research in elec:ronics K i n u -

facturing ma:erials and process conlro!s.

Another Navy facil~ty, lhe Naval Avionic Cin- ter (NAC) \zfas selected to repeat the benchmark testing using the same processes but different equipment. NAC is a multi-faceted research, development, design, pilot manufacturing, and acquis~tion complex, located in Indianapolis, Indiana.

All of the materials required to perform these tests were donated. The support from ~ndus- try to ~0n t r rb~ te to, and participate in, lhe research effort to identrfy viable CFC al;erna- tives was outstanding. Table 4 is a list of the ma?eGals, their providers, andlor support. The TMVTs for EMPF and NAC are shown in Table 5.

In addition, Table 6 shows the name of the representatives of EMPF and NAC that spent a great deal of effort to ensure the success of iKe~enchmark test program.

The success of Phase 1 is a result of sub- stantial effort in the process development stage of the test program. During this stage of the investigation:

- The assembly and test process parameters were established.

- The methods for monitoring, recording, and analyzing each of the process parameters were determined.

- The reproducibility of the process was evaluated.

- Th.2 time associz'ec! \vi:A ~ a ~ h step in the process was iCir,:.i;?j anc ;;,e overall tkn- ing of the process was determined.

~hese'efforts resulted in increased detail in the Cleaning and Cleanliness Test Program; detailed process instructions and tracking of each test board; and a minimization of the allowable eolripment, material, and process differences between lest sites.

Phase 1 testing inw!iled the controlled manufacture of standard assemblies and testing of those assemblies for one of the following: ionic cleanliness, residual rosin, surface insulation resistance, or residual organics. The test followed the flowchart in Figure 4A. All the boards, components, and SIR cabling and connectors were prepared by cleaning and drying to a base-line cleanliness measured by an Omegameter 6OOSMD. The assemblies were then divided and desig- nated for one of the five assembly sequences (A, B1, 82, C, or Dl. Figures 4A and 48 sur;xari:e the processing steps for each assembly sequence.

Assembly sequence A was included 2s a control. For the control test, the unpopulated lest board was not exposed 10 any paste, flux, solder~ng, or post solder cleaning operation. Data was obtained for ionic contamina!ion, residual rosin, and SIR to characterize the initial condition of the test assemblies after bake and pre-cleaning processes only. Assembly sequence B, or the maximum flux test, was composed of two parts labelled B- 1 and B-2. This test provided data for the worst-case scenario-no cleaning. Test assemblies were prepared using solder paste

, . and vapor phase reflow alone for B-1, and paste and vapor phase reflow followed by flux and wave soldering for 8-2. Sequences A and B provided the two extremes, best and worst cases for the benchmark test process. The assembly sequence for C used populated test assemblies, vapor phase

... reflow, and cleaning with a batch vapor degreaser. Test data was collected for ionic contamination, residual rosin, and SIR. Test assemblies for sequence D were prepared csing both vapor phase reflow and wave soldering processes. Both test facilities (EMPF and NAC) ran the test twice in order to determine run to run variation.

Table 3 Test Monitoring and Validation Team

During the development of the test plan, there was much discussion concerning the inclusion of a visual examination as part of

Chairman - Leslie Guth, AT&T Military Contractors

Industry Liaison - David Bergman, /PC Boe~ng - Ron Janolt 161d - Phil Schuessler

EPA Liaison - Stephen Andersen/ Honey\vell - Heather Geny Denise Mauzerall Magnavox - Phil W~nmer

Texas Instruments - Joe Feky U. L. Liaison - Harlan Bratvold

Supplier Representation- Service Representation Chemicals

Army - Carl Buchanan Allied - Kirk Bonner Air Force - Luke Lorang Alpha - Al Schneider Navy - EMPF - Tim Crawfordl DuPont - Bill Kenyon

Danny Thomas ICI - David Hey Navy - NAC - Robin Sellers London Chemical - Alan Wang NASA - Dick Weinstein Petroferm - Mike Hayes OASD - Art Vance

Equipment Commercial Manufacturers BBI - Carl Koenig

ATBT - Leslie Guth Detrex - Don Gerard Ford - Peter Sinkunas ECD - Steve Glass Northern Telecorn - Dick Szyrnanowski Electrovert - Don Elliot

Hexacon Electric - Kathi Johnson Unique Industries - Art Gillman

Figure 3

Another !est that was not formally included in the tesi plan was tiigh PeArformance ?iq::id Chromatography (HPLC) (see Section 8). This test method is being deveioped to further characterize residues remaining on the test assembly which could not be detected

the Phase 1 test and criteria. It was decided to perform some visual t?xmination of the from each process sequence \,,,as inspected, test assemblies, but not to include visual pt-,otographe3, diszssemb~ed, and phoio- tests or criteria as part of the test plan. For again. Phase 1 testing a representative assembly

or characterized by the other test methods included in the test plan. The HPLC test is not a formal requirement for Phase 2 of the test program but it is being considered as a requirement for Phase 3 (see Section 10).

Although Phase 2 test sites are not required to perform the HPLC test, Phase 2 test sites are required to submit the appropriate number of assemblies to the TMVT for HPLC testing at a separate test facility.

In order to standardize the format for the results, a data analysis plan was prepared. This plan included a format for how the data should be collected, what analysis of the data was required, and how the results should be formatted and plotted. A sample size of five test assemblies was used for each assembly sequence and test. For each

Table 4 Donated Materials and Suppor t

Company Kes:er Solder DuPon!

MateriallSuppOr~

- - . - .

Name

Solder Pasle

Slrm~eler Thermotron Humid~ty Chamber

Relio,\, Flurd

CFC Test Board Design Leslie Gulh Bill Kenyon Bill Grotl

/ Fl.,x I Gen1.s Berncer

I ~ n l v ~ n t 1 6111 Kenyon Norbert Soco!ov:sk~ 1 Alpha I4eials

Stencil Frame Rigsby Screen and Stencil A l ~ h a Metals 1

Oneoameier StdD600 I Dlck Csrpenter ] Alpha h4e:als Jerry Shultz Greg t~',tlier Joe Roihenbach

Joe Ro;henbach Greg h4iIler Ed Nenic

'i~m Sullivan Joe B:own

Jan Rigsby Norbert Socolowski

Design Aulomation

Texas Instruments

DuPont Du Pont

Alpha h4etals

Alpha Metals

314

Stencil I Ron Janon

( ~ ie ler Bergman I IPC

CFC Test Board Layout and Art- 1 Joe Fehy I Texas Instruments

6oeing Electronics

CFC Test Boards r - tdurray Brox Art Fitzgerald Dennis McCullouch Rick South

Northern Teiecom

Engineering Labor I

~o,rnponents

Ribbon Cable and Shield

catch Vspor Degressing System Maintenance

Solder Pes!e Screen

- - - -- -- h4.O.L.F

Ray Prasad Jack Mch'lahon

Jim Amesworth

Wendy Herb Charles Brooks

Ernie Lowe Barry Marcellus

Board Inspection

Inid

Gore AMP, Inc.

Norihern Telecorn

Carl Koenig Art Gillman I Baron-Blskeslee

Uniaue Industries Chuck Idart~nez 1 Unlque Industries Bob hJ~at!so~ 1 1 1 - 1 1 ~ ~e ~iesner Arl G~Ilr,z~> 1 ,... ,.,--, - .?~.ieS - . -. . . -. -- -. --. .. . . . . - - .- - -- -- -. . . . -, - . . . Steve C-iiss I L \: L> - - David Seraman Susan Mansilla 1 r&!san ~ a b s 1

Process Checklists ( Philip Schuessler ( IBM

Tes! Program Coordination 1 David Bergman I IPC

Funding

SIR Test Support

---

Paste Application

Residual Rosin

SIR

Stephen Andersen Maria Tickoff George Brunner

Bill Grofl Emery Gorondy --

Process Development Support I

E PA E PA DESC DuPont DuPo~t

TI4VT Cnairman 1 Leslie Guih -- ti?LC Testing I Heather Geny Data Anabsis Software 1 Phil \%rimer

Norb Socdowski Art Reishcer L w Nobel Don Bobis

ATGT .-

tionep~vell

Maanamx

Alpha Metals Alpha Metals Alpha Metals Microtech Sales

Table 5 Test Monitor ing and Validation Team

Phil W~ttmer Beth Boomer Emery Gorwdy Jim Maguire Lee Stauff er Bill Grotl John Jaeger Leslie Gulh Bill Grotl

EMPF

Lt. Luke Lorang, USAFiRADC Harlan Bratvold, U.L. Inc. VJ.G. Kenyon, DuPont Robin Sellers, NAC K ~ r k Bonner, Allied-Signal Carl Koenig. Earon Blakeslee Joe Felty, T.I. Steve Glass, ECD David Hey, ICI Heather Getty, Honeywell Inc. Leslie Guth, ATBT David Bergman, IPC

NAC

Kathi Johnson, EMPF David Bergman, IPC Phil Wittmer, Magnavox Pete Sinkunas, Ford Norbert Socolowski, Alpha Metals William Kenyon, DuPont Kirk Bonner, Allied-Signal Harlan Bratvold, UL Paul Shapiro, EPA

Magnavox Magnavox

Du Pont Boeing Keithhy Du Pmt Keithby AT &T

DuPo?t

A through D assembly sequence run, a min-

imum of 99 test assemblies were required. Table 7 provides a breakdown of test assembly quantities needed for each test.

Since both Phase 1 test facilities (EMPF and

NAC) ran the complete test twice, a duplicate set of the test boards and components was

required for each test site.

The specific requiremen~s of the test pro-

gram are included in the IPC publication , , r t L . e s n i n o a n d Cle;n l in~:ss T e s t i n g

i.:rcz >:K-A doin 11-~5.~::: f i i . ,'EPA Fia- g:am to Evaluate Alterna~ivss ;a Chloroiluo-

rocarbons (CFCs) For Printed Board Assem- bly Cleaning," dated 3 0 March 1989.

Section 12 contains much of the details of

the test program. Section 12.7 contains the equ;prnent used by EIdPF and NAC. Section 12.8 contains process simi!arity;differences.

Section 12 .9 contains profiles from the

vapor phase and wave solder processes. Section 12.10 contains the materials analy-

sis performed at NAC. Section 12.1 1 contains the 30 March 1989 Benchmark Test - Plan.

Table 6 Internal Support for Phase 1 Testing

EMPF

Edw~na Baker Lee Eddy Karen Lowham Trm Scott

Jerry Corona Ham~d Farsad Ken Lundqurst Pat Shea

Trm Crawiord John Guy Shelly Lundqulst Alan Sm~th

Cammre Cromwell Errc Harlow Rhonda Makowskr Danny Thomas

Les Dalton Jams Hill Barbard McManls Vlrgrn~a Wagner

Molly Demeo Jeann~ne Kelly Eric Noonan

Carmen Dossey Steve Lavender John Paul

Peter Dowty Kyle Leckey Chr~st~ne P~per

Bobbl Dunfee Leo Loth Dave Rub~r~rc NAC

Ron Alexander Edward Fyrnys L~nda Luber Gordon Morris F. Eugene Spahr

Ed Arvin Fred Gahimer Susan Mansilla Vicki Murphy Mel~nda Stam

Barbara Belt Teresa Gardner Ella Mars Ed Ostack Daniel Stevens

Timothy Berg Malcom Griner K. Ray Martin Everett Padgett Peggy Wheeler

T~mothy Bowren Robert Groenert Man Matl~k Douglas Pauls Jerry Wllson

James Brack - Dusty Larry McElroy Melissa P~rtle Richard W~nslow ----. - Hemmings -

Robert Burgette Albert Jewel Ernest McGraw Peggy Plymate Donald Young

Candace Carter Earl Johnson James Moffltt Linda Redenbarger

Randy Cook Jerry Laswell Hugh Monaghan G~rald Rhoades

I. PRE-TEST PREPARATION

S t l l A L I Z I INSPtCllDN

VAPOR DfGRLAStD CkRl lNG COh'tlLClORS.

S Y S T t M D 11. FLOW PLAN

~ 1 : ~ ~ ~ # ~ l v A p o R AND I I~S~CCI P N A ~ ~ ] "9 B

111.TEST SERIES

- I: IONIC CONTAMINATION

: 2: SIR (168 HR.8YB5, SOVBIAS. 100VTEST) :

3: ROSIN TLST BY UVNlS

4: HONEYWELLlORGANlCS BY HPLC -

Figure 4A Alternate cleaning solvents benchmark

I Phase 1 (Benchmark) Overview 1 A - Control

Pre-clean, NO flux or paste, test

B1 - Maximum Solderpaste Flux Pre-clean, solderpaste, vapor phase solder (VPS), test

B2 - Maximum Paste & Wave Flux Pre-clean, solderpaste, VPS, wavesolder, test

C - VPS Benchmark Pre-clean, solderpaste, VPS, clean, test

D - VPSIWave Benchmark Pre-clean, solderpaste, VPS, clean, wavesolder, clean, test

1 .- - 1 Figure 4 8

Table 7 Test Assembly Requirements

Process tonics Res. Rosin SIR Photos HPLC

A 5 5 5 1 3

B1 3 5 5 1 3 82 3 5 5 1 3

C 5 5 5 1 3

D 5 5 5 1 3

Total =

- Ex::zs

Total

19

17

17

19

19

8 1

+ 1 ,;

Number of components required = (2x19) + (2x19) + (2x14) = 104

Section 3

Conclusions and Recommendations The Cleaning and Cleanliness Test Program has moved forward at an amazing pace. The development of Phase 1 began in March 1988 and Phase 1 testing was completed by March 1989. It is an understatement to say that it has been exciting to see so many peo- ple, with such diverse backgrounds, join together to participate in the program development and execution.

Phase 1 (Benchmark Test) is only the first step in addressing the performance required from a CFC alternative cleaning material or process. The result of this program will be a set o f clearly defined cleaning material requirements and cleaning material test methods. In addition, the approval cycle for modifying military specifications regarding PNA cleaning materialslprocesses will be defined.

C o n c l u s i o n s

The A d Hoc Solvents Working Group and the Test Monitoring and Validation Team offer the following summary of conclusions and recommendations derived from the Phase 1 testing performed at the Electronics Manu- facturing Productivity Facility (EMPF) and at Naval Avionics Center (NAC)

1. The test results define CFC-1 13's ability to clean a standard assembly which had been manufactured using specific materials and processes.

2. The ionic cleanliness and residual rosin test were able to discriminate "clean" and "dirty" boards. The surface insulation resistance test was not able to distinguish "clean" from "dirty" using the paste/fluxlcleaning agent combination in Phase 1.

3. Although every effort was taken to make the four Phase 1 test runs identical, a number of differences in equipment and assembly processes were unavoidable. Since PWA cleanliness is dependent on the equipment and assernbty processes, none of the tests were fulty repeatable (evaluated using Tukey's test at an alpha of 0.05) between EMPF and NAC. In addition, a number of the tests were not repeatable between the two runs within each location. Possible contributing factors were:

- amount of paste s, ' F = UPPER LIMIT FOR VARIANCE - amount of flux \pishere, s, is the pooled sample-to-sample - flux application method variance derived from the Eenchmark data - vapor phase reflow equipment set. - vapor phase reflow prof~le

F IS der~ved from an F-d~str~butlon table and - cleanlng equipment solvent volume . -- IS dependent on the number of degrees of

- lam~nate type freedom assoclated w ~ t h the Benchmark

4 \lalues to be used In the evaluation of data set and w ~ t h the number of degrees alternat~va clean~ng mater~alsiprocesses of f reedom assoclated w ~ t h the alter- were derived a data set nate's data set. F values were obta~ned Included all of the test data from EMPF assumlng a two-ta~led d~strlbutlon with a and NAC, except for the very few data 0.99 confidence interval. points identified as outliers (using the out-

6. lonics and residual rosin: The criteria for lier criteria defined in another portion of

B1 and 82 will only be used for refer- this text).

ence. The criteria for A, C, and D will be . 5. The Benchmark criteria use the overal!_,_ used as requirements.

mean derived from the combined NAC . and EMPF data set. There are two criteria For an alternate materiallprocess t o be

which must be met by the alternate considered "as good as" the Bench-

material!process. The first criteria defines the allowable level of contamination. The second criteria defines the allowable variability of the alternate cleaning material1 process. The criteria will be expressed in the following format:

Level

The mean of the alternate will be evaluated re1a:ive to the fo l l cw in~ rance derived from ihe Benchmark da:a set:

- Sb x - t - = Lower Limit for Mean 6

- Sb x + t - = Upper Limit for Mean GI

where, Y is the overall mesn derived from the Benchmark data

t is derived from a Student's 1-table (at an alpha of 0.025) and is dependent on the number of degrees of freedom associated with the overall mean and sample-to- sample variance (s,).

n is the number of observations for the alternate data set.

s, is the square root of the pooled sample- to-sample variance

Var iab i l i ty

The variability of the alternate cleaning materialiprocess will be evaluated relative to the following:

mark, (1 ) the alternate's mathematical means for processes A, C, and D, will fall between the lower l imit and the upper limit for the mean o f the ionics and res idua l ros in t e s t ( l is ted o n enclosed tables); and (2) the alternate's sample-to-sample variance will be less than the Benchmark upper limit for variance. If the alternate's means are less than the lower limit, then the alternate nia;erialiprocess is considered "better than" the Benchmark. If the alternate's means are greater than the upper limit, then the alternate material/process is considered "worse than" the Bench- mark.

The Benchmark criteria are shown on the next two pages:

1

Required Benchmark Criteria: ("As Good As") Ionic Cleanliness Test (pgiin2)

I Process Sequence Lower Limit for Mean Benchmark Overall Mean Upper Limit for Mean Upper Limit lo r Variance

D 9.4 10.7 12.0 10.1 I Criteria t o be Used for Reference: lonic Cleanliness Test (pg/in2)

Process Sequence Lower Limit for Mean Benchmark Overall Mean Upper Limit for Mean Upper Limit for Variance

-

I Required Benchmark Criteria: ("As Good As") Residual Rosin Test (pgl

/ ~ e L e n c e Lower Limit for Mean Benchmark Overall Mean Upper Limit for Mean Upper Limit for Variance I

Criteria t o be Used for Reference: Residual Rosin Test (pg) I I Process Sequence Lower Limit for Mean Benchmark Overall Mean Upper Limit for Mean Upper Limit for Variance I

7. Surface insulation resistance: The criteria

for all processes wil l be used for refer-

ence only. The Benchmark criteria are as

follows.

Criteria t o be Used for Reference: Surface insulation Eesistar:za Test Lg - - q (OL-s/Square) ....- -- --

Test Poi~;:/Process Lower Limit for Mean Benchmark Overa!i Mean Upper Limit for Mean Upper Limit for Variance

Sequence

Criteria to be Used for Reference: Surface Insulation Resistance Test Loglo (OhmslSquare)

Test PointlProcess Lower Limit for Mean Benchmark Overall Mean Upper Limit for Mean Upper Limit for Variance Sequence

M3lD 12.01 8 13.118 14.218 7.59 1

M4/A 12.009 12.544 13.079 1.827

M4iB1 1 1.484 12.038 12.592 1.929

M4lB2 11.253 12.130 13.007 5.01 6

M4lC 11.926 12.401 12.876 1.416

M4lD 12.107 12.282 12.457 0.192

M 5/A 12.482 13.128 13.774 2.668

M 518 1 13.387 13.625 13.863 0.355

M 5/82 13.518 13.592 13.666 0.036

M 5lC 13.185 13.551 13.917 0.840

M 5lD 13.327 13.521 13.715 0.237

M 6/A 12.552 12.898 13.244 0.766

M 6/B 1 12.351 12.940 13.529 2.177

M6lB2 12.91 0 13.006 13.102 0.060

M 6/C 10.01 1 11.585 13.159 15.828

M6/D 9.899 1 1.801 13.703 22.690

M 7/A 12.151 12.784 13.417 2.558

M 7/B 1 12.750 13.094 13.438 0.744

M 7lB 2 12.898 12.941 12.984 0.01 2

M7lC 12.858 13.100 13.342 0.367

M7/D 12.483 12.991 13.499 1.619

M 8lA 12.406 13.267 14.128 4.739

M8lB1 13.261 13.764 14.267 i .590

M8/B2 13.573 13.626 13.679 0.01 8

M8/C 13.482 13.567 13.652 0.045

M8lD 13.389 13.569 13.749 0.203

M91A 12.418 12.975 13.532 1.978

M91B1 12.977 13.281 13.585 0.58 1

M 910 2 13.038 13.081 13.124 0.01 2

M9/C 12.846 13.284 13.722 1.201

MS/D 12.753 13.131 13.509 0.897

M 1 O/A 12.188 12.798 13.408 2.378 -

MlOIB1 12.721 13.251 13.781 1.760

M 10182 12.774 13.068 13.362 0.564

M 1 O/C 12.364 12.939 13.514 2.076

MlOlD 12.827 13.146 13.465 0.637

8. Further process development for the work, along with other testing to be per- this information into the Cleaning and

residual rosin test method has been performed at a Phase 2 test site, will Cleanliness Test Program. An adjustment formed since the Phase 1 testing at improve the accuracy and precision of the of the residual rosin benchmark criteria

EMPF and NAC (See section 9). This test procedure. Plans are to incorporate may be necessary at that time.

9. 11 may be said ihat this test plan ;,;as n91

of optimal design and thst n;any of ine

rest procedures could be impro~fed by further process development. In this, mcst

of the committee members vb,ould concur. However, the global problem of stratospheric ozone depletion necessitates rhar a viable test plan be put in place as soon as possible. The process of optimizing

this test plan and methods could go on for years; however. having the perfect test method in a world without stratospheric

ozone would be pretty pointless.

Section 4

Statistical Analysis Box Plots

Contained in this report are graphical repre- sentations of data distr~butions in the form of box plots. The box plot provides a simpler graphical summary than either stem-and-leaf or histogram plots. It is useful for identifying the median, hinges, interquartile range, and outlying values for a particular data distribution. For plots containing several boxes, we can compare data distributions relative to each other on a common scale. A grouped box plot may be thought of as a graphical analog of a one-way analysis of variance.

Selected box plots are included in Sections 5 through 7 for illustrative and comparative purposes. A complete set of the box plots reviewed by the task group are included in Section 1 1.

In this report the elements are defined for a box plot that was produced using the SYS- TAT and SYGRAPH statistical software package. Unfortunately, there is a lack of standardization in terms and algorithms between statistical software packages. Different pack- aces wi l l yield slightly different results. Because there is no single accepted method for producing box plots, it should be emphasized that, for this presentation, the box plots are used to illustrate the relative differences between data distributions and were not used to determine statistical differentiation between distributions.

Figure 5 is an ~llustration of a single generic box plot. The center vertical line inside the box is the median (not mean) value. This line splits the distribution in half. The median is also sometimes referred to as the 50th percentile.

QI is the lower hinge or 25th percentile. As the median splits the distribution into halves, the lower hinge splits the lower half in half yet again. 0 3 is the upper hinge or 75th percentile. It serves the same function for the upper half as the lower hinge does for the lower half of the distribution. The use of these three percentiles allows us to split a distribution into four quarters.

The width of the box, or the distance from QI to 03, is called the interquartile range (IR) or the HSPREAD. The IR contains the central half of the data distribution.

The lines that extend horizontally from the hinges outward, are called whiskers. The whiskers extend from the hinges out to the last data point that is probably not an outlier. The range contained inside of the whisker- endpoints represents a 99% confidence interval.

"IF" is the inner fence. An IF exists on both sides of a distribution and acts as a bracket for outlier determination. The distance from a hinge to the appropriaie inner fence is ca!- cuiated by mukiplying ihe in?ercjuar!ile rancr3 by 1.5. Therefore, the lower inner fence is 01 - (1.5 x (03-QI) ). Similarly, the upper inner

fence is 0 3 + (1.5 x (03.01)). The distr ib~- tion of data between the inner fences may be thought of as a 99.990/0 confidence inierml.

"OF" is the outer fence. The OF is similar to the inner fence and is also used for outlier determination. The distribution of data between the outer fences may be thought of as a 99.9999% confidence interval. The distance from a hinge to the appropriate outer fence is calculated by multiplying the interquartile range by 3.0. Therefore, the lower outer fence is Ql - (3 .0 x ( Q ~ ~ Q I ) 1. Similarly, the upper outer fence is 0 3 + (3.0 x (03-

Ql) 1. A n aster isk denotes a value that lies between the inner and outer fences. A zero denotes a value that is beyond the outer fence.

References 3 and 4 provide greater detail on box plots and the differences in box plots for different software packages.

The topic of outliers and rejection criteria has been debated extensively in recent years, without any determination as to a single accepted set of criteria. One of the methods of flagging outliers is determining how far away a data point rests from the main data distribution. The use of the inner and outer fence concept allows us to build brackets around a distribution and cids us in determining if a point lies excessively far from ihe

main body of data. The fences are commonly determined using multipliers for the

I + 99% c.I:.*-~

Median

OF IF - Q1 Q3 IF OF 1 Interquartile 4 Lower Range Upper

Figure 5 Box plot i l lustration (not t o scale)

,r,:~rquartl;e range of 1 5 and 3 0. i s we P,a\,e done. These are the default \*slues of ;he S'ySTAT 2nd SYGRAPH scf:i%a:e pack-

ages.

Out l ier Criteria

KO ra\\t da:a \%,as excluded unless ;he f0ll0\'d- ing obser\/able criteria were met:

Ionic Cleanliness

Examined the traveller for each outlier. lonic test results were only throivn out if sn anomaly in the processing of that specific board was identified; for example, the board was dropped on the floor, the board was acciden- tally handled without gloves, or the board fell into the solder pot.

Residual Rosin

Examined the traveller and any test docu- mentation for each outlier. Residual rosin test results were only thrown out if an anomaly in the processing of that specific board was identified; for example, the board was dropped on the floor, the board fell into the solder pot, or half of the liquid in the plastic bag was lost when a hole developed during testing.

Surface Insulation Resistance

Visually examined each board which exhibited a "short" (SIR value <1 megohm). If the short V.,>S r2vse3 by a slivsr, sold~r ball, or other Crccesr, mxerial not relsied 10 the cleaning, ihen the anomaly was docu- mented, and the SIR test results for that particular measurement pattern were excluded from the data set. The SIR test results \yere only thrown oui if the anomaly was docu- mented.

Data CodinglAnalysis

All data from Phase 1 was compiled, coded, and analyzed at the Naval Avionics Center using the statistical software package SYS- TAT version 4.0. The boxplots contained in this paper were produced using the accom- panying graphics package SYGRAPH version 1.0. The data was taken from the traveller sheets and entered into Lotus 1-2-3 spread- sheets, designed by Phil W~ttmer of Mag- namx. The data was imported into the DATA module of SYSTAT for coding and analysis.

A data file was constructed by adding qualitative vsriables for each data point. For example, each data point had variables to

ind1ci:e ;he laciiity IEh:FF or NAC), run number 11 or 21, process sequence (A, 81. B2, C, D), board serral number, etc. The resulting data files contained all of the qualitative information necessary to descr~be the test conditions for each data point. Some of the codes \yere specific to the SYSTAT package and \*,,ere used for rep~atabil~ty tests snd analysis of variance (ANOVA) algorithms. After each data file had been produced, each data point was checked against the test traveller sheet for accuracy. Once data ver~fication ivas complete, copies of the files were made for data security. The raw data is available in ASCII format on floppy disks from the IPC office.

As stated in Section 2 (Conclusions and Rec- ommendations), the Benchmark criteria consist of two portions: an allowable average level of contamination and an allowable variability of the alternate cleaning material1 process. The following discussion details how the data was analyzed to produce these criteria. Specifically, this seciion shows how the number of degrees of freedom used in calculating the "t" and "F" values were obtained and how the pooled sample-to- sample variance was calculated.

After many different approaches to analyzing the Phese 1 dala, the Test Monitoring and Validation Team agreed that an analysis of variance should be performed on the data.

The da:a \*;is coded 2nd hr,i!\.zed us,-g a random model \*.,iih a r,es;ed desicn cf unequal sample sizes. This model \vas csed

in determining the number of degrees of freedom associated with the Phase 1 data set. The necessity for using such modeling is ~llusirated by ;he exper~menial design of the ionic cleanliness test (\*there ihe nurrbers in the boxed area represent the number of replicates of each test cell):

As the figure shows, the experiment was designed with replicate samples within a run; with two runs within a location; and with two locations. Also note that the number of replicates varied. For this reason, the number of degrees of freedom also varied and had to be calculated for each test1 process sequence combination.

The first step in the analysis of the Phase 1 dala was to encode the data. Shown below is a portion of the ionic cleanliness data set with the coding used for the nested design analysis.

1 C 1 EMPF 1 Run #2 1 4.100 1 1 1 2 1 0

1 D I EMPF I Run #2 1 6.100 1 1 1 2 1 0

- fL2*cro-

Proc s I ~u;;i-i~- 1 girrnr

I D I NAC ( ~ u n # 2 1 i 2 . 4 ~ ~ ( o j 2 1 I

A - -- 0 -

I Run $2 1 42 900 1 4

-----

iun a t EMPF

1

1

1

Sequt,lce

B1

82

C

D

Run e t NAC

0

0

0

~t Site

EMPF EMPF

EMPF

EMPF I ) o

bne Code

1

1

1

1

Data - Run n"l

Run X I

Run #I

Run #l

8.800

33.200

1 700

4.500

A code of zero indicates rhat the di:a for that row is not germane to the coding variable.

Calculation of Degrees of Freedom The random model with nested design of unequal samples was used for determining the number of degrees of freedom associated with the overall means and sample-to- sample variance terms used in defining the Benchmark criteria. The general form for this model is as follows:

Y,,, = M + L, + Rij + B,,

The "I-" designation is for location

The "R" designation is for run

The "B" designation is for sample replicates

The "Y" designation is for the dependent variable: ionic residue, residual rosin, or SIR values.

where, i = 1,2, ... k j = 1-2, ... ni

= 1,2 ,... n,

For, this random model and the Phase 1 experimental design, the following were defined:

Source Degrees of Variation of Freedom'

L (Location)

R (Runs) n, - k

B (Samples) n.. - n,

where, total degrees of freedcm = n.. - 1

and n.. = n,,

An example: For two locations with two runs at each location and five samples per location,

k = 2 n, = 4 n.. = 20

location to location degrees of freedom = 1

run to run degrees of freedom = 2

sample to sample degrees of freedom = 16

17.48414 = 2.18552 sample-to-sample variance =

total degrees of freedom = 19

Calcularion of Pooled Sample-to-Sample Variance The pooled sample-to-sample variance, also known as the mean square error, was derived by "averaging" the sample-to- sample variances from each of the four runs (two runs at EMPF and two runs at NAC). For the Phase 1 data, these four individual variances were homogeneous (tested using Bartlett's test for homogene- ity and a 0.001 significance level), and it was therefore statistically valid to pool them. Since the number of samples within a run varied, the pooled sample-to-sample variance was calculated using the following formula which accounts for unequal sample sizes:

Pooled sample-to-sample variance

where,

i = run number ni = quantity of samples in run i sf = variance of run i

An example of the calculation of the pooled sampie-to-sample variance appears at the top of this page.

Repeatability

One of the primary concerns of the TMVT was the minimization of variability such that the Phase 1 tests would be repeatable between runs and between facilities. Due

largely to equipment differences, some variation did arise between runs and between facilities.

A statistical procedure called Tukey's test was used to determine if statistical differences existed between similar data groups for different test runs or different facilities, i.e., differences in SIR test results for point MI-Process A between runs (original vs. repeat) of facilities (EMPF vs. NAC). A Tukey's test is also referred to as Tukey's multiple comparisons procedure, and is similar to a Student's 1-test. A t-test exam- ines the difference between two population means and determines if the populations are significantly different. A Tukey's test is an extension of that concept to greater numbers of populations.

For Phase 1 data analysis, a significance level (alpha level) of 0.05 was used to determine significant differences. If no sta- t i s ; i~ i l d i i fer~nces (at an alpha levsl of 0.05) existed between :\vo populations, then the test was assumed to be repeatable for those populations. For example, if the results of EMPF's first and second runs of the ionic cleanliness test for process sequence C were not statistically different. then the test was judged to be repea;able between runs for that process sequence. The repeatability of each test (ionics, residual rosin, and SIR) was assessed in this manner, using equivalent groupings for comparison. Repeatability was determined between test sites and between runs at a test site. -

V a b s Used in Calculating Required Benchmark Criteria: Ionic Cleanlness Test

Process Sequence # Samples Dqrees Freedom d Sampler Degrees Freedom Student's '7" "F" Statistic Benchmark Poded Benchmark Benchmark Aharnata Ahernate Statistic 10.995) Sample Variance

A 15 12 5 4 2.179 6.52 0.255 C 20 16 5 4 2.12 5.64 1.18

D 20 16 5 4 2.12 5.64 1.788

Values Used in Calculating Criteria to be Used for Reference: Ionic Cleanliness Test I

process sequence # Samples Degrees Freedom # Samples Degrees Freedom Student's "T" "F" Statistic Benchmark Pooled

Benchmark Benchmark Alternate Alternate Statistic 10.995) Sample Variance

I Values Used in Caiculaling Required Benchmark Criteria: Residual Rosin Test I I! Samples Degrees Freedom # Samples Degrees Freedom Student's "T" "F" Statistic Benchmark Pooled

Benchmark Benchmark Alternate Alternate Statistic (0.995) Sample Variance

D 19 15 5 4 2.131 5.8 2361 533 I Values Used i n Calculating Criteria t o be Used for Reference: Residual Rosin Test

Process Sequence # Samples Degrees Freedom # Samples Degrees Freedom Student's "T" "F" Statistic Benchmark Pooled

Benchmark Benchmark Alternate Alternate Statistic 10.995) Sample Variance

I Values Used i n Calculating Criteria to be Used for Reference: Surface Insulation Resislnnce Test I (Po; # Samples Degrees Freedom # Samples Degrees Freedom Student's "T" "F" Benchmark Poored I

Process Sequence Benchmark Benchmark Alternate Alternate Statistic Statistic Sample Variance

MllA 19 15 5 4 2.131 5.8 0.819

MllBl 20 16 5 4 2.12 5.64 0.063

I Values Used in Calculating Criteria to be Used for Reference: Surface Insulation Resistance Test

I Test Point1

Process Sequence

M5'32

M5:C

M5,D

M 6!A

M6i81

M6182

M6lC

M6lD

M7lA

M7/B1

M7/B2

M7/C

M7/D

M8IA

~ 8 1 0 1

ME102

M8/C

M8/D

M9IA

M9!B1

M9iB2

M9/C

M ~ I D

M 1 O/A

MlOlB l

r Samples

Benchmark

18

20

2 0

19

20

18

19

20

19

20

18

20

20

19

20

18

20

2 0

1 9 .

2 0

18

20

20

19

20

Degrees Freedom

Benchmark

14

i 6

16

15

16

14

15

16

15

16

14

16

. 16

15

16

14

16

16

15

16

14

16

16

15

16

B Samples

Alternate

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

Degrees Freedom

Alternate

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Student's "T"

Statistic

2.145

2.12

2.12

2.13

2.12

2.145

2.131

-2.12

2.13

2.12

2.145

2.12

2.12

2.131

2.12

2.145

2.12

2.12

2.131

2.12

2.145

2.12

2.12

2.131

2.12

"F"

Statistic

6

5.64

5.64

15.8

5.64

6

5.8

5.64

15.8

5.64

6

5.64

5.64

5.8

5.64

6

5.64

5.64

5.8

5.64

6

5.64

5.64

5.8

5.64

Benchmark Pooled

Sample Variance

0.006

0.149

0.042

0.132

0.386

0.01

2.729

4.023

0.44 1

0.132

0.002

0.065

0.287

0.81 7

0.282

0.003

0.008

0.036

0.341

0.103

0.002

0.213

O.iE9

0.41

0.312

1 MlOiC 20 16 5 4 2.12 5.64 0.368

MlOiD 2 0 16 5 4 2.12 5.64 0.113

Section 5

lonic Testing An Omegameter 600 Sh4D was used at both Phase 1 test sites to evaluate ionic residues

remaining on the test assemblies after Pro- cessing. The omegameter system is 6n automated version of the recommended manual test procedure required by I\/IIL-P- 28809, "Military Specification for Circuit Card Assemblies Rigid, Flexible, and Rigid- Flex". The Omegameter 600 Sh4D was selected because the system used a heated isopropanoll~vater solution and a pressure spray system to remove ionic contaminants for testing. The committee hoped that the 600 SMD would allow testing for ionic contamination without requiring the lifting of the leadless chip carriers. During process development, EMPF performed a study of the effectiveness of the 600 SMD for removing ionic contaminants from an assembly with two leadless chip carriers. The assemblies used by EIL~IPF had been exposed to solder paste, vapor phase soldering, foam flux, and vvavesoldering. EMPF's study, reported in Section 9, showed that an average of 93% of the ionic contamination was removed by the Omegameter 600 SMD without the need of a component lift procedure. As a result of this study, the ionic contamination tests performed with ihe 600 SMD in Phase 1 required ;3n?oneni lift crocedu:~. T,- ,

zd hoc grc..p agreed fc- ?/lase 2 lesiing, -

test equipment orher than ihe 600 SMD is not used, then 100% component removal is required prior to ionic testing.

Each of the test assemblies was tested indi- \lidually. The omecizeier \\,as programed \vi!h the folio\\ling pximeters: a test assembly surface area of 35 square inches; no passifail limit; and a 15 minure lest time. The test solution was examined daily to determine the relative concentration of isopropyl alcohol and distilled water. In addition, the omegameter was calibrated daily prior to use.

The assembly was carefully placed in the omegameter test cell, which contained 4000 milliliters of a lest solulion consisting of 75% by volume ACS reagent grade isopropyl alcohol and 25% by volume distilled water (See Figure 6). The omegameter continuously monitored the solution's resistivity and charted the total amount of ionic contamination. At the end of the 15 minute test, the

omeoarneter reported the level of ionic contamination in total microgrems of equivalent sodium chloride per square inch.

The results of ionic contaminsi~on iesting i t both EMPF and NAC are shown in Figure 7. The amount of ionic contamination, reported in micrograms equivalent sodium chloride per squar? inch, \vas plotted as a function of the process sequence. As expected, the process A boards were the "cleanest" and the 82 boards were the "dirtiest". The relative positions of the ionic contamination levels for process sequences A, B1, C, and D clearly illustrated in Figure 8, which provides the same data as illustrated in Figure 7, but on an expanded scale. The repeatability of the ionic cleanliness test between test sites (E = EMPF, N = NAC) and between runs (E l =

first run at EMPF, tV2 = second run at NAC, etc . . . I is shown in Figures 9, 10, and 11.

In examining the da:a irom the ionic cleanliness test, it is apparent that the cleanliness levels exceed the 10 microgram per square inch requirement of MIL-P-28809. It should be emphasized that the test program and processes were not designed to clean the test boards to pass any military or commercial specifications. The test plan calls for RA {I, , ,.. , y and on!\! alio~vs a single c!eanin~ pass. In

. . :.. ::o?, t:*e use cf s L;;c,h \.?10r degr~zs?r , n-ri:s Ine material's abiliiy to c l r a the [PC-2- 36 assembly. The reason for these material and process decisions was that cleanliness levels would be more easily discerned if the amount of contamination was greater than normally encounte-ed in military P\4/A production. In norrr.61 military produc:ion, RIJ.4 flux vilould be used and mul;iple cleaning steps would be permiited.

Repeatability of lonic Cleanliness Test

The repeatability of the ionic cleanliness test data was assessed using the Tukey's test procedure outlined in the data analpis section of this paper. The following results were obtained:

1. EMPF Run #1 vs. Run #2 - Not repeatable for process sequences

82 or D - Re~eatable for process sequences B1

and C - Due to no data for EMPF's run # I ,

con;parison for process sequence A couid not be made.

2 PAC iian k'l vs. Rzn =2 - Not repeaiiibie for zrocess seque:ices

31 and C - Repeatable for process sequences A,

i?2, and D

3. EIJPF \.s. NAC - Not repea:able for process sequences

B2, C, and D - Repeatable for process sequences A

and B1

Comparlsm of Processes for Entire Dataset

eo 7

knchnark MC Ckan'iwss Test Comb!ncd Data Set

Cc?nchnark ! O ~ C Clcariiness Tcsl Cmparlson of Proccsscs Processes A - B1 - C

Figure 7 Figure 8

A B l m C D =-A NI-A EP-A E l - U l Qdi HI-01 EP-Ul E l < Q< N l c W S - . -.

Roces~ Site ard t3.n - Roccss .-

~kar i i ness Test Proccsses A - 82 - D

Figure 9

Ecmh-nark !oric Cberiiness Tcst Cmparson of Processes

Proccsscs A a d D

€2-A Nl-A NZ-A €1-0 €2-D N1-0 M i l

s n e a n 3 f b - l - R ~ ; s

Figure 10 Figure 11

Section 6

Residual Rosin Testing The residual rosin test used in Phase 7 was originally developed by Doiv (Reference 5 ) . and was presented in a paper delivered at NEPCON Vilest in March 1085. The test procedure \was further developed by Magnavox Electronic Systems, Fort Wayne, Indiana (Reference 6), where it was used to evaluate a variety of cleaning processes, as well as various fluxes. The rosin test was included in the Cleaning and Cleanliness Test Program in order to evaluate the amount of residual organic contaminants remaining after test processing.

Essentialiy, the test involved "washing" the test specimen in a selected solvent; collect- ing the rinsing; and then determining the concentration o f rosin i n the rinsing by ultravioletivisible spectrophotometric methods and use of the Lambert-Beer Law. Dur- ing process development at each test site, standard Larnbert-Beer curves (absorption as a function of flux concentration) were developed for both the solder paste flux and the wave solder flux.

As shown in Figure 12, the test assemblies \Yere individually placed in quart-size, Glad- lok, freezer bags. A pre-measured and recorded volume of spectrographic grade (or equivalent] isopropyl alcohol was carefully trsnsferred in;o the b i g with the test assem-

.*G> bly and :? csg \.\,is ciosed. The 553 *. - -

Then vigorously shaken for 10 minules in order to "wash" any organic residues from the assembly. After agitation, the bag was opened and a small aliquot of the rosin-laden solution was removed using a disposable, \olumetric pipette.

The aliquot of sample from the bag was then examined using the UV-VIS spectrophotometer (at a \vavelength of 242 nm), and the absorbence was recorded. The amount of residual rosin on each test assembly was calculated using the standard Lambert-Beer curves which had been determined during process development at each test site. Since pure water-white rosin and various brands1 activities of fluxes have slightly different Lambert-Beer curves, the solder paste flux standard curves were used for assemblies which had been produced follov~ing process sequences A, B1, and C; and assemblies produced fo!lo\wing process sequences 92 and D were evaluated using the wave solder flux standard curve.

Note that although process A assemblies were never exposed to either solder paste flux or wave solder flux that the ullra\riolet absorbence for these samples indicated the presence of residual rosin. One reason lor this phenomena is that other species, which ibso;:, in the ultraviolei region, are extracted . . - ... , , < - , . : :he b q s ihl;.~s$!vsa i n d $!c'? :r:;

beard material. In addilion, the solvent ilseif may absorb if an inferior grade of material is used. These issues and others are discussed in more detail In Reference 6. For PI-lase 1

testing, the process A assemblies served as "blsnks" and indicated the impact of other factors (such as bag and sol\fent selection) on the residual rosin test results.

The combined test results for bolh E!.'IPF and NAC are illustrated in boxplot fo rm i t (Figures 13 and 141. Results, reported in total micrograms of rosin removed per assembly, were plotted as a function of the process sequence. As expected, the process B2 assemblies (vapor phase and wave soldered with no cleaning) had the greatest amount of residual rosin and the process A assemblies (cleaned and never soldered) had the least amount of residual rosin. The y-axis scale was expanded in Figure 14 to illustrate, the relative positions of assemblies produced follo\ving processes A, B1, C, and D.

Test results from the individual runs at each test site are shown in Figures 15 through 17. From these boxplots one may observe the relstive "cleanliness" of assemblies produced using the various process sequences. In addition, the boxplots show the relative repeatability of the two runs at EMPF and the tiz10 rui?s st KAC. !i'?te ihal ii5e s c j ! ? ~ !or I t ,e y- ix is I ,ave Sid:: ? ~ ? & : ~ d i d I:-, so-.;? cases in order to make the comparison more easy.

Repeatability of Residual Rosin Test The repeatability of the residual rcsin test was assessed using the Tukev's lest procedure ouilined in the dsia anal\*sis section of

- this paper. i :'e folloivir?g restilts were obtained:

1. EMPF Run #I vs Run #2 - Not repeatable for process sequences

A or C - Repeatable for process sequences 81,

82, and D

2. NK Run #I vs Run #2 - Not repeatable for process sequences B1, C, and D

- Repeatable for process sequences A, and 82

3. EMPF vs NAC - Not repeatable for process sequences

31, 82, C, and D Figure 12 - Repeatable for process sequence A

nesluual HoSlrl - Lorrlpai Isor) o~ rr ocesses uslrlg vvrue 3e1 Benchmark Resldual Rosin Test

Combined Data Set .

Figure 13

Process Process

Figure 14

Benchmark Residual Rosin Test Comparison of Processes Processes A - Bl - C

Figure 15

Slte nd Run - process

fiesidual Rosin Benchmark Test Comparison of Processes Processes A - 82 - D

I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 1

c\~ bEt- ~-P.+,\HP,~.- P & - ~ ~ C B ~ ~ - B $ ~ ~ B ~ ~ - B ~ ~ ~ ~ c2-0 c2rI)fl\20 ~ $ 2 . ~ &a _ _ _._ - -- @-- _ _ _ _ _ - - -

fl2- -- --. - - - - .

Site and Run - Process

Figure 16 Benchmark Residual Rosin Test Comparison of Processes

Processes A and D

Figure 17

Slte and Run - Process

Figure 18 Process flow B1

E x t e n d e d Extraction 2sdi;ional 1esr;r:~ it? &s;gr.i:ej rii:h "EX" re?=r;~d by NAC for iks src::-c rcn here

Also inclujed in Figures 15 ihroush 17 are

the resuits of additional testing conduc!kd at

NAC using :he same assemblies which Keie '

examined an3 reported for the second run at

NAC. The Test Monitoring and Validation

Team reques:ed the additional testing \.then

white residues \Yere noted on assemblies

afler the 10 minute "washing" in isopropyl

. alcohol (See Fioure 18). These res8duss

\\'ere esp~c , i ! l \ ' noticeable on ih? process 51

and 32 as:~?-~blies, \vhlch had beer: E . . : ' I ? c ~ ~

10 flux an: -2.er cieaned. The r e s ~ ' : s 'i.! :,- S

In :P,e x-axis nornenc;itsre.

The a d d ~ i ~ o n a l :-?sling at :<AC i9ii.s an

exlended extraction, desigr~ed !o deie:m~ne

if add~tional rosin :esidue could be rerncvod

using longer solvent exposure times and

ultrasonic agitation. Af:er the assemblies had

been lested per the Phase 1 residual rosin

method (placed In a Gladlok bag \z'ith isopro- FYI alcoh31 2nd sk,i;:t-n by h a d for i O m:n- ~ : e ~ . l , ;!ye 22s \..zs r s e - s j 5,- .3 2 ..,el\ .?-,ail

i ; , . ~ u c l c! ~O!L : I?Q :.;1+ (!*i::n ':o?3 :'E :a3 3 ' , 5 ,Zr:b,\ - ' < - ' , ,Zct ., :.. " : ' . .. ' - >

ob:ained by analyzing 1n.s s n i i ! i::cuot. The

bass (\\,ith assembly a-d ss!u;~on st111 in

them) \yere ;hen re-sealed and placed for 20 rninules in an ultrasonic batil and agitated.

Upon removal from the ultrasonic baih, the

bags were opened and a second aliquot was

drawn from the bag and analyzed. Test

results for these second samples, which

nere obtained after ultrasonics, are reported c'n ine bcxplols as "EX"

As cr1oiz.n try Figure 17. 3 S'S' : ! . : 3 ' , : amount cl ,;3:,:,.:,r.2; resln ,..;: .fi.- ...I- j 5%; :he

I . '

- , ,=x?~nSe.? ex;:ac:icn. rcr ::m.S ' . : 3 5 : 7 , rn;! * ! I , . i \,,,mer, lit,agna\ox, 3eric!:red !clr:-.?r 210-

cess dc,,siopmefit ,,,,,~ri; on :P,e . ? s , d ~ a ! rosln

:?st. The Test I,?lcnltor~ng 2nd \ ' i i~?al ion

Team has adopted ldr. \'\'iltmer's recon:rnen- da:ion that the test procedure be rnoc~fied to include phosphoric acid in ihe soluilon used for it,fasi~ing the assembiies. :\'lacr.avox's process de\feloprnent work also reached the lolloiving conclusions:

( 1 ) Certain plastic bags and cerlaln grades of isopropyl alcohol are inferior, giving

ues. high blank absorbence v-l

(2) Other chemicals inmlved in the processing of printed wiring assemblies absorb at 242 nrn.

(3) The majority of effective solvents for removing rosin have an ultraviolet cutoff

(-100% absorbence) above 242 nm, making them inappropriate for this procedure.

(4 ) Finding a bag that does not leak during the procedure, or which is not subject to puncturing by the assembly corners or sharp solder leadslprojections, is very difficult.

Summary and Conclusions

T r ~ e Test !,5o~itortng and \ 'a l td i~~c~n T ~ a n i dscided that iire problems encountered it, . In

:he residual rosin test can be oi1ercorr.e using careful extraction meihods and pru- dent analytical techniques regarding blank :,ilues. The method was relairled as part of the test program since it \.,,as deemed a vaiu- able tool for evaluating the "cleanliness" of product soldered with rosin-type fluxes.

Since the addit ion of phosphoric ac id increzses !he effecti\feness and efficiency of residual rosin removal, the Benchmark values obtained in Phase I will require "adjustment" prior to their use in evaluating alternative cleaning materials and methods. The testing necessary for correlating the old method ( isopropyl alcohol alone) and the n e w method (isopropyl alcohol and phosphoric acid) \will most likely be performed by one of the first Phase 2 test sites. Until then, the sponsors of cleaning alternatives are encour- aged, but not required, to use the modified technique.

Section 7

Surface Insulation Resistance Testing Surface Insulation Resisiance (SIR) testing \,,,as vsed in the benchmark test procedure to obtain an indication of the electrical perfor- rrance of a board if:er it had been exposed to \arious manufacturing procedures. The flux, paste, cleaning agent and test procedures are defined in the test plan.

There are many forms of SIR testing commonly used in the electronics industry today. They all consist of exposure to an environment that is hotter and more humid than amb ien t condit ions. I n se lect ing the temperature-humidity profile for the benchmark test, a static rather than cyclical, environment was chosen. In designing the test

mobile ions ~ h i c h carry the current between conductors and degrade electrical performance. A measurement at the same polarity 2s the bias does not induce migration of these mobile ions and produces an SIR reading which does not reflect the mobile ion presence. For this reason the committee decided on opposing po!arities for the bias and measlirenent \oltages.

The levels of the test and bias voltages were arrived at by committee consensus. For the bias voltage, a level of negative 50 volts DC was considered sufficient to produce elec- tromigration if conditions so existed. The polarity for the bias voltage was defined as a

plan, the committee strived to eliminate as positive 5 0 volts DC applied to the "E" many sources of variability as possible. It points of each test pattern and a ground was felt that a static temperature and humid- potential applied to the "M" points of each it\: would be less variable. pattern.

The temperature-humidity profile chosen was from the IPC specification on fluxes, IPC-SF-818, "General Requirements for Electronic Fluxes". A diagram of this profile is shown as Figure 19. This profile starts at ambient conditions, ramps up to 85°C and 85% relative humidity over a 3 0 minute period, remains at this elevated level for 168 hours, and ramps down to ambient over a 3 0 minute period.

In SIR testing, an eiectrical bias is p!sced on Test patterns during humidity expcsure. Elec- trical measurements are taken at some specified \oltage level for a set time interval. His- torically, the bias and the measurement voltage have been of the same polarity. Recent work by Emory Gorondy of GuPont, (Reference 15) ho\vever, has indicated ?hat the bias tends to "s\t,feep" mobile ions

towards polarizing electrodes. It is these

For the measurement voltage, it was felt that the classic military level of 500 volts DC would produce an electrical gradient too severe for the 0.006 inch lines and spaces of the test pattern. Subsequent research into this area by Jim Maguire of Boeing (Refer- ence 7 ) indicates that (1) it ivould be more advantageous to use a 100 volt DC measurement voltage; ( 2 ) there is very little difference between the results obtained in a S:Z:~C en\,i:onment versus a cyc!ic humidity ;nvi:onment; and !3 ) bvcer SIR readings a:? obtained for a 100 volt test voltage versus a 500 wl t test wltage. The 100 volt level also accommodated automated data acquisition better than a level of 500 \olts DC. The polarity of the measvrement ioltage vblas a positive 100 wl ts applied to the "I\4" points of each test pettern and a ground potential applied to the "E" points of each pattern.

Quadrants were only populated lor process sequences C and D.

Pattern

Comb-Populated'

Daisy Chain-Populated*

Test Point

M i - E l

M2 - E2

\

The eiectrifica~ion time iz,as determined to be

the clessic EO seconds found in m ~ l ~ t a r y specifications. Further research is planned concerning ike effect of electri!ica:ion tirncs

on SIR values, and the effect of contaminant type on the optimal eiectr~fication time.

The test board for the program visas the IPC- 8-36 test board. A diagram of this test board is listed as Figure 1. This test board was specifically designed for SIR testing, having guards on all measurement paths. Each test board had ten test patterns. The location of the test points on the board, the quadrant and the pattern type are shown in the table below.

Quadrant

D

D

Each test pattern had two terminations, one defined as an "Mu point and the other defined as an "E" point. These designations can be seen near the contact fingers of the test board (see Figure 1) . Figure 1 also shows that the quadrants were labeled A, B, C, and D. The comb patterns and inner and outer parallel lines, were all nominally 0.006 inch lines and spaces. During incoming inspection of the boards, the lines and spaces of one comb pattern on each board were measured and recorded. hi sea surement was felt to be representative of the lines and spacings for all of the comb pat- ;crr,s and ir,ner 2nd otter parallel lines for ;he bcard. The sijacing vahes vi1ere later used to calculate the number of squares for each pattern on each board. A set of surface mount lands for leadless chip carriers were

M3 - E3

' M4 - E4

M5 - E5

M6 - E6

M7 - E7

M8 - E8

. M9 - E9

M10-El0

placed in each quadrant. In quadrants C and D, alternating lands were electrically connec;ed to form the daisy chain patterns. The spacing on the lands \vas a nominal 25 mils. During incoming inspection of a representative number of test boards, it was determined that the mounting lands had consis- ten t spacing of 0 . 0 2 3 4 inches. The populatedlunpopulated designation refers to whether or not a leadless chip carrier was mounted in that quadrant. The chip carriers were used only on boards i n process sequences C and D. In process sequences A, B1, and 82, all test patterns were unpopulated.

The timing of measurements is detailed in Figure 19, in addition to being defined in the test plan. Since past experience with IPC round robin testing indicated that "ambient"

C

C

A

A

A

. B

B

B

I

Comb-Unpopulated

Daisy Chain-Unpopulated

Comb-Populated '

Inner Parallel Lines-Populated'

Outer Parallel Lines-Populated'

Comb-Unpopulated

Inner Parallel Lines-Unpopulated

Outer Parallel Lines-Unpopulalecl

Diagram No.

Figure Number

1 2

Test Conditions and Measurement Timing

Event Test Begins. Two hours later. lnitial measurements taken. A l l subsequent test timing referenced to this point. Initial measurements complete. Chamber ramp-up started. Reverse bias o f 50 volts DC applied to al l specimens.

24 hours after point #2. Measurement cycle begins. 24 hour measurement cycle complete. All specimens biased. 96 hours after point #2. Measurement cycle begins. 96 hour measurement cycle complete. All specimens biased. BENCHMARK Measurement. 168 hours after point X2. Benchmark measurement complete. All specimens biased. Chamber ramp-down initiated. Chamber stabilized at 25C/50°h RH. Two hours after point # lo . Final measurement sequence started. Final measurement sequence complete. Turn off power supplies. Open chamber. Remove test specimens.

7- i i ~ : Initial a i i rb ier7i ri-\c: 2 5 ~ : ~ i ~ i z i ~ t

TI : 24 hour measurement T2: 96 hour measurement T3: 168 hour measurement (BENCHMARK) T4: Final ambient rneasurment

I I 1 1 I I 1 1 i 1 1 1

4 5 6 7 8 9 25 C / 50% RH

T 1 T2 T3 25C /5Q% RH

I I I I 1 I

I 1 2 11 . 12 TO '\ 30 Minute Ramps

T4

Figure 19

con j~ i io r?~ ;arv, !he commitlee chcse an in- chiin-1b.r environn-ieni of 25 'C:5OC:k5H for iP,e ~nitial and fifial readings. All rneasure- m.nts \,,,ere taken ins~de the sealed humidity chamber.

A report issued by the t\lateria!s Laboratory at the Naval Avionics Center, \pil~ll pro\lide a step-by-step account of the preparations, testing, and data analysis for the SIR test. The report will also describe the different systems used at NAC and EI\/IPF. We refer you to i h i ~ report for specifics.

A general summary of the SIR test is as follows:

The test boards were connected to the electrical instrumentation via gold-plated, bifur- cated contact, insulation-displacing connectors. These connectors were attached to flat, PTFE insulated, ribbon cable. The cables were encased in a copper foil shield to help prevent stray electromagnetic radiation from interfering with the measurements. The cable assemblies were attached to a fixture on the chamber interior and then passed through a chamber port and connected to a fixture on the chamber exterior. The connectors were attached to the fixture such that they were in position over the test board. Although no condensation was expected or experienced during the SIR test, the connectors were positioned over the test board to eliminate concern recarding the collection of coniaminiiion in the connector an3 the possible migration of ~ontamir~ants from ;he populated to the unpopulated sites. The external fixture differed between the two test facilities, and was used to interface the test boards with the biasing and measuring equipment.

The edge-card conrectors were used for several reasons. Hard wiring the boards was considered, but the potential for contaminat- ing the test boards was deemed to be too great. Gold-plated alligator clips were also considered, but rejected due to the additional amount of handling that would be required.

-. The edge-card connectors provided the ahantage of a repeatable contact. Repro- ducibility was a primary concern of the Ad Hoc Sohents Working Group.

Prior to insertion of the test boards into the edge-card connectors, each ribbon-cable1 connector assernbiy was tested w ~ t h a con- nettor checker, designed b y " ~ ~ l l i a m Groft of DuPont. A photograph of this checker is listed as Figure 20. This checker was essen-

' _ _ -

Figure 20

tially a test board with high value (100,000 for each measurement poin; \\.as rep!aced. megohms) resistors in place of the test pat-

After the test boards had been processed terns. Any cable :hit d ~ d not read the nomi-

according to the test plan, lr4e ~ o i r d s v;ere rial 100'000 megohms '"11 Oth decade) inserted into the edge-card connectors in the

Figure 21

Tne c,kasurf.rner,ls \,.,e!e ;!I made and recorded 2s spec~fied in tk'e lest pl,zn. The da;a from EI,'IPF was taken from the SIRom-

Eier print-OU;S and entered into a Lotus :;readsheet, des~gned bit Fhil l'\'itln;er of !,l,agna\~x. The data from f\'.&C \Firas directly

imported in:o computer files for analysis. All data from EIi4PF \,,.as for\*,arded to NAC for

,L:ier ihe corn~letion of the iest, the chamber was opened and the test boards were removed. Visual examinations were made of each board, especially those with low resistance readings. Photographs were taken of a representative board f rom each process sequence. All test boards were stored in clean, polyethylene bags and will be for- warded to IPC for archiving. The in-chamber, edge-card connectors were removed from ihe cable assemblies and replaced with new edge-card connectors for the repeat run of the experiment.

Results-Visual Examination Following SIR Test

All of the process A boards had small arnoun?s of surface discoloration on the copper conductors. This discoloration is usually the precursor of copper corrosion and is not unvsual for bare copper which has been expcsed t.;. .c-:3:.a;ed :empera!uro sn5 humid-

IT','.

The process B1 and 82 boards had large amounts of flux remaining on the board sur- faces. The flux had turned a dark brown. On the process B2 boards, ;he flux deposits on ihe contact fincers of the test board rended i o cernenl !he Sciard to the connector, mak- ir;a ;hem diificult i o remove. The flcx oegos- its were brittle and tended to flake off of the boards upon removal from the connectors. The heavy flux deposits also made detection of any corrosion difficult. For the B1 boards, the flux residues were localized to an area

. surrounding the component mounting pads.

Tar the 82 boards, flux was observed to have welled up through the via holes, but had not spread onto many of the patterns. This was especially true of the comb patterns. Figure 22 illustrates this phenomenon.

The process C and D.boards exhibited-the same copper surface discoloration as the Drocess A boards. In general, the board material and the copper finish of all boards

, = + . --., . ... . . . . . - . .

& [$>; ;., , : , : ; ' , :: .. .,,: :s:. :.:. ; ; ::.I:-* . . .- 5 ..

.I_... -. . 2 . . Figure 22

darkened slightly i r o n the humidity ex;;.c- per-scuare normalized the d i ia and made . .

sure. TC.:? i$ co,rnmo-. i:: hkr:t;:;\n : ~ l ; ; j - , ~ 57,: :h5 <a:a i-+:..;-nS,:-r : : :re ;i.:ryr (jesicn, - it\:is expei..? 5. Tne i-~unlrjt: ~i S C L ~ : : ~ ior cscn i c j r pauern

All patterns \vhich exhibi;ed loiv resistance caicu;6led by div~ding the circuit leng:h

readings (less than one megohm) during the of the pattern (constant for each pattern

- test were examined under 7X magnification type) by the spacing between circuit paths.

to determine ;he presence of sli\ers, solder- The spacing :or ~ i ~ h bczrd \\.as measured balls, dendri:es, etc.. Of a!/ ;he lest pa1:errs examined, only t i ~ o p;iterr:s ivere fou:id ;o coniein physical a n o n ~ i i e s \,;hich vvou:d explain the l o v ~ readings. The da:a for these

two patterns was excluded prior ?o statistical analysis. The data from one test board at EMPF was also excluded prior to analysis due to damage sustained by the ribbon cable during testing.

Results-Analytical

The raw data for each SIR measurement was i n the form of direct resistance readings (in ohms). Since different pattern types were to be compared, it was necessary that the direct resistance readings be converled to unl:s of ohms-per-squi r~ .-:;or to fur:!-er analysis. The con\,ersion to units of ohns-

and :ecord;i? dur~ng incorning i ~ s e c t i o n . In

ordsr i o c,5n:,ert :5e r:\v cala :o un;;s of

oi?,q-:-rs-per-square, :he c;:ect resisiance read-

inqs \.ifere mu!tipiied by ;k8e calculated num-

ber of squares to arrive at an ohms-per-

square value.

SIR data is logarithmic in nature, and there-

fore, the presence of one large value may

totally skew the data analysis, for example,

the averaging of a set of numbers (see Figure

23). For this reason, the base-ten logarithm

of the ohms-per-square value was used for

data analysis and was also used as the verti-

cal scale for the boxplo:~. Because ioga-

rithms were used, the calculated averages are oi.omztri~ aiti.rages, 2.1 i r~ : imet ic aver.

ages.

Repeatabil i ty of SIR Test Data

The repeatabillty of the SIR lest da;a \+,-is issessed using the Tukey's test procedure outlined in the data analysis section of this piper. For the SIR test, there were ten dis- iinct measurement points on a test board 2nd five distinct process sequences, for a toral of fifty combinations of measurement- pointlprocess-sequence ( M 1 -A, M 1 - 81 ,. .M2-A,. . .M10-D). Each of these combinations was considered a unique population in the data analysis. In order to be considered statistically valid, it was necessary that comparisons be limited to equivalent entities. For example, in assessing the repeatability... between runs at a facility, the comparison of run # I , point M I , process A versus run #2, point M I , process A was made. It must be noted that the logarithmic value of the ohms- per-square data was used as the basis for these analyses. The population means were, -

therefore, geometric means and not arithmetic means. The run-to-run and facility-to- facility repeatability was assessed for all combinations of measurement point and process sequence. The follo~ving results were obtained:

1. EMPF Run # I vs. EMPF Run #2 - Not repeatable for process 81, point

M2 (unpopulated daisy chain in quadrant D)

- Not repeatable for process B1, point M l O (unpopulated outer parallel lines in quadrant B)

- All other combinations (46) rep~i:aSie

2. NAC Run #1 vs. NAC Run n"2 - Not repeatable for process 82, point

M8 (unpopulated comb in quadrant B) - Not repeatable for process C, point 1\48

(unpopulated comb in quadrant B) - All other combinations (48) repeatable

3. EMPF 11s. NAC (Combined daia for boih runs) - Not repeatable for: - Processes A, B1, and 82, for point M2

(daisy chain in quadrant D) - Processes C and D, for point M4 (daisy

. . chain in quadrant C) : - Process 82 for point M5 (comb in

quadrant A) - Process 02 for point M8 (comb in

quadrant B) - Process B1 for point M I 0 (outer paral-

lel lines in quadrant 0) -- All other combinations repeatable

Overall, the SIR test was repeatable between runs and between facilities. Some of the

ARITHMETIC MEAN VERSUS GEOMETRIC MEAN i S.I.R. DATA

2.01 E + 13 ohmslrq 4.23 E + 13 ohrnslsq 2.69 E + 00 ohmdsq 2.87 E + 08 ohrnrlsq 5.56 E 4 13 ohrndsq

LOG OF S.I.R. DATA 13.3032 13.6263 8.4290 0.4579

13.7451

(2.01 E t 13) + (4.23 E 13) + (2.69 E + 08) + (2.87 E + 08) + (5.56 E + 13)

ARITHMETIC MEAN I = 2.36 E t 13 ohrndsq 5

13.3032 + 13.6263 t 8.4298 ,

+ 8.4579 + 13.7451 GEOMETRIC M E A N = = E t 11.5124 = 3.25 E t 11 ohmslsq

5

Figure 23

variability in data may be due to the differences in SIR test equipment used at EMPF and NAC. EMPF also experienced some diffi- culty with the control of humidity levels for their test chamber, having to control the set- points manually rather than with a micropro- cessor control.

SIR test results indicate, as illustrated by Fig- ures 24, 25, and 26, that there was little difference between "cleaned" (processes C 2nd D) and "uncleaned" (processes B1 and 82) test boards. Figure 24 shows a boxplot comparison between comb patierns for Pro- csss A (cor;:rol.'as-:eceil.~?nJ!, process P I (soiderpastel\!apor-phaseino-ckan), snd prG- cess C (solderpastelvapor-phaselclean) boards. Figure 25 is the same comparison using daisy chain patterns rather than comb patterns. Figure 26 shows a boxplot comparison between comb patterns for process A ( c o n t r o l l a s - r e c e i v e d ) , p rocess 3 2 (solderpastelvapor-phasei~~avesolderlno- clean), and process D (solderpastelva~or- phaselwavesolderlclean) boards. Most sur- prising were the high SIR values exhibited by the dirty boards (B1 and 82).

There were a number of reasons proposed to explain the high resistance values exhibited by the B1 and 82 boards:

1. Heavy rosin flux deposits acted as an encapsulant, locking the mobile ions into place.

2. Flux deposits were localized to the component mounting pads and via holes and were not generally found on the comb or parallel line pstterns.

3. The flux deposits on the gold contact fingers of the B2 boards did not allow a good electrical contact with the connector and therefore eiectrically isolated the board.

The only significant differences were . between the populated and unpopulated sites for the inner-parallel lines (M6 vs. Ad9), and for the daisy chains (A42 vs. M4). Fig- ures 27 and 28 illustrate this difference. This trend was investigated further by anslyzing each of the four runs separately and performing a Tukey's test.

SIR Test Conclusions

Because the SIR test could not statistically differentiate a "clean" from a "dirty" board, it was determined that the data would not be used in developing pissifail criieria. The Phase 1 SIR crileria \,dill be used for reference only. The Slfl test \vill remain, howevr?r, in the Phase 2 test plan.

2. There are several reasons for retaining the SIR test, even though the data will not be used as a requirement.

a. The SIR test is the only performance- based test in the test program. The SIR test may provide some indication of an alternate materiallprocess effect on a PWA's electrical performance.

b. Alternate solvents may selectively clean off rosin, leaving mobile ionic residues. Use of the Honeywell HPLC procedure, together with SIR testing, should provide information regarding electrical

Figure 24

Bcnchn~arl; SlIi Test - EJII'F a n d S A C Data Comparison of Comb Patterns

Processes ti - I31 - C

Path Number - Process

Benchmarl< SIR Test - Eh4PF ailti NAC Data Coillparlson of Daisy Chain Pat terns

Processes A - J31 - C

Figure 25 Paih .Number - Proccss

Benchmark SIR Test - EMPF and NAC Data Corn arison of Comb Patterns %recesses A - BZ - D

Figure 26


Eenchmarl< SIR Test - ERliPF and NAC Data Comparison Of Inner-Perimeter Patterns

Processes C and D

Figure 27 Path Number - Process

nizms C , ,&:lernale c ~ l v e n l s n?ay c ? , ~ - , ; c i ! l y

attick ;he board's surface, i h ~ r e b y io\*,,erlr,g the SIR values. S l 8 test resu!:~ may provide imporlant ~nforrna-

:ion in ?his€! 2.

3 . I,{embers of rhe TI\/IVT conciuded ;hat

SIR test methodology is still in it's infancy

and th6t further development of the test merhod mcst be accomplished before 11

can be considered as a measure of clean-

liness.

Benchmark SIR Test - EMPF and NAC Data Comparison of Dais Chain Patterns

Processes 8 and D


Figure 28

Section 8

HPLC Testing for Organic Residues I n t r o d u c t i o n Alpha 321 Soider Paste IRA)

Rosin The goal of the residue analysis lest is to Sol\,?l-;t ,~ .~ , , i y , ql;ili:a:i:,ely and quaniiiiiivel\l, ;he kcti\a;or residue which reniains on the circuit board Thickener

A = Concentrstion of nxterial in solution (mg!I)

B = \/o!ume of extrict so!vent i l l D = board area [~n ' )

after cleaning. In addition, research by Klima and Bonner- Ana lys is o f Res ina tes b y F i l t ra t ion

The residue analysis test utilizes High Perfor- (references 8, ) and b,, Archer and cabelka and HPLC m i n c e Liquid Chromatography (KPLC) as ;he msin analytical method. As verificiiion methods, and further identification tools, Solid Insertion Probe Fourier Transform Mass Spectrometry (FTMS), Scanning Elec- tron Microscope Electron Dispersive Spec- trometry (SEM EDS), and Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometry (FTIR) were utilized. Since the equipment involved is not available in many laboratories, the Ad Hoc Solvents Committee elected to make the Residue Analysis Test (or HPLC) a supplemental test to ;he Cleaning and Cleanliness Test. Test samples were submitted to the Honeywell Armament System Division Material and Pro- cess Engineering (ASD M&PE) laboratory for analysis (reference 13).

Tes t S a m p l e s

Three samples of each process for each test run (A, B1, 82, C ,D) were sent to Honey- \\#ell for analysis.

Tes t D e v e l o p m e n t

The test method developed for the Residue Analysis utilized IPC Test Method 2.3.38 and 2.3.39 and methods proposed in research (references 8-12) on rosin residue.

The test method was developed for the detection and quantification of expected contaminants. The flux and solder paste manufacturers participating in the Cleaning and Cleanliness test, Alpha Metals Inc. and Kester Solder, provided the formulation of

- their products and sent the individual constituents of their product to Honeywell. Each ,:onstituent sent was from the same lot as that used i n the Cleaning and Cleanliness Test. The constituents are as follows (generic terms are used in order to protect propri- etary formulas): '

: Kester 1 585-MIL Flux (RA) Rosin Solvent Activator

(reference 91, suooested that abietic acid. dehydroabie?ic acid, and neoabietic acid were the most commonly observed resin acid isomers; less common, but also possible, were levopimaric and isopimaric acids. Standards were purchased for each of these resin acid isomers. Also, expected as contaminants, were tin and lead resinaies; most common of which are tin and lead abietate. The Archer and Cabelka method (reference 9), to manufacture abietates was used.

The approach taken in the development of the test method was to determine the HPLC retention time for the expected contaminants and to compare the HPLC chromatogram of the test sample to the reference retention time, Figure 29. The unknown peaks of the test sample are then identifiable against the expected contaminants. Any unidentifiable peaks require further identification by additional analytical methods. The Honeywell HPLC Residue Analysis Laboratory Proce- d2.e HC-355 (see Section 12 \ discuss^ I!'? EPLC rest procedure In greater deiail.

HPLC A n a l y s i s o f R e s i n A c i d s

Extraction of the residue from the test sampies was performed by soaking ;he samples for 4 hours in acetonitrile, HPLC grade. The extract was then diluted to volume and run by HPLC. A N'aiers HPLC Syslem with a Waters C18 microbondapak column was used for the analysis. The mobile phase was a 60140 acetonitrileldeionized water mixture. The calculation to convert the HPLC peak area to uglin2 is performed as follows:

Concentration of material = (AxBxC)I (DxE) in solution (mgll)

A = Area of material peak B = Concentration of standard (mgll) C = Injection volume of standard (1) D = Area of standard peak E = Injection mlume of sample (1)

Concentration of material = { (AxB)/D)xIOOOugimg

Since tin and lead abietates are not soluble in acetonitrile, a method to quantlfy and identify the materials was developed as the test progressed. For the first samples from EMPF (EMPF # I ) , the filtration rinse medium was a blend of CFC 113 and Bis-(2-Ethylhexyl) H Phosphate (a heavy me:al extractor). While the visible residues on the test sample were removed, the results of the filtration showed that the rinse media was high enough in par- ticulates to obscure the residue measurements. This method was dropped and another attempted for the lest samples of the remaining test lots; EhlPF n"2, NAC #1, and NAC #2. The samples were rinsed in acetic acid and the solution obtained was filtered. It was expected that acetic acid would strip the metal from the abietate leaving the more soluble resin acid. The filtration was followed by a second acetonitrile rinse to extract the remaining resin acids. HPLC was then performed on rhe extract. The sum of filtrate (l;cj'in2) i n J rhe area of ;he 92LC peaks (converted to ugiin') is reported as residual material in the results. The calculation to convert the filtrate weight to weight per area is as follows:

Residual I\lliterial (ugiin2) = A!B

A = Vdeight of filtered msterial (us) B = Boa:d area (in?

Ver i f i ca t ion o f Res ina tes

by S E M EDS

After the first acetonitrile extraction, the residual malerial remaining on test sample #73 from the EMPF XI BI process (vapor phase-no clean) and on test sample # I 2 4 from the EMPF #1 82 process (vapor phase1 wave solder-no clean) was analyzed by SEM EDS. The spectra for both samples identified the elements carbon, silicon, chlorine, and tin. The detected silicon may be from the board material due to scraping for sample collection and the detected chlorine may be from the flux activator. The presence

--' ' .>j :.;:. -. . Solvent sj.stcrr( 1

1 1

d e h y d r o a b i e t i c a c i d

! contaminant r . a b i e t i c a c i d !

; , / \ --,.--C' --,-d A-.T---_

1 , I I I f

6 ! 2 . 3 ; 5 - C- . 7 , , s i a * a ) :! !: :.? 17 i :sl.r ! E J

HPLC retention t ime of abietic acid, technical grade

z.77 7 : .> Solvenc system r - i . .i .. I

i I ,--- d e h y d r o a b i e t i c a c i d

9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . ? 1 8 i l ! Z r 3 Mi nic tes

' '. HPLC retent ion t ime o f a mixed standard of Neoabietic acid and Dehydroabletic acid, ' reagent grade

Figure 29

Sr,!,d I r se i i : cn ?rc:i F ~ ; s r , i r Trincfcrn: - -

i,.liss S ~ E C I : C S C O ~ ~ it I '>!S] \.,,is u;;!:;i< lo fur;P,er ~cecti!; :he :e-c)dsal rna:ir;a! rerrr::r- rng on the test sampies afier :he firs1 aceto- nltriie e,.traction. Rcsln, ;S:etic acid, 2nd !in abietate all have similar spectra on FTI\'IS.- Since, abiet~c acid is rcsin's msin conc:itu- ent, the si?:ilarily betv$#een il;e t:vo is under-

standable. For the abietic acid and tin abieta!e standard FTtv?S spectra, there are specific mass peaks \vhich occur in only one or the other spectrum \.i,hich allovis for the identificalion of both ~f a mixture is present.

The FTlvlS spectrum of the white residue, remaining on the test samples after the first acetonitrile rinse, identified the material as a mixture of abietic acid and tin abietate. (Note: Since abietic acid is the resin acid isomer present in the largest concentration, discussion for both FTMS and FTlR refers to abietic acid and tin abietate rather than resin acid or tin resinate.)

In order to verify the FTR4S results, FTlR was utilized. M1,ith the application of this technique, the difference between abietic acid and :in abietate can be seen by the presence

of a carbonyl group for abietic acid and the presence of a broad organometallic peak for tin abietate, Figure 30. The spectrum of the \\!hire residue, remaining sfier the first acetonitrile extraction, sho\vs the presence of boih the carbonyl peak of abietic acid plus the broad or~ inomets l l ic peak of tin abietate, \eri$,ing ?he preser~ca c: a mixiure of ihe

. , ;.,,;;c ;- =.=r,:,- - . - i t . . >.

.4fter the acetic acid fikri;ion process, the filtrate was analyzed by FTMS. The filtrate was identified as a mixture of tin abietste and abietic acid. Employing the FTlR method, a car- bony1 peak and broad organon;e:aiiic peak can be seen in the soec::un? iden;ifying the rna:erial 2s a mixture of tin aSie:a:e and ;bi-

etic acid.

A n a l y s i s of S u r f a c e C o n t a m i n a n t s

by FTMS

The final analysis employed was a surface scraping of a test sample followed by Solid Insertion Probe Fourier Transform Mass Spectroscopy. The process utilized allowed the quasi-separation of compounds based on volatilities. The intent of this analysis is to

provide a basis of comparison of surface adsorption for the different cleaning materials tested. Whether the existence of cleaning material in the board s~.:rface is good or bad is b.?,snd Il-,e scope cf this test. Surface

scrsplrgs of :€st san:p!e #S55 1:c.m EI\:r"F

$2 A process Ipreclesn only), of test s a w l e

#645 EI:'IFF #2 C process i\apor phase-

c!ean), and of test sampie $600 EI\IPF 82 D process (\lapor phaselivave solder-clean)

\?,ere analyzed. Rosin, or a rosin derivative v;zs detected on n"600 (D process!, CFC

11 3 \Itas detected on X600 (D process) and

on 2645 i C process), and Soird z i ier ;a l i n d bromine ( f~re re:irdanl) were 6e:ec;ed on all

three sin?p!?s.

The HPLC arid FT1dS analyses showed that

only resin acids and resin acid derr\;atives remained on the test samples if:er soidering. The thickener and so!,,en!s in the flux ;rid

solder paste were not detecled. The pres-

ence cf the aci!\,itor, ~ze:::;iiea i s cr,ic!l:-e 5,s

SEIiI EDS, \tb,is seen in :he r ~ s ~ d v e scra;;,-rcc

f r o n bc:h a Bi test simp:e (\.apor i;hase- r80

clean) and a 82 lest sampie (;,apor phese \t,,ave solder-no c l ~ i f i ) in conjunction ;',.i;h

:in and carbon.

Fioures 31-34 sCio\v ;he amount of rsc,n

acid delected by E?LC for each process

F T I R spec t ru rn 'o f a b l e t i c a c i d , t e c h n i c i l grade

F T I R spec t rum o f w h i t e c a t e r i a l c o l l e c t e d from t h e f i l t e r paper a f t e r t he a c e t i c a c i d r i n s e and f i 1 t r a t i o n

FTIR spec t rum o f t i n a b i e t a t e FTIR spec t r um o f l e a d a b i e t a t e .

I J

Figure 30 FTlR verification

:cJB ild eaCh 0 1 Tile p-rcsrt sf 3 c ~ ~ : ~ - , I - ~ ; ( F ~ :oii,..eg 3; zri.:eli 3, 527- r,i:i'l : l bn :?e ;12;€ii C 5tZ85iS !\2:Li

Sfld Ison-li.r 9.r :c:al ar~o:r,t of rt.s;n ac:d -,les (;,;gar phase-no cietni r r ~ o n g !k,e ~ " i s e - c i ~ i f i i

ds;i.c!ed :s shc.,,.n ;n Tibie 8. cie;ntd s~mpies , the pr0ci.S D i5 ,~ ip iEs There :s ..iriz:icn !ji;v6.een ;ESI isls :z,::.~n

F~~~~~ 35 shoh,s resin acid iolun;e ( iapcr pi:ara'n~sve solser-clean) \Yere i i i S each p roc i i s t y p e The \a:a:ion !s p:ei:er

deiecled for each process 2nd :es~ lot. The contimini ied i h a n ihe dirty sampies (81 and ihan e.p~c:ed, but Is 6iir1Su:ab;e l o the r.ec-

82 samplss (i,gpor phss~:lt<a\,e 321, but \,,,ere consii:ently more con:smi- r i s i r ~ sn72ll ian7;l;e size (due 10 C0St) i n d

soider- no clean) \,,,ere consisier.:iy he most :o the use of ;;rod~c!lon ecu~grnenl riiki?!

- EMPF T e s t 12: 0

NAC T e s t 11: A

, NAC T e s t 12: v

- -

VAPOR PHASE KAYE SOLDER CONTROL '

Figure 31 Effect of cleaning on abietic acid contamination

- EKPF Tat 11: 0

EMPF T o s t j2:

NAG Toa t ff l: A

3 150 $ NAG T o s t #2: IJ 100 Q ::

- V-, 50 0

B1 C BZ D A YAPOB P W E W A S SOLDER CONTROL

4000 a I

Closeup w/ou t B 2

VAPOR PHASE WAVE SOLDER CONTROL

EMPF TosL # l : 0

EMPF T o s t t.2 D

NAC T e s t # 1 : A

NAC T o s t 87: v

Figure 32 Effect of cleaning on abietic acid contamination

EKPF Tost #I: 0

FMPF T a s t $?' 0

NAC T o s t 11: A

- NAC T o s t f2.: v

VAPOR PHASE WAVE SOUJER CONTROL

Figure 33 Effect of cleaning on neoabietic acid contamination

Figure 34 Effect of cleaning on dehydroabietic acid contamination

Table 8 Percent of Resin Acid Isomer per Total Amount of Resin Acid Detected :k in !;;50rilory ~ lmu: i ;~on . Ca:a po:r.?: \,,,ere

Isomer

Cleaning and Cleanliness Test

Process Identifier

EMPF Teat b2: 0

NAC Tcst # 1: A

NAC Test t2:. v

droz?e3 only 11 a ver~f~ea st error \,,is ooc-

t,rr~rt:ed on the :est sampie oocumer:i:ron

T h ~ s occurred \wth the 31 Drocess san7ules A B 1 82 C D

kb~el ic 0 91 Ecb 91 .0C6 E l 2 % 350c/b

0 1 j C b 0 6"b 0 6 '.'C 0 5% !.;ec;b;~tic

0 6 . 7 % 8.49'0 18.296 4.59'0 Dehydroibielic

B1 C BZ D A VAPORPEUSE TAVESOfDEB CONTROL

from :he NAC #I lot as a result of a tempera-

ture ma l func t ion i n the \apor phase

x ich ine.

The residual malerial nieasuren3ent resulls,

EMPF Test #I: 0

collected by the filtration process, shoiz~ ;hit

EMPF Tost i2: 0

NAC Test j 1: A

NAC Tost #2: v

Figure 35 Effect of cleaning on residual material Figure 36 Effect of cleaning on abietic acid contamination- second acetonitrile extraction

E U F T e s t #I : 0

EMPF Tost 12:

NAC Test 11: A

NAC Tat 12: v

Figure 37 Effect of cleaning o n neoabietic acid contamination-second acetonitrile extraction

$ 400

;2 350 ' 300 d 4 250 3 zoo 2 150 : - 0 100 U

50

0 VAPOBPFLLSE TAVESOIDER CONTROL

Figure 38 Effect of cleaning on dehydroabietic acid contamination-second acetonitrile extraction

EMPF Teat 11: 0

EMPF Tost 82: D

NAC Test 11: A

NAC Tast 82: 0

EMPF Tosl # 1 0

Figure 39 Total resin acid contamination

there was more collected on the 8 2 test samples (vapor phaselwave solder- no clean) than on the other four samples, Figure 36. The EMPF # residual material measurement results were not included in the overall test site to:als due to :he change in test tech- niqire which occurred beiiveen the first lest lot (EMPF 8 ) and the following three test lots (EII~PF #2, NAC 4'1, and NAC l 2 ) . The H?LC results ::xn :he csczr!d acetonitrile rinse \.,?-c &3~-j :,3 : i - ; ~ , L ; C ; ~ ~ J p-,i;;er;a] for 15,s to:al r~s ina ie weight ,;?r area for each prc- cess type. Figures 37-39 show each isomer detected per process type. Figure 40 sho\vs ;he total resinate weight per area detected ior sach process ;ype.

Discussion o f Result::

Tne HPLC resulis for the i ~ r s t aceion~trlle extraction showed that for purposes of comparison of dirty versus clean, the best samples to utilize are 82 (vapor phaselwave solder-no clean) and D (vapor phase/wave

,-- solder-clean).- Alternative cleaning mater~al .test samples of 82 and D, as part of Phase 2 o f the Cleaning and Cleanliness Test, can be compared against the test samples from Phase 1. The range of dirty to clean is statistically d~fferent as determined by the t-test

, (reference 141, and the clean range of D is - . -1. above that of the control samples A, provld- ing room for more cleaning than observed \.,+t;h CFC 1 13.

EMPF Tosl # 1

0 5 EUPF Tosl l 2 ,

V

KAC Test 81 2 NAC T e ~ t #2 1

V a

B1 BZ C D A DIRTY CLEAN CONTROL

Figure 40 Total metal resinate contamination

The resinste removal method utilized in this test plan needs refinement i n order i O

recover more of the resinates residing on the test samples. However, the trends of dirty verses clean can still be observed from the samples tested.

Therefore, since the necessary trends are observable, and the Phase 1 testing hzs alreadv been performed vsing this meihod, -. i-r,?:? 2 !.sy~r,; ,:,,.:\ c--.;-;.:e \,,ti;h ;rz !::'-

n i t s :?:: i~~.s, :ic!-,nique cc;:sisting of 2:: ik-

tic acid rinse and filtration, foilowid by i n acetonitrile extraction, and HPLC.

The ability to identify the resin acid isomers and res~nites will ailc\v the comparison of h0\v well aiternb:i\,e cicaning ms:er;ais per-

form \f.,i:h respec: to compound -,?rno:a!. The r .a in concern is :he ability to remove resinates. it is expecied that, alihough resinates may not be soluble in a particular cleaning material, cleaning will occur if the cleaner can remove the insolubles as part of the bulk of the solubles. For example, acetonitrile, while an excellent organic solvenl, would not be a good circuit board cleaning material since it removes the resin acids and leaves the resinates. In this case, CFC 11 3 performs better,

Utilization of the HPLC analytical test method combined with the use of FTlR and FTMS will alioiv the qualitative and quantitative identii;cj:io~ of ;he p:ocess residue on a te:r

ELfPF Tosl / 2 0

NAC To31 /1 A

NAC Tosl 12 v

Avcrago Tolal.

0

sampie. Tailoring the method to each pro-

cess change, i.e., each alternative cleaning material, will enable the evaluation of alternative cleaning materials and facilitate the comparison of these materials against CFC 11 3. The analyiical method mav also be tailored to analyze the process residue incurred by \arious fluxes and soldering methods.

C o n c l u s i o n s

1. T n t ;cetoni:riie extrii;;. ioiia\\;ed by

HFLC analysis allo\vs the cntiiative and qualititive identification of ihe resin acid isomers on the test samples.

2. The acitic acid fi;:ration method, \vhiie ns; :deal, w ~ l l cuan;~:~ti\~ely distinguish dl.:.!, zjmplss i rcm cis, -.c: samples.

3. The Solid Inseriion Prc,Le Fourier Tr ips- for;.? Mass Spec1romei:y and Fourier Transform Infrared Specirometry analytical techniques can differentiate between resin acids or resinates. The presence of a mixture can also be identified by these methods.

4. The dirtylclean sampJe set which provides the widest range for comparison purposes i s 8 2 (vapor phaselivave solder-no clean) versus D (vapor phase1 wave solder- clean)

Section 9

Other Work This section describes some of the aoc~tional vvork performed by companies par!iclpatlng in the Cleaning and Cleanliness Test Pro- Grim.

C o m p o n e n t L i f t O f f P r o c e d u r e

During process developn-ient EMPF looked at the capability of the Omegameter 600 Sh4D to clean under the leadless chip carriers. A comparison was made of the assembled test boards that had been processed per test flow D. Follo\ving processing, these boards were tested in the 6OOSMD for 15 minutes and then removed from the test cell. These same boards were then retested for another 15 minutes in the 6 0 0 SMD after the solder joints had been cut on three sides of the leadless chip carriers and the carriers had been lifted. The initial ionic cleanliness values, obtained for the boards with components in place, were compared to the final ionic cleanliness values, obtained for the same boards after the components had been lifted.

The results of the test boards are shown in the table below, the assembled versus the disassembled values led to the conclusion

that 93% of the contaminants were removed from under the component. It was felt these results vbrere sufficient i o enable ;he ionics lest to be run v~ithout component iiii for individuals using the 6 0 0 SMD test equipment. For test sites using other than this equipment, a requirement was included in the test plan that a component lift would be manda- tory.

Cleanliness Test Lift-Off Procedure Done by EMPF

Cleanliness Test Results Imicrograms/square inch)

Assembled Dissassembled

8.1 0.6

7.4 0.4

7.4 1 .o 7.7 0.0

9.4 0.8

Avg. 8.0 0.56

: Therefore, the average total contamination is assumed to be 8 . 0 + 0 . 5 6 = 8 . 5 6 ug l sq. in . S ince a n average of 8 . 0 was

ach~eved \,,,hiie assen-!bled, :he calculat~cn for ?/o removal is i s follon,~:

8 0 - x 100 = 339.b remo;,al o l contam.

8.56 instlon beneath the component

R e s i d u a l R o s i n Test O p t i m i z a t i o n

E x p e r i m e n t s

A series of reagents were evaluated by Magnavox as candidate extracting chemicals in an attempt to alleviate both the white residue problem and the potential for not achieving complete rosin removal under LCCs in 10 minutes. The two reagents set- tled upon were: (1 ) the original pure Iso- propyl alcohol; ( 2 ) lsopropyl alcohol with 1.0% v!v phosphoric acid and 0.1 % v lv water added.

The pure lsopropanol (IPA) reagent worked well with many fluxes and board designs, and with the proper bag and agitation method. It was found that the grade of IPA is important, and that commercial grade, and even semiconductor grade gave higher blanks than d id ACS reagent, spectro grade, and HPLC grade. Commerc ia l 33+?/0 IPA ivas, in fact, complete!y unsat- islacicr\l. On. i ~ c i c r i o co~s ider \vi;h : i i ~

v,,hite residue probiem, is that the or is in i l test was intended to measure residues, and not gross contamination. Tests done on double sided technology boards soldered \vi:h an RMA rosin flux and cleaned in a methyl ~ h l ~ r ~ f o r r n i a i ~ ~ h ~ l solvent demonsirated that pure IPA save reason- ably consistent results \vi thout great increases i n readings upon prolonged

extraction.

The phosphoric acid blend was found to rapidly clean even heavily loaded boards without traces of white residue, and w i th very little increase i n absorbence upon prolonged andlor heated extractions. Further- more, it did not attack the solder plate or any of the components that w e could dis- cern visually (phosphoric acid with alcohol or glycol ethers and water are used as metal primers). The alcohol-acid reagent was also tested with a number of different bags, and was found to be essentially no different than pure IPA in its ability t o

e..!ract UV-absorbing ma:e!,a!s from tkle various plastics

During ;he first series c f Procedure Optimi-

i a t i ~ n ie"iS, lilagna\~ox e\,aluaied varlocs commercially available plastic baas to determine if some were more prone to yielding high blank readings :han others,

especially when lhe reagent IS heated or ilio\,ited to Extract for up to 3 0 n-iinu;es. The bags evaluated were as foilo\vs:

1. 4-mil polyethylene storage bags (Bag Packaging Co.)

2. 1 .5-mi l polypropylene storage bags (Cole-Parmer J-6498-05)

3. Glad-Lock brand freezer bags (First Brands)

4. Ziplock brand freezer bags (Dow)

5. Whirl-Pak polyethylene Sags (Nasco)

6. Chiplock brand antistatic bags (Dow)

The results found indicate that some bags contribute a somewhat higher blank than do others. Furthermore, some brands and types tend to develop leaks much easier than others. Data found in previous experiments, reveal that the solution causes higher blanks with some of the bags, par- ticulerly the Glad-Lock freezer bags. Also, thf ra?her hish ini:ial b!aok of the po!yp:c-

pyiene bags did not increase \viih time 2nd was found i o be the result of an agent that washed out easily with either solvent in just a few seconds, thus indicating the need to prewash the baos before using them for iesis. The unwashed polypropylene bags averaged about 0 .014 absorbence while the ivashed bag contributed only 0 .003 ebsorbence afier 3 0 minutes extraction.

Next, the pure isopropyl alcohol reagent was evaluated against the alcohol modified with the addition of phosphoric and a trace of water, by running actual production boards, IPC-B-25 Mod 1 boards, some cleaned and some not, and some fused with glycols and some not. The first test conducted was a concentration-versus- time experiment i n an attempt to better understand the dissolution rate problems. The authors observed gradual increases in measured rosin concentration as t ime increased from 1 0 to 3 0 minutes. Hae:- ever, the rather significant increase nored

~ u r i f i g b e n c h m a r k 1 e S t I n ~ ? ' i r is 301 &served during ihese tests. Ti-e p r ~ d u c - :i3n paneis used i o conduct this lest ccn- i i i n e d fi\,e beards :hat \ve:e bu~l t \vi!h tra-

d1:ional technology, and possessed only one top-side component that \.,,as large and !!at, and h i d no bottonl-side con-!ponents.

The results o f ext ract icn t ime-versus- concentrat ion showed that the boards extracted in the phosphoric acid-modified so!vent did not display the random variability apparent in the alcohol-only tests, snd in fact, yielded a slightly increasing patt,ern similar to that observed at NAC. It should be noted that these four times represent four different boards, not aliquots taken

from one board running for 3 0 minutes. Thus, it may be possible that the actual amount of flux present does vary somewhat. A repeated series of tesls with a sirn- ulated soldering process but a measured amount of rosin, follo\ved by an automated cleaning process, may be required l o reveal if the variation is a resuli of actual differences in the flux loading. The obser- vation that the phosphoric acid modified so!vent gave more consistent results was evident throughout all the tests performed (thereby giving the hint that the variability observed \viih the alcohol-only solvent may not be the result solely of different flux loadings).

Kext, five product ion panels tkat \zfEre cg luxee '~.ze;!-,sr :: 5;n:; !;::: -: \,:?re analyzeo ~y bo th solvenis. A g i i ~ i , the results reveal the acid modified solvent l o b e m u c h m o r e consis tent . The ac id reagent yielded an average residual rosin loading that was 30% higher than the aicohol-only reaaent. Again, since the lest board spezirnens \,.ere individual boards

2 k e n f rcm an actual production line, lne variations observed may have some basis in fact, as well as experimental varialions.

It was then decided to try to determine if either of the solvents could remove gross contamination, such as would be found o n uncleaned boards, and which is required by the CFC Alternatives Study. Attempts at EMPF and at NAC to remove gross contamination by extraction with pure IPA yielded boards wi th visible white residue after the test, and also the NAC chemists could achieve increased rosin removal results wi th increasing time. It should again be noted 117:: t h ~ test pr3ced~lre, as d ~ s i g n e d by DOW, was intended to measure amounts

c f !c,sin r e r , i l n i n g on ;he D C i r C S i i t ~ :

cleining, and not gross contarnins:ton Vet. Ik~e br#i1!,:~cal technique \,,souid \*,,o:k ,,,,ell 1 f

all of the res~dual rosin could be brought Into solution. Ten product~on panels were again analyzed, five by pure IFA and five by !he acid-modified so!vertt. The :ests \sl'Ere conducted by shaking ;he boards in p!zs:lc

bags for 1 0 minutes in an attempt to duplicate the rosin test called out in the CFC benchmark procedure. The results show that both methods yielded results ;hat had \,arialions of about 20% (which may be real), but the acid solution gave an average rosin loading that was a full 65% higher than the alcohol-only solvent. Upon drying, traces of white and bluish residue could be seen on the boards extracted in IPA only, while the boards extracted with the phosphoric acid solvent appeared clean. It could be concluded that the alcohol's lower reading is a result of i ts inability to remove gross contamination, and the higher readings are probably more true.

I;:~;ECS b:anks i o i \ . @ . d a s ~ g n . ' ; c i . - i scc rce o f errrjr. i t i l S @ , , n i e r e ~ : ! ~ ~ l " , ERC'L;~, ,YE: I~ es 2 iong helo : f . ~ o r y ti;. !, ' is-

na\,o): \,,hlch IS that tt,e fusing fluid is nei!!y iI;.,,ays i b s ~ r b e d into the sbrface of :he board during refioiv. It \.,,as fcsnd t P r i I by ~ 0 i k i 7 ~ ;r,e boards in a hct r:ix:u!o ~f 2- Sutir iol sr,d ,ivaier. 11 \*,.as poss~b ie to extract fusing fluids and verify their presence in the extracting solvent by anal!*sis, on ore:vous occasions.

Flnilly, several additional cailbrstion cur!,es i w r e crested using bolh solifents to cern- onstrate linearity. The pure water-wniie rosin in IPA is very linesr, has a slope of about 1 .O, and passes through the origin. The same curve wi th the acid modified alcohol has almost the same slope, but has a slight absorbence at zero concentration. Both RMA and RA flux i n pure IPA yield curves that are still very linear, but have a slightly steeper slope and a slight positive Y-intercept. The same two fluxes in the acid modif ied solvent demonstrate very

As a further refinement of the proposed steep curves, snd extrapolated necjative test, it was decided to determine if reflo\v intercepts, indicsTing a need to cerefully fusing of boards might contribute a high optimize the amount of extraction solvent blank reading. It was found that the fused used, as well as the final concentration boards gave a reading that was 136% used for the UVlVlS analysis procedure. higher (than unfused) in IPA, and 179% higher (than unfused) in IPAAlacid. The two readings compared almost exactly to each

V i s u a l l n s p e c t i o n l P h o t o g r a p h y

other as before, w i th ihe acid reagent , . c -G,d~ng - 4' bc:'; i n c ~ d an2 ~;*'.I?.~? Soar2s 1.2 i o 20% nign6: ;:-?I? purz !?A, :van ;i,c >zjh the IPC test boil.ds used in the aenchmark test were not fused, this series of test indicates thar when a production line cleaning operation is to he optimized, a series of pre-soldered boards mus i be analyzed i s

The Test program does not include visual :;>cciic:-s 2 s sa~:,'!iil cri'?:;:: ttc\t%#e\.fr.

~x;cnsi\:c; phoiographs \+i'er? oc;air:e$ r;:

both EMPF and NAC. A ripresen;ztive assembly from each process sequence was photographed and then close-up photographs were taken of each quadrant. In addi t ion, ;~ t to tographs \,,Ere taken o f

Test Chronoiogy

Time in Test Hours Description

Phase I

Start o l ambient measurement sequence

First elevdted temperature measurement sequence

Second elevated temperature measurement sequence

168 Benchmark elevated temperature measurement sequence

Final ambient measurement sequence

Extended Test

336 First extended elevated measurement sequence

504 Second extended elevated measurement sequence

840 Third extended elevated measurement sequence

1300 Fourth exlen3ed e;e.,a!ed measurement s e q u e ~ i ~ e

1848 Final extended elevated measurement sequence

assemblies \vhich had undergone ~on ic - clean!;ness testing or surface insulation resistance testing.

These photographs show that visible residues remained on process C and D assemblies produced at NAC, while no such residues remained on EI\4PF's process C and D assemblies.

E x t e n d e d S u r f a c e I n s u l a t i o n

R e s i s t a n c e Tes t

During the formation of the test program, some questions were raised regarding the duration of the SIR test and the relation of SIR testing to reliability. In order to gain more information regarding the effects of cleanliness on the SIR test results, the assemblies from the second run at NAC were subjected t o additional SIR testing upon completion of the Phase 1 requirements.

After the final ambient measurements had been made at the completion of NAC's second SIR test, the chamber environment was ramped up to 85°C and 85% RH over a period of 3 0 minutes, and the electrical bias was reapplied to all test patterns. The chamber was not opened between the completion of the Phase 1 final ambient measurement sequence and the beginning of the extended SIR test. Measurements \\,ere taken periodically (usually at one \.,leek intervals) using the same procedure as in the Phase 1 SIR iezi.

After completion of the final extended elevated measurement sequence ( 1 8 4 8 hours), the chamber was ramped down to ambient conditions over a period of 3 0 minutes. A final ambient measurement sequence was not made. - I he test assemblies were removed from t'le in-chamber test fixture and piaced irlto clean polyethylene bags. The test assem- bl ies were then examined for v isual defects. Test patterns exhibiting low resistance values were examined for slivers, sol-

. - der balls, or other physical anomalies. A representative assembly f rom each test process was photographed. All test assemblies were stored for later examination. The data for the extended SIR test was compiled and analyzed.

Boxplots

Graphical illustrations of the extended SIR data are shown i n the form of boxplots.

The boxpiots are shoivn in i\tb,o formats. The first format shows the log of the ohms-per-square value on the y-axis 2nd the test time on the x-axis. For the first boxplot (F igures 4 1 - 5 0 ) , the data is grouped by test-pointlassembly sequence. These plots show the effect of continued exposure to 85"C;85% RH. The second boxplot format (Figures 51-68) has the 1200 hour SIR value minus the 168 hour SIR value in log of ohms-per-square on the y-axis, and the ind iv idual assemblies (sorted by process) on the x-axis. These second plots show the effect of continued exposure to 85'C185% RH on each test point of each assembly.

Examination of the boxplots show trends in SIR values as test time progressed. Gener- ally, the boxplots showed that SIR values decreased with continued exposure to the high-temperaturelhigh-humidity environment; however, some of the test results showed an increase of SIR values \with increasing test time.

The unpopulated daisy chain test patterns (Figures 4 2 and 44) showed a decrease in SIR levels during Phase 1's 168 hour test time, but remained fairly steady ( in the region of 10'' t o 1013 ohms per square) throughout the extended portion of the 1848 hour test. The SIR values remained relatively constant after 3 0 0 hours of exposure. This effect appeared to be independent of the assemblies' leveis of cieanli- ness.

Test results from the populated daisy chain patterns (Figures 5 6 and 57 processes C and D) were more variable than those for the unpopulated daisy chains. There were also more outlier values for the populaied daisy ch i in SIR results.

The comb patterns also exhibited a sub- s:antial amount of variability in SIR values. The Process A comb patterns Figure 51 exhibited a steady decline over the course of the test. The height of the boxes in the boxplots indicate that the Process A comb patterns were also highly variable. Those test assemblies which had been exposed to either assembly sequence B1 or 82 Figures 52 and 5 3 exhibited less variability and less tendency to degrade with exposure to the test environment. The process C and D unpopulated comb patterns showed less variability and a slight decline in SIR values (Figures 58 and 59). In comparing Process C and Process D populated comb patterns

(Figures 54 and 551, we see t\vo very dif-

ferent results. Both remained fairly constant \z11th time, but the Process C boards \yere much less variable that the Process D boards.

One possible explanation for populated comb lest results \vould be the entrapment of \vavesoIder flux residues under the components of Process D assemblies. Process C assemblies had only been exposed to solder paste flux, which was localized to the chip carrier mounting pads. Flux residues were not observed on the comb patterns under the chip carriers for Process C assemblies. The Process D assemblies, on the other hand, had been wave fluxed. Flux was observed to have flowed up the via holes located under the chip carriers and onto the comb patterns. Visual examination of the test assemblies after SIR testing showed that the Phase 1 cleaning process left residues under the chip carriers. Test results from the populated comb patterns indicated that if flux residues were incom- pletely removed by the cleaning process, then the SIR values were more variable. Test results f rom the populated inner- perimeter patterns (Figures 6 5 and 66) and the populated outer-perimeter patterns (Figures 6 7 and 68) on process C and D assemblies also show the connect ion between variable SIR values and the incomplete removal of flux residues. For both the inner-perimeter patierns (located under ihe chip carriers) and ihe outei-perihe?er pa:- terns (not under a chip carrier), solder paste flux and wavesolder flux coated portions of these patterns during processing. The chip carrier tended to isolate the inner- perimeter patterns from ihe cleaning process. The inner-perimeter pat:erns, there- fc:e, appeared "dirtier" than the cuter perimeter patterns, which \vere not so isolated. The observable effect was that the SIR test results for the inner-perimeter patterns were more variable than the test results for the outer-perimeter patterns.

412 ua 40 40 46 ea e m ~5 an m tea ~ b ) u a su 810 m8

A I B 2 l C D Board Serial Numbsr

Figure 41 Extended vs. benchmark SIR values-measurement point MI (comb)

l l l l l l l l l l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ i ~ ~ ~ l J

A B 1 B2 C Board Serial Number

Figure 42 Extended vs. benchmark SIR values-measurement point M2 (daisy chain)

Figure 43 Extended vs. benchmark SIR values-measurement point M3 (comb)

- ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l

498 a1 418 m m 4 0 ~ 411 4 9 414 40 40 4s a ee w mu tea w sss a8 4.a o~ 810 a#

A B 1 B2 C D Board Serial Number

cOd a1 411

A

Figure 44 Extended vs. benchmark SIR values-measurement point M4 (daisy chain)

Ebard Serial Number

8tO 8% 813 U

D w bso W a &4

C 412 1CO 411 414

B 1 4td a 4% a 470

B 2


(9 -

- 2 -

-I--

I , ~ ~ D E I D D D ~ ~ D ~ ~ - (9

-

*

Figure 46 Extended vs. benchmark SIR values-measurement point M6 (inner parallel lines)

a3 0 -4 0 7

- -

-6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1

ea 8 % ~ u o sto as

D Bard Serial Numbar

sro w w as aao

C cw a 1 438 ta au

A ce 41t 4x1 414 an rbe ~ a o

B 1

A I B 1 I B2 I C I D Board Serial Number

Figure 47 Extended vs. benchmark SIR values-measurement point M7 (outer parallel lines)

I--

-6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

A B 1 B2 C D Board Serial Number


Figure 49 Extended vs. benchmark SIR values-measurement point M9 (inner parallel lines)

- 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Figure 50 Extended vs. benchmark SIR values-measurement point MI0 (outer parallel lines)

f l 8 818 810 & a

D

G> ' 4 - 9 L - -L

a> 2 - CO r-

I o g a 3 -- 9 I - -2 - I 03 O -4 - 0 7

-6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

b a r d Serial Numbjr

a sod b30

C W 418 LDd 461

A

818 as,o ra, ua au

D

411 4 P r(D 414 *Z

B 1

Board Serial Number

ma cm m ba sn,

C

4m 4eb rbQ 40

B2

e ua ao w ss B2

MI 4% ue n o em

A 411 4~ S(P 414 .a

B 1

Extended SIR Test Unpopulated Comb Pat te rn (h l l )

Process A

H o u r s in Test (85C / 85% RH)

Figure 51

Extended SIR Test Unpopulated Comb Pa t t e rn (h l l )

Process B l '

H o u r s in Test (85C / 85% RH) Figure 52

Figure 53

Extended SIR Test Unpopulated Comb Pattern (MI)

Process B2

Hours in Test (85C / 85% RH)

Extended SIR Test Populated Comb Pa t te rn (111)

: ' ~ o c ; ~ ~ y c

:icauzr in Test (85C / 65% RK) Figure 54

Extended SIR Test Populated Comb Pat tern (MI)

Process D.


Figure 55

Extended SIR Test Populated Daisy Chain Pat tern (M2)

Process C


Figure 56

Figure 57

Extended SIR Test Populated Daisy Chain Pat tern (h12)

Process D


Extended SIR Test Unpopulated Comb Pat tern (M3)

process C.

Hours in Test (85C / 85% RH) Figure 58

Extended SIR Test Unpopulated Comb Pa t t e rn (113)

Process D


Figure 59

Extended SIR Test Unpopulated Daisy Chain Pattern (M4)

Process A


Figure 60

Figure 61

Extended SIR Test Unpopulated Daisy Chain Pa t t e rn (X14)

Process Bl .


Extended SIR Test Unpopulated Daisy Chain Pat tern (hf4)

Process E2

Hours in Test (85C / 85% RH) Figure 62


Process C


Figure 63


Process D


Figure 64

5 3

Extended SIR Test Populated Inner-Perimeter Pat tern (M6)

Process C

Hours in Test ( 8 5 ~ / 85% RH)

Figure 65

Extended SIR Test Populated Inner-Perimeter Pat tern (M6)

Process D


Figure 66

Extended SIR Test Populated Outer-Perimeter Pattern (h17)

Process C

H o u r s in Test (8% / 85% RH)

Figure 67

Extended SIR Test Populated Outer-Perimeter Pattern (h17)

Process D

H o u r s in Test (85C / 85% RH) Figure 68

Section 10

Phase 2 and 3 Testing The ;\,,lo-fold purpose of Phase 2 is to (1 ) E\~aluate and find CFC alternatives that

make the grealest positive impact on stratospheric czone protection, and 12) rnzl~>t i in cleaning performance and environmental standards. Benchmark testing specified in Phase 1 will be duplicated for CFC alternatives, \t\,iih ihe exception of the cleaning process. The alternative cleaning material and processes will be substituted in place of batch vapor degreasing using CFC-1 13 material.

In order to evaluate materials expediently, multiple test sites will be used for Phase 2 testing. The four categories of test sites are listed below.

a. Material vendors

b. Independent military labs

c. Electronic assemblers

d. lndeperident test labs

All of these test sites must meet the test site evaluation criteria given in the following list.

a. Organization of supervisory and responsible test personnel

b. Personnel records, including resumes and job descriptions, of supervisory and other personnel directly inmlved wiih the testing

c. Training and retraining or conipeiency assurance procedures

d. Test Equipment and Facilities. There shall be adequate space, environmental controls, test equipment, and safe:y s!,sterns provided.

e. Test equipment maintenance and calibration procedures

f. Preparation, handling, control, and identification of printed board assemblies

g. Actual testing of printed board assemblies . -

'.la. Available reference standards andlor materials. "Cleaning and Cleanliness Testing Program-A Joint Industry1 MilitarylEPA Program to Evaluate Alterna- tives to Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for Printed Board Assembly Cleaning," dated

. 3 0 March 1989 .. i. Test reports

j. Test facility record keeping

Qualifica:ion of a test faciiity to evaluate the cleaning of printed board assemblies shall be initially established and periodically reaf- f ~ r ~ i e d I!-i ireii ier by on-site re\,ie\zl. The

TIviVT may observe some or all of the testing and must approve the test report prior to publication. It \\(as generally agreed that all results of any material evalusied in Phase 2 would be p~i:,lished, regardless of the testing oulcome. This policy will ensure that material vendors will perform preliminary tests.

There was some concern regarding material prio'ritization for review i n Phase 2. In response t o this concern, a multitiered approach to material evaluation was developed. Materials that meet the following criteria would be considered in the first tier.

a. Commercially available material

b. Material compatible with commercially available equipment

C. The Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) must be at least 2 0 % less than the nitromethane stabilized CFC-1 1315% methanol azeotrope (i.e., ODP less than 0.60)

d. One me:erial per company submitted for first tier testing

A material vendor must also provide specific inforn:i:ion to cariicipate in Phase 2 stin ins. A c ~ i ~ i l e d i low of ihe cleaning process including times, temperatures, dwells, and so forth is required. Additionallv, information concerning toxicology studies, recommended waste minimizaiion and handling procedures, and I\llaterial Sifeiy Dara Shee:s (h4SDS) must also be submirted. The oead- line for subniiiiing data for ihe first tier is one month following publication of this report. Those materials that will be commercially available within one year and may require new equipment are included in the second tier. Finally, the third tier will include those material vendors that have already submitted materials in the first or second tier.

The test facility performing the testing is responsible for preparing a report of the test results. This report will be submitted to the TMVT for approval. Once this report is approved it will be sent to a Department of Defense committee for review.

The Th4VT in!ends to submit all test :esuIts (including passing and falling results) to the

DOD group. Therefore. the SpGCSOrS of the siternatl\~es are urged 10 do dry runs on {he candidaie cieining agerit prior i o TII/I\/T scrui~n~q. Ti-,e COD ccn?n?i:;ee hzs nci \ €1

been formed but \ ~ I I I be comprised of representatives from all of ihe n~ i l~ ta ry services. The DOD commitlee comm ill revie\v the resulis of the report and consider additional enviro:i- mental, health and safety in formi~ ion concerning the alternative material. The DOD committee will then make a recommendation to the Office of Standardization and Data Management for specification revision. One of the first specifications that will be revised is the MIL-STD-2000 series. A recommendation will be made to the Soldering Technol- ogy Standardization Working Group. Publi- cation of test results will be coordinated through IPC.

Phase 3

Phase 3 will address many o i the controver- sial cleaning and reliability questions ihat have existed for many years. These questions are being revisited because of the phase-out of CFC sol\/enis. Some of the questions th i t Phase 3 \will address are listed beloiv.

a. What quantitative level of cleanliness is recvired icr each :\,?e of iechnolog~!,? is, ,, , . I - - - ioL;: mou~; t , ii‘l:~ugh h ~ i ~ , mixed).

b. Should additional flux chemistries, including \vaier so!uble and Io\v solid fluxes be evaluated?

c. Is it necessary ro ciean for all ippiica- iions,'end-use envi:onmertis?

As of ;he date of ihis printing, ine IPC Fhise

3 Task Group is currently developing a test plan for evaluating the performance, clean- ability, 2nd reliability of water soluble flux technology, and another test plan for evaluating the performances and reliability of low solids fluxes.

Section 1 1

Box plots This seclion conliins a cornpilstion of all boxplots reviev,~ed by ihe TI\/IVT in the prep- ira;ion of this remrt.

1,'14-B1 represents n-~easurement point 1\44 (Daisy Chain-Qusorsnt Ci, for process seouence B l .

Tr<e ;ill? of ihe gr;phs indic;;e f ~ r \',,i?ici? Boxplot Key fac~l~ty or run number the data relates to

Benchmark Ionic Cleanliness Test Comparison of Processes

Combined EhfPF and NAC Data Ionic Cleanliness Test

Vertical Axis-Uni~s are in equivalent micrograms of NaCl per square inch removed from the board surface. ..- '

Horizontal Axis-These designations refer to the facility, run number, and process sequence. A hyphenated designation is a combination of these factors.

E l = EMPF Run #1 E2 = EhllPF Run $2 N1 = NAC Run #I N2 = NAC Run #2 A = Process A B1 = Process 61 B2 = Process B2 C = Process C D = Process D

Process

Ezxhmirk lo& Cleadiwss Test Cmparlson of Rocess s

. ~ocesses A - BI - 8 Examples:

El-B2 = EMPF Run # 1, Process 82

N2-C = NAC Run nU2, Process C

Residual Rosin Test

Vertical Axis -7a:sl number of micrograms of equiv;ie~,; rcsiri : e r ~ ~ , e d jrci:i'l 5-IB asser3-

bly.

Horizontal Axis-Same as for the ionic cleanliness test with this addition:

EX = Data from ihe extended extraction experimen: peiformed dur~ng the second h142 run.

D A Nl-A W-A ElQl Q-61 141-81 h2-5: F:-: €2-C t4l-C N2-C

Example: N2-EX-D = NAC run $2, extended

extraction, process D

In5c Ckariiness Test Processes A - 82 - D

Surface Insulation Resistance (SIR) Test

Vertical Axis-All units are the base-ten log- ' -. arithm of the calculated ohms-per-square . -.

value.

Horizontal Axis-All designations refer to the measurement-pointlprocess-sequence combination of the data group.

Examples:

. M I -A represents measurement point M1 iCor;.S-Quadrant D), for p:ocess sequence k

&nchmark Ionic Clcanlincss Tcst Processes A - B2 - D

,..

Benchmark, Residual Rosin Test Comparison of Processes

Processes A - E l - C

Site and Run - Proccrss SitdRun - Process

.---.---. - - - - - /

./' ~enchmark ~ e s i d u i l Rosin Test Combined EMPF and NAC Data

'd zooooo

<.,

Benchmark Residual Rosin Test Combined EMPF and XkC Data

Process

Resic)ilal Rosin Berd-mrk Test Cornparism of Processes Processes A - 62 - D

SitdRun - Process

k n c h m a r k Slji Tcst - Ehil'F and 5:IC D a i x Cornpal-]son of Comb Pattcrns

l'roccsscs ;\ - I31 - C

knchmark SIR Test - EMPF Run +1 Comparlson of Comb Patterns

Processes A - E l - C

Path Eiumber - h-ocess

. .

Benchmark SIR Test - EhlPF Run 42 Comp?.nson of Comb Pa terns

I'rocesses A - DI .- h

I3cnchmar)i SIR Tcst - YAC Run :il Comparlson of Comb Pattcrns

. iProccsscs A - D l - C


Benchmar$ SIR Tcst - NAC Run #2 Comparlson of Corn b Patterns

Processes A - B l - C

Benchmark SIP Test - EhIPF and SL.C Data Corn arlson of Comb Patterns %recesses A - BZ - D

Path Numbcr - PI-OCCS Path Number - Process

Dcnchmark SIR Test - EMPF Run +1 Corn arison of Comb Patterns

f-'rocesses A - B2 - D

Path Numbcr - Process

Benchmark SIR Tcst - EMPF Run 412 Corn arlson of C o m b Patterns

kocesses A - B2 - D

Path Number - Pracess

Benchmark SIR Test - NAC Run +1 Corn a r ~ s o n of Comb Patterris

f-'rocesses A - B2 - D

Benchmark SIR Tcst - NAC Run it2 Corn arison of Comb Patterns

. %roc,es A - B, - D


Ueilcllmarlc SI!i Tcst - EMPF and NAC Data Compol.ison of C o m b Patterns

Processes C and D

I';I L!r N1:in b c r - 1'1.occss

Benchmark Slit Test - EMPF and NAC Data Comparison of Outer-Perimeter Patterns

Processes A - B1 - C

Path Numbcr - hoccss . .


&ncl?rnark SIR Test - ,Eh!PF Run +1 Compar~son of Outer-Perimeter Patterns

Processes A - 31 - C

Ijcnchmnrk SIR Test - ,SAC Run 412 Cornparis011 of Outcr-Per~metcr Patterns

I'roccsses A - B1 - C

8 1 I I I I I

M7-A MID-A M7-Dl M I O - E l M7-C M1O-C

Path Number - Process Path Nurnbe: - Process

Benchmark SIR Test - EhIPF Run #2 Comparison of Outer-Perimeter Patterns . Processes A - B1 - C

Benchmark SIR Test - EhfPF and NAC Data Comparison of Outer-Perimeter Patterns

Processes A - B2 - D

M7-A M I D - A M 7 - E l UD-El M7-C M1O-C

Pa?+, Nu=+: - Process

Benchmark SIR Test - NAC Run 31 Comparison of Outer-Perimeter Patterns

Processes h - Dl - C

Benchmark SIR Test - EMI'F Run #1 Conparlson of Outer-Perimctcr Patterns


Path Number - Process Path Number - Proc-

Ec11chrna1.k SIR Test - EhiPF and KAC Data Comparison of Outcr-I'crlmeter p a t t e r n s

Processes C and D &ncl?rnarl< SIR Tcst - EhIPF Hun $2

C o n ~ p a r ~ s o r l of Outer-Perlmcter Pa t te rns I'rocesscs A - I32 - D

8 I I I I , I J M7-A M10-A M 7 - D 2 M 1 0 - D 2 N7-D MIO-D

Path Number - Process Path Number - Process

Benchmark SIR Test -. NAC Run #I Comparlson of Outer-Perimeter P a t t e r n s

I'rocesses A - B2 - D Ucnchmqr l~ SII< Tcst - E M P I : a n d NAC I h l a Compar~son of Inncr-Pcrlmclcr P a t l c r n s

IJroccsscs A - Ill - C

0; I I I IA . AIG-A All)-A Ai6-Dl bI2-Dl AIG-C AiD-C

Path liumber - Process

Ecnchmarl< SIR Test - , S A C Run +2 Comparlson of Outer -Per lne te r Pa t te rns

Processes A - E2 - D

0 I I I 1 I

A1G-A A19-A LIB-UI NO-Ill AlG-C AID-C

Path Xumbcr - Process 1'aLh Nurn bcr - l'roccss

I'nlh Numbcr - I'roccss

L lcnc j~n~ar l< SIIt 'l'csl -. NAC 1tu11 :I 1 Comparison of I n n c r - l J c r ~ m c l e r l ' o l l c r~ ls

IJroccsscs A - U1 - C

i'ath Numbcr - I'roccss

Bcnchmnrlc Slli Tcsl - NAC l iun 412 Cornparison of I n n c r - P c r i ~ n c t c r I1nLLcrns

IJroccsscs t i - U1 - C

,, MG-A MB-A hlG-U1 b!B-U1 AIG-C Al9-C

Pal11 Number - Process

Ucncl!lnarlc SIIt Test - .EhlllF Nun 4 1 Comparison of I n n c r - P c r ~ m c t c r l 'a l lcrns

I'roccsscs A - 02 - D

I1s:h S u ~ : ~ b c r - I'roccss

!Icncl!m;ll.lc Slli 'i'csl - $hil'l: I ? \ ~ r l 41.2 Coln])arlson o l Inncr-l'cr~,n?cl? 1'alLcI'ils

I'roccsscs A - LIL - i)

MG-A U S - A hiG-DZ AID-L)2 b!G-D AI0-D

PaLh Numbcr - I'roccss I'aLll Nurnbcr - I'roccss

l~cncllrnnl-k S111 Tcsl - NAC I ? U I ~ !rl Comp:irison of 1nncr.-Pcri r-rlctcr lJnllcl-ns

1)roccsscs A - U2 - D

Ucnclilnark S I R Test - IgAC Ruri 41.2 Coinparison of 11lnci.-1'crimet.w I'atlcrns

, - I'roccsscs A - U2 - D Ucncl!rnarl< SIR 'I'csl - &hiI)b' I < I I I I 412

Comparisorl Of Inncr-Pcrr mclcl- I'allc~.ris Proccsscs C a n d 1)

0 - I I

hlG-A MO-A h!G-U2 h iD-D2 S1G-U AID-D . .

0 1 ' I I I t J hlG-C A I O - C AIG-D AIO-D

I I , I I hlG-C NO-C AIG-D AID-D

k n c h m a r k SIR Tcst ESIPF. and YAC Data Compar~son of Daisy Chaln Patterns

13roccsscs A - BZ - D


knchm.arlr SIR T p t - EAjPF Run #1 Comparison of Daisy Cham Patterns


Path Piurnber - Process

Benchmark SIR Tcst - EhjPF Run *2 Comparison of Daisy Chain Patte1-11s

Processes A - BZ - D


Ilcnchmarlc SI1< Tcst - IfAC Iiun # I Co~nparison of Daisy Chain Patterns

Processes A - BZ - D

Path Piumber - Process

Benchmark SIR '&st - NAC Run #2 Comparison of Daisy Chaln Pat terns


U C I I C ~ I I I ~ : I I . ~ ; SIR 'I'cst. - i<hil'F I < I I I I 112 Cornpariso~l or Dais Clliiil~ l'i~LLcrlls

IJroccsscs 8 a n d I)

Extended SIR Test Unpopulated Dalsy Chain P a t t e r n (h14)

Process A

I'nLIi N I I I ~ bcr - i'l'occ-ss

IJc1lc1111~:lrlc SIN Tcsl - NAC l i ~ l n :I1 Col;~p:ir.~scn or I)nis\~ CII:\III 1';lLLcrns

i'l.occsscs t a n d D

MZ-C MI-C MZ-D Il.1-D

Extended SIR Test Enpopulated Dalsy Chain P a t t e r n (hi.;)

Process B1

Hours in Tcst (85C / B5X RH)

I 'nLh Nuinbcr - I 'roccs

Extcndcd SIR Tcst Unpopulated Comb Pattern (Ail)

I'rocess A

Extcnded SIR. Tcst Unpopulatcd Dalsy Chain Pattcrn (M4)

Process B2

ilours in Test (85C / 65% RH) Hours in Tcst (85C / 05% RH)

Extended SIR. Test Unpopulated Dalsy Chain Pattern (M4)

Process C

Extendcd SIR Test Unpopulated Comb Pattern (MI)

Process E l :

Hours in Tcst (85C / E5X 32) Hours in Tmt (05C / e5:! R!!)

Extendcd S I R Test Unpopulated Daisy Chaln Pattern (hl4)

Process D Extcndcd SIR Tcst

Unpopulated Comb Pattern (Ml) Process B2

l i our~ in T-t (85C / 85% RH) Houn in T u t (85C / 85% RH)

Estcndcd SlIi Test Populated Comb P a t t e r n

Process C

" Hours in Test (85C / 85% R11)

Extended SIR Test Populated Comb P a t t e r n (hi l )

Process D

h'ours in Tcst (85C / 85% RH)

Extcpdcd S1.R Tcst Populated D a ~ s g Chaln P a t t e r n (hi2)

Process C

Extcndcd SIR Tcst Populated Daisy Chain I'attern (!J2)

I'roccss D


Extended SIR Test Unpopulated Comb P a t t e r n (hf3)

Process C

2Iours in Tcsl (85C / 85% RH)

Extended SIR Test Unpopulated Comb P a t t e r n (h13)

Process D

Houn In Test (85C / 85% RH) Houn in Test (85C / 85% RH)

Extcndcd ,Slli Tcst Populated Inner-Pcr~mctcr Pat tcrn (hfG)

Proccss C

H o u r s in Teat (85C / 85% RH)

Extended.SIR Test Populated Inner-Penmeter Pattern (M6)

Process D

Houm in k t (8.X / &:: C i i )

Extcnded .SIR Tcst Populated Outer-Perlmeter Pattern (hi?)

Process C

H o u r s in Tw1 (85C / 85% RH)

Extendcd.SlR Tcst Populated Outer-Per~meter Pat tern (hi?)

Process D

H o u r s in Test (85C / 85% RH)

Ex:ended vs Eenchark SIR VaLxs Meastrement Pdnt M 1 (COMB)

- 7

P

-6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 " 1 1 1

n - ~ n . . - ~ . ~ ~ . ~ $ . w . ~ ~ - ~ d . ~ - r n r r m s . r r o ~ r ~ r , ~ A B I B 2 C D

Board Serhl Nmber

Exte,yj~d vs Benchmrk SIR \'~I,xs t\/leesse;nent Point hZ3 ICOtJEI

BZ C D Board Serial Nmber

Exlended vs Ekdhnark SIR LfaIwi Maasuement Polnt M4 (DAISY CHAIN)

Extended vs &xh-nark SIR VaEss Measuemnt Pdnt N5 (Cotb~s)

Exlen3ed vs Bcxb-nark SIR \/alws t\/laasxc4mnt Pdnt 148 ( I N N E R PARALLEL LINES)

- 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 t 1 1 ' I J

l I , . . L . . I . I . . ~ * I ' O d D . ~ n " r ~ a m . d ~ . * , . u , " s .

A 81 B 2 C D Board Serial Nmber

A

Extendad vs nark Slii Valves Meawemnt POht M7 iOUTER PARALLEL LINES)

Exte{ded vs WnP&rk S l i i Ltzl'xs Mezsuemn! Pdnt tJ8 (Cot4sI

Board Serlal Nmbsr 8 1

. . . . I .* L ~ . . . " . I I . . 0 1 C I ~ 4 " . I U I I I D 1 ~ . * L , * O , .

A B 1 8 2 C D Board Serlal Nmber

I I I . * I ) . * D . ) I . . . 1 a O ~ C I ~ 4 g . P I L 1 W ~ 1 1 - 9 O U U I * . *

8 2 C D

Exlended \*s Gclxhna:k SIa L1aIxs /dE!8S3Ue,7ent Fdnt 149 (INNER PARALLEL LINES)

ExleLxkd vs Benchnark S!R Vabes Meawmnt Point MI0 (OUTER PARALLEL LINES)

- 6 1 " 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 t l l l l l l j - . U - ~ - ~ . ~ 1 . ~ Q . 1 4 a - . - e e - . . . n - . . P O I M e U . . L ~

A I B I I 02 Board Serial Nmber

C D

Section 12

Appendix 1 2 . 1 Refe rences

1. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. Future Concentrat~ons of Strstospheric Chlorine and Bromine. EPA 40011 -881 005. August 1988.

2. Peter Yurcisin. Letter to Dr. Steven 0 . Andersen. /\/lay 18, 1988 . From the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Production and Logistics, Director Standardization and Data Man- agement. Washington, D. C.

3. Frigge, M., Hoaglin, D.C., Iglewicz. B. "Some Implementations of the Box- plot", The American Statistician, Febru- ary, 1989, Vol. 43, NO. 1.

4. Tukey, J.W., "Exploratory Data Analy- sis," 1977, Reading, MA, Addison- Wesley.

5. Rich'ey, \I\!F., J.A. Trombka, E.L. Tas- sett, T.D. Cableka, and A.H. Hazlitt. "New Analysis For Residual Rosin On Cleaned Electronic circuit Boards," In Proceedings Of The NEPCON WEST Conference, March 1985 , Cahners Exposition Group.

6. Viliiimer, P., Boomer, B. "Rationale and Methodology for a Standard Residual Rosin 'Test by UV-\lisibie S3ect:ophoio- metric I\/,etho<s." IPC-TP-79 1 Presented at the 32nd Annual IPC meeting April, 1989

7. Maguire, J. "Analysis of Effects of Cycling Versus Standing Hvmidity Envi- ronrrlents and Electrical Test para mete:^

on Suriace 1nsula;ion Readings", IPC- TP-801 published paper from the IPC 32nd Annual Meeting, April, 1989

8. Klima. R.F., Bonner, J.K. "White Resi- due Analysis by High Performance Liq- uid Chromatography," IPC-TP-7 13, IPC Annual Meeting, April 1988.

- - .

-., 9. Archer, W.L., Cabelka, T. D. "Behavior of Rosin Fluxes and Solder Paste During Soldering Operations," International Symposium of Microelectronics, Octo- ber 1986.

10. Bernier, D.F. "The Nature of White Res- idue on Printed Circuit Assemblies," IPC- TP-696, IPC Annual Meeting, April 1988.

11. Kl~n?a, R.F., Bonner, J.K. "The Analysis of Solder Flux and Solder Paste by High Performance Liquid Chromitooraphy."

12 Test li'i~thods 2.3 38 and 2.3.39, Insti- tute for Interconnecting and Packaging Electronic Circuits, 7380 N. Lincoln /we- nue, Linco!nwood, Illinois 60646.

13. Getty, H., Barrett, T. "Quantitative Non- Ionic Cleanliness Measurements by HPLC." IPC-TP-796, presented at the 32nd Annual IPC Meeting, April 1989.

14. Miller, I., Freund, J. "Probability and Sta- tistics for Engineers," Prentice Hall, Inc., 1985.

15. Gorondy, E. "Surface!Moisture Insula- tion Resistance (SIRIMIR): Part Ill Analy- sis of the Effect of Test Parameters and Envi ronmenta l Condit ions on Test Results," IPC-TP-825 Presented at the Fall 1988 IPC meeting October, 1988.

12.2 B i b l i o g r a p h y

Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy. Press Advisory: Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. September 16, 1987.

Andersen, Stephen. Chlorofluorocarbons in the Electronics Industry: A Use and Substi- iule ,5ne!y5:.;, ! I.--, , i~i :~!--- . . : i,." vD?-li. ?-.- . . - . ... - . . , i - - . ' r C . . . -

. . ien;s ,, ... rss~o-,. ij:;i..z.? sial,=.. cn\ri-

ronmenlal F'lc,!.?~iion Agency, 'Sfiice of Air and Radiation. Washington, D.C. EPA Con- tract No. 68-01-7002. July 22, 1987.

Cleaning End Cleanliness Testing Prograni- A Joint Indusiry:'li/lilitar~~iFPA Program to Evalui:~? -',!tzrn;:i\~es io C~ia.ofluorocirDor.s (CFCs) ;-or Prinied Board Assembly Clein- ing. March 30, 1989. IPC.

Edelson, Edward. "The Man Who Knew Too Much." Popular Science. January (1 989): 6065, 102.

Executive Summary of the Ozone Trends Panel. Unpublished draft report. Information used by permission. 1988.

Federal Register. Aug 12, 1988, Part IV, Environmental Protection Agency 4 0 CFR, Part 82, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

National Aeronautics and Space Administra- tion, Na:iorr.l Oceznic and Atmospheric Administraiion, Naiional Science Foundation.

and the Chen~ical I\~analac:urers Associa- tion. Airborne Antarctic Ozone Experiment Fact Sheet: lniiial Findinos from Punia Are- :?is, Chile. Sep:im!?i-r 30, 1937,

United States Environmental Protecl icn Aoency, Office of Air 2nd Radiation. Future Concentrations of S~ratospheric Chlorine and Bromine. EPA 40011 -88i005. August 19ES.

United States Environmental Protec; iz~~ Agency, Office of Public Affairs. CFCs and Stratospheric Ozone. Washington, D.C. December 1987.

Yurcisin, Peter. Letter to Dr. Steven 0. Andersen. May 18, 1988. From the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Produc- tion and Logistics, Director Standardization and Data Management. Washington, D. C.

1 2 . 3 Res idua l R o s i n Test

P r o c e d u r e

Step 7 : Place the test assembly in a (pre- cleaned) plastic bag and close the bag. Pour into the bag 3 cc's of solvent per square inch of board area, counting both sides (but not components if the board is populated). The solvent shall be a blend of pure spectro grade or HPLC grade Isopropanol, with 1.0% phosphoric acid and 0.1 % water. Next, take sn TI;:^ bag i:.j ?!ice :?.? sar.3;. 2;i;ount of .i- -.. . . . I .: . . ,, : z : . , : , :22ge:-:t and ccnlainer p lank.

Step 2: Either shake the bags for i 0 minutes vigorously, or place them in an ultrasonic cleaner for 5 to 10 minutes. The ultrasonic cie~ner's b i l h ~- i t5 ivn? ma\, 5e hei:ed i o e2k8E:>cc3 :he di~sai~::?:.~ ai ;he residcal flux.

Step 3: Remove sn aliquct of the solution from the sample bag and place it into the UVlVisible spectrophotometer's sample cell cuvette. The solution from the blank bag may be placed in to the reference cell cuvette, or both solutions may be analyzed separately against a pure reagent blank in the reference cell.

Step 4: Using a calibration curve prepared from the same flux with which the board was processed, correlate the absorbance determined for the board sample with the concentration of rosin. If the empty bag solution \,,.as analyzed separa:ely, . ' ; e Sli7i: absorbance must first be subtracied from

the sample absorbance, 2nd then correlsted \e,riih the flux concentration, I f the b!ank bag

solution \,,,as in ihe spectrophoton?eter's : ~ i - erence cell, then the reading may be compared directly.

Step 4-A: If the absorbance is less than

about 0.05, repeat the procedure using a new board and bag, and much less solvent. If the absorbance is more than 1.5, either run a series dilution or repeat the procedure \\,ith more solvent. Try to achieve an absorbance of 0 .4 to 0.6 where the instrument is sensitive and the relative errors related to technique and reading the calibration curve- are reduced.

Step 5: Calculate the rosin contamination level on the boards using the follo\ving formula:

pgrn rosin per sq. inch board =

(PPM Rosin) x (Solvent Density) x (Solvent Volume)

Board Surface Area in sq. in.

Density of 100% REAGENT lsopropanol = 0.7855 Gmlcc

Density of 98.9% IPA + 1 .O Phosphoric Acid + 0.1% Water = 0.796

12.4 Analysis by HPLC of PWB Residues after Defluxing

1.0 This procedure outlines the HPLC analysis of residues remaining on a printed wiring board after defluxing In the event of a conflict between this proceobre and any documents referenced herein, the text of this procedure shall take precedence.

2.0 Operation Manuals for Wsters HPLC System Honey\vell Procedure HC-351, "Basic Operation of HPLC" "Cleaning and Clesnl iness Testing Program," J o ~ n t lndustrylNi~l~tarylEPA Program to Evaluate Alternatives to CFCs for Printed Board

Assembly Cleaning, March 30, 1989, published by IPC

3.0 Not applicable

4.0 Calibration of the instrument is per- . - " q i o r m e d as part of the analysis. The calibia-

tion record shall be stored with the sample data.

5.0 Not applicable '

6.0

. . 6.1 Apparatus

.* a) Waters HPLC System or equivalent

b) Waters C18 Mlcrobondapak column, or equivalent

CI PE:~I d ~ s h (5 3;4" inner d~ametc-r cccer), or equivalent

01 \!i'ztch g!ass C-37, or eqvl\,ai~:~t

e) Volumetric Flasks

f ) I\41llipore Teflon 10 micron filter paper, or equivilent

g) \/acuurn filter

6 .2 Reagents

a) Acetic acid, 50% solution, At7 grade

b) Acetonitrile, HPLC grade

c) Deionized water, HPLC grade

d) Abietic acid

e) Dehydroabietic acid

f) Neoabietic acid

g) 2-Propanol, AR grade

h) lsopimaric acid

i) Levopimaric acid

j) Tin abietate

k) Lead abietate

7.0

7.1 Extraction o f Sample

7.1.1 Measure and record area of printed wiring board (PWB).

7.1.2 Place PWB in the extraction vessel ( 5 314" inner diameter petri dish cover). Pour approximately 6 0 ml of acetonitrile into vessel covering board. Cover extraction vessel with \\latchglass. Allow to soak for 4 hours, turning board ~ i i e r 2 hours. Then, dilu:e i a i 03 mi in \o!un-ie;:ic ilas4. Save ;he rEs;.ii6r.i exiract volume ior HPLC analysis.

7.2 Extraction and Filtration of Residual Material

7.2.1 To coliect particulate residues \vhich remain on ;he ?\\la after extraciion \\liib acetonitrile, rinse P\'\lB wiih 50?/0 ace:ic acid onto tared filter paper. Dry filter paper at 1 5 0 ° F unt i l we igh t remains constant (approximately 5 minutes). Record weight of filtrate. Calculate uglin2 per paragraph 11.2.

7.3 Extract remaining resinates with Ace- tonitrile

7.3.1 In order to remove any remaining residue extractable in acetontrile, proceed as in 7.1.1 and 7.1.2.

8.0 The operator shall be thoroughly famil- iar with HPLC techniques, the Waters HPLC System, the instrument manuals and the

. documents referenced herein.

9.0 Normal laborato~y safety precautions shall apply.

10.0

1 0 . 1 Retent ion T ime and Calibration Curves

10.1.1 Establish retention times of flux constituents by running knov~n stzndards lor abietic acid, dehydroabietic, neoabietic acid, tin a l~ ie t i ie , lead abicia!e, ~sopin?i:ic acid,

and le\lopiniaric a c ~ d . Also, establish the retention times for flux and solder paste constituents, as received from flux vendors.

10.1.2 Prepare callbration curves for the identifiable peaks in the extract chroniata- gram.

10.2 Sample Preparation

10.2.1 Transfer the sample, obtained in 7.1.2 for HPLC, from the volumetric flask to the auto sampler vial.

10.2.2 Transfer the sample, obtained in 7.3.2 for HPLC, from the volumetric flask to the auto sampler vial.

10.3 Sample Analysis

10.3.1 Refer to Honeywell Procedure HC- 351 for operating procedures for HPLC.

10.3.2 Set instrument conditions as follows:

Column C18 microbondapak column

\\lavelength 240 and 220nm Column temp 60cC I\'lohile phase H, OXH, CN 60140 Flow 1 ml/minute San:pie Size ! 0 microii:ers

i1nt;rumeci condirions 1 x 2 ~ 5~ ciiinged io opii:nize separation)

10.3.3 Sample and Standard Runs

10.3.3.1 Place samples into auto sample via!s

10.3.3.2 Piace vials into auicsampier

10.3.3.3 Run samples and standards. using Honeywell Procedure HC-351 as a reference

11 .o 1 1.1 Calculations for the residue concentration of 7.1 and 7.3 Concentration of material in solution (mgll) = AxBxClDxE

A = Area of material peak

B = Concentration of standard (mgll)

C = Injection volume of standard (I)

D = Area of standard peak

E = Injection volume of sample (I)

Residual material (ug!in2) = {(AxB)ID)x1000ugimg

A = Conceniration of mialerial In soiution

fn?c:il

B = \/olume of Exiract So!l.~i.nt ( l i

D = Board area (in')

11.2 Calculations for the residue concen-

1ri;ion of 7 2

Residual I\/raterial (ughi) = A,i3

A = weight of filtered niaierial (ug)

B = board area (in2)

12.5 Test Procedure f o r IPC-B-36 ., - .

Cont inui tyIShorts

6.0 Notes

6.1 The p:oSes should be held In p l x e 07

ibte coriiict fingers for a minimum of ti-ir~e seconds to insure a good reading.

6.2 Light to moderate pressure should be used when applying the probes :o the con- iact fingers. Do not damage :he gold plaiirig of the fingers n~i th excessiw pressure.

12 .6 SIR Test Procedure

1.0 Scope This test method is used to characterize the efficiency of cleaning agents in removing flux and solder paste residues by

'

determining the degradation of electrical 1.0 Scope This test method is for use . with the Cleanina and Cleanliness Test Pro-

Insulating properties of rigid printed wiring ., gram. This test method is used for incoming board specimens due to the deleterious

inspection of test boards and for screening effects of high humidity and heat conditions.

of test boards after test processing and prior This test method is specific to the Cleaning

to SIR testing. and Cleanliness Benchmark Test Program.

2.0 Applicable Documents None

3.0 Test Specimens IPC-B-36 test board

4.0 Apparatus

4.1 Resistance Meter A digital or analog resistance meter capable of measuring up to 20 megohms (2 x l o 6 ohms).

4.2 Test Leads TWO test leads, compatible with the resistance meier, are reguired. The leads should be terminated with pointed probes.

5.0 Test

5.1 Ti--. :ssi b e r - d s should 5. b,;r;5!ed

\vith gloved hands only.

5.2 Allo\v the equipment the minimum warm-up time necessary to achieve rated accuracy.

5 .3 Place the lest board on a non- conduc:iva surface, prefe:ably a sheei of clean PTFE.

5.4 Place one probe tip on the contact finger labelled " M I ". Place the other probe tip on the contact finger labelled ' 'E l ". Read the resulting resistance. If the resistance exceeds 20 megohms, then the insulation pattern is acceptable. If the resistance is less that 20 megohms, then the insulation pattern contains a low resistance path and the test board may not be used for SIR testing. The board may be used for some of the other test processes.

5.5 Continue measurements for M2-E2, lv13-E3 ...... M10;ElO. If all ten measurements ~sceed 2 '3 meoohms, ;hen the test board is acceptable for SIR testing.

1.1 Intent The measurement of surface insulation resistance is highly dependent on the measurement apparatus being used. The intent of this test method is to s-t forth procedures that should be followed reeardless of the equipment being used.

2.0 Applicable Documents IPC-A-600

2.1 Glossary In the course of this test method, some test-specific terms are used. They are here defined.

In-Chamber Fixture The fixture that is used inside the temperature-humidity cham- I:or ;s *.-:. :es; bca:;'s i? $i:-n. ,.:;bbon Ce5,le A pTr'- ,,. c, ,5<:

i r t jtt,,t,.eo, 64 CC-~-

ducior, 28 Gauge, ribbon cable.

Edge Card Connector As specified in the test plan, the edge card connectors are 64 pin, gold-plated bifurcaied contacts, insulation displ;cing connectors.

Measurerr~ent Apparaius The ;;.tomaied

switching matrix and measurement equipment used to make SIR measurements.

Reverse Bias The reverse bias is defined as a 50 wlt potential applied to the "E" point of each test pattern and a ground potential applied to the "M" point of each test pattern.

Electrification Voltage The voltage applied (1 00 volts DC) by the measurement apparatus to measure the test pattern resistance. The positive potential is applied to the "M" point of each pattern and a ground potential applied to the "E" point of each pattern.

3.0 Pattern L l e the CFC .A?r-:rfa;i\~s Test Vehicle IPC-A-36, Rev A.

4.0 Apparatus

4.1 Chamber A clean ;esi chamber c2;;c-

ble of progrimn:ing, contro:ling, 2nd record-

ing an environment from 25 degrees C + / - 2 degrees C, with a relalive humidity of 50% +I- 246, to 85 degrees C + I - 2 degrees C, \i,lth 3 relative humidity of 85CL +I- 2'6. The chamber should have the capabiliiy to go from a 25Ci50% fiH environment to a 85Ci85% RH en\lironment within 4 5 minutes. The chamber shall use f~ltered, d~ ion - ized water. A salt solution and desicci:or may not be used. The chamber will be drained and wiped down with isopropyl alcohol prior to testing. The chamber must have a minimum port diameter of three inches.

4.2 Power Supply A power supply capable of providing a minimum of one ampere of current at 50 mlts DC.

4.3 Connectors Edge card connectors and ribbon cable as described by the test program.

4.4 Measurement Instrument The measurement apparatus shall be capable of measuring 10 j2 ohms, or more, at a test wltage of 100 wlts DC. The apparatus for measurement shall be automated as much as possible to decrease the human factor impact on ihe data. The apparatus shall provide the data in either printed form or as a computer file on disk.

4.5 Fixture Desi?n T % ii:.;n;e ussd to I , ~ , ~ - , .:,i - -. :J.,G, - - - <.> ins,;e 2-IE ::,:,y,!jer !ir-,-

chamber iix:ure), shok:.j Se designed such that the test boards are vertical, with the edge card connector above ;he test board. This prevents contaminants from flowing don,n into ':he connec;e The lest boards snould be p!iced Suc:i ;:-.I ii;e\r are parallel io ;he i i r i / , ~ i v in the c5;rr8jer. This will

decrease air turbulence snd insure that all test boards sea the same conditions.

5.0 Test Preparation

5.1 Test Conditions The following para- g raphs spec i f y t he env i ronmen ta l temperature-humidity profile to be followed.

5.1 .I Initial Conditioning at 25 C and 50% RH for two hours.

5.1.2 Maintain a static 25C150% environment for the duration of the initial (ambient) SIR measurement phase.

5.1.3 Immediately follovving completion of ti-I? :nitial measuremsfiis, i n d ~ c e a 33 minute ramp to 85C and 85% RH.

5.1.4 1iilain;ain a static 85C/85% RH environment until the completion of the final hot- phase meisurement at 168 hours.

5.1.5 After completion of the 168 hour measurements, induce a 3 0 minute ramp to 25C and 50% relative humidity.

5.1.6 h4aintain a 25Ci5O0/o environn-lent for the duration of the final ambient SIR measurement. This time is comprised of two hours of conditioning time, plus the time

required for the final measurement.

5.2 Measurement Timing The measurement cycle, described later, will be initiated at the following times.

1. TO-Begin measurement cycle after two hours of chamber conditioning at 25CI 50% RH. All subsequent timing is measured from TO.

2. T l -Begin measurement cycle 2 4 hours . . . after the time the initial measurements were initiated (TO + 24 hours).

3. T2-Begin measurement cycle 96 hours after the time the initial measurements were initiated (TO -k 96 hours).

4. T3 - Benchmark Measurement- Begin the measurement cycle 168 hours after the time the initial measurements were initiated (TO + 168 hours).

5. T4 - Final Ambient Measurement- Begin the measurement cycle two hours after the chamber has stabilized at 25CI 50% RH.

5.3 Specimen Handling Prior to Testing

5.3.1 Recording As outlined in the test program, each test board has an engraved serial number. When the test boards are received for SIR testing, record the serial number of the test board on the attendant SIR traveler sheet.

paths using the method specified in the test plan.

5.4 Equipment Calibration The follov~~ing equipment \vill be calibrated prior to use in the test sequence.

5.4.1 Chamber The chamber will be cali- briled to insure :h;t the proper ieniperature- humidity profile is being folloived. The environment record ing inst rument (char t recorder) must be calibrated to insure that the chamber levels are being accurately recorded.

5.4.2 Power Supply The power supply will be calibrated to insure that the proper 5 0 volt DC bias voltage will be supplied.

5.4.3 Measurement Appara tus The measurement apparatus must be calibrated according to manufacturer's recommendation.

5.4.4 CFC SIR Calibration Board The CFC SIR Calibration Board must be measured by suitable equipment, prior to use in the test program, to insure that the calibration board has been fabricated properly and that all components are within rated toler- ances.

5.5 Cable Preparation The following paragraphs describe the procedures to prepare the PTFE ribbon cables.

5.5.1 Shearing The PTFE cables should be sheared perpendicular to the cable edge using ;he manufacturer's recommended ;rte:hoJ. Ti?e sheared edge ,rivst 50 CIS-?

and may not have any conductors extending out past the insulation.

5 . 5 . 2 C o n n e c t o r P r e p a r a t i o n A s described in the CFC Test Plan, the connectors are cleaned in an ionic cleanliness tester using a Dl \vaterilPA solution. The connec- iors should then be sllo\t,ed to dry in a ciean environment and stored in degreased alumi-

5.3.2 Handling After the test boards have num foil. the connectors by the

gone through the test process, be edges only and then only with gloved hands.

handled only by the board edges and only with loved hands. The aloves to be used are 5.5.3 Attachment o f Edge Card

" "

white, untreated cotton, with finger cots put Connectors Attach the edge card connec-

. - on wer the gloves on all fingers. tor to one end of the PTFE ribbon cable, ,,. ' insuring a good contact with every individual

5.3.3 Pre-Test Stomge If the test boards . wire in the ribbon cable. Use the rnanufactur- cannot be placed into the test chamber within a few hours after processing, they should be stored in a clean desiccated con- tainer until ready for testing.

5.3.4 Pre-Test Inspection Prior to SIR testing, the test boards will have been visually inspected for defects per IPC-A-600, and electrically tested for low resistance

er's recommended method for attachment. The ends of the edge card have embossed numbers on them indicating reference numbers for the individual wires of the ribbon cable. The connectors must be attached in a consistent manner, i.e. the same reference number in the same rela;ive position on esch cable. The connections made on the oppo-

site end of the r~bbon cable depend on ihe measurement system being used.

5.5.4 Attachment of Electromagnetic Shields In order to a\oid effects from stray e lect romagnet ic signals, the cable is wrapped in a copper foil shield. The copper sh~eid malerial is specdied in the test plan.

Piace the ribbon cable in the center of the shield. The copper shield has an adhesive strip along one edge. Remove the release paper from the adhesive. Fold The non- adhesive section of the foil over the ribbon cable. Fold the adhesive section over the remaining cable. The adhesive strip is wide enough to contact both the ribbon cable and the first fold of copper foil. The ribbon cable must be completely encased by the foil. The cables will be more manageable if a rolling pin is used to flatten the foil over the cables. The rolling also allo~vs the adhesive to bond better by making a more complete contact.

5.5.5 Attachment t o Fixtures Attach the edge card connectors to the in-chamber fixture. Run the foil encased ribbon cables out through the chamber ports. The attach- ments made on the chamber exterior are dependent on the measurement system being used. When the cables have been put in p!ace, immobilize them to prevent any motion during the test.

5.5.6 Grounding of Shields In order for

the copper foils to act as proper electromagnetic shields, \hey must be crounoed. Attsch a (?:ouiidir,g wire 10 each copper foil shield. The copper foil has two wires incorporated into the foil edges for use in grounding. Con- nect the grounding vilires to a hard ground, such as the chamber drain pipe.

5.5.7 Other Shields All other wires that are vsed in the n7easurement of SIR currents should be similarly encased in a grounded metallic foil to ground out electromagnetic signals. Shielded cables, such as shielded coaxial cables, are acceptable. The cable shields need to be grounded.

5.6 System Verification Prior to running the SIR test, the test system must be verified. The following paragraphs indicate how to test the system.

5.6.1 Verifying the Cable Assemblies Using the CFC SIR Calibration Board, test each ribbon cable assembly for resistance readings for measurement points M 1 - E l through M10-E10. Record the valves for each measurement point for each test board. Resistance values lower than 50.000 ohms

should be considered as unacceptable. The

cable and the edge card connection should be inspected for damage Or improper con-

nection. I f no damage can be found, inspect the suspect resistor on the calibration board. It may be out of tolerance. Damaged cables should be replaced. Improperly attached edge card connectors should be removed, the damaged section of cable sheared off, and the edge card connectors re-attached. If no damage to the cable or connectors can be found, and the callbration board is \vithin the rated tolerance of the resistors, check the connections to the measurement apparatus.

5.6.2 Wipe D o w n After all the cable

assemblies and connections have been verified, wipe down the chamber and fixtures with isopropyl alcohol. Allow 3 0 minutes for the fumes to clear before going on to the next step.

5.7 Examination o f Process 82 and D Boards The test boards which have gone through process sequences 6 2 and D may have excessive solder on the contact fingers. If this is 16e case, remove the excess solder using a dry solder extraction tool, or solder braid.

5 . 8 Spec imen I n s e r t i o n Using only gloved hands, carefully insert the test boards into the edge card connectors using a consistent orientation, i.e. the components on the board should all be facing in the same direction. insure ;hat i h . hc. . d s i : e \veil seaiet; ir,:o ehch con!-~ecio:.

5.9 Fixture Orientation Orient the fixture such that the air flow of the chamber is parallel to the board surface.

5.10 Drip Shield Place a drip shield over ihe fixture. The drip shield should be made

of a non-corrcsive msieriai that h i s been cleaned \ ~ i i h isoprop)~I i l ~ ~ h ~ l .

5.1 1 Seal Chamber Close the chamber door and seal the chamber ports. To seal the ports, foam rubber is recommended. The foam will conform to the remaining port opening without damaging the cable assem-

. . . . blies. . - C . .. . .

.5.12 Measurement Procedures

5.1 2.1 Begin the Test Sequence Energize the chamber and begin the control program. The first step of the program is a constant 25C a n d 50% RH environment. Allow the test boards to be conditioned -in this environment for two h&s: ~ $ 6 5 0 Glf. reverse bias should NOT be applied during this conditioning period.

5 .12.2 At the ;\\lo hour mzrk, begin the initial measurement sequence. Eil~ike note of the time i h j t the rr4easurements stiried. All subsequent test timing is referenced to this time (TO). Er~ergize the test paiterns on ihe board by applying 100 \olts to the "Id" side of each paitern (1141 ,1\/12...1\'110), and a ground potentii l to ;he "E" side of eich pat-

tern. The number of patterns that may be energized at one time is dependent on ihe measurement and matrix system being used. Good isolation between matrix chan- nels is ~ r i t i ~ i l .

5.12.3 The test patterns, M I to M10, are to be energized for 6 0 seconds. After 6 0 seconds, the resistance reading for each measurement point is taken and recorded.

5.1 2.4 After all the initial measurements have been made, apply the reverse bias of 5 0 volts DC to the test boards. For this test, "reverse" bias is the application of 50 wl ts potential to the "E" side of a pattern and a ground potential to the "M" side of the pattern.

5.12.5 Begin the chamber ramp-up to the 85C and 85% RH environment.

5.1 2.6 Begin the next measurement cycle 24 hours after time TO. Remove the reverse bias from all paiterns of the board being

tested. Apply measurement voltages and take measurements as outlined in para- araphs 5.12.2 and 5.5 2.3. 1\4t~ltiple boards 21% ; ~ , c ~ ~ u : ~ . : -,tj;;z;;;;-. ;, %? ,,?, 7-,

on!;! one jje;iern 0:-I racn t c ; 336:d .r8?y 5':

energized at one time. Test boards must remain under the reverse bias until they are actually measured.

5.12.7 Af:.er all me?suremen!s for a tesi board ha::e been c~rnpleied, re-iprjly tile re..?erse ?':s to :he :est board. It is criticrjl that ihe elapsed time from removal of ine reverse bias :o the re-application of the reverse bias be identical for all test boards.

5.12.8 Repeat this measurement cycle at times TOi-96 hours and T0+168 hours. The measurement at TOi-168 hours is the benchmark SIR measurement.

5.12.9 After the 168 hour (Benchmark) readings have been taken, begin the ramp- down t o ambient conditions. The reverse bias should be applied before starting the ramp-down. If the benchmark measurement is made late in the work day, it is permissible to wait until the fo!lowing morning to initiate the ramp-do\vn and f icz l meas~rement sequence.

5.1 2 . 1 0 k3~c;in ;kle f ~ n a l meisuremc.;r; seguence t:.,fo hours ii:er the c5amSt.r t-12s s;ib:l~ied i t the 25C 2nd 5G0b EH lei,e! hkke measurements as outlined in 5.12.2 and 5.12.3. Do not re-zpply the reverse bias.

5.1 2.1 1 After mezsurements i r e com- pir-te, !he chzrr~ber n;ay be oy~ened and tb4e lest saniples removed.

6.0 Post-Test Procedures

6 .1 Removal f rom the Chamber Using gioved hands, open the chcmber and carefully remove the test boards from the in- chamber fixture. Place each test board in a new, polyethylene, zip-lock bag.

6.2 Test the Cable Assemblies With the chamber open to ambient laboratory conditions, repeat the procedure of paragraph 5.6.1 to verify that each cable assembly has not been degraded by the high temperature environment. Record the values for each test point for later comparison to the initial verification values.

6.3 Visual Examination Visually examine each board under a microscope at IOX power, noting any scratches, pits, dents, dendritic growth, lifted conductors, slivers, solder balls, or corrosion. Take special notice of any test paiterns that exhibited low resistance readings during the test.

6.4 Photographs Pholograplis should be taken of a represeniative test board from ezcii prclcess seqi:ence (,'i,31,52,C,D). Ph2- s . . ,- c ~ . . , . ,- . . :-, .,.,I" -, ,'A i SO 55 :;..;- - ' 2s.t 8n3::'- aiies foun3.

6.5 Storage Store the samples in clean, polyethylene bags.

7.0 Notes

7.1 Ribbon Cable The c i b k used for the btn;nn;ark ;is: ;..;s c o i o : ~ d Eri!' j n 0:le

side and \vni?t.: 9:; :ho other. iiibbon cables

other than rhe par: ngmber specified in the plan, are not allowed.

7.2 Low Level Measurements For some excellent background material on the many factors which impact the low-level SIR measurements, the following references are recommended. Contact the IPC office (312- 677-2850) for the technical papers listed below.

a. "Benchmark Evaluation Procedure". Bill Groft, DuPont, Presented April, 1989 at IPC meeting in Orlando, FL-paper is unpublished to date.

This is En excellm: p:eso:.iation C?!

some of the effects of Eh4I. the use of

"gc;arding" in SIR rr~e3Sureni~filS. 2nd ;he concept of measuring resistance in

CI~I:,S ;,er sguzre

b. IPC-TP-518, "Surface Insulation Resis- tance (SIR)-Part I: The Development of an Automated SIR I\/ieasurement Tech- nique" Enicry Gorond\l, DuPont. Septeni- Ser 1384.

c. IPC-TP-543, "Surface Insulation Resis- tance (SIR)--Part II: Exploring the Corre- lation Bet\aleen Standard Industry and Idilitary SIR Test Pat:erns". Emory Gor-

ondy, DuPont. April, i 985.

d. "Surface Insulation Resistance (SIR)- Part Ill: Analysis of the Effects of the Test Parameters and Environmental Conditions on Test Results". Emory Gorondy, DuPont. October, 1988-paper is unpublished to date.

The papers by Emory Gorondy are an examination of the impact of processing parameters on surface insulation resis-

tance.

e. ~ u m e i o u s application notes, handbooks, and texts, published by Keithley Instru- ments, Cleveland, Ohio, ( 2 1 6 ) 248- 0400, John Jaeger. Mr. Jaeger authored many of the references and is an author- iiy on low level measurements.

7.3 Second Cable Check When the cable assemblies are tested after the test run has been completed, be aware that the process E2 boards tend to leave a lot of rosin residue in ihe connector. Make sure that you ha;)? good connections between the calibration board and the edge card contacts.

7.4 Chamber Ports A ni inixuni chamSer port d~ameter of ihree inches is spec~fied. The 25 r'Sbon c i b l ~ s \.,,ill comp:ete!,~ fill a three inch diameter port (if circular), or ihree inch \vide port (11 rect6ngular). A port size of four inches or larger is recommended. I f the port being used is ihree inches in diam~:er, i l l 25 ribbon cables \,t,~Il not fit ihrcugh :,he port if they are wrapped in the copper foil. It is permissible to remove the foil from the portion of the ribbon cable that \ f~~i l l be inside the

chamber. The grounded foil must be complete up to ;l..e chamber port. If the chamber port is large enough to accommodate all 25 cables, including the copper foil, the foil should cover the entire cable.

7.5 Condensation The ribbon cables tend to act as a pipeline for water vapor (steam) to travel to the chamber exterior. When the water vapor contacts the cool exterior of the chamber, the vapor condenses and will run along the ribbon cable. Be prepared to prevent the water from entering your measurement device and to collect any water thzt may drip to the floor. There must not be condensation inside the chamber.

7.6 Fixture Materials The materials used to make the fixtures should be non-corrosive in nsture, such as anodized aluminum or polycarbonate.

12.7 Equipment List EMPFINAC

Ur,ique Indus!ries \/zpckIeen Degreaser \,s.i:h Programmable Hoist, tibodel NO. LP 161 8.

Fixture for Iillountir~g 4-12 Boards at a Time in the Degreaser Basket

Alun;invm, Eorizor~tal P\h1i3 Racks. Grieden-

back Engineering, PN 8925

Flecirculating, Micro-processor Controlled Oven, Blue-m. I\/lodel CW 7780f

iiecirculziing, Forced Draft Oven Blue-m, Iillodel No. OV-490A-2

Forslund Semiautomatic Screen Printing t\/lodel No. 1224

Equipment Utilized for CFC Test

I,/lanix P~ck znd Piace System Iif~odel KO.

4600

Iilznix Bztch \lapor Phase Eeflo\~ Sjrstem

P,/lodel No. VP 300

Electrovert Ulirapak \'ilave Solder Line l\lodel

No. 328P

Omegameter Cleanliness Tester Model

Sk4D600

Temperaiure!humidity Chamber Despatch,

Model No. 1651 2

Digital Electrometer Kiethley IVtodel 61 7

Programmable Scanners Kiethley Model 705

IB1\4 XT \t,l~ih Zia:ech 1444;14188a Co~?!:o!-

ler Card

Digital li4uliimeter Klethiey Aflooel 177

Zenith 2-248 Personal Compuier it.ith $\'slit Soft\tblare

Inducti\/c-1)) Coupled Plssrna Sseciron?ei~:

Brookfield Visconieter \ti~iih T i Spindles - TF Spindle and Heliparh Stand - Viscometer

Karl Fischer Titrimeter Fisher Scieni~fic Cou- lomatic, I\/lodel No. 447

Hydrometers for Testing Freon TR4S

UV-VIS Spectrometer Beckman ACTA MVll

Ultrasonic Cleaner. Branson Model 8200

Process

Cleaning

Paste Application

Conponent Placement

Oven

I External Poiver Supply I Keithley Electrometer Model 61 7 I

Vapor Phase

Wave Solder

Ionic Cleanliness Test

EMPF

Baron Blakeslee Model MSR-480

NAC

Unique Industries Vapokleen with Programmable Hoist Model LP 1618

Suriace Insulation Resislance I SIR Ohm Meter Iibodel $200 1 Keithley Scanner Model 705

Dynapert In-Line

Hollis GBS Mark Ill

l\/iodel I 660

Blue-m Chamber Model FR-256 PC-1

De Haart AOL-15 Forslund 1224

Z e ~ l e c h Place-h4at 360 Manix Pick and Place Rliodel 4090 - Recirculating Blue-m Idodel No, IL-6 Recirculating Forced Draft Bluem Model

OV-490A-2

Manix Batch Model No. VP 300

Electrovert Utlrapak Model No. 328P

Despatch Chamber

Model 16000

Omegameter SldD600 1 Omegameter Sl\/iD600

Switch Box

tdodel EIi4PF 031 I !

12.8 Process Similarit iesIDifferences EMPFINAC

Varied Process Parameters I NAC Run $1 1 NAC Run f2 EMPF

0.481 g (Run 1 onlv)

Weight of past applid (s = 0.04) (s=0.02)

au:ornzied pick and place Component Mounting Method

Paste Bake!Cool 12 mln. @ 90°C 30 rxn. cool

automated pick and place I manually v,lith temp!a;e

profile #12

12 rnin. @ 9OCC 15 min. cool

Timing of transport I prior to bake ( after cool

I Presence of secondary fluid Used between loads for B1, 82, Not used and C. Not used for D.

24 min. Q 9OCC 10 min cool

Vapor phase solder

I Wave solder profile B2lprofile n"22 Dlprofile n"30

I VPS Equipment I batch I batch 1 in-line

B l lprof~le r"23 B2lprofile r"25 Clprofile $26 Dlprofile n"28

Weight of flux applied Day 1 Day 2

I

profile #35

0.203 g Run 1 only

1 Specific gravity Day 1 = 0.890 @ 76°F Day 2 = 0.890 @ 80°F

I Solder ~ u m p 1 5.9 unless othem4se noted 1 5.9 unless oihervqise noted I 1 I ~onvevdr anale 1 5 de~rees 1 6 dearees I I

--- Sun 2!GE SIR test conditionsPno'JcoM 65"C!65?/0 Zl i 85 "C185G/b RH Run 1 :65 "C:61 G'sfiH

25 "Cl50% RH f?un 2:85 'C/82?/oRH Run 1 :25"C!56VoRH

DATA.SUM 311 7189 s = Stana'ard Deviation I

Overall process order

Temperaturehumidity

Flux content of paste

Flux application method

Cspacity of degreaser

Laminate type

As you can see from the melerials list, equipment list, and process insiruciions from NAC and EMPF, a great deal of i f for t \vas dedi- cated to improving the repeatability of Phase 1 testing. However, some equipment differences could not be eliminated and it is these equipment differences which most likely contributed to the lack of repeatability between NAC and EMPF, and between the two runs at

NAC. The primary equipment differences . '?

.'were related to the vapor phase reflow equipment and the wave solder equipment.

Vapor Phase Reflow Soldering Differences

81, 82, C, D -

11.1 2%

wave

30 gallon

Norplex Oak

Due to the lack of a functional batch vapor phase reflow unit, EMPF used an in-line vapor phase system with no secondary fluid blanket. When NAC later attempted to repeat

C, D, B1, 82

Lab:64 "F120%RH School:70 OF11 6%RH

11.12%

wave I foam

30 gallon 1 75 callon

Norplex Oak / Run 1INo:plex Oak

EI\/IPF's iestino, a Saich vepor pkase system \!\:as operated in such a fashion as io mimic EIi'IPF's first run. In order to ~ c c o ~ p i i s h ;his,

NAC attempted to use a batch wpor phase unit with a secondary fluid only used to flush the tank after each load of assemblies had been reflowed and removed from the unit. In this way NAC hoped to limit the cleaning effect that the secondary fluid might have on the boards, while limiting the amount of primary fluid lost through the exhaust system. After reflowing approximately four loads of boards, however, it was noted that the reflow of the paste was incomplete and that the reflow fluid was milky.

Among the factors contributing to the incomplete reflow was the improper use of the secondary fluid. The fluid must be csed as a continuous blanket or must be elimi-

nzled froni ihe system. For this reason, !he secondary flsld \.,.as removed from the sys- t i n corn?I~le!y for ihe remainder of proces- ing in the first run at NAC and for all of NkC's second run.

NAC experienced other problems with vapor phase soldering in their first run. The batch vapor phase unit used at NAC had never been used to process production-size lots. Unfortunately problems were encountered during the processing of the first test assemblies (process sequences B1 and 82). Fortu- nately, these problems were resolved and the majority of the assemblies were processed using a temperature profile similar to EMPF's vapor phase soldering profile. The major problems effecting the thermal profile were: the healer conlrol dial; the digilal ternpera- lure reaciout, the t~mers; and the ivater fiow

control. Eich of ~hese sdjustable di i ls \,.,as

iniccura~e. Once ;his had been est651i~h~3, ;he Temperature in ;he rcilo\v zone \,\,is :ncn- ilored using a separaie rhermocouple 2nd the timers \vere cslibrated using a ~ t o p v ~ ~ a i c h .

Wave So lder ing D i f f e r e n c e s

\f\!a\ie soldering equipment di f ferences between EMPF and NAC may have also con- tribuled to the lack of repeatability found in some cases. EII~PF had a vdave soldering mschine \vith a foam fluxer, \vhile NAC's \va\/e soldering machine used wave fluxing. This difference in flux application method influenced not only the amount of flux applied to the Process B2 and D assemblies, but may have also affected the extent of contamination onto the surface insulation resistance patterns and under the leadless chip carriers.

12.1 0 M a t e r i a l s Analys is , N A C

I Soloer paste flux (IPC-SF-818)

Solderpaste Alphametals 63SN/37PB, RA 321 90-2.70, Lot No. 81103540

Rosin, acti\rated

Chemical composition of solder

Po,vder size (fineness of grind)

Powder shape

failed silver chromate lest

I Me:al content 1 90%, by wei(~hi 1 88.88% I

Required

I Viscosity (Brookfield TF spindle)

Actual

842,000 cps @ 80 "F (26.7 "C)

l slump I pass I - I

63137 SnlPb I Passed 00-S.571 63% Sn

I Tack test I - I - I

< I % larger than 75 microns 9096 bet\veen 75-45 microns <1O0!o less thin 45 inicrons

spherical or eliiptical

I wet tin^ I pass I - I

passed passed >10% less than 45 microns

passed

I Vapor Phase Solderins Fluid: 3M FG5312. Lot No. 236 I

1 Non-volatile residue 1 <0.5 1 0.81 ppm I / Specific Gravity I - 1 1.486 1

- -- -

Actual

Initial: 10% @ 215°C Midpoint: 50% @ 21 9 "C

F~nal: 1 0% @ 222 "C

1 Required

I Solder Flux: Kester 1585-MIL, Lot No. A-4265 I

Boiling Point

I 1 Required 1 Actual I

21 9-222 "C

Cleaning Material: DuPont Freon TMS, Lot No. 320-8M

I Silver chromate test I - I failed (2:: ficx) I

Compositional Analysis-by GC and IR

Moisture by K-F

Required -

<200 ppm

.

Actual

Met manufacturer's data sheet

33.3 ppm

if4aier exlract res~sirvlty

Copper Mlrror

- ( 76.6E3 o i n - cm (passe3 :!A :eqil~rernen:) -

Solder

-

Chemical compos~t~on

'.

Required

63137 SnlPb

Actual

63 20io Sn 0 32Vo S!, 0 G i "10 CU 0 0023h Ag <O 001 010 Au <0.001 O/o NI <0.001% Cd <0.006% Zn <0.006% Al <0.002% Fe 0.01 4% As 0.007% Bi

12.1 1 March 30, 1989 Test Program

TE3T PROG&\l

o CFC Bared C l u n i n g Data o Allcrnaliws lo CFC C l u n i n g

1.0 BACKGROUSD

This d-mcnl dcf inn r Icsl program i n ~ c n d r d lo n-alualc \ ~ o u s c luning

1c&niqu= using r t ~ r i c ~ y of c l w i n g agcnls and to dclcrminc ~ h c c o n s i s ~ c n e

ol cquipmcnr m d p d u r u u x d to n ~ l u a l c thc d w l i n o s c h r n n c r i s ~ i a of

piinled k a r d uxmbl ics . I 1 is Ihc inlcnl of lhis program lo providc a

uniform md ~ i m c l y p r d u r e lor o d u a l i o n of clwning wtcr ia ls u h i d ~ c d v c c

he l c r d of chlorofluorcarboru., ( C F G ) u x d in e lcnronia manufanuring

On S c p l m k r 16. 1987. h e inlcmalional 'Montreal Prmocol' uar signed u h i m

r c g u i r a ~ h c dcvclopmcnl of dorncr~ic rcpulrlions lo insure I 50% rcduclion in

the prcduaion cl CFCs by mid.1998 h u e d on the IS66 prcduoion figurcs.

' In -I y c m . CFC-I13 h u come to k m g n i r e d u wmclhing of r 'solvcnt

of choicr' throughool many c l m r o n i n rnanufaoun'ng p m s m . t p l h k . rc~use of

its o u t n u d i n g lcchnial chrraocr is t in and h u x o l its non-soxiti~by.

: E l a r o n i a rnmufrnurcn lace suhstanlial challcngcr as I msulc of ~ h c

'Monlrul Prciocol'. uhi& is I m p o n x l o cuncrrns Ihal emissions of

CFCs (including CFC.113) arc Icading lo d u o i o n s in conctnlralions of

kncf ic ia l o w n e in ~ h c slnrosphcrc. . . . .- : Somc polsible d l c m t i v c d w i n g mlulions are z\ailahlc now. m d a h c n rrc

in dc\.rlopmcnl. Hc-scr. Nrrcnt uvrding in rnililrry s p e c i l i ~ ~ l i o n s d o nM

allow c v r u n c l w i n g agent w n w i l u c n ~ s lo be utili:cd. Also. b o ~ h prcxnl

md lulurc r l l c r n ~ l i v n m u g t r o-.Iualcd on ~ h c i r c l w ; n g ah:iily fc.r

u m b l i o u x j in consumer, industrial and mililrry c:ri.snn>mir ic 1l.c

! rcliabilily In+ls rcq~quid by !how cnrironmcnts.

I

1.1 PURPOSE

The p u p x of lhis program is lo a ~ s b l i s h r k n c h r n l r t for d u n l i n c s s of

prinird tduC u x m b l i c s in ordcr lo u idcn Ihc cboirc o l clwning zyrn:s for

c l a ~ i n g ; 5 ? 1 d k r r d u x m b l i c s that i r c limilar lo (or Ic,s dcrnmc'irg in

d w i n g a p b i l i t i c s lhm) ~ h c d u i p n of the ~ c u bard u . 4 in his p r o g m .

The ~ u t p m d u r c cullir;cd i n ' h i s documcnl rddru%s the crilcrion of

d u n l i ~ u md xrvu u a Kxt.n for ha^ l m o r . A n u r n k r of a h c r l r o o n

t h r ~ arc rrlc\an( in choosing a d w i n g approach for prinlcd board u,crnblics.

rrc lo k arddruxd bby x p m t e . additional lcsling. Examplu inclvdc

, o WorL plrct hcrlth m d d c ~ y considcnlions: such u. loricily and flammability

I

I o En\ironmen~al conditions such u: volatilc orgmic compound restn'nions and Iratabilily m d recycle p n c n ~ i r l

0 Malerials handling

0 Mrlerirlr compatihili~y - induding q u i p m e n l and n m p o n e n l compatibility: m d long-lcmr prcducl rclirbilily

In addition. this tcsling p m y m does no( rddrcrr whcre priwrd b a r d

u x r n b l i u h a w more dema*~ding clcaning rcquircmcn~s: lor c~rrnple . whcrc ~ h c

l p t i n g k w = n c u n d u o o n is s igni f iant ly Icrs than providcd on ~ h c to!

. b a r d .

p h ~ is in~cndcd lo dcmorulnte consillcncy wilhin ~ h c p r m d u r r s lor cleaning

pr in~td b a r d u s c m b l i n m d for c i w l i n c s s r\alualions.

Sincc ~ h c major purpox of lhis Tcsl Program is lo cslablish ~ h c npabililics

of ~ l l c r n a t i v u lo CFC d w i n g or nccd lor c laning. thus rcducing Ihe u x of

CFCs in cuncin u i ~ h thc Monlrul Prwcrol. ~ h c Tcst P r r ~ r u n =ill c n c v m p s r

~ h r c c slrgc k n c h m a r k c\alua~ion/Round Rohin p r m d u r c . Thcsc p h ~ r c r arc:

m a z mnw ALTCPX(~Z l : ~ uwu rvAulAno,v . Srlmimo/lLjulnumbno/wm7

0 Srlroia $ d u n o r d-I nr&

Udfmia ojws p ~ n l r n Unwirrl r Clm'"~ q' nm&4 pirul M d i n . ui*, Ju wl-d

du-;w dm'* rub jOl W n'l riu bmd..ot

Thc progrun is inlcnded lo be opcn lo all IPC m c m k n . P a n i t i p l i o n may

include donation of malcrirls u wcll u pcn'orming uscmbly and d w i n g

procrsscs. In ordcr lo rcducr lhc amounl of \ a r i ~ b l c s in the progrun. lcsling

, p n i t i p a ~ i o n rnsy ha\% lo bc l d o r c d lo involve l h o x compmics u i ~ h

Thc T-I P r o ~ n m T u k Group r o c r v o the 6phl lo k , c l c o i \ ~ by rc\ituing Ihc

n e d r n ~ i a l s of volunlccr panitipanu (rnalcrials. b u d n u l u f > o u r c . ~sscmbly .

clcrqing m d ~ u ~ i n g ) and m f i n g lhc k s t jvdgmcn~s in ordcr lo ?ct munins iu l

~rsults. i h c x cornprqiu nor x l ~ ~ c d in Phrrc I n z y hr\.c a,.. opp>cuni!y lo

Phax I md 3 tcs~ing will requirc volunlctr cffon o l IPC m c m k n in the

following form:

o Donation of 1-1 b a r d r n u v r k gcncntion

o Donation of laminale

o Produnion of t o 1 boards

o Donalion of cornponcnls

o Donalion of Ma~criaIs (wlder pu~dfluJml~rntsluscmbIyI~u~ing)

o Donation of T c c h n i c i m l M m p r r (dcpendcnl on localion)

o Enginctring Icvcl tuppon may k neccsraty

1.1.1 PHASE I BEKCHLURK TESTING

PhaK I is in~cndcd l o es labl ih I k n c h m a r k for subrcqucnl lcsling. During

his p h ~ v . ~ h c slrndrrd p r i n ~ r d h w d urcmbly ..iil k subjcclcd lo r t y r i f i c

rcc o l p r m s s i n g p a n m c l c n using 1 CFC.1 l)/mc:hmol zco~ro;.c. Boards %ill

FIG

k iinliill!y clcancd. lhc Icxcl of clcanlincss uill bc bcrificd. %rid lhcn

urnpic x : r uill bc fluxed, rsscmhlcd and lcslcd u s ~ c i f i c d in ~ h c Trsl p lm.

~ ~ p r o p n ' u c control w n p l c sclr will bc inrludcd lo cvr lua~c n o n - c o n ~ a m i n a ~ d

condi~ionr u ucll as maximum flur l rnuimum conlaminalion) mndilionr.

Thc tcnchmark lcsling u.ill k carried oul by a1 I c u l one ( I ) indcpcndcnl

lcning facili~y. Thc facilil)' will do rII asscmhling, roldcring. cleaning and

~ o ~ i n p of ~ h c b a r d s suhmillcd. All snivilics for uscmbly of pans tnd

clcanlinus lesting uill k o b s c ~ r d hy rncrnbc.cn of ~ h c Tcsling Commillcc.

AI L+C conclusion of ~ h c P h u c I l c s l i n ~ . dala dcn'vcd from he knchmark

lcs~ing uill be c h ~ k c d for l u l procedure r c p l a b i l i ~ y . Corrcla~ion shall k

utablishcd through duplicale cleaning proctdurcs on subwquent days. Once all

c l w l i n c s s l o l i n g h u been complc~cd and data rccordcd ~ h c m u l l s uill k

n l l u a t c d for rcpca~abi l i~y .

1.1.1 PHASE 1 L U I m D ALTERVATRE CLEASlNG MEDIA EVALUATION

O n m P h u c I lcsting h a k c n complclcd. Ihc benchmark lcsl u i l l be rcvicucd

for modificalions and call for panicipalion in P h u e 2 u i l l k issucd.

Thclc h a n g c s shall k agrccd to by the T o l i n g C o m m i ~ l c c and must k based on

suhs~anliatcd dala rcsu l~inc from the P h u c I k n c h n a r k tcsling. If addilional

con~rolr arc nccdcd during P h u c 2. lhcy uill k ins~ilulcd r s a pan of ~ h c

modified TcsI Plan.

Ph+x 2 u i l l i n i ~ i a ~ e the na lua l ion of allcmalo cleaning media. S h e w m e

l a 1 whiclc: b r d l c o m p o n c n l . nux. pzslc. clc. will k used. For !he P h z e

2 clcaning opcra~ion . ~ h c s p n m r of the al~cmalive cleaning mrdialcquipmcn~

shrll pro\.ide a dc~ai icd p r m s docriplion lo [he lest program ~ a k group for

rc+w prior lo Icsling.

11 is :!.c rcs,hnn~ibili~y of Ihe s;unwr of !he al~:rnr~ivc cleaning agcnl lo

procure ~ h c eppropr ia~e malcrids for ~ n c l c s ~ t s wcll u %curing an

rppropriale I C S I s i ~ c . 11 is rcngni rcd lhal the lcsling uill k c a m c d out

by scvcral l o l i n g facilities. Thc facili~ics uill do all urcmhling.

roldcrine. clcaning and l u l i n g of Ihe boards ruhmi~tcd . All aoi\,ilics for

~ h c u:cmhling of pans and clcanlincss lcsling will k ohrcwcd by mcmbcn of

lhc ! u k group.

Dalr obtdncd from P w 2 l u l i n g uill k rcr icurd by !he Tcsr Moni~oring and

Vllida~ion Turn (TMLT) prior lo publica~ion of the 1-1 rcsulls. Ma~cr i r l s

!ha1 Icst favonbly u i l l be s u b m i ~ ~ c d lo r DoD panel of c r p c n s lo k

considered for addilion lo the approprialc mililary syccilicalions.

1.2.3 P W E 3 I P C ROUh'D ROBIN M S G

Once Phase 2 is underu-ry. planning for P h a x 3 ui l l rommrnct . Modificalions

lo the 1-1 plan shall k rprccd lo by the TM\T. If addilional control$ arc

nceded during P h u c 3. lhcy u i l l he inslilutcd u a p.n of he m d i f i c d T o t

Plm.

P h u c 3 lcsling u i l l utilizc Ihe rcsulls of P h r w I rnd 2 to l ing lo provide

induslly conclalion and funhcr anal!~c s v d r e mcrunl clranlinc:~ rcquircmcn~t

r ~ t r i h v ~ c d lo r n r i c l y of i n d u s ~ ~ procorcs. Allcmali\r fluacs. fusing

r n c ~ h d r . rnd c l a n i n g prcrcdurcr mry k added in at lhis timc. Clonlincss

~h~ l o l i n g te nrr icd oul by s c ~ c r l l lc%lins frcililics. Thc farili~ics

,,.ill d o all ~sscrnhling. wldcring. cleaning and lcsling of ~ h c hoards

, u b m i ~ ~ c d . MI ~ n i r i ~ i c s for ~ h c u x m b l i n g of prns and clcanlinos ~ c s ~ i n g

ill t.c o b s ~ r \ c d by r n c m k n of ~ h c Tcsling Commillcc.

~ h c mnclurion of the P h u c 3 lo l ing . dala dcrivcd from thc tcs~ing u,ill k

h c c k c d for 1cs1 prcccdurc rcpcalabilily. Conclalion shall k cslablishcd

~ h r o u g h duplica~c clcaning p r m d u r c s on subscqucnl d a y . Oncc all clcanlincss

lcrling h u k c n complclcd and d a ~ a mmrdcd thc rcsulls uill kx cvalualcd lor

1.1.4 \ T R l n u n o s A ~ ' D A I O S I T O ~ G

pha.v I and 2 ui l l be monilorcd hy mcmbcn of h e Tcrt Vcrilica~ion and

Moniloring T w v). The TVTM consisls o l r minimum of live m c m k n (uilh '

.I I& one individual from tach major group) from the follouing lisl:

TzXUXCOMMIITEE

Chrd,-".,, L * l k Gurh. AT&r

, kdunr). ljdm Da'l St-. ICC

i y A m J m , L+.-Ankna Dmiw M-umll

! U.L Gm. H d m B&l

: S i c , R r p n m ~ i m

' A"? w n v d m a A k f k r r L u k b *

w r ~ WJ-

i rr, #obi" Srllrr, N U Did wrinnri"

O m A n V o v r

3.1 TESr \ 'EHICLE PHOTOTOOLISC

The 1cs1 \chicle phololooling for b.oth thc conduciivc pallcrn bnd ~ h c solJrr

m u k u.ill bc available from Ihc IPC officc lo all b a r d (thtiralon in a n y ol

~ h c phucs of ~ h c propram. The IPC pho~olooling uill bc a film n c ~ a l i \ c for

~ h c IWO rondunivc rurfaccs of the doublc.sidcd h a r d lo k produrcd. Also.

film is also svailnblc for lhc soldcr mesk snufrk ond lhc s~cncil anuork.

3.2 CIRCUIT PATTERh' (Rc\ircd 3i89)

Thc ~ c n c r d laroul m d dirncnsions of lhc 1cs1 vchiclc arc shoun in F i ~ u r c I.

Thc l a 1 spcrirncns shall be prodvccd in pancl form. consisting of I5 100 rnm x

100 mm 14' x 4'1 lcsl spccimcns loa lcd on m 450 mm x 603 mrn 118' x i d ' ]

pmcl.

The pallcrns on he tcsl pallem include bolh throuph.hole and r u d ~ c c mounl

chanclcr is~in . The I n l pallcrn can rcrcpl 68 I:0 lcadcd and I w d l o s chip

c M i c n on 1.27 m m (0.050 inch1 pitch. Thc soldcr ride of the board is nor

~ c s ~ c d and is only for poinl-lo poinl conncoion.

\,?a holcs are indudcd on two of the coupons lo allow maximum conlaminalion by

flux undcrnmh c o m p n c n l s during ua\r roldcring. Two pstlcrns uithoul vias

h z ~ r pain of conduoor lincs of equal lcng~h uilhin and u i ~ h o u r ihc rondunivc

partcrn lo i a h ~ i t a ~ c pcst dcanl inos n a l u a ~ i o n hy sun'acc inrula~ion

rcsislancc. '

Insuls~ion rcsislanfe comb patlcrns h\r t e n i n c o r p ~ n ~ c d inlo the

S.pplin Krpnm-.a

Chrm1r.b Cgvlprntnl

A11kd kid - 8.91 Cad K-;,

A l p b A1 Sdwikr DIWU DvPorl Bill K r n a 0 t o m . n Dm U l i a

K71 0 a . d H q UdPr h&nn'n - th-mid A im W m r l ~ ~ l r m ! l ECD $4- Clur

rnmGnn K i l t Hf)cr

T h e folloring d w m c n u arc u s d u guideliner lor ~ h c testing procedures m6

2.1 I P C DOCULIEh%

- > ' ' ,. IPC-T-SO T e r m s and Definllions

i IPC-T-650Terr b l t thods b l i n u a l

o TM 1.3.15 - Dclcoion of loniublc Surfact C o n t m i n a ~ i o n (Slalic Mclhod)

o Tt-1 2.3.16.1 - lonirahle Deleoion of Surface Con~aminmls (Static Mclhod)

0 'Ihf 2.6.3.3 - Moisture and Inrula~ion Resirtanct. Fluxes

IPC-SF-818, ' G c n c d R q u i r t m c ~ l l r h r Elrclronic Soldering n u x c r ' IPC-SP.s19, ' G t n m l R q u i r c m r n t s and Tcsr !ticthods ior Electronic Grade So1d.r

P u l e '

AlIL.F-I4?S6, 'Flux Soldtrinc, Liq11id (Rosin Basr)'

QQ-S.S'l, ' k l d c r , Tin hllo)-. Ltad.Tin Alloy; and Lead Allo?'

photolmling for all ppula lcd m m p n c n t land pallcms. T h o c Icu p211crns

u.ill allou. for i n s u l a l i ~ rcsirlancc 2nd clcnrornigrrlion c\%lualion of the

~ssr:nt.Iics aid !he bar: ! r : . . - i ' , r? lo :hr p-..;r.rn. One p>:-r of rach pair

\.ill ?.t ;.r,pu!o!cd. Ci.-z!C IraRS uill \,c ir.corpc:atc< lo m;nimi;c Ic;irgs

N n c n t s during c l c ~ r i c a l rncuu:crncn!s (sce Figurc I ) . .

A c o p p r rcnanglc is providrd for w p n scr i r l iu~ion.

All t.okrds s h ~ l l k ~ l c r ~ r i r ~ l l : ~ ttslcd by lhc boa rd vendor prior lo shipping.

3.3 BOARD CHARACTERISTICS

3.3.1 LAMINATE - 'Ihc board shrll k made from standard p l u s epoxy malcrial conforming l o

MIL-P-13949. Type GF. Board thiclncss requircrncnls h a l l k 1.5 rnm (0.059').

The staning coppcr for the prin~cd b a r d shnii be I 7 microns ( I I l or.) on

eilhcr side. Both laminrtc m d copper shall k from rinplc lot. Test dr la

and u m p l e mupons of lamiru~e for f u ~ u r e tcsling shall k x n t lo thc IPC

oflice for rclen~ion unlil Ihe prognm is complc~td.

3.3.2 PLATED T H R O U G H HOLES (Rniscd 3189)

Intcdarisl c o n n m i o n r shall k msde on rhe prinlrd b ~ r d . l~r ing r l a ~ c d

lhrourh holcs. The plalcd ~hrcwgh hole \ i r s;;c is 0.5 mln 10.020.1 rs drillcd

uilh 1.27 mm (0.050') lands.

FICCRE I

x u < x TLn I < UT z W K o w 0

U J I - LL 0 I ULn

3.3.3 FABRICATION

Boards shall k f~bricarcd lo mcct Class 3 of IPC.SD.32OB. Tcsl b a r d s shall

bc barc coppcr. 17 micron (I12 or.) uith no prolmi\.c coaling fno nccd lo

rc~ain mlJcnbilil!.). Edge card conrans shall I< golJ p1~1cd on !he lop

sidc only.

All prinrcd b a r d s shall k Iabn'catcd using rhc =me proctrs and vlilizing lhc

same rnarcrialc.

3.3.4 SOLDER hL\SK (Rc\.ircd 3.SP)

Soldcr r n u k is only uscd on the I C I ~ pallcrn lo a n u I >land-off for lhc chip

cam'cn. S~md-off sire is 0.8 - 0.9 mrn 10.031-0.035-) in d i m r c r m d 0.13

m m (0.00)') in height. Tho w l d r r m u k h a l l he placcd ovtr I coppcr lrnd

provided for such purpoxs. The I12 w n c c Nrning coppcr. plnrcd an

rddilionrl O.Wl' with ~ h c plating in the hole and rnukcd uirh the 0.003'

wldcr mask gives r 0.005' lolal s~md-off hcighl. T o l c m r c on lhc s ~ a n d o l l . - .

.. . .. - . hright s h d l k +I- O.OOOJJ.

: Sland-offloalions ;re indicated in Figure I .

3.3.5 BOARD QUA?rnn '

For P h u c I lesling. approaima~cly 250 hoards (17 pnels) arc required lo

For P h h v 2 toling. I05 board are rcquirrd.

For P h u e 3 lcslinp. ~ h c quanli!). is 10 t.e de~crmincd.

4.0 CO$lPOSEh'TS

Componcnl manulaaurcn uill k rolici~cd lo provide componcnrs lhal may k

uscd in the Test Program. In cach inslmcc. c\.cry xllcmpt shall be madc so

hat the same manulanurer pro\idcr all ~ h c cornpncn~s!ma~crials of a single

I ~ C . C o m p n c n t s s h ~ : i k ionically c l c m d prior I C Ics l in~.

For P h a x I loling. ?03 incomplcle (cmply i.c.. no inlcrnal c i r w i l y ) 61 110

Icrdlcss ceramic chip c7mcrr on 1.27 mm (0.050) pilch arc rcquircd ( ~ c c

Tablc I).

For P h a c s 2 , c o n p n c n : s of the s n c pan n u m k r uscd in Phrsc I u.i:l k

a\ul rb lc frcm IPC. Xpproximalc!y I componcnl pcr b a r d is rcquircd.

6.0 ASSEhIBLY hUTERULS

The following ma~er ia l r arc rcquired for P h u c I ~ ts l ing . Q u a n ~ i ~ i c s uill

supp@n I lo lcr . Qurnl i~ics for Phues 2 and 3 lo l ing will k dclcminrd at

Ihc conclurion of Phax I .

5.1 SOLDER PASTE

Soldcr parlc shall k pcr IK.SP-119.

A single wldcr p u r e \mndor m l l provide a single lo( of wldcr prslc (Vapor

phase rcflow formulation for s~cmilinp) for !he Bencbmark TCSI Procram. This

lo1 shall he sutdivided inlo approrim~lcly fif~cen 5OO p n m s r o n ~ r i n c n are

rquircd. Meld conlent shall he 9 0 1 by u.cighl u i ~ h alloy (63137. Sn.'Pb).

Powdcr shall h pcr IPC.S.Sl9 T!.pc 2. l n c o m i ~ ~ g ~ c s ~ i n p shall wnforrn lo

lPC.SF-818. IPC.SP.819 m d QQ-S.571. \'iwosity sl,ould k approrirnalcly iDO

Lrps u dclcrmincd b!. a BrooNncld T F spindlt.

Phksc 2 rcquircs x r grams of d d c r pLslC

nc wldrr pa,lc vrndor u.ill pro\.iJc informalion rrgarding:

* ~d;ubbn a n t wort ing Ink o Prc.rlcncil handling prwrhurc, Irgu~libr,,;on. ? b ; r r i n C . clc

S h i p r n ~ n ~ ' S ~ w ~ ~ ~ C0n68d~nl . Cvrr ~cquilrmrntr.r:rlr nrrdcd plni~lr rirr. dl,tribulion d, l h r v 0 S h r l l L t l ~

0 Rhceb" C U M

5.2 SOLDER r m F L U S

nc FIU,, 1.4us1 b4ccl Bolh - hllL.F.14256. T!pc RA 2nd prrfcrsl,ly IPC.SF.618.

H.jC. flux vendor to c\.rluale i f flux can mccl bolh spccifica~ions.

5.3 \$'AVE SOLDER FLL'):

A singlc flux vcndor will. pro\idc flux for Phax I lcsling. Approiirna.cly I

batch of 60 gxllons i n ' I gallon ,ronlajncn is ' r6qvircd: 30 gsllons of thinnc~

i n 1 gallon contajncn i r sIm required. . - , . ...

phue 2 quan~ities shall k ruficien! for thc l c n silcs' uzve wldcr

- oil h d ~ m ' + n r r rrrr L ~ r p u i n t F a fmain: . ,

6.0 ASSEMBLY K S T R U C l l O N S

On= all b r d s and compncnls haw pured incoming inrprt ion. !he ba rds

components and rnatcrials %ill k uscmblcd. clcancd snd c\mluslnl. Thc tcsl

flow for the bcnchrnuk m d Pharc 2 is dcfincd i n figure 2.

6.1 BARE BOARD CLEAYISC (Uh ' l 'O rUUTED)

6.2 STENCIL

The solder pu le $lenti l vscd shall be .010 5 0.03[)5 brass. or stainless slccl

u i t h thc s~cncil openings !he =me siic u ~ h c land sizc.

6.3 CO>IPOSE>T PUCE...IL'\T

Thc stcncil shall hc used lo provide a suff,cienl amount o f mldcr pule. Thc

rornponenls wi l l bc posi~ioncd inlo ~ h c &e and be r l l o v n l lo dr?. or may be

bakcd. Pans may k p s i l i o n 4 manually or by machine. (A dnu ing dcfining 1

fixlure for msnunl plrctrncnl is shmn i n Attachmcnl I ) The componcnlr shall k

plrccd on the two prltcrns funhcsl from thc card cdgc ronncnor. Sp t i f i c

. p u l e mrdd ry time psramcten u m m c n d c d b y !he \.cndor vill bc lol lourd.

Anual prorcrs parameten uill k recorded. Xrne beyeen stencil and plrctmcnl

sill also lollou. vtndor recommmd~tion and wi l l hc recorded.

Hole: A reprcscntatirr m p l c of the solder p u l e u ~ i t h l applicd l o IhC

board should uriphcd and recorded.

6.4 VAPOR PH.4SE SOLDERISC

6.4.1 FLLtlD

Vapor Ph~cc SolJcring uill h a~rornplishcd using a primary fluid boiling p i n t

n r i t : : : 9 lo ?!I C (r531?).

f.:.? \':.: GSIT ~Rt\S!rd ; . ? ? I

Bnlch VPS Unit \Vilh CFC-I I 3 ScrnnJrry Fluid Blanlct or In.Unc \'PS U n i ~ Capable

of hfcc:ing Rcflov Profilc Rcquircrncn~s

6.3.3 \'PS C\ 'CLE (Rniscd .?IS?)

Prcll:~: Te D y Fiux And b<;nini:c Soldcr Epl l i r ;~ (prosic to k d::crmincl!.

Protcl);u P\\B's rcquircd lo olahlirh lhc cyclc.

- rvnrknmd&r* I ,p l ldmkfddla IJfJniru .

7.0 PO= SOLDERISC CLEhh'lNG

Kotc: For Phuc 2 tcsting. Ihc sponsor must pmvide a dc~ailcd p r o m s

dcm'p~ion similar l o the dctail proridcd klw:

7.1 S O L \ Z \ T

For Phuc I tcsling. he w l w n l lo k uurcd is nilrornc~hanc s~abilizcd

CFC.1 13!mc1hrnol uco!ropr'lcomplics u . i ~ h H'S-651.6 And DOD.?O\?OI. A single

,upfl;cr will :upply sol\.cnl for P h n x I lrrling. Four 5 5 $allon drums arc

rcquirtd plus o n c 5 gallon conlaincr o f CFC Ilj'mc~h~nolini~rornt~h~n~ lhiEh

mclhanul hlcnd) lor urc i l mc~hanol dcplrlion crrurs.

bbdb., m,, b r p i l i b w r j P J A". t.+, <I-;., ,W,.

. 0 B d u p fnm-r -1 -&Id & I n n w b r r j n i r v m .

7.2 CLEANLYC '3'0-E:. \'APOR BATCH D E F L U S I S C

7.2.1 Machine R q ~ ~ i r c m c n u :

-Programmable Hoist Rccommcndcd To Control Cyclc Propcrly

.Yo S p n y a l lourd

. - I Cgclc As Dcfincd In Cyclc Time

7.2.2 Cycle Timc:

.Vapor Equilibniion: 30 SCC. + 20 Scc. . - 0 c x m 1 rate no! lo c a d I I fuhtin.

-Boil Sump lmmcnion: 3 ).tin.

- B o i l i n ~ / l m m t n i n n Sump Sol\cnl mu<! he mainlaincd a1 n h c i ~ h l ha! is a minimum of 2 inchcs higher lhan ~ h c hcighl of the pans to k clcancd u%cn the pans arc immcncd in ~ h c clcaning solwnr.

-Rinse Sump Immcnion: I Min. - Rinx Sump shnll k mainlaincd uilhin 2 5 C of lhc boiling sump. Rinse Sump shall a l w k filtcrcd with a minimum of a 25 micron canridgc filler.

-Vapor ~ g u i l i b r k i o n ( D ~ i n g ) : 30 Scc.

- N u m k r of boards:haslcl (work load) should no1 cause \Jpor Icvcl lo g o d o u n more lhan ? inchcs (approxinlatcly I2 t m r d s a1 a l imc)

.Boards m o u n ~ c d vcninll! in h a ~ k c l (all b a r d s loadcd in same orirnlnlion) - c o n n m o r up

One inch spacing k l u c c n h z r d s

8.0 \\'A\€ SOLDERLYC

8.1 C O S I P O S E S T PLACELIEhT

S o sddilionnl mmponcnlr will hc zddcd for wave wldcring as pan of Phwc I o r

P h u c 2 ~csting.

8.1 SOLDERLYC OPER4T!Op (Roiscd 3/89) .

i h e appl ia l ibn Icchniguc for 'the flux must be J c f i n d . A rcprocntrlivc

w i g h t of flux applied m u 9 be r m u u r c d and recorded. A Minimum of X X prams of

flux must be applicd.

- An A h Xni,k ir r r w i r r d lmrb*r+ * I fp7* nun Id + m&wnjr.r d r npw'rrd/P/m;/m;:J

. +0iI&hryunkkrd&rmdinrcynb11mrld Tht d & r rm br d l d 80 .dIbJ, d ucm.dI W m c d wp. Ln & r . o r n n . ~ ~ l b r ( d A o i l ~ & ~ l + y i a w d & L - 8 . - ca- rnlva: xu +I- 18 T .yo* r d t j m k- 1 ~ ~ 1 bu'- w e ) . -nma-d& p+? k m p m r r D b -'d rlnulararrl,. S r a 4 r $k &It k A- J.

Follouing U'a\c snldcring. Ihc rnlJcr sidc shall k czamincd lor mldt r

bridginf. I l h r i d ~ t s rrc srcn on Ihc scldcr sidr of lhr hoard ~ h r y c m t.c

rcrnorcd u.iih r dry snlJcr iron.

8.3 POST SOLDER C L F A S I S C Ah'D H A S D L I S G

For cleaning p r m d u r c dclincd in 7.0 will k rcpcalcd hcrc

8.4 U Y D L I Z C

Xflcr cleaning. ulc clean lalc.fftC linpcrcols. o r glo\.cs and hnndlc by edges

only. Clean Fixluring. Tongs. PPIICIS. C I C .

For slorapc prior lo lcsling. usc clean. coscrcd. pro lcacd rack: prcclcancd . . .

con~aincn: or dcgrcucd aluminum foiLe - . . -

9.1 IOh'lCS (Rc\ iwd 3/89)

l o n i n uill he dclcrmined in sccordance u i ~ h IPC-TM.650 Mcthod 2.3.26.1 (scc

al~achmcnl 5). The lest uill he pcrformcd u i ~ h a c a l i b n ~ c d Omcga-Mc~cr MX)

S34D using I so lu~ion of 15/25 volumef~vlume isopropyl alcohol/D.l. uwcr . lonic

les~ing using ~ h c Omceamclcr MX) S M D shall run for I 5 minulcs uilhoul Ihe

ncmssily lor lifting Ihc m m p n c n l .

If older modcls of Omcpamclcn are used the c o m p n c n l s shall be ~ I I on ~ h r e c

s i d e prior 10 cleanliness lu t ing per allachmcnt. T h e ICSI shall k run for IS

minulo. For lonognphs . Ihe components shall k cut and r a i x d per auachmcnl

8. and Ihc Icrler shall k run lo baseline.

lonic conlamination shall be rccordcd u minogrnrns!cml. Rcmrdinps shall bc

mrdc for cach s a of b a r d s . Ionic lcsling shall h vr lor rncd prcfcrahly with

2 houn af:tr ~ h c clctnir.: opcmtior.. Boards slortd in prcparalic-7 lor Icsl

shall be protcctcd from conlaminnlion duc lo sloragc.

9.2 S U W A C E LYSL'UTION RESISTASCE (SIR) lRc\ircd 3189)

SIR will be c \ a l u a ~ c d in scrordancc u i ~ h ~l lachmcnl 7.

Surfact insv l r~ ion rcsirtancc of thc barc h a r d initially shall k E:calcr than

10' ohms. Data shall bc rccordrd u spccilitd in Tcst b4cthCd 2.6.3.3.

Thc Tcaing condi~ions shall bc u follou>:

i) 2 5 ' ~ 50% RH ur!ic 2 h n . - mcsurcmcnl I. ' . .. . . . .._ - .

2) 30 min. lo I hr. ramp lo 8 5 ' ~ 8 5 % RH.

3) 8 5 ' ~ 85% RH s t a ~ i c 23 h n . - mcvurcmcnl 2.

4 ) 85.c 85% RH s ~ a t i c 9 5 hn . - rnesurcmcnl 3.

5) 8 5 ' ~ 85% RH rlalic 167 h n . - rncuurcmenl 4.

6) 30 min. l o I hr. n r n p lo 2 5 ' ~ 5 0 % RH.

7) 2 s . c 50% RH s ~ a l i c 2 h n . - mcuurcmenls final.

E l e n r i d conditions shall b u follou%:

I ) A r o c n c hi= of ncpali\c 50 \vlts llrom r n crtrrnal p w c r sour=) shsll k

applicd lo ~ h c spccimcn.

1 ) A yoili,.c 100 volts h i u u.ill bc rnain~aincd durins ~ h c limc p r i d u-hrn

A snual SIR meaJurcmcnu ape lalcn

.. . . . . . -- . - -

. ,

c~~~~~~~~ rtSuircd for ~ h c program arc C-r ps i l ion I?!'??) 1)r-c. v i ~ h gold

plrlcd b i l u r n l c d c o n ~ s o s hh$P 1 . 1 11.21?.1. \ v i l ~ lor mnncnion shall k FTFE

insulslcd r ih tan a b l c 2 6 gavgc. nicLcl plalcd. For p h u c I l c s ~ i n ? .

m n n c o o r , shall only k uscd oncc. C o n n m o r , and n b l c shall k ionically

clrancd prior lo Icsl.

b a r d s ,hall hc \.isuslly insycnrd on thc solJcr side for bridging prior lo

9.2.1 SIR C K U 1 B E R CALIDR4TIO.Y

The SIR chamber can k calihralcd using ~ h c I C S I b a r d shoun in Figurc 3.

High taluc r u i s ~ o n ( E l l I % K o b n slyle KOl2l3) arc pan or ~ h c ca l ,bra~ion

b a r d . The rcsislancc \?lue of the high.\aluc r o i s l o n is m m u r c d and lhcn

- p d l o the spccilicd \$LC. b c h o'rcuit can k chcckcd. and cach

connccior in the chamber a n be e m l u a l d lor a w n ? of rcadinr.

Organic mslcn'd Icft on !he board shall k dctcrmincd by the residual rosin

i (UVnlIS) dclincd in allachmcnr 8. An HPLC m c ~ h c d is pcdormcd at Honc!urll

j (htlachmcnl 9r\i l l k w e d for conl~minanl idenlilica~ion and quanlificalion.

Phrv 2 s p n s o n shall proviidc boards lo Honc!vcll for analysis.

i \7sud i n r p m i o n u i l l nM be an omrial p a n of !he Benchmark Tcst Program.

' H-rr. some p b l o p n p h s of typical rcsiducs Icft on the lcsl assembly will k

IrLcn during the program.

FIGURE 3

Pooo0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 2 - - - - CFC SIR C A L EOARII ]

C F C SIR CAiI8,9ATION B O A R D $$;zs.EN7s Ii

CFC S I H C A L I B R A T I O N RfIAHD LAYER IfornM-rwd SCALE 1 X

Cf-'C S I R C A L I B R A T I O N BOAHIJ LAYER Z ( , - n ~ s r & SCALE 1 X

10 .1 TEST SITE QUAI. IFICATIOS

0 , . .., ;arm ir lo b- c;.qp:<:cd by 1:s' lilt for c\xluz:;rp t ' : r ~ a ! e rnllc,<1':. Thc

a~, , ;~: - , : fs-.-. ui!l k rc\.icu:d hy ;he T5!\T ;.,<or lo s h r d u l i n g a

n o n i ~ o r i n g C Z I C for ~ h c allcrna:c clcaning agcn:s. The form is shown in

h luchmcnl 10.

10.2 fLCS h S D PASTE \ \ T I G H T

Forms ior recording !he w i g h t of applied 9ur and soldcr p a l e is shoun in

.illa:hmcn~ 1 1 .

10.3 PROCESS TR+\ZLERS . Examplu of pr-ss t n v c l c n uscd in knchmark lu l inp at NAC are show7 in

Allrc+mcnl 12.

10.4 PROCESS PROCEDURES

Examplo of process t n r c l e n used in k n c h m r r k testing a! KAC are shoun in

altacmcnt 13.

10.5 TRAh'SPORTATlON PROCEDCRE

A rmmrncnded ~ r a n s p o n a ~ i m proccdurc is prmidrd in Allacmcnl I J . This

p r h ~ d u r c can be uscd u*cn t o t cquipmcnl is n n in thc =me building aS !he

uscmhly opcnlion. The p r ~ c d u r c is xn asll~uznc: for lhc use of COnlnfl

1rt.onlorics for Irslinp. H o u n c r . all of the 1 ~ 1 1 times in lhc p r c c n m mull

still b mrl c \ r n if a c o n t n n lab is uscd.

10.6 ,hlONTTORI.~G FOR5IS

Forms 10 bc complclrd b y lhc T M k 7 ull l lc moniloring lhc I f l t silts src rhoun in

Allachmcnl 15.

11.0 DATA AVALI'SIS

S~a~ is~ i ca l Analytis shall h complc~cd by lhc r l lcmal i~c !pnror . Boxplo[

analysis o l u,cmblrd vcnus non.axmblcd condilions shall h pcdomcd.

u.rll r r conlmling a l l 5 l c l l fl@*s (A. D l . B?. C and Dt. Thc lollru.inp

outlicr crilcria h u bccn agrccd lo:

IOSIC CLMSUSESS: Exminc Ihc Irs\cllcr lor cach outlier. Ionic test

results mn only k throun out i f M anomsly in ~ h c prmxaing o l lhst

spcif ic b a r d can bc idcnli6cd: lor caamplc. the b a r d u.rs drop@ on

the floor. the board u u r m d c n ~ l y handled uilhout glo\.cs. or ~ h c b a r d

fell into ~ h c rcldcr poc.

RESIDUAL ROSIN: Gamine Ihe Ira\.cllcr and any tcst documen~a~ion lor each

Chip Crrricrs

Conncclors

Cable

Sohcnl CFC. I I 3

PYIC

Flux

Dcsipn B Anuork

Texu Inslrumcnls.

Test Boards

Konhcrn Tclccorn

oullicr. Residual rosin lest rcsulls can only be Ihroun out il an anomaly

i n !he processing o f that specific b a r d can he idcn~ificd: lor cxamplc. Ensinccrinp Suppon

4 the b&d uas dropped on the nmr. the board fcll inlo he rcldcr pot. or Konhern Tclccorn

half o f the liquid i n the plzslic bag u u lost uhcn a hole de\clopcd

during Ies~ing.

i SURFACE I N S U U T I O N RESISTAKCE: Visually cxpmine each hoard which

cxhibiled a 'shon' (SIR < 1.0 xl0' ohms). I f the shon uar cauxcd

by 1 sliver. wlder ball. or other pioccss~malcrial not rclaled l o thc

cleaning. then documcnt u i th a phologmph. and throw oul ~ h c SIR lcrt

rcsulls fur lhat p~n i ru la r mersvrcmcnt pallcrn. T l ~ c SIR lcrl rcsults can

only k throun out i f Ihc anomaly i s . do rvmcn~cd .

b4alcrial used i n ~ h c lcsl program i s tniI3blc lhrough ~ h c I o l l o u i ~ g sourco: Tcst Boards Konhcrn Tclccorn - Jurccn Kmppa 40i.68 1.2345

Componcnls IPC . David Bcrgrnan 3 1?.677.260

Soldcr Pasic Alpha Mclals . K o r k n S m l o u ~ k i 201-04.67:1 Alpha Lol 81 103J:O

Wavercldcr Flux Keslcr - Dennis Bcrnicr 312.297.1633 Kcstcr PN 1565 Lo1 Ad265

Thinner Kcrlcr PN I03 Lot So. D-3:59

Connccion Amp. WcnQ Herb ?I:.J.CO.IIIL AbIP PN 1.1 11.212-1 6: Posilion ??':?

Cable W. L Gorc - 5 m Ainsuonh 1.803.??8.3024 PN GTX.602.2107-U-64

Cable Shield . W. L Gorc . PN MFP 5096

13.0 EQUlPblEhT LIST. A l isl o f qu ipmcnl used in benchmark tcsting hy NAC is shoun i n altachmcnl 16.

BESCH>l.ARK TEST I'ARTICII'XSTS

ln i t l

AStP

W.L. Gore

E.I. DuPon! - U'ilminglon. DE

Alpha Mclals

Kcslcr - I L -

Raleigh. P C

Xalhi Johnron

Robin Scllars

Jack SichIhhon. RE? Prased

!VcnJy Hcrb

Jim Ainsu.onh

\ \ i l l i m Kcnyon

Korbc.cn Socolou,ski

Dcnnis Bcrnicr

Joe Fclty

Dcnnis M K u l l w g h

Ernie L o u ~ Barn ).(arcellur

- . .. .

LCI m - a m - - - -

w m '-., ~f-, 4 0 0 1 ~ 3 - - 4 m - 3 1 I

+ 1 1 - - 4 1 1 I I

- d ---'T-Tfm - If-, X W 1

ZC I I - -3-

=z 0- ar

e -- -L- 0. B ~ C P C D O > ~ r c - a - - - -

F9 %l.x"-,--D~-

4 w mmmmm A s - - - - - sSZWNCUP3NN attP--ccEcr-c.

DETERSllt\'Ai'lOS OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY

BACKGROL'YD

ih i , prw-cdurc qunr.~iiativcl: dr~c.=incs the !p<cific gcvii!. cia liquid s~npl: at 25' C.

XPPAMTL'S

I ) Mc111cr:Paar Specific Gravity Meter

Model DMA 4 6

11 2 cc syrinse

REAGENTS

I1 tkionized w t c r

PROCEDURE

I ) Using a 2 cc syringe. i n j m deionized uzler insuring no hbhles a n pnscnl in the w p l c lube. A reading or 1.000 50.002 $hould k ohlaintd.

1 ) Rinse ~ h c umplc l v k u i lh mrrnl cc or nctlonc and blow dry with rir pump.

3 injcci tc,! w p l c 2nd rca% thc spcific ~ r n i ! ! . dirertl! from the tcrrcn.

41 Rinx Ihe umplc l u k u i ~ h sc\cral rc of arcsnnc. Blcu. drr..

1. Cull if i t Ihe loldrr join1 or r> ld t r jainlr a l c r l 111 bvl o n t rnd o f I r t r f ~ c t mccnl compcr,t;t rolLtrrd lo I p:ir.lcd r.i:in: borrd & > d thr:, lihiz: it I 11itht 1 r i ; r will pc rn i l l h t ionic cor . l lmin~ l ion I r l x d on the bollom ride of ~ h r ccnpon tn l and on lh t ho*re lur!~:r lo be rt1:ily rncllvrcd t y r n r p v o r r d ic:.ic lrr l r , r lhod. Thr Iollcu'ir,y trl:ri*r Ihc mclhod for rnr:Llni:'l:g rc1:ir.y 1t.e compor,tr.t r ad lif:i:,t il Icr !hi1 ~u!:ctc.

2. Ure only ~ c j r c \ . t d lcr.yr. t l o r r l or l in te r co11 dvrin: :his m ~ h l n i c r l oprrllion 10 twoid 16ein: ioaic c o n ~ r n i s i l i o n f r o 2 bare h ~ n C r . Tlk-. 12propriaic clre when hrrv3:ir.g ~ h ~ : p lwl r such 11 the cul1ir.g k t i f r u l d I ? c c l the roldrr j0ir.u.

3. R t n o v e :he p:intrd w i r i r , ~ ~ r r c m b l y from is p:esenl locll ion, n:k,'cosvryor. r::.. t n d cnrcfully place it on I clrrn unurtd ? l e u of PI;-: on I Ilblr.

I., APpu'.Uo. x, m M hl .D+=ZU3 I , L c.,* -d I d rd 81 t nww Iu b d n j ~ - d dr*n) ~ p ~ r u p u - : r r I I a w a ~ m ~ d 1 d . i u r . I c ,4 lo L-4- -10 COWrri-4 l Pu, d m lo v n , 1cnrk-5 MI dckminru. In qFcru c w 7 e c&t cm b a d l o c-.aut sdrtnx r e vatu .%ch? .-c Jra to U'd1 d w s 4 e c;i1-uLL '.

1. U1ir.g ylovcr or rir.ytr cot1 n tn l ionrd ~ b v t . hold Ib t bird firmly r t ~ i n s l the c l r ln r b i l e plpcr on the u b l t nnd wring I r t ~ v poinltd I pile (rvch I S I hcbby

. . knife l c r rr.~kin: I node l tirplrae). cul tht $older joinu c, I 4 5 dcgrrer'lntlc 11 one end of 111 the chip c r p ~ c i l o r l or chip rc r i l lo r~ or. in Il,e care of I o o r e complex cornponcnl ruch 11 I Ieldlerl chip clrr irr . cut the w l d t r join11 11 I

45 d e t r e t rn t l c a1or.t lhrre riCtr 01 the component. Al.,)l l u v e the roldtr joint or joimr 11 one end of I rirnvlt p l l l i w dtvice or ~ l o n : on? rid; 01 I n LCC uz~cuched .

5. Take the point 01 Ihe knife tnd rliv il wndrr Ihr c o r n p n e n l lilting that en6 or the c o m p n c n l to thrl the component il i:clined ~ p p r o x i n ~ t c l y 10 - 30 4c:rteS re l~ t ive to !he board.

6. Fick :he b o l d c p v i lh ::o~.tl. rinser c o u or lonyr and place il the r:pro?rillt l i r lv te or s i m i l ~ r for r.i.lalultxtr.1 of the i01.i~ ~c:.:am/ntt:on in >he 1;p:ovd ionic trr: machine or ~p;rovsd ioaic trr l method.

I < V L I R U ( : - 1 2

5VEJLCT: ).loblur. & Sudnrr ltuulillon Rulrl.ncc. CFC T u l Pmtn+vn DATE: 91M

A T T A C H h I E h T 5 p m 1 s l o s : .

1.0 Scope 5 h i s lcsl mc thcd is l o chara f l c r i :~ cffi t icncy o f cleaning apcnls in mrno\ing flux and w l d c r p u t c r o i d u n by dclcrrnining ~ h c d c g n d s l i n n o f clcnrical insula:ion rcsislanm of rigid printcd u i r ing b a r d spccimcns duc l o L\C dclc:crious c K c c s of high humidily. hczl conditions.

3.1 C o m b P a t t e r n s L'sc ~ h c C F C Al lcms t i \~c S M T Tcsl Vchiclc.

4.1 h c l a n I C S I d a m k r a p n h l c of p ro~ra rn rn ing and rccordinp an cn\,ironrncnt of 25 + 10/.2'C ( i i ' F ) to al l a ! 85 ? ' C (149.F) and 9 0 % rclali\.c hunlidil!'. A salt mlulion and J u i c c a ~ o r rnry bc u,cO to rnrinlain I,umicli~y if a ~ i g h l t c m p c n l u r c control i r maintained o n thc lcmpCralurc c h s r n k r .

4.2 A p o v c r supp ly n p a b l c o f reading high resislnncr (10'' o h m s o r grcalcr), w i ~ h r test voltage o f 9Xl wlls .

4.3 C o n n c c t o n AS p e r CFC T u l Program Proccdurc.

1.1 Tes t C o n d i t i o n s

I ) 25'C 5 0 % RH s l r l i c 2 hn. - m c u u r e m e n l I.

2 ) 3 0 min. l o I hr. nmp l o S J ' C 8 5 % RH.

3 ) 85'C 85' R H s l r t i c 13 hn. . m c u u r c m c n l 2.

4) 85'C 85. RH stal ic 9 5 hn. - rncuurcrncnl 3 .

5 ) 8S'C 85' R H slntic I 6 7 hn. - m c u u r c m c n l 4.

6) 3 0 rnin. l o I hr. n m p l o 2S.C SO% RH.

7) 25.C 5 0 % R H slat ic 2 hn. - m ~ u r c m c n t s final.

5.2 Spec imen P r e p o r a l l o n

5.2.1 P o r i ~ i \ r permanent. and non-mn~rmina t ing i d c n t i f i n ~ i o r ~ of lest spccimcn i n of p r r r m o u n l i m p n s m .

S.1.2 Visually i n s p c o he t u t specimcns for any o b \ i w s dcfcrts . 1 s dcwribcd in I P C - A . m . If ~ h c r c is any douhl a b u l the m n l l quali ly of any IUI spccimcn. thc l u l spc t i rncn should bc d i s a r d e d .

5.3.1.1 Ttstinp or Unprocnsrd Sarnplcs h l lcr prc-clcaning slcp only, $pccimcn should tx tcr~cd a, wllincd in 5.3.3 lo 5.4.1.

5.3.1.2 T n t i n g or Unclcznrd S3rnplcs Altcr cxrosurc to lhc flux and solder. s,wcirncns should be t o l c d in an unclcancd stale and shall tx evaluntcd u w t l i n d in 5.3.3 lhrough 5.4.1.

5.3.1.3 Tcrting of C l n n r d Samples Aftcr ca,wsurc lo flux and soldcr. 1ht3c wlnplcs shill h cluncd ( t x l o x thcy arc subjcocd lo the SIR Itsling) using ihc s~andard c l w i n g p r m d u r c in CFC Test Program.

Z..I.I Plam spccimtns in chamber, in a venical posilion and under a rondmsation drip shield. Apply a ncgati\.c 5 0 roll DC plar iz ing v o l ~ ~ g c lo dl spcrirncns.

5.4.2 Spctimcns shall be c x p r c d as dcscrihtd in 5.1. Thc spct in~cn should be shicldcd to minimize lormalion of surface rnoislurz whilc in Ihc c h n m k r .

1.4.3 hire will be r lolal of 10 p u u r c m e n l s per b a r d . Mcawrcrncn~r slnll be made at r n c n c p lar i ly . - 5.4.4 Dixonnccl nepalive'5tivo~is DC polari2ed \ '0 l I~gc SOUKC qcforz laking Ihc insul~t ion r u i r l m c c mcaturuncnt. Insulation resistance shall read s spci i icd in paragraph 5.3.2. Elmrica l conncaions lo ihc.spccimcn shall

made SO ~ h a r c l a r i m l polnriution vollagc and Ihc Icrl voltage are '

conneclcd to the m c lcrminal a1 the m c poinl. M u u r e m t n ~ s shall be made inside ihc chamber u dclincd in 5.1.

5.4.5 Apply a posilive 100 volU DC p l a r i z i n g \vllage o n lhe spccimcn'r lest p i n t s with the r u i s ~ a n c e rncler or mrnclcr . and take the reading altcr I minu~e. o r at additional limc periods dclcrmincd by proccss dc\rloprncnt.

5.4.6 Any reason lor deleling \alucr. i.c.. m l c h c s . condensation. bridged conduaon. c~c.. must be noted.

~ - .. - - . . . . . . . .. . .,. . . .

-.- m n , ~ ~ I d I f f i M FLUX G l a E t S 3 TO F f G W is A T T A C H A I & \ T ~ ~ ~ ; ~ T l ~ S T ~ F M ~ r f F E j 1 i U T F C 6 1 N T & .

I-ix v i p o r a n l y w i t h a w t e x h i r e r

L l l o . tte ~ l d c r b l l s to s e t t l e +o V P b t t o n rd &cmt o f f trr rlcot-ol l a w . This w i l l te a c l w to r l i v h t l y c l a d y . e l l o . l i w i d .

-;:.u :,. a : . . - = : Lj ,- :L.: ,.,.. C :i, l $ . L . > j z, ., -i-:m. kt : ' a l e .

7 - v i c a ~ :ic;iS :Mt 1.rr.ti7. n.?y k Lur-\- b e i d :-! .!w+ t"e m,? in a +zd r i r d q ' L ~ c m i t I':r:d C x 3 r .: hln. G u t i m ! :5' "OT ~ t r e ~ ~ c t h i s se-e;) m t i l t% LV!k ;f tk i u r o a l r l c h l trr m r e d i n r hxd!!

:. C I L h l r r i h bcr1.w r-d e i g h --h be+l:pr t o W e ntzrwt :*.:.-$.

:. ;od a p t i m of r l l stirred u l o e r w t e to a -kc?. 'rs p t i m b ' r u l d e i p h a h t 33 to ti5 p r m . c k * t a :~~Fso-, h r l l ) . k i v h o r c h b a k e - i n n u j i a t r l y a f t e r d c i t i m ' i c h prrba ud -& tk e i p h t . T m e i g h t w i l l ChKqc : ! ipht ly a s Vs f l u x -1. w-htrr.

'. L t r a b t p l a t . or a w r c htrrx t o w t l y - I t t M ':leer p n t e in- a p z k . Thp f l u w i l l (1-t to u-= tpp d +y b - ~ ? j b, wicki,-q into a pa* -1. Ec c-(ul rot .o l e t tJm h 1 tash th l i w i d sol* or -'of t b

.. a l e w i l l b !at. La rot r t t - t to rmon a l l t b f l u I t '.' i l l b. nnond h a 1.- .t-.

-- - .. ._ ) b. FUN VI 1 1 w I d -1- ud V1 rar inrrq f lu* into b c h i l l ; c a t -Id.

7 . M w l i d d i s l c d g . t h s a l d c r p < k wd c l t m w i t h i-1 a l c d o l e. w e b . I w r i b w c h p s k 4 t h tk rn id- t i f ica t im -. ty m a - t p r l i n tk - - th .Icoro1/rc.tme.

8. C l t m th r o l d w i t h u . t o s / r l c * l . .

U t . o f w l o ~ *<k (p ' . )

---- X 11:r:l% - '/. k A - r l i n ttw w s t c

io c , , r n t i f y :me r e s i d u + l r : s ln : e ( t ( ? o m r c : c e r ~ a s ? c r f t . , . t - c , - e i ! c N r n c c l e a n r n g p r o c r S r . i h l s 1 % t h e p r o c e c v r ~ t o b e v r r ~ s u r r n g t h c CFC s t u d y .

V l t r r v i o l s : s ~ c c t r ~ p h o t o n e t e r € a : r n c e c a p a S 1 e c i m s . r u r l n q O.<*Sr:ll g r a s s P a l r n c e c a p c t : ~ o f m c a r u v i ~ q ZOO g r r n r : 0 0 ml v o : u m e t r i c f 1 r r l : s ( 5 1 :SO ml volum. : r ic f l a s k 101:,0 ml vo!umc:v'ic ( !ark Squre:. b s t t l e : c r h l , t E u : r r c t i o n T u t c COO ml r o u n d b o t t o m e d f I a s k F r t r d r i c h r C o n d e n s e r H e h t i n g n&n:l. c ~ j r b l s o f h e a t i n g r 500 ml f l r r k 150 m 1 E r l e n m e y e r f l r c k

~ a i E i \ l ALS:

a ) h e a g e n t gra :s i r o p r o p r n o l b ) S o l d e r p a s t e t o b e u s e d o n a s s e m b l y l i n e . 3

c ) NAD-LDCK r t c l o s r b l e f v e ' e z e r b a g s 1 7 - x 8 ' x 2 . 7 n i l ) C ) T e s t b o a r d

:LOCEDURE: PREPARING THE STANDARDS

F i r s t . r n a l v z e t h e c o m ~ o n c n t s o f t h t r o 1 e . r r a r t e . i o d o t h i s r s c c m b l e t h e S o : : h l e t t , : : r a c t i o n r p a r r t u s a s shown i n f i g u r e I . S+: :.-.p r o u n d b o t t s m r d f l a s k i n t h e h r a t i n g n r n t : e r n c p l u g t h o m a n t l e i n t o a p o w e r r e s u 1 a : o r sa : > a t t h e t t m p e r a t u r e c m b e c o n t r o l l t d . DO NOT TYh?4 W E POWER OH kT THIS TIME. Hook t h e i n ? . t : i t h e c o n d e n s e r t o a * a t e r s u F p l y , a n d t h e : s t : e t t o a d r a i n .

C n c v '.*,e e x t r a c t i o n u n i t ' l r r r s e m b l e d , - c i q h + cc:..>n c c l l u ! c r e th!rn?-1. c n ro r n a ! y ? i c r l : r : > n c c :o t h e 4or:h C c C i c r l p l a c e . R e c ' c r d t h e .F!$h:. ..

f i r n o r e thct t o p o f t h e s c l d r r p a s t e j a r a n d r e a s p a t u l a t a s t i r t h e s o l d e r p a s t e . S c o c p :out 15 c r a m s o f f r e s h s o l d e r F J S ~ C And p u t i t - t o t h e i h l r b l e . I m m c d i r t e l y w;i$h t h e t h l a b l e

d p r r t o t o ~ c t h e r t o t h e f o r t h d e c i m l l F i g u r e 1 l a c e . R e c o r d t h a t w e i g h t .

ATTACH51EhT 8

.,..iul!y r r n o r e th. r o u n d b o t t o m e d f l a s k a n d t h e S c x h l c t :...-.ctiw, t u b e f r o n t h e c 0 n C c n s . r . F ' l r c ~ t h e t h l m b l e c o r r t a i n r n g ? p a s t e i n t o :he S o ~ h l e t e x t r a c t i o ~ tub. a n d s e t i t b r i d e . T w r .,,% LC.', n l r o i ! % o p r c p r n c l i n t o t n c r o u n d b ~ t t o m e < I l r l k . This ,<r :I -,cr c r ; : i c r l . K r , r s e n o l r :'c 13%:~: C I I V ~ C : : ~ ~ !.i:e r n 6

- . - . . , . , + - . , - 2 - I t : * . .. . - .

o l :>. -a:.? l u ~ ~ l y 7 3 i r l o - sur r t e a ; y 'ic-. T u r n o n r.*c . re :c :he n r n t l e a n d 5 r a d u i l l r h e a t t h e r ; c p r o p l n o l t o r bol! . t n r %c!vcn: b o i l s , v a p o r s - 1 1 1 C o n d c n s c i n t h e c o i l And 5 : r r t ; p i n g i n t o :he c e l l u l c r e t h i m 3 l e c o n t r i n i n q t h e p r s t r , As t n r : e n s a t e 4 i l l s t h e S o x h l e t t u b * . i t * : I 1 a r e n t u a l l y f i l l t o a -,t t h a t a s i p h o n r i l l d r a i n t h e C o n d c n s r t e b r c k down i n t o t h e s d b c t : o n i1a .h . C o n t i n u e d i i l l i n g a n d C r a i n i n q o f t n n S s r h l e t r w i l l wash .*ry t h e i : u x r e s i d u e s ~ h d ! c a v e o n l y t h o s o l d e r :he t h i o b l c .

. . . . c < t n e c 0 n C e n s r t e t o f l u s h f o r t r o hcurl. At : 'c e n d c6 n c . * r . C i r c c n n e c : t h e S:>h!e: ant ?sunC 2 c t : i ~ { : i s k f r o m t h t

: e - s c - . : i ~ s c p r c p r n c l ; nc: ce<tr:ng t h s s i r : ? r : r ; ~ " ~ r e < c r s : h i : t h e p 2 . t ~ :I c c . c C e d b y I: ! e ~ l t two : , - ,=her . L!s:ng r 3 o b j e c t s u c h a s r r j r : u l i , s t i r :he s o l d e r ~ 1 1 : e t o r r l e r s e

r e n . l i n i n $ t r l p p r d f l u x . K e ~ r s e r b i c t h e tul:c ~ : r d f l a s k b a c k e t h e r a n d I c t t h o s o l v e n t b o l l { o r r n o t h c r t r o h o u r s .

i t c r f p u r h o u r s o f b o i l i n g , d i s c o n n e c t t h e S o x h l - t a n d r o u n d tomcd f l a s k f r o n t h e C o n d e n s e r a n d t u r n c f f t h e r a t e r . P i c *

t h l n 2 1 0 u p a n d l e t :he i s o p r o p m o l d r a i n b a c k i n t o t h e - s l u t t u b e . S e t t h e t h l m b l . o n A p r p r r t o l e 1 t o a i r e r y f o r a t o n e h o u r t h e n p l a c o i t i n a n o v e n a t 1 5 0 t r 9 r e . s F f o r two r s . firmove t h e t h i m b l e f r o m t h e o v e n md l e t i t c o o l t o room : e r r r u r r . Y c i q h t h e t h i m b l e r n C c r y s o l d e r t o p r t h r t - t o f w r :ma1 p l a c e s a n d r e c o r d t h e w e i g h t .

:ur t h e i r o p r o p r n o l t h a t i s i n t h e S o x h l c t tub. i n t o t h e r o u n a t a m e d f l a s k w i t h t h o r e s t o f t h e s o l v r n t . P l r e e t h o r w n d :tmed f l a s k i n t h o m m t l o m d b r i n q t h o s o l v e n t b a c k t o a :. L e t t h e i s o p r o p m o l . v a p o r a t e u n t i l t h e v o l u m e i s a r o u n d 3

1 0 0 m l s t h e n r c m o v o i t f r o m t h e m a n t l e . U r i q h a :'A r n m e y e r f l a s k t o r t I . a s t 2 d e c i m a l p l a c e s a n d r e c o r d t h o i n t . P w r t h o s o l v o n t f r o - t h o r w n d b o t t o m - d f l a s k I n t o t h * r s m e y o r . R i n s e th. r o u n d b o t t o m e d f l a s k t w o t l m e s t o n a k o s u r -

o f t h e r e s i d u e i s i n t h e . r l o n s . y e r .

I t t h o . r l e n n e y e r o n a h o t p l a t e a n d e v a p o r a t e t h o s o l v w n t . T h e f l a s k w i l l p r o b a b l y n o t g o c o n p l e t e l y d r y , b u t i t - i l l .-C* t o a t h i c k , v i s c w s l c c k l n g s o l r r n t . h e r o r . t h e f l a s k { r 0 *

h e r t a n d 1.t i t c o c l . w b r n t h e f : , s k i s a t room t e m p e r a t u r e . i" % h e (!ask And r r , l d u e t c c e : h * r h n f r e c o r d t h e w c l g % T .

! = * a t t h 1 s t t . t i n g a t l e a s t f o u r tin.. t o s e t a n a v e r * . . C f ; - r i g h t .

*+C*UTIDNt SOLDER I S A hA:A;(DWS hnTEhlAL. 5:Sf-OSE DC 53LDES AN3 53-DER PASTE F'KOF-ERLY.

GLAD-LOC~: e r g ~ n d add mractly 1 0 0 -1s ct re~?.nt g r a c e

I,oproprnol. To reduc. the chance o f Irckinq, b e r p th.

..,ling p ~ r t 06 the bag r s dry .s po-~bl* -"en rcelnq the

solrent.

rrncl. tnz board being tested rlth gloved hrndr And insert I S

into th. b a g .long "lth th. i r o ~ r o ~ * n o l .

qtmore of the air tron the tag a s ~0"lble then sea1

:h. top of th. bag closed. Fold the top o f th* brq o v e r

trice to reducr the rl:. ot the bag rnd to ICd to thc %*&I.

~ ~ 1 6 the folded top ot the bag wit> on. nand, rnd hcld tne ~01t-d in plrcc -ith th. other. D ~ n r g c to the bag is llkt:y to occur If the board Is a~lorcd to %hi(% around whil.

shake the tag contrlning the borrd for I 0 minute..

&t the end of 10 minutes, REn3VE THE bOCRD FROn TnE B A G .

rlns. the s ~ n p l a cuv-ttc At Ierst 1-lcr with. =!ern reagent grade Isoproprncl. Fill the CUvette llth a sampl. c i . iroprop~nol from the bag. Insert the Cuvcttr into th. s~mp:r zhamber o f the spectrophot~eter .and 7rcor.d the absortanct ,.crdlng.

WOTEl In the case of the boards that h'rve high l*v.ls of cmtaalnatlon, the absorbmce r e ~ d l n g -111 be 0ff.scrl~. In that care,: add another 100 nls o f lsoProp.~nol to the bag and rhakc it for r c w p l a of minutes.. firpeat Step six. t f l t 1% still off scale, red another 100 nls until the abscrbrnct rsadlnss arc less thin 3.000. Krep track of the amount o+ isopropanol that Is added.

tsnvert thc abrorbrncc rradings to concentration Percent uslng :hc follcrlng calculatlwr:

c~vlcentratlon % - slope X absort~nce - Y intercept Csnvert the concentration percent to parts per rllllon (PTn) using the follo*ing crlculationr

% x I .-ow, rn - ppn

1 0 0

Then calculrte the r-esidual rosin in mlcrogrLms per s q u ~ r e :nch uring the folloring crlculrtidn: . .

spcclflc gravity mls of I P A rrsidual rosln FFn rosln X of IPa X in bag

:<rogr.m. / sq. In. - ----------------------------------------- . . surface rr-a of board (35 sq. in. 1

. .

r - - - - . - - - , . . : Y / P K ~ C L W " L HC-555 CL:L. 2 8 - L :i,:,,LS KhF E - ----

< \ r . KO. 1 C H W - H E T I W E S T - LABORATORIES

s v s ~ r c ~ J r x ~ ~ r : OPERJ.TIOXAL P ~ ~ O C C D U C E - XHALYSIS B Y H i L C OF PL3 RESIDUES A F T E R D E FLUXXHG

This proceeure outlines ch* H P X analysis of residues r , ~ z a l ~ l n g I n a printed viring board after defluxing. In L?e even: 0: E.

r.onllict batveen this procedure and any documents referenced thrain, the text of this procedure shall take precedence.

Operation Xanuals for Yatars KPLC System

Honeywell Procedure HC-351, .8asic operation of XPLC'

'Cleaninq and Cl*anllness Testing Prcqramg, Joint C . s-

Ind~St~y/Xilitrry/~PA Prcqran t o rvaluats Alternatives t o CTC'a for Printed Board Asrambly Cleaninq, HoV.30,1988, published by IPC

Calbratlon of tha i n s t w e n t is perforaad as part of the analysil. The callbration record shall be stored with tha sanp:e eata.

a) Waters H P X Syrtca or QCaival~nt b) Water. C 1 8 HicrobcnCapak c o l u ~ ? , or swiva:.nt c) Petri d!sh ( 5 > / 4 " 1r.n.r d i a m ~ c e r cover), or

h'ltch glass C-17, or *plvalcn: 9 ; vo~u=etric Flasks : H!llipore te:lon 10 s!c:on filter paper, or sqd!va!en: S ) V a c u u filter

a) Acetic Acid, 5OI so!ut!on, M qrade b) Acetonitrile, H P X grate c) De!on?:ed water, HP'S qraCe d) W i e c i c Acid e) Dehvdroabiatic Acid fj ~ eoibietic Acid 9) 2-Propanol, M 5raCe

Isopicaric Acid :! Levopizaric Acid j ) Tin U i e t a t e k) Lead U i e t a t e

7.1. Extraction of Sanple

7 1 . 1 Xeasure and record area 0: printed viring board (XB).

7.1.2 Place PNB in t?e extraction vessel (S 3 / 4 * inner Ciazeter p e ~ r l dish cover). Pour ~pproxinately 60 Bl 0: acetonitrila into vessel covering bored. Cover extraction vessel vith vatchglass. Allcv to soak for 4 hours, turning board after 2 hours. Than, Ciluta to 100 n1 in vo1cr;erric flask. Save t!!a resultant extract volcrna :or X ? X analysis.

7 . 2 Extraction a-d Filtration of Residual Katerial

7.2.1 t o ccllect particulate residues vhich reaain on tfi~. 7;B r:ter rxtraction v!t! acetonitrile, rinse P:'3 -ith 5 O t Acetic AciC cn:o tared iilfer paper. cr?. riltar paper in ir ics'r wr!l veighr rezains conotznt (approxicr:e?y C :zLn.,..rs). jiecord .Je!$ht oi Liltrzte. Calcalata u;/in2 per paragraph 11.2.

7.3 Extract rencining rcsinates virh Acetonitrile

7.3.1P In order to reaove any reaaining resieue extractabla in acetonitrile, proceed as in 7.1.1 and 7.1.2. -- - -

HC-355 Page 3

c.3 , - . A : m L :

The operatcr s t r l ? 5 e L5orc:glly <c:l?irr vith E T X techn!r;;es, :\a h'rtcri Xi>: Syste:, the inst=s=enc':anur:s and L?e docuzantr :e:erencsd harein.

9.0 -: V-Y P

h'or-a1 laboretory sa?e:y precrctions shall apply.

10.0 -:

10.1 j;etenticn :!:e rnd cal!>rrt!cn r z s r s

lo.>.; ' c - . " " . - . - . - - _sh retcntica : ! : . r s o :lux cc:sti:cents by r c ~ - ! y 'xnn;:r stlndar2s i c r rbietic acid, neoab!et!c r c ! 6 . tin chictrte, lea& ebiet~te, iropisaric aciC, an& 1avopizaric ac!b. Also, establish t5e retention c i sas for flux and sol<*: pasta constituents, as received iron :lux vendo:

10.1.2 Prepare callbr~tion curves lor the 1Csnti:lable peaks in :ha extrrct chroratagrar.

10.2 S a ~ p l e Preparation

10.2.1 Transfa: the rar?:e, obtained in 7.1.2 :or HPLC, Iron the volunetrlc flask to the auto racple: vial.

10.2.2 Transfer the sanpla, obtained in 7.3.2 for HPLC, from the volumetric flask to the auto sampler vial.

10.3 Sarpla Analysis

10.J.1 Ref*: t o Honepall Proc*du:e HC-351 for operating proceduras for X P X .

10.3.2 Set instrurpent conditions as iollovs:

COlrWI Wavelength C o l w n terp Hobile phase Tl0V Sazple Size

ClB =icrobonCapak colunn 240 and l l o m 60'~ H20/CX3M 60/40 1 rrl/r~nut* 10 microliters

( I n s t w e n t conditions say be changed to optirize separat!on)

1 0 . 3 . 3 S c = i ? e and S t a n l a r d Runs

1 0 . 3 . 3 . 1 P l a c a s a n p l e s i n t o a u t o s n t p l . v i a l *

10 .1 .3 .2 p l a c e v i a l s i n t o s u t o r a = p l e r

1 0 . 3 . 1 . 3 Run r a ~ p l e s and r t a n l c r l s , u s i n g Eon=}-<ell P r o c e t u r e KC-351 t a a r e f e r e n c e

11.0 Ch'lCVUTIOI.'S:

11.1 Calculat!ons l o r r h a r e s i C u a c o n c e n t r a t i o n 0: 7 . 1 and 7.3

c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f s a t e r ! a l i n s o l u t i o n (:g/l) - A X E X C / D ~ ~ :

A - A r e a ci c a t e r i a l p e a k 3 - C o n c a n t r a r l o n o: s t a n e a r 4 ( q / l ) C - i n j e c t i o n v o l u n e o f s t a n l a r d ( 1 ) D - a r e a o f s t a n d a r d p e a k E - i n j e c t i o n vo lume o f s a z p l a ( 1 )

R e s i d u a l z r t e r i a l ( u g / i n 2 ) - ( ( A x B ) / D ) x ~ o o o u ~ / ~ ~

A - c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f m a t e r i a l i n s o l u t i o n ( n g / l ) B - Volume o: E x t r q c t S o l v e n t ( 1 ) D - b o a r d a r e a ( i n )

11.2 c a l c u l a t i o n s f o r t h e r e s i t u e c o n c e n r r a t i o n o f 7.2

A - v e i c j h t o f f i l t q r e d c a t e r i a l (ug) B - b o a r d a r e a ( i n )

A T T A C H ~ I E ~ T 1 0 - - -- -

r a rch 21, 1989

r n - s m w u r n c m m m

Fcnm ' l or

1 have r e v i d the cleaning ~d c!eml!ness t e s t prcgrm repiremen: c f t!e t e s t plk? C a t 4 ?A:&. 1989. I Pave r e v i e d :\e cp!;otr.: r q u i r e p c n t s ard I m meple:?ng L b i n f o n a t i o n k l w for ca?side:at!on ty the t e s t nmitorinq cval&t!m tern.

1. I A?I obtaining cy t e s t ka:& l o r the prcg:rs f:m - 2 . I aro obtaining the ccqn?en:r for L!e ; :c;:m fro%

3 . colder paste for tb w a l u a t i m :

% d c l

10. I vi!l prcvlde ectsl!rd c l r ~ l i n g process ty:

M e 1

12 . % f ! u r ~ l i c r t i o n tech7ipjc i s :

13. I hrve the follw:ng ionic t e s t c p i p n t

rodcl

14. I have t!!e i o l l w i n g surface i n r u l a t i ~ r e r l s t m c e t e s t i n g q l p n t

&el la.

15. I have the I o l l w i n g W/VIS s p c t : ~ j h o t ~ r u t e r f o r r-5~ r e s i b 1 r3sin t e s t

rode 1

16. I uders:.sd t!%t I wi!l Se require3 t o r d n i t an asse rb ly tLat h s b e t a asrerAlcd k d cleaned using ny i n - h s e process l o r reviev % t?e m.?itor!ng tccm k:ore a v i s i t i s schtdultd. ( ) Yes ( ) M

' r ly;c . . Lot *.

Lot M.

5. I have obta!ned a s t enc i l of the b?propris:e th!cknerr ( )Yes ( 1r;o

6. I have the fo l lwinq solder paste screening ~ I p x n : Ea?usc:ure and &el

7. I d l 1 bs placinq q ccopawnts a s f o l l w s

h u t m t l c ( 1 knufbc te r? . .. . - 1 - -11yi ) _ . . -

:y7< 8 . I have the fo11QVIng v a p r p h a ~ w l b r i n q c p l p n t

h f a c t u r e

*I

SCi .7 FCR TEST ---

P;S;E C v k C i . ; rEICOOL ( 1 n s : r u c t i o n S e t O i l 7 t - e In C c e r r o t ? ~

ATTACH5IEhT I2 ' T i s e Cut- I n i t i a l s -

TLhusroKr T O SOLPER SCHOOL ( I n s t r u c t i o n S t t 0 3 ) 1i .e D e p r r t Co..rntsl 1l .r r r r i v e l n i t i r l r

VAPOR PHASE F:irLOU/CDOL I l n r t r u c t i o n S e t C:-I I!.. In- n e l r I ' r o l i l r U- 1i .r E v t Co-..ntrr l n l t l b l 8 -

Ti.. Out- I n i t l , I I -

C O ~ ~ O N U T VLACE~,EHT ( l n r t r u c t l o n S e t 0 2 ) 1 i . r In- Cc..rn:s on h,cL u f T r a v c l l r r ?

l i a r 01tt- ! ~ % t i , ! s -

~ L S ~ E CLIKE ~ ~ K E I C O ~ L l I n % t r u r t i c n S e t 0 4 ) T i e r In- Cr r - cn : r t Ti.= out- I n i t i r l s -

VAPOR PHASE REfLOW/COOL ( I n s t r u c t i o n 5 c t 0 ) ) 11.e I n n o l e I ' r c l l l c : T i e r Out- C3.mrntsl

VaVOk DEGkihSiR ( I n r t r u c t i o n S e t 0 6 1 1i .c In- C? . s rn t s t l i r e Out- l n i t i r l s -

S E m 1 0 ( 1 n s t r v c t l . n S e t C P )

- SIR T e s t ~ t r u l t s o f E l r c t r i c r l T t s t :

- I o n i c C o n t a m i n ~ t i o n r r r s

- Rrsie-2.1 K c s i n Fa11

- Llonr:-cll Othrr- -F?otoqrrvhy Coaacn t s r

i r t r r . -

l i n e In C c n r t o t r on Q r c k e t :rrwc::rr, Ti -c Out- l n r t i r l s

rASlE CUKE k h ~ E l C 0 X ( l n r t r u c t : o * S e t C41 Ti.* I n :c=.catrr I:.* Out- I n i t i 8 l r -

VA;QT r H r S i kEFLGU/COOL ( I n s t r u r t i c n S r t C:l 11-c I n n o l r P r o f i l e r : l i c e g u t C o ~ a e n t r i i n i t i r l s -

1 i . r I n F lu . s p c c t f i c ; r r u : t r l i a r G u t n o l r P r o f i : r r r l n i t l r l t Cc..cn:%r

SEN1 1 0 ( I n s t r u c t i o n C r t 0 8 ) -SIP T e s t Co.r*ntsr

- . . .. .

<- -1of.i~ Ccn:r . lnr t ion

I ' 5 ., .. -F.rs idurl k o s r n , -

, -uonrl..ll ! . -Phot)qrbph, . -E:trr

P r o t r l s F l e d ' t '

S O ~ i , c k f k S l E ).lPL!CAI!Oq I ! n % t r u c t , e n I.1 C . I ) : , .e !" C o - * r o t s cn t r r k o f : r r , c l : I r : T:.. 0.1- I r ~ ! l r l l . -

COnPO*+UT rLkCCr.CtlT l ! n % t r u c ! l o o Sit 0 : ) l i r e In CO..*P~I cn t , < k r f I r , r . r l : r r ? T , r c Out ! " l t i , ! ,

Tl't i n Cc..cotr, i i - r Out- Initirlt.

TkilLSf'OkT i O SOL;'iR SCHOOL ~ 1 n r t : u c t i o n S r l 0;) T i r Cc..tntrr T i r e A r r i v e I n l t i r l s

Vii'O? PIIASE kEfLOW/CirOL ( I n s t r u c t i o n S e t 0:) T1.c I n n o l r I r c f : I r u 7i.r C u t Co..rntr:

Vfif'OR DEGREASER l l n s t r u c t i ~ n S e t 06) Ti.* I n Cc..rfits: Ti.. Out- I n l t i r l t ~

UsVE IOLt fB l ! n s t r u c t i o n S e t 0 7 ) T:nc i n f l u x r v t c i f i c g r r v i t l T i - r O u t n o l e f'rcfile x t i Co...n:s:

!'iPOR DiQKEhIik ( i n s t r u c t i o n S e t Oc) 1i .c In C3.-cnts; 1i .e out- : n i t i a l s -

S i K l TO ( I n s l r u c t i o r , S e t Oe) -SIR T e s t R c r u l t r o f E l r c t r l c ~ l T e s t 1 - Ion i c C o n t r a i n a t i o n P I I S ~ s i 6 u r l t o s i n f b i l

1 . UrLr f i n q e r c o t s e v e r $!ore, r h t n h r n e l i n p b o r r f s -OK-

Use c l r r n t o n $ % (en 4 r e . r c t t c l r C . i t h o u t c i r c u i t r r )

. - - b ' r r ) 4 6 c o r i c n c n t s i n t h r l t r c l o t h r o e 1-is :-( : . - D r < r r r > r -C,c:t i n G . r$ r . e t t r

a . T a t r l r u r f r c c r r e A i s 1 0 0 r q i n b . K a i r r s o l u t i o n vs1u.c t o 4000 a 1 A n d crc:. t o I

c o n l r . i n r t l o n l r v r l e f < 2 up/nq i n - t r b ~ r f o r S . in A \ 7 M - S t o r e i n L t p r t a r r 6 .lu.inu. f o i l

3 . C o n n e c t o r s 'Wrap p r o u p s o f 1 ) c o n n c c t o r l i n che r s . cLo th a n d t w i s t -

t i e - D t q r r n . - C y c l e i n O*rp..rtrr

a. Tet.1 r u r l r c r Are. I s 1 6 0 sp i n b. R h l s r s o l u t l o n vo lu . r t o SO00 a 1

con t r* ln . t l cm I e r * l o f < 2 u q l b q - ) a h f o r S . in a t 7bC - S t o r e i n d r q r r a s r d alu.:nt8* f o r 1

4. b o r r d r - t a t * a l l b o a r d s f o r I h r r t 15bC -Drpr..tr - C r c l r I n 0.eqr.rt.r

r . Run S b o a r d s p e r c , c l r b. l o t 4 1 s u r f a c e a r e a i s 1 7 ) s q I n c . R a i s e s o l u l l o n uo1u.e t o 4D00 . I

c o n t r n t n r t l o n I r v r l o f < 2 upl.9 - B ~ k r f o r 4 ) . i n a t 7bC - S t o r e i n d r$ r . r s ed r l u a i n u . f o i l

f r : s c t o L , L * , -*i :e c'c-n C O L D c r r n w i t h c t . c r % r c : c t h .o:s!rn.c . : t h :,c-

p r o p r l r l c e h e l . A i l o r t h e r l r o h c l t o c v ~ p c r r t r . ' - P I . - t l r r t t h e o r e n t o ?OC. S r t t t r 0 r t r t r . p f c r II5t.

- V t r \ f r t h e c v c n t r . : r r r t u r e w i t h t h e t h r r m o . r t t r a w n t e 6 ~n ? h e o v t n t o p .

2 . ~ I P C ID n u l t ~ r c f f r a c k . . t ! . c r r r d c b . r f b c & r ( ' i n t o t h e oven.

I. k c c o r d t h e I t r r t t i . c o f t h r t r k r r y c l c en t h e 'F roCuc t !on i r r r r l l t r ' f o r r r r h Lca re .

1. ~ 1 , ~ . b o a r d on ! s o l i n g p i n s . Tu rn on t h e v r c u v . . <. t ~ t r b c r r c r l o r 2 4 . : n u ! r l . t o n e t ctrn cr,rn cecr c n c r ,

, crc!* h . . ~ beg"". 4 . F p P l r A l i n e o f 1 ~ l 6 . r pa$!. ( r b o u t 112. t h ! c k l t o t h e , t r n c i l i n f r o n t o f t h e r c u t t $ t c .

?. Usc thtrnrl S l o r r l t o r t - c v e r r t t i r o r t h e even.

Use t o n ( % t o : r r n r ? r r t h r Lcd rcs t o r e i f f t r e n t r a c k l o n e t h a t i s r t rco. t c . p* rAtu r r ) t o c o o l f o r :O . in .

$. ~ , i ~ ( . DO n o t us. r f l o o d s t r o k r .

6. f i r i s . t h e printer h e r d , t u r n o f f t h r vrcuu. , bnd r r - c v c .

t h e t r i n t t d b o r r d . 6. S t 1 t h e h o t r a c k r s i e r t o c o o l t o roe. t t . p e r & t u r r .

7. lns l rc t t h e p r i ~ t c u r l i t r . I .e :or t t h e P r i n t r c c r v ( r b i l i ( y ( y e s o r no1 r n d r r . r ' o u t - o f - t h e - o r e i n r r r . .,b..,-~~ncts t o t h e %cr ib . .

7. l r c o r d t h e t n d ti.. o f t h e c o o l c r c l r .

8. f ' rsr t h r r r c k o f b o a r d s on t o t h e ' T r r n s p o r t t o S c l e r r S c h o c l . '

8 , p a s s ( h e b o a r d 00 t o t h e n e i t o c r r r t i o n . I f t h e b o ~ r d

i s o f f l o w C sr D, t h r n e t t o p t r r t i o n i s 'C0r:onrnt

p l r c r . , n t . ' I f t h e b o r r d i s v ~ r t o f F l o * E l o r B2, t h r

n e x t o p t r ~ t l o n i s ' S o l e e r F'rst* t r k r l C o c 1 ' r nd t h r t o a r e s , t . r l l be r l & c t d ( c o n t r c t s ? i r s l l i n r h o r i t o n t r l

ikt.Wrolrr 10 S D L D E R SCHOOL ( I n s t r u c t i o n S t t 0:)

r r c t . 1. ueAr f i n p r r c o t s o r r r p l o r r r when h + n d l i n g b o l r d s . , . i . 9 . c h e c k t h e s o l t r r p r s t t f o r d r r n r s s , t t c . ( e i s p o s r o f o l d . . - p a s t e . Check. t h e s t e n c i l f o r c l o q g r t h o l e s , r t c . ;

c c r f o r a t r s k r n r c c r s l r y t o a r i n t r i n good p r i n t

2. n ~ k t sure t h a t *lu.inu. f c i l i s w r r c p c d Around r a c k o f bcrrtr. L o r d rack. o f h o r i r o n t r l b o a r d s i n t o cooler. P l r c c i n s u l a t i n g l i d on c o o l r r .

3. Reco rd t h e t i - * t r l r r ~ c r t r t i e s b e g i n s on r r c h ' F r o d u c t i m T r . r e l l r r . '

4. C r r r f u l l y t r * n s ? c r t t?.e b c r r c s !o :he S c l C r r E c t . 0 ~ 1 . S : n i , : t h e c c . v M r o t % r r r r .c t y e t ~ l ! < e r r < <n p l a t e , i t i s v e r y i a p o r t l n t t h r t t h r t o r r e % n s t b r j u ( g l r 6 , o r a o v t d f r o . A h o r i : o n t a l p o s i t i o n .

. -. .

S C ~ I ~ E FOR SOLDER r k s i i + . : ~ ~ I C A T I O ~ *UD COnFDKHT n rcCI ; th ' r CFC b c n t b a r r t I n s t r u c t i o n S r t 08

5. R e c o r d t h r t!.. t r r n r p o r i r t i o n i s c o . v l r t e and i n i t i a l e a c h ' P r o d u c t i o n T r r r t l l r r :

1 . R r c o r 6 t h e t i n e r t r h i c h r r c h b o r r d t r p l n s t h e ' S o l e r r P a s t e A p p l i c r t i o n ' p r o c r r s .

6. k r t u r n :a n r t t r i r l s L a b . There - : I1 b r I l o r d o t b c r r t s r t . 67 f o r 6 e l i v e r r e v e r y 10 * i f i u t v s .

2. R e c o r d t h e a c c t : t r b i l i t r o f e a c h b o ~ r d l r r s o r n o ) .

3 . I n t h e 'Co..ro\r' s e c t i o n , r e c o r d ~ n y ' o u t - o f - t h e - o r e i n r r r ' o b s r r v r t i o s s on t h e t ~ c t o f t h e T r r v r l : e r . v n r o r ru*sc L C ~ L O U

CFC 5 r n c t . e r r k I n % t r v c t i e n S e t 0:.

C. R e c o r e t h e t1.e ~ t wh ich r r c h b e r r d i s c c n t l r t c t .

r r ! c r t o r c f : o - : -Turn * r t e r on s u c h ? h a t t h e w r t e r t r . o r r r t u r c i s 5SC. Turn

h e a t e r C D ~ ~ ~ O I t o r u i l en . - S e t p r r - h r r t t!.cr ? o 1.0. - S e t r r f ! c - 6 - c i l t o 1.0 . i n . - U s e no s r r o n e a r : f l u i : c r 6u.o -kun A n . c . ~ . f . s . e s c t , ~ a . ~ r e c r c f i l e : t t s u r c * , h ~ t t h e ; r c : i l t

c a t : hc , t? .e a t t a c % t d a::*>$ :r:<:lt

COF.FDW-NT F'Lk:Er.Ch'l U l lH ICnPLr l f CFC I t n c h a r r k . I n s ' t r v c t l o n S e t 12

WC CFC T I - p l a t e

. 2. C h e c k 10 c a k e r v r r hc r : c r c o n t r r l i 8 !n t h e f u l l CY p c r i t ! o n . Y k i t f o r t h r t e . v r r r t u r e t o r r a c h 21bC.

5 . C A r r f u l t y ( - L t h o u t t o u c h i n g o r r a e r r i n q t h e l c l e r r p r r t r l s r n d w l c h t h e b e r r d t r t r c + n r p r o c r t r l b l o c k And t h r t . .plr te s u c h t h a t a l l t o o l i n g p i n s r r e c o r r ~ c t l r p o r i t i o n r d . T h r A and D c0.b p r t t r r n s s h o u l d be r x p o l r d .

3 . f i r c o r d t h r t i - r i n t h c '1i.e In ' + p a c t on e r c h ' F ' r e e u c t i o n 1 r r v e l l . r . '

4 . F A n u a l l r p l r c r t h r c n r p o n r n t s i n t h e t r - p l a t e c u t - o u t s . S. Lo14 4 b o a r 6 8 06 t h e r a c k w t t h th. co. ;on.nt-r ice f r c r n p

up . k r l r n c t t h e l o r d b r r r r n l r e l s t r i b u t i n g t h e b o a r d s a c r o s s t h e r a c k .

5 . Use t h e h a n d l e t o c a r r f u l l , r r i s r t h e t r a p l r t r r-.r f ro . t h e assr.bl.6 b o r r d . . . .

6.. P u r h 'CICLC' b u t t o n .

7. U s t t o n g s t o u n l o r d t h e b c l r t s . P l a c e b o r r t s r s ! t r t o c o o l . i 7. ? t a c t asrr .bl) . In h o r I r o n t . 1 c r r r i c r ) I n s r r t C o n t r c t s

f i r s \ . U h t n 411 b o r r d s i n t h e r a c k r r r r s s r - b l e d . P IS8 b o a r d s M f o r .Solc.r I . r s t e P ~ \ r / C o o l . . 8. k r p r r l 5-7 f o r t h e r r a r i n i n q 4 b o r r d s d e l i v r r e d .

9 . Al lo . i11 e b o a r d s t o c o o l f o r 15 .in. P a s s t h e b o r r d s ce t o t h e n e t t o p * r r \ l m . F l w C m d D b o r r d s n u s t b e L e p r r r s t d i . - r d i a t r l r a f t e r 411 8 b o h r d s h a v e c o - p l r t r d t h e 1 ) . i n c o o l . Fo r F l w 11 . I h r n r r t o o r r r t i o n i s

@. R r v r a t 1-7 f o r a 1 1 b o b r d s I n Flo. C and D. f l o w Bl And 82 d o n o p o t h r o u g h t h e ' C o a p m r n l P1acr .ent ' v r o c l l s .

' S o r t f o r T t s t . ' F o r F I a t7; t h e n r s l o p e r a t i o n i s 'Uavr Salter.'

b L V C SOLDER CfC F e n c h . ~ r k l r % l r u c t i e n 5.1 07

VrrGR PWSE DEGKEAscR CFC b c n c h a r r k I n l t r u c t i e n S t t OA

C y c l e r tb r p r r r D e % c e n t r a t e 8 S.5 f t / a i n S c i l Sump I . . t r % i o n l 3 . in L s i l 5u.p I..rrsioo H e i g h t s A t 11.11 2' r b c v e t c r r t r H o l d Over i c i l i n q Su .~ t 30 % r C R i n r e Su.2 I..trsions I * i n Vapor E p u i l i t r r l i e n : 30 A l l r r r n t s . i t che%t Do-n p o s i t i o n '

1. Yea r f i n g e r c o t s o v r r g l o * r r .hen h r o f l i n q b o r r c s .

2. R e c o r d ' T i l e I n ' on r r c h ' P r o d u c t I e ~ T r r v r l l t r . '

3. L o r d b o r r d s i n t o v r r t 1 c . l b ~ s k r t s u c h t h r l t h e conn.ctors a r e p o I n t I r q up and t h e r u r f r c r a o u n t v r t s rrr t o t h e r i c h ( . n a k r s u r e t h a t t h e b o r r d s d o n o t t o u c h e a c h o t h e r .

. . 4 . Run t h e d e g r e r s i n q c y c l e . - .

. .. . -\ .

. . . - 3. A t t h e end o f \ he c l c l e , re.ovt l h t b o a r d s fro. t h e

, . b r i b p t . P l a c e t h e e I n & c l t m r r c k .

6. Run t h e f i l t e r pump f o r 1 .In.

: 7. R e c o r d ' 1 I e r Out ' and I n l t i r l . r r o d u c t l o n T r . v r l l t r s . '

t. ? a s s thr r r c k o f b o a r e s o n l o t h e n t n t o p r r r t i o n . B o a r d s fro. fla D -111 b r r t t u r n t d t o t h e d r ~ r r a s r r a f t e r 'Ya re So1d.r' f o r a second clcl.. f l o * C b o r r d s .il g o t o ' S o r t f o r Tvst..

I. W r ~ r f i n q t r c o t s o v e r ( l c r t s .hen h r n c l i n p b o a r d s .

2. f i e c o r d 'Ti.* I n ' on r d r h ' ? r o d u r t i o n T r r r e l l c r :

I. P l a c e 2 b c r r ( r I r t I r h r t 6' r : a r O i n f i t l u r e s u c h t h a t r ) t h e co .?on rn t l r r e on t h e t o p s i d e o f t h e b c r r d . and b ) t h t ( o l d c o n n e c t o r s t r r i l .

6. P l a c e 2 f i r l u r e s o f boa rds on t h e conveyo r .

7. vhtn b o r r d r r r r c h t h e r n d o f t h e conveyo r , r e - o v e and u n f i n t u r c t h e b o r r d s .

8. R r c c r d ' i i - e Out ' and i n i t i a l ' f 'roduction l r r v t l l t r r . '

9. P A S S b o r r d s on t o n r l t o p c r r t i o n . f l o w D b o r r d s n u s t b e d t p r e a s e d I 5 * i n a f t e r t h e y L r r w a v e - t o l d e r e d .

10. T u r n t h e so!Ctr puap OFF.

11. R e p r a t 1 -10 f o r t r t h r t t o f boa rds .

SOL1 FOS 1ES l CFC b.nch.~rk I n r l r u c t i o n s t ( gp

I. WeAr f i n g e r c o t s o v e r S l c v e l when h r n f l i n p b o a r d s .

2 . SIR : c r t - L c c u i r c S b o ~ r c r fie. t a c h Flo l -;lo. A. C. r o d D b o d r c l ..st t c t ~ s t e c rcr

r l t c t r i r r l c o n t i n u i t y - F l o e 5 1 and $ 2 b o r r t r .us\ be v i r u r l l y i n s p e c t e d

f o r b r i d q i n p - k : + c e L c ~ c c s i n A r + c k . d - % i ( r ~ ~ : , : 3 % ! h e $12

;. G . r g u t : r r Z - 5 - ; r c u i r c 5 F i o r h b:rrcr - i r q c i r e 2 f l e d L 1 b 3 1 r t ~ , - k c c u i r e 2 F l e e ' 2 b c r r c s , . - R e q u i r e 5 f10. C b c r r c r . - R e q u i r e 5 F l c * D b c r r c t - P r s r b o l r c s on l D C.r;reettr s : e r r l o r a s %son r s

p o s s i b l r . Th rs t t r t must Cc p r r f c r e t a i . - e d i A l e l ~ .

4. K ' c s i c t ~ ~ l ; e%in - i t c u : r c 5 b c & r < s f r r l r d :h i ! : . - f : , r t b c r r r r :n > t:rC!cck t r c . ?o o c t r:!cu :kt

b C I - d 19 l:~:h any c ! I n ? 3 t r - r c f :he :,;I

5. Hone:- t i1 - L r ~ u i r c 3 boa r<% f ro . c r t h flow - P l r c r b o r r t s i n r Z!;lec b rg .

6. HLC P h o t c l r b - R r c v i r r 1 t c r r d fro. r r c h f l o . - P l r c r b o a r d i n r r r c k t c s i g n & t e d W C Phc :o l rb

7. E a t r a l o r r f s -1h.r. .ill be c r t r r b o r r e r w h i c h hrv. n o t b r r n s r t

r s i t r f o r t r $ t i n q - P l r c c boa rds I n 4 r r c k C t s i g n r t e d E t t r r

8 . On t h r 'Production T l . r r l l c r , ' r e c o r d t h e t e s t t o w h i c h t a c h b o r r d -as s t n t . Use the r1t rch.d s h e e t t o t r a c k t h e s o r l i n q p rocess .

7. R r p ~ a l 1 -7 f o r a l l b o r r d i .

h l p h r C..(...ttr ( n o t e 1 AOOSnDI ~ , , , * t j l ~ , T.,! 1 b ~ d r d ~ t r t i a t ScA1.1 $0 up f o r S o l u t i o n V01u . r~ 4000 f10. l I

Test b u r a t i o n 8 1 5 . I n S c r l t I 20 u g f c r

I. ARE COblFOHESTS PLACED 0 8 QVADRASTS A k D? Y - N-

2 . EQL:IPI,IEST USED TO PLACE COLIPOSESTS:

P r i o r t o t r s t I n g : - c , l i b r , t e t h e S , S \ * . onre r t r e a r - D , ~ ~ ~ . ( ~ ~ . o l u t i o e c o n t e n t r r t i c n s encr p e r e r r

RECORDED BY: DATE:

COhIPAh'Y:

T : , i \ T !4O\ITORI,YG FOR>(

BAKISG 2. L t c o r d t h e s t a r t - t 1 . c l n t h r ' S e n t t o ' l . r t i s n s f t h e ' P r o d u c t i o n T r r * . l l t r ' u n d e r 'Co..tnts.'

3. Use c l r r n t m g s t o p 1 r c c b o r r d i n G.rg...ttr lank.. 1. OVEN TEMPERATURE PER TEST P U S ? Y- N-

2. OVEN CALIBWTED WITH THERSIOCOL'PLE? Y N

3. BAKE T lME (MISS) 6. &.cord t t l t r t s ~ l t s on 'P rod : - c t l on T r r v e l l r r ' r nd

~ l r c r t r r v r l 1 . r r nd % t r i p c h r r t c u t - o f - r i q h t .

7. K r p r b t 1 -6 f o r 1 F low At 3 b o a r C s F l o e E l : 2 b o r r t s F l o w $21 2 b o r r t r F low CI 5 b o a r d s F low DI 5 b o r r t r

RECORDED BY: DATE:

COMPANY:

T M \ T MONITORING FORM

TLAHSPOLTATIOU OF t 0 ~ F : b S LU CfC b i r r n n k k r : TESTItG SOLDER PASTE STEh'CILlSG

/ f i n q t r c o t s o v r r c o t t o n g l o v t r r r r r worn b h e n r v r r t h e ' b o r r d r . e r e h r n 6 l t d . The c c t t o n q l o r l s -e re p r e s e n t t o % l o r

t h e t r b n r . i l l l o n o f s k i n o i l s t h r o u p h t h e f i n g e r c o t s .

I. PASTE APPLICATOR bfABUFACTURER MODEL

2. SOLDER PASTE LOT SVLIBER

3. PASTE REFRICEFATED PRIOR TO USE? Y- N- - 4. PASTE PROPERLY CONDITIOSED TO ROOM TEMP? :'--- S-

S. STEP HEIGHT O:< SOLDER PASTE (rnrn)

6. SOLDER PASTE WEIGHT I N RZSGE? Y N

' v I s u n L I M ~ E C T I O H P r i o r t o v i r u r l i n r ~ r : t ) o n r r c h b e a r d . as ~ I a c e d i n a n

i n e l v i d u a l p l r r t i c L a p . S i n c c t t . c 1 0 l C c r . r l k r t r n d o f f r * e r r . b r i t t l r . t h e b s l r c c w r r t h r n c l c d v e r y c ~ r e f u l l y . Yhcn : p s s s l t l r , t h e b o r ~ d r w r r c i n r p c c t c d w h i l e %:ill i n t h e t a g s

t o a v o i d ~ r r r - h r n C : ! n p r n d C 0 n t r a i n r t : c n .

P.'E-CLEAN Tonqs - e r r u r r d t o p l r c c t h r b o r r C 1 i n t h e 0 . cq r . r t r r .

C a r r - a s t r h n t o h r n C l e t h e b o r r e s by t h e c o r n e r s ~ h i c h h4d n o c c p p e r c i r c u i t r y on t i t h e r t h e f r o n t o r b l c k s i d e . I i t e r C l c r n i n q , t h e b o l r d r < e r e p I ? c i 6 i n : p r r - c l r r n r d , ~ l u n i n u . h o r i i o n t r l r r ' tLs f o r c ~ v c n l c n : r . RECORDED BY: DATE:

COI.!PASY: fFE-$AXE : h e ~ C I I ~ I r e r e tab.rd r n d c l c l c 9 i n t h e h o r i : o n t r l r r c P r

f o r c o n r r n i r n c o .

i i b P i C E i h r b o r r C s r e r e r t o r r d i n t h e h c r i : > n t a l r a c k s f o r

c o n v r n i r n c r . :he r r c i l . e r r -rap:cd i n C e g r r r r r d rlu':nun f o i l t o p r r v r s t : : r . ! r : i n ~ : : c f i .

1. ~! . : ,~ l~nF. : .~7~: , :~~ -- --- - - - .- - ,,4<--c, . - .. ..- 2 . I.IAh'VALS PRESE:';'? Y-- S-__

3. FRESH CLU,Slh'C AGEST I N USIT? Y Y-

4 . CYCLE Tlh iE FOR TEST:

s3~Cf.R FhL: + i: ' ' ' C k : : :%

A f t c r s = : < k . - : & $ : e &:;:::ition, t h t t o a r e s w e e * S+n6e6 10 t h e c o r p o n r r ; 1 1 , : r s t n t c :rrr :or c r r.,!rcrd i n t h e h o r i : e f . < a l r a c b > .

C3r.?Ol.4UT PLACERENT A f t e r ce.pDncht ~ ! r c r = e n t . t h e 5 o b r d l - e r r c l r r f u l ! ~

r r t u r o t d t o t h r h o r i : ? n t r l r rck.5. C h r r - a s t r t c n I i n c r r 1 i t t . t l r r r l n p eou!d r f f t c t t h e co.?unrnt c c r : t i o n c .

TfiihSFOkT TO k ' . i ~ o ~ S I T E i h * h o r i z , - . ? r l r&cb.s c o n t r i n i n p t h e b o r r e s - e r e w r r p p e d

i n C t S r * d s t d r : v * i n u r f o i l f o r p r o t r c t l o n f r o . c o n t b . i n + t i o n . l h r " r b p p r d r r c k r - e r r p t n t l r p l r c r 6 i n a n i n s u l r t e d 'cDol*r'. h p o l 7 u r r l h r n r f o r . [ c h o s e n b r ~ r u l . i t r r r r t r d i l y . v . I l i b l * and r t h l b l t r d n o c o n t r . i n . t i n p c h a r r c t r r i s t i c s 1 r r r v r c k e d r r w n d t h e r a c k s t o r l l r v l r t e .or..rnt u t t h l n t h e co01.r.

RECORDED BY: - DATE:

COMPASY:

T M W MONITORING FORtI A T T A C H h l E M IS

WAVE SOLDERING .. . .

. kEFLOY . . -- -.. . -

-, - -,- : ... ~ i t c r I I~ . s o l d e r r t f l o w r d . t ~ p r S e r e urrd ( 0 ' : r t . o r e t h e b o r r d r f r o . t h e r a p o r p1.l. r r f l o * . 1 h r b o b r d l

j, r e r e L e v 1 i n r, k r I z o n \ r l p o r t t i e n f v r h b w t o n e n i n u t * -: b e f o r e b r l n a s e t I n v r r t i c r l r a c k t o c o o l .

I. MASUFACTURER: MODEL

2. MANUALS PRESEhl7 Y N-

3. PROFILE DONE? Y N

4. CONTACT WITH WAVE: T l M E (scc.) - WIDTH (in.)

3. WEIGHT OF FLUX ON BOARD (prnr.)

6. FLUX APPLICATION TECHNIQUE: FOAM - WAVE-

7. COKVEI'OR SPEED CHECKED? Y N

COh!I.IENTS: --

i . . . . I, GTHER 1PhWSOkT ( A F I E R Vif'OR IunZE SNGEkI*I

SInc. t h r r , r e # P u n d , n t r t wc. r . r t t c 1 1 r,c,:r b r r r u s e d I t o t r a n s p o r t t h r ~ o r r a r t n r o u p n t h e r r . r i n d r r of t h e ? prec . r s e r ;

TCSTIM AS t h r b o h r d r r r r r ro,:,d f o r *rriovS t y p e 1 O f t * * t l n q .

t h r ? - I ? * p l r c r d r t r t l c a l r ,c \ .s or t o ~ i v i d u r l v l b ~ l l C b r p r . ., ..

P o r r d r b r i n p r e n t l o r r r , i d v r l r e s j n t r t t i n p . r r r ~ l r ~ r * I n G l a 6 l ? c b , c u a r t - r i : r . f r r t x r r t b 5 s .

b o r r c l b r i n p %*fi t t o h o n r y r t l l f o r 0 r r A h t C s c h r r r c t t r l i r t l o n .rrt p l r t r d j n i i p : o c , s and - i ch - s1 : r bag'.

. . . -.---

RECORDED BY: DATE:

COMPASY:

TMVT b4O.NlTORING FORh4 FOR RESIDUAL ROSIN ~n- ,&cH. r lE>T 1s

VAPOR PHASE SOLDERISG

I. ~~ANUFACTURER PIODEL

1 . MANUALS PRESENR Y N

3. PROFILE DONE S'ITH LOAD? Y N

4 . TE~IPEMTURE CALIBRATED? Y N-

A. ANALYST (S) BIOGRAPHICAL DATA: ATTACH>IEST I 5

SAME: YRS EXPERIESCE HlGEST DEGREE PIAJOR A R M \

B. FLUX RESIDL'E EXTRACTION DATA: I. NUMBER OF EXTRACTIONS: ( I TO 3)- 2. COhl'AlNER BOARDS ARE EXTRACTED IN:

I N PL4STIC I N RIGID BAG CELL OTHER

FIRST EXTRACTIOS - SECOND EXTRACTION--

- - - THIRD EXTRACTION - -

?a. IF BAG. FIANUFACTURER AND n 'PE: ?b. IF RIGID CELL. MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION ASD DIMENSIONS

T E S T P U N ACTUAL

FLUID TEMP'C - -

C 0 0 1 A h T TEMP ' C - - 5. C Y C U T IME PER SPECIFICATION? Y N-

COMMENTS:

RECORDED BY: DATE:

COhIPANY:

---I__-___- - -

TMVT MONITORING FORM

IONIC TESTING

4. AGITATION METHOD: EXTRACTION MANUAL ULTRASONIC MECHANICAL MECHANICAL OTHER NUMBER SHAKING BATH IMFtER STIRRER SHAKER (SPECIFY)

5. EXTRACTION SOLVENT:

6. SOLVENT MASUFACTURER:

1. hiAP1UFACntRER OF CLEANLINESS EQUIPMENT:

MODEL NUMBER:

2. MANUALS PRESENT) Y N

3. SALT SOLUTION CALIBRATION OF TEST FLUID: Y- N-

4. TIME OF TEST VERIFIED WITH STOPWATCH? Y N-

5. DATA L ISK FUNCTlOh'lNG? Y N-

RECORDED BI::. . DATE: . COMPANY:

C. UV-VIS SPECTROPHOTOMETER DATA: 1. INSTRUMENT MANUFACTURER: 2. MODEL NO: 3. DOUBLE BEAM?: 4. SPLIT\VIDTH: 5. IF D. 6.. REFERENCE USED: 6. CELL PAMLENGTH: CM 7. CUVETTE MATERIAL:- 8. WAVELEKGTH SET AT: 9. T IME ( INTEGMTION) PERIOD:-

A T T A C H ~ ~ L , ~ I> D. DATA RECORDING: I. RAW DATA FIRST RECORDED IS: V \B LOCiSOOK

NOTE PAD - C O M P U T E R OTHER [SPECIFY)-

2. FOLLOW-UP DATA RECORDING OR STATISTICAL REDUCTION? Y- N-

?a. IF SO. HOW:

RECORDED BY: D A m

COMPANY:

::cnlx b a t c h v a p o r ~ t . r s e r e f l o w s y s t e a ::cdcl \ '?:GO

E!ec:rcvert U! t rcpsZ wave s c l l c r l i c e !:=:cl I 2 E P

EyCr2.-€:err :or teS t !?p t r e c n 71:s