Tag Archives: IPC

The Cost of Misunderstanding Standards

Posted on by

An article in the latest issue of Assembly magazine asserts that use of standards, specifically IPC-A-610 and J-STD-001, raises the cost for US manufacturers and has led to the widespread offshoring of assembly.

The premise of the article, authored by a Dr. James A. Smith of Electronics Manufacturing Services Inc., is that standards drive up costs. This is stunning in that it completely mischaracterizes a core reason standards exist: to ensure widespread uniformity to a predefined level of quality.

Indeed, as someone who has traveled extensively abroad — I have spent more nights in Shanghai than any city other than the ones I have actually lived in — I can unequivocally state that manufacturers in China, Taiwan, Malaysia and so forth use IPC-A-600 and IPC-A-610 almost exclusively. And the reason is, those are the standards that their Western customers demand. Southeast Asia might offer lower labor rates, but that has nothing to do with IPC-A-610. As they used to tell me in stats class, correlation isn’t causation. I’m surprised Dr. Smith’s grad school teachers didn’t drill that conceit into him.

In the article, Dr. Smith asserts that “cost-plus” contracts reward poor manufacturing by ensuring that the assembler gets paid a set margin even if low yields lead to high rework costs. Besides being expensive, rework, of course, can be detrimental to the long-term board quality. Says Dr. Smith:

Some types of heat damage—lifted pads, delaminated circuit boards, and melted component bodies to name a few—are easily recognized. However, soldering iron heat causes serious degradation inside components such as ICs where the damage can’t be seen. The most prominent example of such damage is accelerated growth of the intermetallic (“purple plague”) between the gold wire bond and the aluminum pad on the chip substrate. As the intermetallic grows, electrical resistance inside the connection increases and switching characteristics change; depending on the sensitivity of the circuit, this change alone can be fatal. Even worse, Kirkendall voids develop in place of the pad material and breaks develop around the edges of the pad.

Therein lies the problem: Dr. Smith gets the technical details right and yet extrapolates from them a complete fallacy, writing “touchup and rework are all about deceiving the customer who, unwittingly, receives product with higher probability of premature failure.”

I am a former member of the IPC technical staff responsible for IPC-A-610 and J-STD-001. Having spent many a weekend in J-STD-001 meetings, I can state from experience that many defense contractors pushed to ease certain requirements in order both to save money and improve reliability. In one instance that springs to mind, Boeing provided ample evidence that minimum hole fill could be reduced because, they found, although a higher percentage of hole fill was seen as more reliable, in practice inspectors would have the rework technicians hit nonconforming holes with the solder gun, and the additional temperature excursion *reduced* long-term reliability more so than the greater volume of solder in the hole could increase it. These types of discussions don’t show up in the final boxscore, but you can’t understand the outcome of the game without knowing them. If Dr. Smith hasn’t been able to “unearth the data” behind the standards, it is because he hasn’t attended the meetings.

He also takes aim at the American industry for ignoring the teaching of the great quality gurus. “Instead of the focus on results emphasized by Deming and Juran, industry has embraced paperwork bureaucracy.” In fact, Dr. Deming focused on process, with the idea being a perfect process would net perfect results, and his “knowledge of vriation” concept runs through J-STD-001. At its core, J-STD-001 is a process driven document; a company that doesn’t understand SPC and process deviations has no hope of properly instituting it.

This all indirectly raises a separate point, however, namely: that it is critical for the US to maintain control of the standards. As my old friend Dieter Bergman used to tell me, he who controls the minutes controls the meeting. By authoring the standards (and making sure that the key Western OEMs are active contributors), the US can ensure a place at the international table far superior to the one our depleted manufacturing base would otherwise allow.

2 for the Show

Posted on by

Congratulations to old friend Don Dupriest, the latest inductee to the IPC Hall of Fame. Don has been an steady hand on the tiller of many, many IPC bare board and materials specifications for three decades. He truly deserves the honor.

And a big shout out to old friend Dieter Bergman, who celebrated his 80th birthday Sunday in a unique way — he got married. I couldn’t be happier for my friend.

Who’s Right?

Posted on by

Jack commented on my prior post, An Unanswered Question. His point was that instead of just saying “check with the manufacturer’s datasheet”, like I so often suggest when talking about land patterns, I should give more credit to the IPC and understand that many datasheets are the result of less-than-thorough study. That’s a very good point.

The challenge is that some manufacturers do a great job of figuring out how to use their packages, such as TI with its Package-on-Package (PoP) OMAP, or Freescale with some of its ZiBee chips. u-blox has done a good job of documenting paste mask requirement for its castellated mounting configuration, too. On the other hand, some other manufacturers seem to have cut-and-paste part of an old datasheet without even giving it a once-over. As Jack mentioned, with some of the newer packages, IPC doesn’t always have the data yet. I didn’t see that IPC-7351B covers 0.4mm pitch BGAs yet. It does do a good job of covering the need to segment the solder paste stencil over a QFN center pad, which I also have written about more than a few times.

I guess my thinking is that the part manufacturer should be the best equipped to tell us how to use their components. To Jack’s point though, that would be in an ideal world. But, reality rarely holds up to the ideal. Some manufacturers do quite well and some seem to virtually forget that they even made the part once it’s out of the development labs. IPC does a very good job but isn’t necessarily the most current. Then, of course, some manufacturers don’t follow IPC guidelines. Board fab houses and stencil makers have a lot of good data too, but also aren’t always up to date (nor are assembly houses).

I suspect that I get a little cynical on this subject in general because we see so many diversions from standard come through our shop. The designers, by and large, would much prefer to lay out their boards for greatest manufacturing success, but so many of them have a very difficult time finding the necessary data.

In some ways, I think the environment is getting better. More people seem aware of the need for good standards and to follow those standards. IPC seems to be pretty quick in adding in newer packages. The IPC land pattern generator is a big help. But the proliferation of new parts in new form-factors negates a lot of that gain.

Duane Benson
I’m not convinced that in net, this post has any actual content.

http://blog.screamingcircuits.com/

Fighting Back

Posted on by

Finally!

IPC is taking aim at Greenpeace for its aggressive stance against electronics OEMs and their environmental stewardship. The trade group last night issued a statement asserting Greenpeace’s quarterly report card on electronics companies is based on “faulty science.” IPC further alleges the environmental organization penalizes companies that do not subscribe to its agenda.

Thank goodness and it’s about time.

I’ve criticized Greenpeace in the past for its foolhardy attempts to globally ban on anything with even minimal toxicity while conveniently overlooking the bigger picture: many of the potential replacement materials are unproven and product that doesn’t work ends up in landfills faster than you can say “Save the whales.” Don’t get me wrong: Greenpeace is a great organization, but it is out of its league here. While some groups, like ChemSec in Europe, are very well-informed about materials science and its tradeoffs, others like Greenpeace use questionable methodologies to further their agendas. That in itself is a problem, but even worse, all the blown smoke obscures — and perhaps even diminishes — the potential for real dialogue on how to solve the bigger problems.

Greenpeace’s methods are aimed at maximizing attention for itself and putting its targets on the defensive. OEMs, faced with a no-win proposition, tend to publicly bow in the face of pressure (although apparently not fast enough for Greenpeace). I’d rather they sit down and have extensive, publicized open meetings on what it means to be environmentally responsible.

Mixed Appreciation for Depreciation

Posted on by

For some 15 years, the electronics manufacturing industry has pushed for changes to the US capital equipment depreciation laws.

In fits and starts, various groups have converged on Washington and lobbied legislators to shorten the five-year cycle for fully depreciating new machines, saying the move would make the US more competitive with other manufacturing-reliant nations. Thanks in part to 9/11 and subsequently in response to economic cycles, lawmakers have from time to time accelerated the schedule to three years and raised the amount small businesses could write off.

This week, President Obama offered full capital depreciation (and also said he would make permanent the much-sought-after research and development tax credit), but with a catch: American businesses would no longer get tax breaks to launch operations offshore.  “There is no reason why our tax code should actively reward them for creating jobs overseas,” Obama said.

The National Association of Manufacturers supports the accelerated depreciation laws (it would be hard to see why it wouldn’t), but reportedly has come out against the other proposed changes to the tax code. As I’m sure NAM is aware, by statute hits to the US Treasury must be made up elsewhere. Politics is the art of compromise and tradeoffs.  I would urge our industry trade groups to collectively agree on what the electronics industry can afford to live with, and what it can’t — and fast. They will be much more effective if they speak with a unified voice.

Musical Trade Show Chairs

Posted on by

Canon Communications, owner of a series of B2B magazines and trade shows, has been bought by United Business Media.

This is highly relevant because Canon partners with IPC to put on Electronics Assembly Expo, which coincidentally takes place next week. And SMTA used to partner with Reed Elsevier on that show, only to be tossed aside when Canon acquired the Chicag0-based Assembly Tech Expo show (as well as the US-based Nepcon events and several magazines) from Reed in May 2006.

Not coincidentally, CIRCUITS ASSEMBLY was owned by UBM from October 1999 to February 2002. And that gave me an front row seat to see its management in action.

It wasn’t pretty.

London-based UBM has a long history of terrible business decisions. It spent $900 million on magazine publisher CMP in October 1999, and then sold off many of the just-acquired properties for pennies on the dollar. These were magazine/trade show businesses in such fields as paper making; unglamorous, to be sure, but they just happened to be huge cash cows. But they had low topline growth, and UBM’s bet was on the high-flying tech sector, which collapsed a scant 18 months later.

Where UBM benefited was it went private when its stock was super cheap, then as the markets clawed back, it went public again. That may have been the only smart financial move the company has made in 10 years.

It is paying $287 million for Canon, a company with $106 million in revenues and $37 million in pro forma EBITDA for the fiscal year ended June 30. (Canon’s venture capital owners acquired the business in 2005 for a reported $200 million.) That’s a lot of crumpets.

While UBM corporate is good at blowing money, what its business units don’t do is partner with outside organizations. When I was there, they barely partnered with each other. Given that, I can’t see UBM continuing the relationship with IPC.

And it will be very interesting to see if that forces IPC to reopen talks with SMTA over a fall electronics trade show. If nothing else, it very likely gives SMTA the upper hand in negotiations.

On Markets and Makers

Posted on by

Despite my pleasure in seeing the forecast for printed circuit board production this year, I have to admit it’s depressing to contemplate how far the US market has fallen, both in size and share.

Dial back to 2000, and North America was head-to-head with Japan for world supremacy. Both markets were roughly $10 billion in size, give or take, and each had their specialty. In Japan, it was chip substrates, while the US dominated in high-layer-count boards.

I recall, at a meeting with Jack Fisher and a few others early that summer, word was out that Hadco’s lead times were as much as six months, and the industry forecast was for double-digit growth for the next two years. Hearing that, Jack surmised that no investments in HDI would be forthcoming any time soon, reasoning that if order books were maxed for “conventional” boards, owners wouldn’t see the value in investing in next-generation technology.

How right he was.

We will never know which factor had the biggest impact on the fate of the North American board industry since. Certainly, extended lead times pushed OEMs to consider Taiwanese and Chinese sources that, up to then, were looked upon more as fallbacks than primary producers for markets outside of PCs and some handhelds. The tech bubble decimated many companies, and revealed tremendous operating and management flaws among several US and Canadian fabricators. Wall Street’s push for OEMs to have a “China” solution (read: lower wages) didn’t help. And, of course, the lack of investment in HDI paved the way for better-financed Asian plants to take the lead.

If there’s a bright spot, it’s that 1) US engineers continue to amaze in their ability to get decent results from 20-year-old Excellon drills and 2) wage pressures are hitting China considerably sooner than probably anyone imagined. Bare board process equipment continues to improve, making it easier to fab boards without years of experience. Thus, the bar is slowly being lowered for future generations to jump in.

Maybe even the US.

SMD vs. NSMD

Posted on by

In general, we and just about everyone else on the planet recommend NSMD (non solder mask defined) pads for your BGA land. Using copper to define the land gives more precision than using solder mask and, more importantly, gives a more reliable solder joint.

BGA on HASL close with vias between pads There are a few cases where SMD (solder mask defined) pads might be more appropriate. The Beagleboard folks, with their 0.4mm pitch Ti OMAP processor found that at that small a pitch, NSMD pads increased the chances of bridging.

Interestingly, IPC writes that the main advantage of SMD pads is to prevent pad lifting. They further note that since the corner balls are most likely to have lift issues, due to the greater concentration of stresses. If you have concerns about corner pad lifting, you might want to use SMD pads just in the corner for a little extra holding power. (ref IPC-7095B, 6.2.2)

Duane Benson
Danger! 50,000 Ohms

http://blog.screamingcircuits.com/

Full Circle

Posted on by

When IPC released a statement this week touting Congress’s recognition of the “vital role of the printed board industry in ensuring national security,” it brought a smile to my face.

Years ago – at least 15 – when I was just a staff flunky at IPC, we rejoiced when, after hundreds of thousands of dollars and who-knows how many man-hours of time, the US House passed a resolution recognizing printed wiring board manufacturers as an industry critical to the well being and security of the United States. This is an important first step, we convinced ourselves. Now, Congress will really get behind us, we cheered, hopefully.

A few years later, more or less the entire industry moved to China. Congress didn’t say a word.

You see, we also spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to help bring the Printed Circuit Investment Act of 1997, a bill that was to cut equipment depreciation from five years to three, to the floor, where it died a quick death.

Still, we enjoyed the opportunity to rub shoulders with legislators was so enticing, IPC tried again in 1999 and 2001.

No dice.

In fact, Congress didn’t act until March 11, 2002, six months to the day after planes flew into buildings across the Eastern seaboard.

Are printed circuit boards vital to American security? No question. Does Congress really give a hoot? Probably not. After all, if they didn’t when the US was the leading PCB industry in the world, why would they now? After 15 years or so of trying, have we learned anything about how Congress works? By all evidence, no.

But we can dream.

Trade (No) Shows

Posted on by

SMTAI is over and done.  It was, in my opinion, a disappointment. While several companies remain on travel lockdown, the location — San Diego — was central to large numbers of designers and assemblers, precious few of whom bothered to make the (short) drive.

I don’t have the numbers from the SMTA yet, but my sense is the attendance for the technical conference was pretty good. But there was very little traffic on the exhibition floor, a result that mirrored IPC Midwest a few weeks earlier.

We can blame the economy. We can blame the layoffs. We can blame a lot of things. But the industry seers — also known as the media — have been saying for years there are too many shows. With Electronics New England, Electronics West, SMTA Atlanta, the myriad Design2Part shows, IPC Apex, Assembly Technology Expo, IPC Midwest, PCB West, and SMTAI, among many others, the regionalization — and bastardization — is effectively complete. There is simply no reason for a potential attendee to get excited about an event, because when you are practically showered with opportunities, the impact is dramatically lessened. (As an aside, none of this should be laid at the feet of the SMTA staff. They worked their hearts out to put on a top-notch technical conference and to this observer’s eye everything was beautifully executed. They deserved better.)

The show producers of these events are going to have to look hard at their bank accounts and reconsider their missions. While I don’t expect the for-profit companies (of which Circuits Assembly’s parent company, UP Media Group, is one) to change their approach, it’s high time the trade associations get together and get an agreement done that puts some sanity back into the trade show calendar.

Put the egos and greed aside, and get it done.