Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Maintenance call for comments/ proposals for amendment/ revision on IEC 60410
and call for experts for maintenance team
ACET Area 1, in its meeting of 11th April 2000, proposed to revise IEC 60410. Since TC 56 originally responsible for that publication - had voted not to revise it, ACET Area 1 also proposed
that TC 91 undertake that task (please refer to ACET(0004/Area1Sec)4. This was accepted by
ACET in its meeting of 13th April 2000 (see ACET(0004/Sec)7A.
The goal of the revision is to introduce the Zero Acceptance Number principle, which can be used
not only by the industries related to TC 91, but also by all the industries of the electronic field.
National Committees are therefore invited to consult their experts from TC 40, TC 47, TC 48,
TC 52, TC 56, TC 78, TC 86, TC 91 and TC 93 before submitting their comments. It is also
strongly recommended that they nominate experts from these TCs for the maintenance
team to be set up.
The P-members are requested to send their comments/ proposals for amendment using the Form
8c to facilitate the task of the Secretary in compiling the comments before passing them on to the
maintenance team.
Based on the maintenance cycle procedures given in Administrative Circular AC/132/1999, the
sequence of events is as follows :
This Document for Comment (DC) is circulated to request comments/ proposals for
amendment and to call for experts in order to set up a maintenance team
The comments received are passed on to the maintenance team
The maintenance team reviews IEC 60410 and makes recommendations by completing the
Maintenance Cycle Report (MCR Form 11), which is returned to TC 91 Secretary and
circulated to the P-members
If there are no objections within two months of the circulation of the MCR, then the
recommendation will be considered as approved.
Comments/ proposals should be submitted using the IEC Electronic voting system or by e-mail to
votes@iec.ch . In this latter case, there will be no automatic forwarding of the comments to the TC
Secretary and a copy will need to be sent directly to the Secretary of TC 91 by the National
Committees. (See AC/64/1999).
FOREWORD
1) The IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) is a worldwide organization for standardization comprising all
national electrotechnical committees (IEC National Committees). The object of the IEC is to promote international cooperation on all questions concerning standardization in the electrical and electronic fields. To this end and in addition
to other activities, the IEC publishes International Standards. Their preparation is entrusted to technical committees;
any IEC National Committee interested in the subject dealt with may participate in this preparatory work. International,
governmental and non-governmental organizations liaising with the IEC also participate in this preparation. The IEC
collaborates closely with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in accordance with conditions
determined by agreement between the two organizations.
2) The formal decisions or agreements of the IEC on technical matters express, as nearly as possible, an international
consensus of opinion on the relevant subjects since each technical committee has representation from all interested
National Committees.
3) The documents produced have the form of recommendations for international use and are published in the form of
standards, technical reports or guides and they are accepted by the National Committees in that sense.
4) In order to promote international unification, IEC National Committees undertake to apply IEC International Standards
transparently to the maximum extent possible in their national and regional standards. Any divergence between the
IEC Standard and the corresponding national or regional standard shall be clearly indicated in the latter.
5) The IEC provides no marking procedure to indicate its approval and cannot be rendered responsible for any equipment
declared to be in conformity with one of its standards.
6) Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this International Standard may be the subject of
patent rights. The IEC shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.
International Standard IEC 60410 has been prepared by IEC technical committee 91: Electronic
assembly technology
The text of this standard is based on the following documents:
IEC 60410
FDIS
Report on voting
Full information on the voting for the approval of this standard can be found in the report on voting
indicated in the above table.
Annex A is Informative
CONTENTS
Introduction. 1
1
Scope............................................................................................................................... 5
Background ...................................................................................................................... 7
4.1
9.1.2
9.1.3
Introduction
The definition of quality in terms of doing business can use several different words to describe
quality levels. Although terms such as goodness, excellence, optimum and similar terms might
provide some insight, they are at best subjective or vague. The most widely quoted and accepted
definition is "Conformance to Requirements".
Now and in the future, IEC standards and specifications need to define the importance of the ability
to achieve "Conformance to Requirements" as the measure of quality. In this context quality does
not mean perfection or various degrees of perceived perfection. It means efficient production of the
quality that the market expects.
Clear description in IEC standards and specifications and their reference to sampling plans in order
to insure adherence to customer requirements is essential. The details should be clear as to their
implementation or adjustment for evaluation of product to be shipped, the use of process control and
SPC, or the applicability for using these principles in controlled experimentation. These principles
relate to:
Many standards and specifications, then and now, include a great deal of vagueness and safety
margins sometimes referred to as "Fudge Factors". Specifications and standards of this nature
make absolute conformance impractical or unreasonable, and in some cases, impossible. The best
solution to this situation is to make IEC specifications and standards as realistic and valid to the end
use. This standard is dedicated to help in achieving those goals.
During the Second World War there grew a need to create a technique to secure the quality of
products in mass production with a known risk to failure. A technique of accepting or rejecting
production lots by taking sample of products, investigating this sample and determining the quality
status of the whole lot based on the failures found in this sample was developed.
The statistical system was built to optimise the risk of the producer to reject a lot of good quality in
his final control and the customers risk to accept a lot of bad quality in his incoming inspection. A
term Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) was created.
A set of tables, determining the sample sizes based on the size of the basic lot and on the different
AQLs, was created. Typical AQLs in use were from 0,1% to 4%. For example AQL 1,0% means that
with a large probability (>95%) the lot with failure percentage larger than 1% will be rejected in the
sample inspection.
The AQL system was adopted by the civilian industry after the war, and it was shown to be very
useful especially in the emerging electronic industry, where large numbers of components were used
to build the final product. It should be understood that at that time the overall number of failures in
products was in the area of the AQLs used, and the system was an improvement in helping to make
contracts between the producer and the customer.
When original military standards on sampling were transferred to the civilian world, the principles
were published by the IEC in IEC Publication 410. The many tables in the publication, the AQL-level
descriptions, and the size of the basic lots were useful, however one or more failures in the sample
were permitted, and the lot still accepted.
The explosion of the electronics industry has lead to a situation where the number of components in
one product and the number of products are so large, that the quality level of components and
electronic products with known failures are no longer acceptable. The acceptable number of nonconforming product has been approaching zero in the producer-customer contracts, and is in any
case in the range of parts per million (ppm).
This has lead to the development of new methods of quality assurance like the application of
Statistical Process Control (SPC). Because of the low number of permitted non-conforming product
according to the AQL tables, many would resort to 100% testing or inspection.
At the same time the quality thinking has developed so that the idea to accept failures has become
impossible, and the use of the AQL tables in the traditional way has been diminishing very rapidly.
1 Scope
This standard establishes sampling plans for inspection by attributes, including sample plan
selection criteria and implementation procedures. The principles established herein permit the use of
different sampling plans that may be applied to an individual attribute or set of attributes, according
to classification of importance with regard to form, fit and function.
2 Normative references
IEC 60194
Terms and definitions for printed boards, printed board materials and assemblies
IEC 61192-3 Product performance requirements: Part 3: Workmanship requirements for throughhole mount soldered assemblies
IEC 61193-5 Quality assessment system Part 5: Registration and analysis of defects on soldered
printed board assemblies
IEC 62326-4 Printed boards Part 4: Rigid multilayer printed boards with interlayer connections
ISO 9001
ISO 9002
Quality systems Model for quality assurance in production, installation and servicing
3.6
Risk Management Factor (RMF)
the maximum tolerable percentage of possible defects within a lot (group) of units, based on
approximately 95% confidence level.
3.7
Shipment-ready product
product that will be shipped to customer without having to meet any further acceptance criteria.
3.8
Unit of product
item(s) being inspected in order to determine conformance to the requirements, as specified.
a) a single article, a pair, a set, a length, an area, an operation, a volume, a component of an end
product, or the end product itself.
b) may or not be the same as the unit of purchase, supply, production or shipment.
4 Background
The zero acceptance number plans were originally designed and used to provide equal or greater
consumer protection with less inspection than that required by corresponding sampling plans. The
C=0 plans are simple to use and administer since there is greater emphasis on zero defects and
product liability prevention. The concepts stated herein provide a set of attribute plans for lot-by-lot
inspection. The acceptance number in all cases is zero. This means that for some level of
protection, a sample size is selected and if one or more non-conforming attributes are present, one
will "withhold a lot."
The terminology "withhold the lot" is significant in that it does not necessarily mean rejection. One
does not automatically accept or reject the lot if one or more non-conformances are found; rather
acceptance only occurs if zero non-conformances are found in the sample.
Withholding the lot forces a review and disposition by engineering/management personnel in regard
to extent and seriousness. This relates to whether the attribute was critical, major, or minor, or
whether identifying the non-conformance to the requirements was defined as a critical, major, or
minor defect.
The word "defective" is commonly used in quality control to describe a part, component, item, or any
other unit of product that contains one or more defects. The word "defect" is commonly used to
describe a particular non-conforming characteristic on a unit of product.
4.1 Attribute sampling plans
The following clauses provide an overview of lot-by-lot attribute plans while relating them to other
plans. Two broad categories of sampling exist. These are:
a) Continuous
b) Lot-by-lot
The continuous sampling plan may call for a frequency check i.e., one unit out of five. Should the
products be good, this frequency check will remain in existence.
If however, a unit is
nonconforming, 100% inspection is reverted to until the specified number of consecutive conforming
products result. At that point, the process returns to frequency inspection.
4.1.2 Lot-by-lot attributes
Lot-by-lot involves units of products that are presented in a group, batch, or lot for inspection, as
opposed to being presented one at a time. In these cases, a sample of a specified quantity is drawn
and compared with some acceptance criteria. In the past, sampling plans allowed a certain quantity
of defectives in the sample; the C=0 plan does not. In C=0 plan, the attributes evaluated either
conform or do not conform. Go/no go type gauges are often used in attribute plans.
4.1.3 Lot-by-lot variables
Another lot-by-lot sampling procedure involves the analysis of measured characteristics where the
attributes are variable as to their requirement. Variable sampling compared with attribute sampling
essentially involves the inspection of a smaller sample size to obtain the same protection afforded by
an attribute plan. The economics of these smaller sample sizes, however, are quite often offset by
the calculating involved and the need for obtaining and recording measurement.
Where variables data is required from an inspection operation, variables plans should definitely be
considered. This is often used in determining the range of conformance in meeting, or being
between, the upper or lower specification limit of a requirement. By retaining the records regarding
meeting the target value of a particular requirement, the sampling plan can determine when the
process is starting to become out-of-control due to the distribution of measurements within the
specified upper and lower acceptance limit. Within variables lot-by-lot sampling, the information is
gathered primarily to help ensure the manufacturing of acceptable product by determining the
distance from the target that the lot inspection provides.
4.2 Non-statistical sampling plans
There are cases where one can visually assure zero defects, although the sample size cannot
logically be defined in terms of statistical risks. Such sample sizes are generally exceptionally low
for the more important attributes and, therefore, a knowledge of the process and the control factors
is essential.
In order to avoid any confusion in justifying such sample sizes on inspection plans, specific notations
should be used to avoid any tie-in with statistical risks. The reason for such a selection should be
noted, either directly in the plan or in the quality engineering standards.
An example might be a sampling operation where just the first and last piece from a lot are
inspected dimensionally. A statistical sample may be taken using visual inspection only. Another
example might be evaluating a number of products during a particular time sequence. If the
products are different, the technique can be normalized by evaluating the amount of unit area being
processed along a conveyor over a particular time. In this instance, a variety of product can be
measured and evaluated. The system then would be judged in or out of control, depending on nonconformance per unit area over specific time sequences.
The higher index values in the C=0 plans are also used where favorable process control has been
demonstrated and just an audit is required. Although the statistical risks seem high, the risks from a
practical standpoint would be exceptionally low.
10
In addition to the AQL and producer's risk there is a parameter called the Lot Tolerance Percent
Defectives (LTPD). This LTPD is considered poor quality. Several sampling plans can have OC
curves pass through the same AQL/producer's risk point. For each of these plans however, there
will be a different LTPD at some constant probability of acceptance level. This probability of
acceptance level corresponding to the LTPD is usually low with a 0.10 being widely accepted. This
probability level is called the "consumer's risk."
The user of sampling plans must select the plan that will provide reasonably good protection against
accepting lots with a percent defectives not too much greater than the AQL.
With the
AQL/producer's risk point fixed, the closer the LTPD gets to the AQL, the larger the sample size and
the acceptance number becomes. Figure 2 is a comparison of the C=>0 OC curve and an
equivalent OC curve from the zero defect C=0 plan. This example illustrates that the C=0 curve with
a small sample of 18 and an accept number of 0 is equivalent or better than the C=0 plan with a
relatively large sample of 125 and an acceptance number of 10. The producer's risk probability may
be greater at certain levels with the C=0 plan, however this should have little effect, assuming that
requirements are accurate.
11
What industry has tended to do is to measure output, determine yields, then resign to an acceptable
level of defectives based on the information. These systems, usually AQL-based, remove incentives
to review the validity of specifications, investigate defect causes, or to improve overall product
quality.
Table 1 shows a comparison of a set of C=0 plans with previous plans of C=>0.
Table 1 Inspection plan comparison
C=>0 Plan
C=0 Plan
AQL
Sample size
Accept No.
1.0%
125
4.0%
125
10
Associated AQL
Sample size
Accept No.
1.0%
42
4.0%
18
The C=0 plans provide equal to or greater LTPD protection at the 0.10 "consumer's risk" level.
There is also less inspection performed on less critical characteristics or attributes.
All of the C=0 characteristics are shown in Table 2; they are "associated" with the AQL's of the C=>0
plans of the past. In all of these plans, equal or greater protection is afforded to the consumer than
the older techniques. The method of developing the plans provides for simple conversion from past
practices to the C=0 plans. The table labels these associated AQLs as "index values" because they
are not AQLs. In some of the IEC documents, they had been called Risk Management Factor
(RMF).
12
.015
.025
.040
.065
.10
.15
LOT SIZE
.25
.40
.65
1.0
1.5
2.5
4.0
6.5
10.0
SAMPLE SIZE
28
9 15
13
16 25
20
13
26 50
32
20
13
51 90
80
50
32
20
13
91 150
125
80
50
32
20
13
12
11
151 280
200
125
80
50
32
20
20
19
13
10
281 500
315
200
125
80
50
48
47
29
21
16
11
501 1,200
800
500
315
200
125
80
75
73
47
34
27
19
15
11
1,201 3,200
1250
800
500
315
200
125
120
116
73
53
42
35
23
18
13
3,201 10,000
1250
800
500
315
200
192
189
116
86
68
50
38
29
22
15
10,001 35,000
1250
800
500
315
300
294
189
135
108
77
60
46
35
29
15
35,001 150,000
1250
800
500
490
476
294
218
170
123
96
74
56
40
29
15
150,001 500,000
1250
800
750
715
476
345
270
200
156
119
90
64
40
29
15
1250
1200
1112
715
556
435
303
244
189
143
102
64
40
29
15
It should be noted that the idea of withholding more lots under the C=0 plans may arise because of
the zero accept number. Aside from experience, which has shown that in fact, considerable savings
can be derived, one should consider the following:
a) if the quality is very bad, acceptance numbers greater than zero will not be much help;
b) to allow acceptance numbers greater than zero in the plan, one is in effect authorizing an
inspector to accept parts which may not be usable;
c) the zero acceptance number forces a review of any defectives by quality personnel in order for
proper disposition to take place;
d) if one is striving for zero defects, it should be obvious that one should not knowingly allow
defectives to be shipped.
C=0 plans were essentially designed to be equal or greater in consumer and average outgoing
quality limit protection. Within a particular column of the details shown in Table 2 representing the
Index value or RMF, the operating characteristic curves actually differ for the most part between C=0
and C=>0 plans, especially as the lot size increases. The reason for this common feature, in
addition to satisfying the statistical relationship, is that it is generally considered more practical to
obtain greater protection on larger lot sizes. Table 3 provides guidance to selection of sample sizes.
13
Table 3 Sample size selection guideline
Defects
Attributes
Critical
Major
Minor
Critical
0.1
1.0
2.5
Major
1.0
2.5
4.0
Minor
2.5
4.0
6.5
The use of constant sample sizes often result in a combination of over-inspection and underinspection. For a broad range of lot sizes in general, however, in order to develop an inspection
strategy, an evaluation should be made as to the attribute classification (critical, major, minor). This
listing of comparisons should identify the RMF (index value) shown in the Table 2 and should allow
the C=0 plans to be used when:
a) manufactured parts are expected to completely conform to specification requirements;
b) less inspection is desired on less critical characteristics;
c) sampling is performed because 100% inspection on all attributes of all units of product is
impractical
d) inspections are not allowed to knowingly accept non-conforming products;
e) auditing is required for assurance of process validation, potential transit damage, certification of
suppliers, or inventory verification.
5 Classification of attributes
Attributes are classified as part of the process for selection of sampling plans applied to individual
and/or grouped attributes for inspection.
5.1 Classification Assignment
Classification of individual attributes associated with specified requirements is assigned according to
importance or seriousness. Any failure to conform to the ultimate form, fit, function, and intended
use of the unit of product is usually understood as being nonconforming to the requirements.
Attributes are classified as one of the following:
a) Critical
b) Major
c) Minor
Market segment, or intended end use of a unit of product will influence attribute classification. For
example: an identical attribute which may be considered as critical in the Aircraft market segment
may be considered major or even minor in the Consumer market segment.
Table 4 shows basic Market segments as an aid for attribute classification.
14
Table 4 Worst-Case Use Environments
Use Category
tD
Temperature ranges
hours
Cycles/
year
Typical
years of
service
Approx.
Accept.
Failure
Risk %
Tmin
C
Tmax
C
T
C
1. Consumer
+60
35
12
365
1-3
2. Computers
+15
+60
20
1460
0.1
3. Telecom
-40
+85
35
12
365
7-20
0.01
4. Commercial
Aircraft
-55
+95
20
12
365
20
0.001
5. Industrial
Automotive
Passenger
Compartment
-55
+95
20
&40
&60
&80
12
12
12
12
185
100
60
20
10
0.1
6. Military
Ground &
Ship
-55
+95
40 & 60
12
12
100
265
10
0.1
7. Space leo
geo
-55
+95
3 to 100
1
12
8760
365
5-30
0.001
8. Military
Avionics
-55
+95
40
60
80
&20
2
2
2
1
365
365
365
365
10
0.01
9. Automotive
-55
+125
60
&100
&140
1
1
2
100
300
40
0.1
Underhood
& = in addition
1) T represents the maximum temperature swing, but does not include power dissipation effects.
Sometimes the contractual agreements between consumer and producer indicate performance
acceptance to an approved standard. IEC 62326-4 is an example of a standard that uses C=0
sampling plans. This standard, for multilayer printed boards used in electronic equipment, specifies
performance requirements in a table.
The table in IEC 62326-4 has established the sampling criteria for each attribute or requirement
stated in the standard. These are identified as a Risk Management Factor (RMF) as opposed to the
old AQL identifications. This was done to highlight the recommendation that certain sample sizes
"based on the risk management factor" required that the number selected is sufficient to provide
protection on critical attributes through using lower percentage nonconforming parts in the sample
being evaluated. (see Annex A)
Assignment of classification to individual attributes is the responsibility of the user/customer. Annex
A shows an example of acceptance characteristics for three levels of product performance.
15
hybrid circuits
electronic assemblies
j)
electronic backplanes
The sampling risk levels would be applicable to the characteristics of units of a product category
where the characteristics are critical to the reliability, customer satisfaction, or product liability
potential. A more lenient plan can be applied to characteristics that are normally less critical to
function or attributes that are identified as minor within a particular product category. In addition, the
more lenient plans may also be appropriate where there is a known consistency of tooling and
automatic processing.
16
Annex B shows an example of one company's attempt to move down the systematic path. In that
example, continuous sampling is used as a part of the "In-process product evaluation for control and
capability of a wave soldering operation. The attributes selected are from IEC 61192-3 and are used
to determine process capability based on unit area of product being processed through the
attachment system. Sample size was based on a time during which product/unit areas were being
processed.
7 Inspection plans
The following paragraphs define procedures for implementation and operation of inspection by
attributes using C=0 sampling plans.
7.1 Zero acceptance number-based sampling plans
There are still some areas, where the attribute sampling has its merits, e.g.:
The producer of electronic components can control the occurrence of so called roque lots
(something totally wrong), by using sampling, and at the same time in long run to collect valuable
information of the failures in his process and products. This information can also be used to
calculate Assessed Process Average (APA) figures, if they are needed.
There are still some areas of failures, like some visual/mechanical failures in complicated
electromechanical products, where AQLs in traditional form can be of use.
In the qualification and periodical testing of the components a representative sample has to be
selected, because all components can not be tested.
17
It is possible to generate the acceptance/reject tables for attribute testing based on zero acceptance
number. It is very important that no matter what statistical levels are used, the acceptance
number of failures must be zero. This has a strong psychological meaning, and it builds trust
between the producer and the customer. This is true, although one has to understand that the
statistical probabilities to have failures are not different with zero and non-zero acceptance numbers,
if the statistics used is the same.
There is lot of evidence that the zero failure principle has lead to considerable quality improvements
in production processes in many areas.
Many companies have been verifying components (Capacitors and Resistors) already for many years
have applying the Zero Acceptance Number principle in the qualification and periodical testing
tables. The experiences of this system are good, and the claims of too low quality levels from the
customers side have diminished considerably. This one single point was earlier always the first
obstacle to be overcome to get the customers to accept the use of relevant National, Regional or
International Standards as the basis of agreements.
The attribute testing can still be a viable tool in the quality assurance, when only the Zero
Acceptance Number of Failures is used.
7.2 Responsible authority
When specified by a responsible authority, this standard shall be called up in the specification,
contract, inspection instructions or other documents and the provisions set forth herein shall govern.
The responsible authority shall be designated in one of the control documents listed. It should be
noted that the responsible authority will normally be the customer.
7.3 Application
Sampling plans designated in this publication are applicable, but not limited, to inspection of the
following:
a) End items
b) Components
c) Raw materials
d) Operations
e) Supplies in storage
f)
Maintenance operations
g) Data or records
h) Administrative procedures
These plans are to be used primarily for lots or batches that are generally known to have been
produced or manufactured under consistent and/or continuous conditions, from a single origination,
and are expected to completely conform to specification requirements. The plans may also be used
for inspection of isolated lots or batches, but in this latter case, the user may wish to consult the
operating characteristics curves to find a plan that will yield the desired protection. These plans
should normally only be used for completed items, such as out-going (at the supplier) and/or incoming (at the customer); However the sampling plans may be used in audit situations such as stock
audit for assurance or potential transit damage, or used as part of a supplier certification procedure.
Statistical process control (SPC) methods and procedures should be used during the production/
manufacturing steps in process.
18
19
Table 5 General sample plan criteria
per industry markets / technology sectors
High
performance
systems
Harsh
environment
systems
Handheld
systems
Cost
performance
sensitive
Low cost/
high volume
Automotive
.01
0.15
.04
.15
2.5
Military
.01
0.15
.04
.25
2.5
Communication
.015
.025
.065
.25
4.0
Computer
.025
0.4
.10
.25
4.0
Business
0.04
.065
.15
.25
4.0
Instrumentation
.065
.10
.15
.40
6.5
Industrial
.10
.15
.40
1.0
6.5
Consumer
.40
.65
2.5
6.5
10
five consecutive inspection lots, of similar size, have been accepted using the specified
performance level and current assessment criteria;
the time elapsed between the first and fifth inspection lots has been no longer than 12 months;
the certifying record shall indicate and verify changes in assessment levels.
This procedure can be undertaken twice, if the same criteria are met. Normal inspection shall be
resumed if one inspection lot is rejected.
Lot inspections may be further reduced or discontinued, if process control techniques are
established, with correlation to the finished product requirements.
Customers shall be made aware of the quality assessment procedures in operation, and shall be
notified of reduced lot inspection or changes from lot inspection to in-process testing and control.
20
8 Classification of defects
An IEC standard will usually contain complete information on quality evaluation for any product to be
fully compliant with the requirements for various performance levels. The sampling plan data shall
specify the appropriate level of quality conformance inspection from table 2, as well as the attributes
(critical, major, minor), and defect characteristics (critical, major, minor).
Unless otherwise specified, specially designed test specimens may be used for carrying out tests for
the lot inspection and the periodic inspection.
When specially designed test specimens are to be used, their description shall be included in the
documentation. They may be based on the appropriate characteristics of the shipment-ready
product. Consultation between manufacturer and customer is usually necessary.
8.1 Customers Detail Specification (CDS) data
A customer detail specification should also contain all information necessary to define the product
clearly and completely. This includes the target acceptance conditions as well as what constitutes
non-conformance.
Care shall be taken to avoid unnecessary requirements. Permissible deviations shall be stated
where necessary and nominal values without tolerances or simple maxima or minima shall be given
where sufficient. Where precise tolerances are necessary for certain products, they shall be applied
and restricted to those products.
which
define
essential
electrical
21
22
0 .7 +
DPMO # =
i =1
m
X 10
i =1
That is,
DPMO # =
where:
x I is the number of nonconforming parts found in the actual inspection (testing of n I parts from the I
lot of m total lots. # is the designated class of DPMO.
th
23
Category Z inspection
This category covers all tests which may be necessary in addition to tests of Inspection
Categories V, D, S, E, P, and Y to complete an entire test program. Category Z tests are usually
carried out at intervals of 12 months. They may be carried out progressively within a 12 month
period.
In-process control
the in-process testing and control is carried out under the authority of the appointed management
representative (chief inspector);
the process steps or storage periods between in-process testing and the completion of the units
of product are not likely to affect the characteristics tested;
the data provided by in-process testing is correlated to the finished product requirements and
assures the same level of performance for characteristics as would be demonstrated in the
prescribed finished product sampling plan and testing.
Priority implementation
C1
C2
24
C3
C4
C5
Periodic laboratory test (in conjunction with related in-process/process control for correlation to test
criteria and product requirements)
25
The LTPD for small lot sizes is targeted for the largest lot size range in which a constant sample size
appears. For example (referring to a C=0 table), for tables associated with an AQL of 1.0, 13 is
used at the 91-150 lot size range for .65; 20 is used in the 150-280 range. In other words, the
smaller lots shown in Table 5 have essentially the same LTPD as the targeted LTPD.
Table 5 Small lot characteristics
Lot size
.25
.4
.65
1.0
1.5
5-10
11-15
11
16-20
16
12
21-25
22
17
13
10
26-30
25
17
13
10
31-35
28
23
18
12
26
Sample
size
2
3
5
Probability of acceptance
.10
63.7
46.7
26.0
.25
46.9
32.5
18.3
.50
27.5
18.3
10.0
.75
12.5
8.33
5.00
.90
5.00
3.33
2.00
.95
2.50
1.67
1.00
.99
0.50
0.33
0.20
.95
2.50
1.67
1.00
0.62
0.38
.99
0.50
0.33
0.20
0.12
0.07
Sample
size
2
3
5
8
13
Probability of acceptance
.10
66.0
50.0
31.8
18.7
8.46
.25
48.3
34.5
20.8
12.1
5.77
.50
28.3
19.2
11.3
6.25
3.85
.75
12.9
8.61
5.00
3.13
1.92
.90
5.00
3.33
2.00
1.25
0.76
Sample
size
2
3
5
8
13
20
27
Probability of acceptance
.10
.25
.50
.75
.90
.95
.99
67.0
51.4
33.9
21.4
11.9
6.40
49.0
35.5
22.3
13.7
7.54
3.75
28.7
19.8
11.9
7.18
3.85
2.50
13.1
8.80
5.20
3.13
1.92
1.25
5.04
3.33
2.00
1.25
0.76
0.50
2.50
1.67
1.00
0.62
0.38
0.25
0.50
0.33
0.20
0.12
0.07
0.05
.95
1.67
1.00
0.62
0.38
0.25
0.15
.99
0.33
0.20
0.12
0.07
0.05
0.03
Sample
size
3
5
8
13
20
32
Probability of acceptance
.10
52.5
35.4
23.2
14.2
8.73
4.60
.25
36.3
23.2
14.8
8.91
5.42
2.94
.50
20.2
12.4
7.72
4.59
2.82
1.56
.75
8.97
5.38
3.31
1.92
1.25
0.78
.90
3.39
2.00
1.25
0.75
0.50
0.31
28
Sample
size
5
8
13
20
32
50
80
Probability of acceptance
.10
36.1
24.0
15.1
9.70
5.68
3.17
1.23
.25
23.7
15.3
9.44
5.99
3.48
1.98
0.93
.50
12.7
7.98
4.86
3.06
1.80
1.00
0.62
.75
5.47
3.39
2.05
1.29
0.78
0.50
0.31
.90
2.04
1.26
0.76
0.49
0.31
0.20
0.12
.95
1.00
0.62
0.38
0.25
0.15
0.10
0.06
.99
0.19
0.12
0.07
0.50
0.03
0.02
0.01
.95
1.01
0.71
0.38
0.24
0.15
0.06
.99
0.19
0.14
0.07
0.05
0.03
0.01
Sample
size
5
7
13
20
32
80
Probability of acceptance
.10
36.4
27.5
15.6
10.2
6.21
2.0
.25
23.9
17.6
9.71
6.27
3.80
1.24
.50
12.8
9.24
4.99
3.19
1.92
0.62
.75
5.52
3.95
2.10
1.34
0.81
0.31
.90
2.06
1.47
0.77
0.49
0.31
0.12
Sample
size
6
10
13
20
32
50
125
29
Probability of acceptance
.10
.25
.50
.75
.90
.95
.99
31.6
20.2
15.9
10.5
6.55
4.10
1.39
20.4
12.7
9.90
6.47
4.00
2.49
0.85
10.8
6.59
5.08
3.29
2.03
1.26
0.43
4.64
2.79
2.14
1.38
0.84
0.53
0.20
1.72
1.03
0.79
0.51
0.31
0.19
0.08
0.84
0.50
0.38
0.24
0.15
0.09
0.04
0.16
0.09
0.07
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.00
Sample
size
7
11
16
29
50
125
Probability of acceptance
.10
.25
.50
.75
.90
.95
.99
27.8
18.7
13.2
7.41
4.28
1.59
17.8
11.7
8.17
4.54
2.60
0.96
9.36
6.04
4.17
2.30
1.31
0.48
4.00
2.55
1.76
0.95
0.54
0.20
1.48
0.94
0.64
0.35
0.20
0.08
0.72
0.46
0.31
0.17
0.10
0.04
0.14
0.09
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.00
Sample
size
11
19
27
47
75
125
30
Probability of acceptance
.10
.25
.50
.75
.90
.95
.99
18.8
11.3
8.08
4.69
2.93
1.73
11.8
6.98
4.95
2.85
1.77
1.05
6.07
3.55
2.51
1.44
0.89
0.52
2.57
1.49
1.05
0.59
0.37
0.21
0.94
0.54
0.38
0.21
0.13
0.07
0.46
0.26
0.18
0.10
0.06
0.03
0.09
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
Sample
size
9
13
23
42
73
200
Probability of acceptance
.10
.25
.50
.75
.90
.95
.99
22.4
16.1
9.46
5.29
3.07
1.11
14.2
10.1
5.82
3.22
1.86
0.66
7.37
5.17
2.95
1.62
0.93
0.33
3.13
2.18
1.24
0.67
0.38
0.13
1.16
0.80
0.45
0.24
0.14
0.05
0.56
0.39
0.22
0.12
0.06
0.02
0.11
0.07
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.00
Sample
size
9
15
29
50
86
189
31
Probability of acceptance
.10
.25
.50
.75
.90
.95
.99
22.1
14.0
7.56
4.47
2.62
1.20
14.1
8.74
4.64
2.72
1.59
0.72
7.32
4.48
2.35
1.37
0.79
0.36
3.11
1.88
0.98
0.57
0.33
0.15
1.15
0.69
0.36
0.20
0.12
0.05
0.56
0.33
0.17
0.10
0.05
0.02
0.11
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
Sample
size
9
15
29
46
77
189
Probability of acceptance
.10
.25
.50
.75
.90
.95
.99
25.6
15.4
7.61
4.80
2.91
1.20
15.4
8.54
4.58
2.93
1.77
0.72
7.38
4.40
2.33
1.48
0.89
0.36
3.02
1.85
0.97
0.61
0.37
0.15
1.14
0.68
0.35
0.22
0.13
0.05
0.55
0.33
0.17
0.11
0.06
0.02
0.10
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
Sample
size
9
15
29
56
96
170
32
Probability of acceptance
.10
.25
.50
.75
.90
.95
.99
25.6
15.4
7.94
4.11
2.40
1.35
15.4
9.24
4.78
2.48
1.44
0.81
7.70
4.62
2.39
1.24
0.71
0.40
3.20
1.92
0.98
0.51
0.29
0.16
1.14
0.69
0.36
0.18
0.10
0.06
0.55
0.33
0.17
0.09
0.05
0.03
0.10
0.06
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.00
Sample
size
9
15
29
64
156
Probability of acceptance
.10
.25
.50
.75
.90
.95
.99
25.6
15.4
7.94
3.60
1.48
15.4
9.24
4.78
2.17
0.88
7.70
4.62
2.39
1.07
0.44
3.20
1.92
0.99
0.44
0.18
1.08
0.66
0.35
0.10
0.06
0.52
0.32
0.17
0.07
0.03
0.10
0.06
0.03
0.01
0.00
33
Annex A
Example of Consensus Sampling Plan for 3 Levels
of Conformance to Requirements of
IEC 62326-4 Multilayer Printed Boards
Table 1- Performance requirements
NOTE The letters "GR" are used to indicate that only the general requirements shall be met. For the explanation of the
acronyms, see annex A.
Test
code
Characteristics
VISUAL
EXAMINATION
V1
Conformity
V2
V3
Appearance
and
workmanship
Plated-through
holes as
received
Holes showing
plating voids
Assessment
RMF
(IEC
62326-1)
As specified
6,5
As
specified
As
specified
4,0
GR
6,5
GR
GR
4,0
GR
4,0
GR
GR
2,5
5%
4,0
1%
None
2,5
5%
4,0
1%
None
2,5
5%
4,0
2%
2%
2,5
Test
specimen
(IEC
62326-4-1
Test no.
IEC
61189-3
Process
control
code (IEC
62326-1
Complete
PB/DP
3V04
C4
Complete
PB/DP
3V01
C4
Complete
PB
3V04
C4
C2
C2
C2
Test
code
V4
Characteristics
Plated-through
holes after
microsection
34
Specific requirements for
performance level
General requirements
Assessment
RMF
(IEC
62326-1)
15 %
4,0
10 %
5%
2,5
GR
1,5
GR
1,0
30 %
2,5
15 %
1,5
None
1,0
There shall be no
circumferential cracks of the
copper, or circumferential
separation of the copper from
the wall in the plated-through
hole (see figure 2).
GR
2,5
GR
1,5
GR
1,0
50 %
2,5
40 %
1,5
30 %
1,0
GR
2,5
GR
1,5
GR
1,0
Test
specimen
(IEC
62326-4-1
Test no.
IEC
61189-3
Process
control
code (IEC
62326-1
C2
A or B
(3 holes)
3X09
C1
V4.2
V4.3
V4.4
Resin smear at
interface
Circumferential
cracks of
copper plating
Copper barrel
to hole
separation
Foil cracking
C1
C1
C1
C1
Test
code
Characteristics
V5
Conductors
V5.1
External
conductors
V5.2
Internal
conductors
35
Specific requirements for
performance level
General requirements
Assessment
RMF
(IEC
62326-1)
Test
specimen
(IEC
62326-4-1
4,0
Complete
PB
3V02
C3
10 %
(no
occurrence)
>3mm)
2,5
20 %
(no
occurrence
>5mm)
GR
6,5
Complete
PB
3V02
C1
GR
4,0
GR
2,5
30%
(no
occurrence
>10mm)
4,0
Complete
PP
3V02
C3
20%
(no
occurrence
>5mm)
10 %
(no
occurrence
>3mm)
30 %
(no
occurrence
>10mm)
Remarks
1)Where necessary, this
shall be verified by
dimensional examination
using test 3D01.
2) This examination shall be
in-process.
Test no.
IEC
61189-3
Process
control
code (IEC
62326-1
Test
code
Characteristics
V6
Particles
between
conductors
V6.1
External
conductors
V6.2
V7
Internal
conductors
Permanent
polymer coating
(including
solder resist)
36
Specific requirements for
performance level
General requirements
Assessment
RMF
(IEC
62326-1)
Test
specimen
(IEC
62326-4-1
4,0
Complete
PB
3V02
C3
30%
20 %
2,5
30%
4,0
Complete
PP
3V02
C3
20%
10 %
2,5
As
specified
4,0
Complete
PB/DP
3V01
C4
As
specified
As
specified
2,5
As
specified
2,5
As
specified
As
specified
4,0
GR
4,0
GR
GR
2,5
30%
Test no.
IEC
61189-3
Process
control
code (IEC
62326-1
C3
C3
Test
code
Characteristics
37
Specific requirements for
performance level
General requirements
GR
4,0
GR
GR
2,5
GR
4,0
GR
GR
2,5
GR
4,0
GR
GR
2,5
4,0
As
specified
As
specified
2,5
4,0
As
specified
As
specified
2,5
4,0
As
specified
As
specified
2,5
4,0
As
specified
As
specified
2,5
4,0
As
specified
As
specified
2,5
DIMENSIONAL
EXAMINATION
D1
Board
dimensions
(external
boundary)
Dimensions including
thickness shall comply with
the CDS.
As
specified
Board
thickness in the
zone of edge
board contacts
As
specified
As
specified
As
specified
As
specified
D3
D3.1
Diameter
D3.2
D4
Plating
thickness
Slots, cut-outs
and notches
RMF
(IEC
62326-1)
D2
Assessment
Test
specimen
(IEC
62326-4-1
Test no.
IEC
61189-3
Process
control
code (IEC
62326-1
C3
C3
3V02
C2
Complete
PB (3
places)
3D04
C4
Edge
contact
areas of
PB
3D04
C4
Complete
PB/DP
(10 holes
per size)
3D04
C2
A or B
(3holes)
3X09
C1
Complete
PB
3D04
C3
Test
code
Characteristics
D5
Conductor
width
D5.1
External layer
D5.2
Internal layer
D6
Spacing
between
conductors
D6.1
External layer
D6.2
D7
Internal layer
Alignment of
hole and
conductive
pattern
38
Specific requirements for
performance level
General requirements
Assessment
RMF
(IEC
62326-1)
Test
specimen
(IEC
62326-4-1
4,0
Complete
PB
3D01
C2
Complete
PP
3D01
C2
Complete
PB
3D01
C3
Complete
PP
3D01
C3
Complete
PB (10
holes
random
selection
over total
area)
3D01
As
specified
As
specified
As
specified
As
specified
4,0
As
specified
As
specified
2,5
As
specified
4,0
As
specified
As
specified
2,5
As
specified
4,0
As
specified
As
specified
2,5
Test no.
IEC
61189-3
Process
control
code (IEC
62326-1
2,5
Test
code
Characteristics
39
Specific requirements for
performance level
General requirements
D7
Alignment of
hole and
conductive
pattern
D7.1
External pattern
alignment to
plated-through
holes
External pattern
alignment to
plain holes
holes
There
shall be
no
defects
at
conductive
pattern
and
throughhole
plating
Internal pattern
alignment to
plated-through
holes
RMF
(IEC
62326-1)
4,0
W1
0,03mm
W1
0,05mm
2,5
Breakout
90
(see
figure 6)
W1
0,05mm
(see
figure 4)
2,5
No
breakout.
No
conductor
junction
reduction
4,0
No
breakout. No
conductor
junction
reduction
No
breakout.
Minimum
annular
width
0,4mm
D7.3
Test
specimen
(IEC
62326-4-1
Complete
PB (10
holes
random
selection
over total
area)
D7.2
Assessment
2,5
Test no.
IEC
61189-3
Process
control
code (IEC
62326-1
3D01
C1
C1
Test
code
Characteristics
40
Specific requirements for
performance level
General requirements
RMF
(IEC
62326-1)
Test
specimen
(IEC
62326-4-1
2,5
W2
0,03mm
1,5
W2
0,05mm
1,0
A or B
(3holes)
and/or R
for electrical
continuity
and/or F
for
process
control
Breakout
180
(see
figure 6)
2,5
Breakout
90
(see
figure 6)
1,5
W2
0mm
(see
figure 5)
1,0
4,0
As
specified
As
specified
2,5
4,0
As
specified
As
specified
2,5
4,0
As
specified
As
specified
2,5
W2
0,03mm
D7.4
Landless holes
D8
Positional
accuracy
D8.1
Position of
conductive
pattern and
holes relative to
the position
data
As
specified
Positional
tolerance of
hole centres to
the position
data
As
specified
As
specified
As
specified
D8.2
D9
Permanent
polymer coating
(including
solder resist)
D9.1
Dimensions
D9.2
Thickness of
polymer coating
Assessment
Test no.
IEC
61189-3
3X09
Process
control
code (IEC
62326-1
C1
C1
As
specified
Complete
PB (10
holes
random
selection
over total
area)
3D04
C3
Complete
PB (10
holes
random
selection
over total
area)
3D04
C2
Complete
PB/DP
(10
places)
3D01
C3
Complete
PB (3
places)
3D04
C3
4,0
As
specified
2,5
or
Test
code
D10
Characteristics
Flatness
SURFACE
CONDITION
TESTS
S1
Plating finishing
S1.1
Adhesion of
plating, tape
method
or
Adhesion of
plating, burnish
method
S1.2
S1.3
S1.4
Thickness of
plating (contact
area)
Thickness of
plating (other
than contact
area)
Porosity, gas
exposure
or
41
Specific requirements for
performance level
General requirements
RMF
(IEC
62326-1)
Test
specimen
(IEC
62326-4-1
4,0
3X09
C3
As
specified
As
specified
2,5
1 times A
or B (per
panel)
4,0
Complete
PB/DP
3M04
C3
1% of
the
diagonal
0,5 % of
the
diagonal
2,5
6,5
3X01
C3
As
specified
4,0
As
specified
2,5
GR
6,5
3X02
C3
GR
4,0
Edge
contact
area of
PB
GR
2,5
As
specified
6,5
3X06
C3
As
specified
4,0
Edge
contact
area of
PB
As
specified
2,5
6,5
3X06
C3
3X03
C3
Remark
The thickness shall be
measured at the location
stated in the CDS when using
Test 3X09 with 400x
magnification.
As
specified
1,5% of
the
diagonal
As
specified
Assessment
As
specified
As
specified
4,0
As
specified
2,5
40%
4,0
20%
2,5
Test no.
IEC
61189-3
Process
control
code (IEC
62326-1
Test
code
Characteristics
Porosity,
electrographic
test
S2
Adhesion of
permanent
polymer
coating, tape
method
42
Specific requirements for
performance level
General requirements
Assessment
RMF
(IEC
62326-1)
Test
specimen
(IEC
62326-4-1
4,0
20%
2,5
40%
on gold or nickel
on base laminate;
S3
Solderability
Remark
When tested, the conductive
surface of the board and the
insides of the holes shall be
properly wetted.
When applied on production
boards, only those holes
having no connection with
internal layers should be
assessed to avoid "heat sink
effect" affecting results
interpretation.
S3.1
Remarks
1) Non-activated flux, as
specified in IEC 60068-2-20.
2) For both wetting and
dewetting the holes shall
comply with the well soldered
holes of figure 7.
3X04
Process
control
code (IEC
62326-1
C3
or
3X05
Test no.
IEC
61189-3
10%
6,5
5%
4,0
0%
2,5
25%
6,5
10 %
4,0
5%
2,5
10%
6,5
5%
4,0
0%
2,5
50%
6,5
25%
4,0
10%
2,5
3X01
C2
C2
C2
C2
M and S
3X07
Test
code
Characteristics
As-received
condition
After
accelerated
ageing
S3.2
Test no.
IEC
61189-3
Process
control
code (IEC
62326-1
GR
2,5
C1
GR
2,5
C1
GR
2,5
C1
GR
2,5
C1
M and S
3X07 1)
GR
6,5
GR
4,0
General
requirements
GR
6,5
C1
GR
4,0
No sign of:
blistering or delamination;
random removal of areas
of permanent polymer
coating or ink dissolving;
substantial change in
colour.
GR
Permanent
polymer coating
Test
specimen
(IEC
62326-4-1
As-received
condition and
after
accelerated
ageing
S4.1
RMF
(IEC
62326-1)
Remarks
1) Activated flux (0,2 %) as
specified in IEC 60068-2-20.
2) For both wetting and
dewetting the holes shall
comply with the well soldered
holes in figure 7.
Resistance to
cleaning agents
and flux
Assessment
S4
43
4,0
GR
2,5
Complete
PB
3C04
C4
Test
code
S4.2
Characteristics
Marking legend
44
Specific requirements for
performance level
General requirements
Accept:
a) marking unaffected;
b) marking reduced but
legible.
Assessment
RMF
(IEC
62326-1)
Test
specimen
(IEC
62326-4-1
4,0
Complete
PB
3C041
C4
GR
2,5
GR
Test no.
IEC
61189-3
Process
control
code (IEC
62326-1
Reject:
c) markings doubtfully
legible, i.e. possible mistake
between similar characters,
such as R-P-B, E-F, C-G-O;
d) marking illegible or
destroyed.
S5
Land pattern
topography
S6
Cleanliness
ELECTRICAL
TESTS
E.1
Electrical
integrity
E1.1
Circuit
continuity
As
specified
As
specified
As
specified
All PB
Complete
PB
300
C4
E1.2
Circuit isolation
As
specified
As
specified
As
specified
All PB
Complete
PB
30
C4
E2
Current proof
GR
2 per
quarter
3E14
and
3E15
C5
GR
2 per
month
GR
2 per
quarter
3E09
C5
GR
2 per
month
E3
Voltage proof
Test
code
E4
E5
E5.1
E5.2
Characteristics
Change in
resistance of
plated-through
holes
45
Specific requirements for
performance level
General requirements
10 cycles
increase:
100 %
Assessment
RMF
(IEC
62326-1)
Test
specimen
(IEC
62326-4-1
Test no.
IEC
61189-3
2 per
quarter
3E08
C5
C5
30 cycles
increase:
100 %
Surface layers
500
500
2 per
month
(level
B)
3E03
Internal layers
500
500
2 per
lot
(level
C)
3E04 1)
Between layers
500
500
3E05
10 days
21 days
500
500
3E03 1)
Insulation
resistance
Remark
Measurement
at standard
atmospheric
conditions
Measurement
after
conditioning
Process
control
code (IEC
62326-1
2 per
month
Conditioning, as specified in
IEC 60068-2-3: Test Ca:
Damp heat, steady state, or
IEC 60068-2-38: Test Z/AD:
Composite temperature/
humidity cyclic test.
The insulation resistance
shall be as specified.
Remark
Applicable conditioning to be
specified in the CDS. Test Ca
is the preferred conditioning
test.
Surface layers
2 per
month
(level
B)
C5
Test
code
E5.3
Characteristics
46
Specific requirements for
performance level
General requirements
Assessment
RMF
(IEC
62326-1)
Test
specimen
(IEC
62326-4-1
Test no.
IEC
61189-3
Internal layers
500
500
Between layers
500
500
Surface layers
100
500
2 per
month
(level
B)
3E03
Internal layers
100
500
2 per
lot
(level
C)
3E04
Between layers
100
500
3E05
22 N
per
25mm
3M01 1)
Measure-ment
at elevated
temperature
2 per
lot
(level
C)
Process
control
code (IEC
62326-1
3E04
3E05
Remark
The temperature and the time
in the chamber shall be
specified in the CDS.
The insulation resistance
shall be specified.
E6
Characteristic
impedance
PHYSICAL
TESTS
P1
Peel strength
C5
Remark
For foil lamination only.
P1.1
Measurement
at standard
atmospheric
conditions
P1.2
Measurement
at elevated
temperature
4,0
C1
Test
code
P2
47
Specific requirements for
performance level
Characteristics
General requirements
Pull-off strength
of landless
plated-through
holes
RMF
(IEC
62326-1)
Test
specimen
(IEC
62326-4-1
4,0
3M03
C1
16 N
Complete
PB/DP (3
holes)
2,5
Complete
PB
C2
3X08
C5
16 N
Assessment
Test no.
IEC
61189-3
Process
control
code (IEC
62326-1
Remarks
1) Preconditioning for 2 h.
2) The thermal shock test
3N02 of IEC 61189-3 shall be
applied for 10 s (B) and 20 s
(C).
3) Microsection will be done
only when required in the
CDS.
P3
Pull-out
strength of
surfacemounted lands
P4
Permanent
polymer coating
hardness
STRUCTURAL
INTEGRITY
TESTS
Y1
Delamination,
thermal shock
2B
4,0
2H
2,5
GR
4,0
Remarks
GR
2,5
As
specified
As
specified
As
specified
6,5
Complete
PB
3C01
C5
See V4
See V4
See V4
See V4
See V4
C5
1) Preconditioning for 2 h.
2) The thermal shock test
3N02 of IEC 61189-3 shall be
applied for 10 s (B) and 20 s
(C).
3) Microsection will be done
only when required in the
CDS.
Y2
Flammability
Y3
Dielectric
dissipation
factor
Y4
Plated-through
holes after
preconditioning
48
49
Annex B
Example of Continuous Sampling Using Attributes
That Have Been Converted to Variable Data
in Order to Achieve Process Improvement
1.0 Description
Audit continuous sampling of the wave soldering operation, immediately following the wave
soldering operation, after cleaning. Data is recorded for the purpose of statistical process control,
problem resolution, and solder quality improvement.
From wave
(after clean)
Draw
sample
Examine per
IEC Std
Records
results
Action (Stop-Go)
2.0 Requirements
The following paragraphs define the requirements for performance of the audit at the wave
soldering operation.
2.1 Tools and equipment
a) Lighted magnification approximately 3X to 5X
b) ESD safe examination area grounded
c) Grounding strap
2.2 Environment/location
Wave solder examination should be performed in the wave soldering room, by the wave solder
operator at an examination station which has been set-up for proper ESD handling.
2.3 Safety and handling precautions
a) Examination area should be kept clean and free of contaminants.
b)
Grounding strap must be worn when handling loaded boards to prevent ESD damage to
sensitive components.
IEC 61191-1 Generic specification, Requirements for soldered electrical and electronic
assemblies using surface mount and related assembly technologies
b)
c) IEC 61193-3 Part 3: Guide to the implementation and use of Statistical Process Control (SPC)
for printed boards and printed board assemblies
50
3.0 Procedures
3.1 Sample and interval
The sample interval is based on historical data collected, related to the average number of
centimeters of printed board run, and the average number of solder joints per square centimeter
of PCB area. The results of a study to establish the sample criteria are as follows:
a) average run time: Four hours per day
b) average square centimeters: 117,000
c) average solder joints: 2.6 per square centimeter
Based on the above data, the sample size, and audit interval will be:
a) approximately 3000 sq. cm. per hour (this represents approximately 7800 solder joints)
For sampling purposes, there are a few basic sizes and shapes of PCBs used at Company X
which can be defined as a quantity that will constitute the required 3000 sq. cm. sample.
Therefore, the following sample sizes are applicable, depending upon the board type being run at
the time of audit:
a) Company X standard
21.6 cm. x 22.9 cm. PCB
Sample = 6
b) Company X large
28 cm. x 43 cm. PCB
Sample = 3
c) Company X multi-buss
15.2 cm x 30.5 cm. PCB
Sample = 6
51
h) EXAM. BY: This space is for the person's initials, who performed the sample examination, and
recorded the results.
i) DEFECT TYPES (RECORD QTY. OBSERVED): There are seven different defect categories
given to identify, (see appendix A & B). The exact quantity on each type of defect discovered
in the audit examination is to be recorded in the areas provided on the data collection form.
j) TOTAL: The sum total of all defects found in all seven defect categories.
k) COMMENTS/OTHER NOTED PROBLEMS: Any changes in personnel, materials, equipment,
or methods should be noted, as an aid in identifying corrective actions and process
improvements. Although the audit is for the purpose of solder joint examination, other
observed problems should be noted, i.e., excessive warp, discoloration, etc.
l) A section has been provided for PCB RUN LOG DATA" for logging all board type jobs run for
the shift/day. Recorded information includes: PCB part number, total run, conveyor speed,
and comments.
3.4 Statistical presentation
The process control limits will be computed from the data collected from 50 sample audits. After
the control chart has been established, the operator will plot each data point immediately after
each sample examination. The control chart type used is an "np" attribute control chart.
3.5 Action criteria
The following is action criteria for the listed situations:
a) plotted points on the chart are below the process UCL:
CONTINUE TO RUN WAVE SOLDER OPERATION
b) Five (5) consecutive plotted points have been above the process average, but below the UCL:
CONTINUE TO RUN WAVE SOLDER OPERATION, AND NOTIFY
MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING
c) Three (3) consecutive plotted points have increased in number of total defects:
CONTINUE TO RUN WAVE SOLDER OPERATION, AND NOTIFY MANUFACTURING
ENGINEERING
d) Any plotted point above the UCL this is an OUT-OF-CONTROL situation:
STOP WAVE SOLDER OPERATION IMMEDIATELY AND NOTIFY MANUFACTURING
ENGINEERING. IF A MANUFACTURING ENGINEER CANNOT BE LOCATED, NOTIFY
THE PRODUCTION SUPERVISOR OR MANAGER.
DO NOT RESUME OPERATION UNTIL THE OUT-OF-CONTROL CONDITION HAS BEEN
ANALYZED AND CORRECTED, AND AUTHORIZATION HAS BEEN GIVEN BY
MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING, OR THE PRODUCTION SUPERVISOR OR MANAGER.
Date:
52
Shift:
Operator:
Start time:
Finish time:
Work instructions:
Q-1000
Samp
no.
Exam.
By
Void
Insf
Brig
Spik
Wet
Excs
Splat
Total
Comments:
Other noted problems
1
2
SPC
AUDIT
DATA
3
4
5
6
7
8
PCB part
no. run
Total run
Convy
speed
Comments
PCB part
no. run
PCB
RUN
LOG
DATA
Total run
Convy
speed
Comments
53
Sample frequency:
Once per hour of machine
operation
PPM = #def.
1950
15
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
1820
14
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
1690
13
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
1560
12
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
1430
11
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
1300
10
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
1170
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
1040
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
910
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
760
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
650
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
520
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
390
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
260
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
130
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
number of
defects (np,c)
Date of each
hourly sample
examined
Remarks:
Figure 2 SPC control chart for wave solder operation (np type chart)
UCL
AVG
LCL
54
1. Hole fill
Nonconforming Defect Class 3
As an exception to fill requirements on thermal heat
2. Wetting
Nonconforming Defect
Non-wetting will result in the solder forming a ball or
55
3. Solder splatter
Nonconforming Defect
Solder balls/splashes violate minimum electrical
2
less) per 600 mm .
4. Excess solder
Nonconforming Process Indicator
Fillet slightly convex, lead not visible due to excess
5. Solder in bend/bridging/icicles
Nonconforming Defect
A. Solder in bend area comes in contact with the
component body or end seal.
B. Solder projections which violate height requirements,
electrical clearance or pose a safety hazard.
C. Solder has bridged to adjacent noncommon
conductor.
56
6. Blow holes
Nonconforming Process Indicator
Blow holes, pinholes, voids, etc., are nonconforming
process indicators providing that the solder connection
meets the minimum requirements.
IEC 60410jul2000