1. Home
  2. Electronics Down Under
  3. FR4 PCB material quality in Aus

FR4 PCB material quality in Aus

I have recently had a lot of troubles with 2 PCB assy's which had been working in products for 10 years or more, but about a year ago started having problems. The symptom appeared to be leakage in the preamp, as these boards have high gain and also modulated input signals of a few dozen Hz. The problems began when we started using different suppliers, such as a popular low-cost one in Queensland. I could not pin down a correlation with a particular supplier, but all the bad boards used Chinese blanks. However, we had also used Chinese boards for some years without problems. That is what made it hard to simply blame chinese suppliers.

Circumstantial evidence points to US origin FR4 material being much better than the Chinese. Perhaps Chinese makers were importing US FR4 for some time but now make their own, but that is conjecture. When we switched to a ceramic fibreglass composite by a particular maker, the problem disappeared. Also, as a test, we tried some PCB's from a large reputable (but pricey) Melbourne PCB maker. They were good too, but if Chinese FR4 is a problem and they start to use it, then we would still have a problem.

I can't say what the nature of leakage is, but the ceramic PCB's do work, with a few $ extra per board. I will say that we have about 150 other board types with no problems with Chinese suppliers, but they are not so sensitive to leakage or dielectric variation.

BTW, we tried baking, guard rings etc.

Reply to
Geoff C
Loading thread data ...

Haven't had any problems with our boards, some made by Entec, and others get supplied to us so through a third party so I don't know the origin. We have 500Mohm input preamps on the Entec boards and the other is a Gohm range switching matrix. No problems with either.

Dave :)

Reply to
David L. Jones

Hi , are you sure you should be pointing to the PCB material?

Did you analyse the nature of the failures being observed and try to determine the root cause? Sounds perhaps that the root cause was not determined.

Could it be a variation in component tolerances which was not accounted for in the circuit design? Perhaps a pole or zero moving, bias changes, etc as a result? Or perhaps components out of tolerance and no inwards goods inspection?

Were all the test articles made from the same batch code components as the problem units?

Were some of the components lead free and the problem a result of whiskers?, not all manufacturers can guarantee you don't have lead free parts (yet).

In your last comment you indicate that you know the circuit is sensitive to dielectric variation, isn't that saying you've not designed a robust cct or have not defined the minimum requirements of the substrate to be used?

If it is the material then that is easy fixed, specify on your purchase orders the material to be used, or supply it FIA.

Greg (deja vu or have i actually read this or a very similar post in the recent past?)

Reply to
gcd

"gcd" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com:

Yep.

Yes, heaps of analysis. The one thing that always worked was wiring the components connected to the opamp input node in the air without touching the PCB.

Circuit is tolerant of component cganges as the gain is servoed.

Not sure, the bare boards were in stock for some time. Incoming QC is minimal. You know, costs and all that.

Whiskers would create larger currents than the few nA I've observed.

Well, I commented on dielectric constant but I don't really think it's an issue, just something that a lot of people here suggest since it is more of a problem on RF baords when trying to control stripline impedances etc. It's true that if you take the worst case for FR4 into account, the circuit could conceivably not work. FR4 specs are really not that great but the typical performance is much better. That is a correct assertion you've made. However, when the cct was first used, and for about 10 years since, it has worked fine. Under these conditions, it would be not desirable to use lower leakage PCB's since it FR4 is cheap.

That is the solution proposed at present.

I mentioned this some months ago before the buildup of circumstantial evidence pointing to the bare boards.

Reply to
Geoff C

Hey Geoff, Haven't had any problems ourselves, lots of boards from China, but nothing nanoampish. Have you megged out the bare boards at all? Other possibilities besides the FR4 material, if you haven't already considered them could be: Solder resist (if any). Residue from whatever is used to adhere the Cu to the board. Residue from etchant and/or whatever is used to clean after etching (possibly under the solder resist - if any). Moisture trapped under the solder resist.

Most of these could be eliminated with careful use of a dremel between tracks.

Cheers, Alf

Reply to
Alf Katz

"Alf Katz" wrote in news:45780960$0$19406$ snipped-for-privacy@news.optusnet.com.au:

Hi Alf,

yep, megged boards with Keithley electrometer but measured >200 gigohm. Have considered all of above. Moisture under the resist or some other leaky substance is possible, but we can't control that. Baking overnight at 60 deg had no measurable effect. We need something manufacturable that requires no intervention.

The boards that work use Rogers 4003 material, and this stuff is not too bad in cost, about $13 for DS PT and 70x80mm.

Reply to
Geoff C

"Geoff C" wroteWe need something manufacturable that

LOL. The dremel suggestion was intended to eliminate surface effects as a culprit on known bad board, not as a manufacturing technique. At least that will confirm the material is the cause.

Anyhow, good luck with it. Sounds like at those sort of current levels, any excuse to use a better material is a good one.

Cheers, Alf

Reply to
Alf Katz

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.