Acknowledgement

Writing the history of IPC and its role in the development and
growth of the printed circuit board industry has been an enjoyable, albeit
mildly frustrating, project. Mildly frustrating, because it is not possible,
in anything less than an encyclopedic work, to cover all of the many
significant advances in technology over the decades, nor is it possible
to acknowledge everyone who has played a role in the long history
of arguably the world’s most remarkable industrial phenomenon, the
invention and development of printed circuit technology. Without printed
circuits, our world and our lives would be very different from what they
are today.
The impact of IPC on this industry has been incalculable, and one
of the benefits of researching, writing, and collecting materials for this
book has been to foster a great appreciation of IPC and its work, for
without its many efforts, ranging from standards to innovative Round
Robin test programs to landmark documents, working with government,
and tireless efforts to foster education and dissemination of critical
knowledge, this industry would not have grown to lead the world in
electronics technology for over fifty years. Hopefully the reader will
understand, after reading this book, the depth and scope of IPC’s
contribution over five decades, and wish it Godspeed for the next fifty.
Of course, it could not have been written and finished without
the help of a number of friends who took the time to patiently review,
comment, contribute, and steer it. Some of these folks are long-time
industry friends who generously donated time to serve as an “ad hoc”
committee to review portions of the book as they were created. So please
recognize the help of these folks, both within and outside IPC, for their
assistance, as I thank them:
Kim Sterling; Jack Crawford; Ray Pritchard; Tony Hilvers; Phil
Marcoux; Dieter Bergman; Dr. Ken Gilleo; Terry Jeglum; Jerry Karp;
Denny McGuirk, President of IPC; David Bergman; and the many who
contributed recollections and historical anecdotes to bring highlights of
the history of IPC and the growth of the industry to life.

Michael L. Martel
Bristol, Rhode Island
January 9, 2007
©
Copyright 2007 IPC — Association Connecting Electronics Industries®

3000 Lakeside Drive, 309 S

Bannockburn, IL 60015
PH 847-615-7100

FAX 847-615-7105

www.IPC.org
 From Vacuum Tubes to Nanotubes:
An Amazing Half Century
The Emergence of Electronic Circuit Technology
1957-2007

Published by IPC ­— Association Connecting Electronics Industries

Chapter 1: Beginnings

Nature abhors the vacuum tube.

— J.R. Pierce, Bell Labs engineer
who coined the term “transistor”

The big Philco console radio sits by

the workbench, taken apart for repair
and rebuilding. It’s large enough to be a
piece of furniture. If you plug it in, turn
it on, and then turn down the lights in the
room, its beautiful, odd-shaped vacuum
tubes begin to emit a faint orange glow,
like dying embers in the ashes of a fire.
Assembled in 1940, its big speaker once
boomed the voice of President Franklin
Roosevelt; no doubt it broadcasted the
news of the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Flip the internal works over, and one
can see what makes it tick. There are
wires everywhere, filling the metal box;
resistors and capacitors as well, old-fashioned cylindrical components
coated with hard wax. This is the way that electronic assemblies were
built in those days; by hand, one wire connection at a time, with a skilled
operator and a bulky soldering iron. Electrical / electronic circuits
and systems were assembled using individual wires to connect each
component. The components were then mounted on what were known as
tag strips and sockets.
Times have certainly changed. For a long time now, highly capable
radio receivers have been smaller than a pack of Lucky Strikes. We have
even read, of late, of tiny radio receivers, microscopic in size, being
built on minuscule Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems components, or

MEMS. Not practical, perhaps, but certainly a sign of how far we have
come from radio receivers whose internal works could be no smaller
than a commercial four-slice toaster.
The invention of the
transistor changed the world of
electronics. Wartime advances
in technology, particularly of
RADAR, spurred advances
in the development of
semiconductor materials that
ultimately led to the transistor.
This meant a huge reduction in
the size of electronic components, as well as a proportionate increase in
their power. Miniaturization occurred on components first; it only stands
to reason that more efficient and compact means of interconnecting them
had to follow.
Electronic components have advanced in power and complexity; this
explosion began during the 1950s. It’s difficult to believe, sometimes,
that one of the first on-board computers in a Cold War spy submarine
— the most advanced available at the time for its application — had only
a fraction of the computing power of a high school student’s hand-held
calculator at an open-book math quiz of two decades ago1; and thus the
lopsided comparisons go on.
Several major factors drove the remarkable development of the first
printed wiring boards, or PWBs. First, there was a need to mass produce
interconnect assemblies for standard products. Hand assembly was
laborious and time-consuming, and thus costly. Second, components had
become smaller, making electronic products more difficult to assemble by
hand. Third, circuit assemblies were becoming more complex. Increase
the number of connections exponentially, and you increase time to
assembly — as well as cost to produce — exponentially as well.
Fourth, there was the need to miniaturize. An orderly and structured
interconnect framework could take advantage of shrinking component
sizes and produce smaller yet more complex products, and soldering
technologies were being developed to make multiple solder connections
simultaneously. Last, the integrity of circuits became critical. The more
complex the assembly, the greater the number of interconnections, the
greater the potential for a single faulty connection when assembled by
hand. One faulty connection would mean failure for a complex circuit.
The PWB made it possible to quickly assemble a complex circuit with a
great many highly reliable connections.

 The move to more complicated and powerful electronic products
quickly outstripped vacuum tube technology and made miniaturization
of circuits essential. Why so? The inherent disadvantages and limitations
of tubes — high energy use, heat generation, propensity for failure, and
size — made them unsuitable to designing and constructing complex
circuits. Much of this is described in “The History of the Integrated
Circuit,” published on the Web site www.nobelprize.org from which
portions of the following are excerpted. The first digital computer,
ENIAC, was a veritable monster that weighed more than thirty tons and
consumed 200 kilowatts of electrical power. It required approximately
18,000 vacuum tubes, many of which constantly burned out, making the
entire machine very unreliable.2
When the transistor was invented, it was
recognized as more than a milestone; it was
a revolutionary breakthrough. Small, fast,
reliable, and effective, it quickly replaced
the vacuum tube. Freed from the limitations
of the vacuum tube, engineers finally could
begin to realize electronic designs and
constructions that they had only been able
to dream about. The first transistor was
invented at Bell Laboratories on December
16, 1947 by William Shockley, John Bardeen,
and Walter Brattain. This was perhaps the
most important electronics event of the
20th century, as it later made possible the The First Transistor
integrated circuit and microprocessor that are the basis of modern
electronics. Prior to the transistor, the only alternative to its current
regulation and switching functions (transfer resistor) was the vacuum
tube, which could only be miniaturized to a certain extent, and wasted
much energy in the form of heat.3
With the small and effective transistor available, design engineers
of the 1950s began to see the possibilities of constructing far more
advanced circuits than ever before. However, as the complexity of
circuits increased, problems arose. The first was the above mentioned
need for all connections being intact. Another problem was the size of
the circuits. A complex circuit, like that of a computer, was dependent
upon speed. If the components of the computer were too large or the
wires interconnecting them too long, the electric signals couldn’t travel
fast enough through the circuit, thus making the computer too slow to be
effective. Thus, advanced circuits contained so many components and

connections that they were virtually impossible to build with existing
technology and methods. This problem was known as the “tyranny of
numbers.”
Much of the following text is excerpted from AmericanHeritage.
com, “How Jack Kilby Changed Your Life”:
The transistor quickly replaced the vacuum tube in most circuits.
Without having to worry about tubes burning out or melting their
equipment, engineers began drawing plans for powerful machines
with ridiculously complicated circuitry, machines that could guide
a spaceship to Mars or store all the information in the Library of
Congress. But the machines could perform their incredible tasks only
in their inventors’ imaginations. They were impossible to build. As
often happens, removing one constraint revealed another, much larger
problem.
In this case, the stumbling block was that three wires branched out
from each transistor—as well as from all other circuit components—
and they all needed to be hand-soldered to the rest of the circuit. Not
only was the process lengthy and expensive—the labor cost on the
Navy’s newest aircraft carriers, with 350,000 circuit components,
exceeded the price of materials—but inevitable mistakes connecting
millions of tiny wires meant unreliable products. Between prohibitive
costs, manufacturing time, and unreliability, few of the fantastic
appliances that were dreamed of could be achieved. The next great
breakthrough in technology came in the summer of 1958, through the
efforts of Jack Kilby at Texas Instruments (TI).
Jack Kilby found a solution to the miniaturization problem. That
July all the employees of TI took a two-week vacation—except Kilby,
who hadn’t been there long enough to accrue time off. Left alone in
the quiet of the empty lab, he thought about the tyranny of numbers.
He knew that an entirely new approach, rather than an adaptation
of existing processes, would be necessary to solve such a pervasive
problem. He knew that with the number of minds trained on the
unsolved puzzle, the solution must not be obvious. He also realized he
didn’t have much time. “I felt it likely that I would be assigned to work
on a proposal for the Micro-Module program when vacation was over
unless I came up with a good idea very quickly.”
Mindful of the cost problems that employees had been lectured
about before vacation, he reasoned that the cheapest avenue for TI,
already invested in semiconductors, must involve silicon. So he began
to think about what silicon could do. It was used to make transistors, of
course. It could also make resistors, although not as well as carbon, and

capacitors, although not as well as porcelain. On July 24, all alone in
the lab, it dawned on him. If all of the parts of a circuit could be made
from the same material, couldn’t they all be made on the same piece of
silicon, eliminating the need to wire anything together?
He proposed the idea of forming resistors, capacitors and
transistors on the surface of the same piece of semiconductor. In
a few weeks he assembled a circuit on a small bar of germanium
that included a transistor, a capacitor and three resistors. The circuit
worked, and the integrated circuit revolution has changed the world.
Kilby’s idea was to make all the components and the chip out of the
same block (monolith) of semiconductor material. In September 1958,
he had his first integrated circuit ready. Although the first integrated
circuit was pretty crude and had some problems, the idea was ground-
breaking.
It sounds simple, but it was revolutionary. “Nobody would
have made these components out of semiconductor material then,”
he recalled. “It didn’t make very good resistors or capacitors, and
semiconductor materials were considered incredibly expensive. To
make a one-cent carbon resistor from good quality semiconductor
seemed foolish.” But as he quickly filled five notebook pages with
drawings, numbers, and plans, and the more he thought about it, the
more this seemed like the way to make all those imaginary machines
finally come to life.4
By making all the parts out of the same block of material and
adding the metal needed to connect them as a layer on top of it, there
was no more need for individual discrete components. No longer did
wires and components need to be assembled manually. The circuits
could be made smaller and the manufacturing process could be
automated. Jack Kilby is probably most famous for his invention of
the integrated circuit, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics
in 2000. After his success with the integrated circuit Kilby stayed
with Texas Instruments and, among other things, he led the team that
invented the hand-held calculator.
A few months later, Robert Noyce of Fairchild developed an
integrated circuit on a silicon chip. Noyce’s circuit employed a clever
interconnection scheme that became the pattern for the integrated
circuit industry.
His idea solved several practical problems that Kilby’s circuit had,
mainly the problem of interconnecting all the components on the chip.
This was done by adding the metal as a final layer and then removing
some of it so that the wires needed to connect the components were

 formed. This made the integrated circuit more suitable for mass
production. Besides being one of the early pioneers of the integrated
circuit, Robert Noyce, of course, was one of the co-founders of Intel.5

Both Kilby and Noyce applied for patents on the integrated circuit.
Following various legal challenges, the U.S. Court of Customs and
Patent Appeals ruled that Kilby was the first to invent an integrated
circuit while upholding Noyce’s patent claims on interconnecting the
individual components formed on the surface of a chip. Kilby was
granted some 60 patents during his career. He died in August 2005.
The development of integrated circuits meant greater
miniaturization, but also an explosion in the number of circuit
connections and the need for greater speed. Simply put, if electronics
were going to move to the next level, it would now be up to the
interconnect technology. The answer came with the development of the
printed wiring board, later almost universally referred to as the printed
circuit board (PCB.)
Even today, the terms PCB and PWB are used extensively
throughout the electronics industry and in academia. Strictly speaking,
a PCB or PWB refers to the bare unpopulated board (i.e., without
components). Early PWBs were made from a laminate of an insulating
material and were typically about 1.6 mm thick. One side had a layer of
copper foil fixed onto it. The foil was then selectively removed to leave
a pattern that interconnected the components in the desired manner.
Holes were then drilled through the laminate material to enable
components to be fixed to the non-copper side. The components had
flexible leads as their connection points and these were passed through
the laminate. Electrical (and mechanical) connection was achieved by
soldering these to the remaining foil. The foil provided the required
electrical connection between the components.
The process met the needs of volume manufacture in that it could
be automated relatively easily and created a final product that gave
repeatable electrical performance and had sound mechanical strength.
Early printed circuit boards were simple designs comprising a
small number of components and limited interconnections. Layout
level design took place by manually constructing the artworks (or
interconnection patterns) for each layer using tape on transparent
sheets. Due to only the one layer of connection available to the circuit
designer, no connections could be permitted to cross, otherwise a short
circuit would occur. These patterns were then photographed to produce


 the masks for fabrication. As circuit densities began to increase, it was
necessary to allow for more and more layers of interconnect to enable
the complexity of design. This resulted in a more intricate design
problem and it became apparent that some degree of automation would
be needed to manage the increasing difficulty inherent in the design
process.6

At this time, PWB technology was still being developed, and was
far from universally accepted. Electronics giant Zenith opposed the
acceptance of PWB technology. The few PWB manufacturers at the
time realized that they needed to band together to promote the new
technology that they knew held the key to the advancement of electronics
technology.
In 1957, a new industry was struggling for identification. Etched
printed wiring was emerging as a new technology, but there was
confusion regarding the process and its potential. Independent PWB
manufacturers held several meetings in 1957 to discuss ideas for
promoting the growth of their new industry.
In the fall of 1957, representatives from six of the major independent
PWB manufacturers met in Chicago to officially form a trade association
they identified as the The Institute of Printed Circuits. At this meeting,
they hired Ray Pritchard to serve as executive director and outlined the
following objectives:
• To promote an awareness of the attributes of PWBs versus hand
wiring.
• To develop standards and specifications to provide believable
yardsticks for manufacturers and users to move forward in
utilizing products of the new industry.
• To provide a variety of forums where the industry could exchange
information on the technology.
• To provide the industry with meaningful statistical data on the
market and cost studies.

The 50 years that have passed since 1957 have seen all of these
objectives come to fruition and, perhaps, have seen the development of
one of the most successful trade associations that exists in America.


Sources:

1. Blind Man’s Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage, by

Sherry Sontag, Christopher Drew - History - 1999 – p.99

2., 5. “The History of the Integrated Circuit,” published on the Web site
www.nobelprize.org, specifically at nobelprize.org/educational_games/
physics/integrated_circuit/history/ ©Nobel Web AB 2007. Used with
permission.

3. History of the Transistor, www.bellsystemmemorial.com/belllabs_

transistor.html

4. From the article on AmericanHeritage.com, “How Jack Kilby Changed

Your Life,” located at www.americanheritage.com/people/articles/web/
20060206-jack-kilby-microchip-integrated-circuit-transistor-vacuum-
tube-texas-instruments-robert-noyce-semiconductor-computer-calculator.
shtml Article posted February 6, 2006 and authored by Christine Gibson, a
former editor at American Heritage magazine. Used with permission.

6. From an online course published by The Department of Computing &

Electronic Technology at the University of Bolton (UK), “Concepts of
Printed Circuit Design - Unit 1: Introduction to PCB Technology,” URL:
www.ami.ac.uk/courses/ami4809_pcd/unit_01/index.asp

Participants in the founding meeting of IPC. Seated (L-R): Al Hughes, Electralab;

Robert Swiggett, Photocircuits; William McGinley, Methode. Standing (L-R): Dick Zens,
Printed Electronics Corporation; and Carl Clayton, Tingstol. Also in attendance at this
initial meeting were Ray Pritchard, thereafter named the Executive Director of IPC;
Gene Jones, Printed Electronics Corporation; and George Hart and Stewart Fansteel,
Graphik Circuits Division of United Carr.


Chapter 2: The Emergence of Printed Circuit Boards

I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.
— Thomas A. Edison

The early history of printed circuit boards is one of starts and stops,
of almost-there. The dominant method of connecting components in
electronic circuits had been and continued to be point-to-point wiring
until, as mentioned in Chapter 1, the “tyranny of numbers” made the
assembly of ever-more-complex
electronic assemblies impractical
and ultimately impossible using
this method. We find the use of
point-to-point connections in use
almost exclusively until the early
1950s 1. Printed circuit technology,
however, did not suddenly emerge
on the scene; it developed rapidly Drawing from Hanson’s patent
application
during the early 1950s due to a
number of breakthroughs and improvements in materials, components,
and manufacturing techniques. Components consisted primarily of
vacuum tubes and sockets, and tubes were often combined with passive
components and wired to the circuitry.
In his excellent article, The Circuit Centennial, published in
CircuitTree magazine in 2003, Dr. Ken Gilleo describes the profound
changes that took place in these early years of technology development;
the next few pages draw from his chronology. 2
The idea behind the earliest printed circuit boards, i.e., the concept
of using a planar substrate with mounted components and patterned
interconnects, dates back to the turn of the 20th Century.3 In 1903,
Albert Hanson, a Berliner living in London, filed a ”printed wire” patent
based on stamped or cut out brass or copper foil adhesively bonded to
waxed paper.
The simple concept was for a double-sided board with crimped
interconnections between the top and bottom layers. Although not a true
printed circuit, Hanson’s method produced conductive metal patterns
on a dielectric by cutting or stamping copper or brass foil patterns
and adhesively bonding them to paraffin paper and similar materials.
Hanson’s innovations can still be seen in “modern” circuitry. This early
inventor had already recognized that high density would be of great
importance; therefore, he designed his circuits with conductors on both

sides of the dielectric. Also recognizing that interlayer connections were
critical, he added access holes to permit the top and bottom conductors
to be selectively connected. Although the connections included only
crude crimping and twisting, his 1903 patent clearly describes the
concept of double-sided through hole circuitry. Hanson also stated that
conductors could be formed in situ by electro-deposition or by applying
metal powder in a suitable medium (conductive ink).
Thomas Edison also attempted to solve the
mass-producible wiring problem. When asked by
Frank Sprague, the founder of Sprague Electric
Co., how to “draw” conductive traces on paper,
Edison offered several ideas in a written response.
These included: 1) selectively applying glue
(polymer adhesive) and dusting the wet “ink”
with conductive graphite or bronze powder;
2) patterning a dielectric with silver nitrate solution
and reducing the salt to metal; and 3) applying Thomas Edison
gold foil to the patterned adhesive. While Edison, in his short note, did
not specifically mention printing, the first two methods could easily be
adapted to several printing processes. Concept number one is the basis
for today’s polymer thick-film technology, which continues to gain
importance because of its low cost and intrinsically clean attributes;
concept number two describes a basic approach to electroless plating.
Perhaps if Edison had dwelt on the problem, he would have included
copper plating and vacuum deposition methodologies, since America’s
most prolific inventor had already patented these processes. Edison’s
ideas typified the early favoring of an additive approach, i.e., putting
conductive material only where it is needed. Later, of course, it was
subtractive technology that ultimately prevailed as the primary method
of manufacturing printed circuit boards.
Several other approaches to manufacturing printed circuits surfaced
over the next decade as the demand for electronics continued to grow
at a robust pace. Radio became the most important driver for printed
circuitry as wireless transmission captured the attention of the world.
America’s first public radio station, KQW in San Jose, CA, went
on the air in 1912, and by the end of the second decade of the twentieth
century, radios had been introduced in most of the countries throughout
the world. Ships at sea were carrying Marconi systems, and the wireless
radio was saving lives. There would soon be a radio in every household,
as was predicted by David Sarnoff, who headed RCA and NBC. Seeing
the immense market for machine-made circuitry still on the rise,
10
electronics pioneers were strongly motivated to answer the challenge
with inventions of their own or those borrowed from other industries.

Subtractive or Additive?
Conductive interconnects today are created almost exclusively
through subtractive technology, in which (quite simply described) one
covers the entire substrate with copper and then etches or mills away
unwanted material. There has been some interest in a return to additive
technologies for environmental reasons (less hazardous waste such
as acid/etching baths, toxic copper waste, etc.) but there has not been
significant movement in this area.
The earliest circuits were based on additive methods; these were
quite simply conductors deposited onto a dielectric. The printing
industry had long used subtractive methods for making plates. As early
as the fifteenth century, wood had been carved away to yield raised
letters and graphics. Next, metal was cut to make printing plates, and
later plates were made by etching with mineral and organic acids.
In 1913, Arthur Berry filed for a
patent which described a method of
manufacturing circuits for electric
heaters, in which metal was etched
away. His patent described the process
of coating metal with a resist prior to
etching, an improvement over die-
cutting, which left stress-concentrating
sharp corners. Later, Littlefield
Marconi with transatlantic
described a similar methodology. transmitter, 1896
Photolithography was well known
during the early days of circuitry development, but the subtractive
process was largely ignored. Bassist, however, provided specific details
of the photoengraving process, including the use of photosensitive
chromium salts. Although his patent dealt with making print plates, the
process could easily be adapted for circuitry, since Bassist described
preparing compliant plates by electrodepositing copper on dielectric
laminate. (Bassist, E., “Halftone Plate Process and Process of Producing
Same,” U.S. Patent 1,525,531, Feb. 1925).
One successful inventor, Max Schoop, commercialized a metal
flame-spraying process in 1918 that was used for many years. Early
electronics were power-hungry, with vacuum tubes requiring heated
filaments and high voltages. Schoop’s process quelled this hunger for

11
hefty and robust circuits by depositing thick patterns of flamesprayed
metal through a mask. Schoop’s approach had problems with cost
and wasted metal, and although some subsequent inventors added
improvements, still others labored in corporate laboratories and home
basements in search of a true printed
circuit process. The next inventor to
achieve notice was Charles Ducas,
whose patent described both etching
and “plated-up conductors.” One
version involved electroplating a
copper, silver, or gold pattern onto a
low-temperature metal alloy through
Arthur Berry’s etched foil design
a contact mask. Heating allowed
the conductor, typically a coil, to be
separated from the fusible bus plate and mask. Another Ducas process
involved forming grooves in dielectrics such as wax and filling them
with conductive paste, which was then electroplated. Both sides of the
dielectric could be made into circuits, and Ducas went on to describe
multilayer circuits and a means of interconnecting the layers.
Frenchman Cesar Parolini disclosed improvements in additive
processing when he patented the printing of patterns with adhesive onto
dielectric, followed by applying copper powder to the wet ink. This
was Edison’s basic concept and one of Ducas’s methods, but Parolini
implemented it fully and added the concept of jumper wires.
Other inventors of the era also employed print and plate methods.
Seymour used printed graphite paste to make the platable patterns for
the flexible circuit in a 1923 radio tuner. He used waxed paper and gutta-
percha dielectrics and lead and copper conductive pastes, with copper
plating as the final step. A parade of other inventors followed, most
of whom used variations on previously-disclosed inventions, which is
typically the case today. In 1933, Franz added conductive carbon particles
to polymer ink for printing on cellophane or similar lamina and, perhaps
aware of Parolini’s earlier work, added a copper plating step. Since the
first mass-producible circuitry was invented, modern circuit developers
have made multiple attempts to reinvent the printed wiring concept.
While ingenious new circuit inventions will surely emerge, a search of
early patents can be a humbling experience for the would-be inventor.

12
Paul Eisler, Father of the Printed Circuit Board
There are quite a number of people in the printed circuit board
industry who passionately believe that Paul Eisler indeed deserves the
title “Father of the Printed Circuit Board” but has been unfairly passed
over by history, and deprived of an honor. Eisler’s autobiography, titled
My Life With the Printed Circuit, relates the remarkable life of a happy
and widely productive inventor who came within a hair’s breadth of
collecting royalties on every circuit board built in the last 50 years.
Born in Austria in 1907, Eisler received an engineering degree from
Vienna Technical Institute in 1930. After a few tumultuous years trying
to find stable, paying work in pre-war Europe, he enrolled in a doctorate
program in Vienna in 1934, eked out a living as a part-time tech at a
radio station, and did some writing for a newspaper. At the paper, he
became:
...fascinated by the impressive technical achievements of the
printing art. I saw this art as a whole: letterpress and gravure,
lithography, offset and screen printing, engraving and photomechanical
printing. I imbibed all the processes like the wisdom of redemption.
There was no doubt in my mind that everything that could be
drawn in black and white could be magnified to poster size or reduced
to dimensions smaller than a postage stamp. It could be printed by any
of a dozen processes on copper or on other materials that offered a very
small or large resistance to electric current. The flat, basically two-
dimensional nature of these conductors could then offer new and so far
undreamt-of facilities for the whole electrical and electronics industry.

He had already made a little radio set in his room. Now, he took it
apart and replaced all the wire-to-wire connections with flat circuitry
that he made from strips of copper foil varnished on Bakelite-backed
paper. Eisler managed to take his “first printed circuit invention in the
form of a complete radio set that worked perfectly” to Plessey, a big
radio manufacturer in England. Although the managing director was
very impressed with Eisler’s advanced circuitry, his production staff
turned it down because “it was pointed out to me that the work my
invention would replace was carried out by girls, and ‘girls are cheaper
and more flexible.’”
Once war broke out, Eisler was interned as an enemy alien in
Britain, emerging from prison in 1941 and turning his talents to the
war effort. The ineffectiveness of anti-aircraft fire during the Battle of
Britain made him advance his printed circuit ideas to work in contact
13
and proximity fuses. At the end of the war, when its scorekeepers found
that proximity fuses had destroyed over 4,000 V-1 rockets, “printed
circuits became established as an important branch of the armament
industry, and in 1948, the U.S. authorities ruled that all electronic
circuits for airborne instruments were to be printed.”
By then, Eisler was fully involved in peacetime work. He and his
scientist wife were making electrodeposited copper foil and etching
it with ferric chloride in their kitchen sink to make printed heating
circuits for everything from wallpaper to airplane wings to canned food.
He started a company called Technograph Printed Circuits Ltd. and,
always short of funds, applied for a government loan and became mired
in years of bureaucracy. While casting about for funding and using all
his business contacts, Eisler was granted numerous British patents for
printed heating and electrical interconnection patents.
His most important patents dealt with etching. Well before there was
a need for circuitry, the printing industry had perfected a copper etching
process which initially used etch resist that was mechanically scraped
away with a sharp tool. During the 1800s, photosensitive coatings were
perfected that enabled the widespread use of photoengraving. The
primary difference in the printing industry’s photoengraving process and
Eisler’s circuit-making method lies in their end use. The printers used
relatively thick copper plates, while Eisler used copper foil laminated
to dielectric. The printers’ copper plates were engraved by the etchant
to a depth of several mils, leaving the printing pattern elevated and a
thinner layer of copper typically remaining at the base. Eisler’s thinner
copper was etched all the way through, so the conductor patterns were
electrically isolated from one another.
The Eisler patents referenced the print plate technology but
instead of actually describing the etching process, Eisler’s applications
repeatedly used the phrase “as used in the printing industry” during the
1950s. Eisler’s company filed for U.S. patents. Initially, the U.S. Patent
Office rejected all his claims because of prior art but, after four years
of meetings and appeals, most of the claims were allowed. A patent’s
“file wrapper” normally contains all the written communications
between the examiner, the inventor and the patents attorneys as well
as the summaries of their meetings. In this case, the patent examiner
simply allowed the patents without explaining what had transpired
and why he had decided to ignore the substantial prior art that would
seem to invalidate Eisler’s claim. Armed with more than 50 British and
U.S patents, Eisler commercialized circuit making under the aegis of
Technographic Printed Circuits Ltd. All went well for the firm until it
14
sought to cash in with a lawsuit. Its U.S. counterpart, Technographic
Printed Circuit Inc. sued Bendix Corp., which was producing printed
circuits in the U.S. with an etching process. A very lengthy trial
reviewed the entire history of the printed circuit, as was pointed out by
the weary judge. Throughout the months of the trial, Eisler was unable
to substantiate his claims of earlier work, and couldn’t produce his “book
of circuit samples.” The plaintiffs prime exhibit, Eisler’s old three-tube
radio, never worked.
Bendix countered with an overwhelming amount of prior patent
art and asked that the patents be declared invalid. A key point argued
in this phase of the trial was that Eisler had made claims in the U.S.
patents that had already been rejected in his earlier British patents, and
was, therefore, trying to get U.S. coverage by referencing nonexistent
documentation. However, the important defense was that Eisler had
simply patented well-understood photolithography that had long been
used by the printing industry. Eisler’s own statements in his patents
supported this accusation.
On May 27, 1963, the case was decided and any action against
Bendix was dismissed. Eisler was defeated and dethroned as the father of
printed circuitry. Until the day he died, Eisler felt he had been wronged
by the system. But it was clear from the vast amount of prior art that
the printed circuit was not invented by a single person, but by many
inventors who contributed to the total concept over a number of decades.
(The above was excerpted from My Life with the Printed Circuit, Paul
Eisler, Lehigh University Press and Associated University Presses, 1989
with permission.)4

15
Interview

Striving for Functionality: Ralph Robinson and the Beginnings of PCB

Manufacturing in Northern California
In the mid-1950s, printed circuit manufacturing
technology was in its infancy, so much so that
even though the manufacturing techniques were
evolving, the available materials were not up to
snuff. It was nearly impossible to build working
circuit boards in any volume, certainly not enough
to make any money on it. Ralph C. Robinson,
a circuit board fab entrepreneur who began his
lifelong affair with circuit board technology back
then in northern California, recalls that “we knew
what we wanted to do, we just didn’t have the
Ralph C. Robinson
proper materials to do it with.” Tantalizingly, he
and others in the Bay Area saw that the demand for printed circuits was there
and would continue to increase. There would be a fortune in printed circuit
boards, if only they could build ones that worked! “We were scrapping a large
percent of what we were making back then, and that was after we had found
better materials and fabrication methods,” according to Robinson.
Ralph Robinson’s first exposure to the world of printed circuit boards was in
1956 at the North American Aviation Missile Development Division in Downey,
California. In those days, he explains, circuit board technology was in its
infancy, and the choice of materials available to fabricate these circuits was very
limited. Ralph began designing artwork for photo-imaging, which was created
by pen and ink, and was very simple compared to modern PCBs. At the time,
electronic technology was still dependent upon mechanical relays and vacuum
tubes:
We had a small shop to build boards but, to be honest, they had
little success. The materials that we had to work with were not very good.
For example, I think that, at the time, the copper foil was attached to the
board material using rubber cement, or something similar. Everything was
experimental. Board materials were paper/phenolic. Later on, epoxies
and better filler materials became available. We designed circuits in
pen and ink, on letterhead! We would shoot a piece of artwork with a
camera, image the circuit pattern, and then go etch a board. There was no
real plating per se, although we did have a decent gold bath for contact
plating. This bath had solid gold anodes in it. Every night we had to clean
them off, wrap them up in tissue paper and put them in a safe!

16
 In those days, Robinson adds, boards were full of sockets, relays, and
vacuum tubes. That’s how simple they were. Robinson recalls, “When
semiconductors came on board in the late 1950s and early ‘60s, then things
started changing. Boards became tighter, more detailed, and designers
were trying to pack more and more circuitry into a board. Fortunately, great
improvements were also being made concurrently in the laminates.”
In 1957, the division’s missile contract was canceled. A massive layoff
followed, and the entire division was eliminated. Ralph subsequently moved
north to the San Francisco area where he became employed by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers until late 1959, when he found an opportunity at
an electronic company in what is now Silicon Valley. Although the company
ultimately folded, it was, at the time he joined, equipped with a complete
in-house etching facility for the fabrication of printed circuit boards. Why did
Ralph decide to get involved in printed circuit boards in the first place? It had
to do with that little Silicon Valley company that also had a printed circuit
shop, Robinson relates, where he was doing design work. The shop could not
produce workable circuit boards, and to Ralph’s surprise, the plant manager
re-assigned him and two other persons from the engineering division to the
circuit board division and gave them a mandate to produce usable, working
circuit boards. This was Ralph’s first opportunity to learn fabrication the hard
way, by trial and error. In those days there was no pool of experience to draw
from, as there was only one other small company fabricating boards in the
entire Bay Area. The imminent failure of the company, however, for other
reasons, prompted Ralph and his two colleagues to start up their own company
dedicated only to printed circuit fabrication. At the time, there was virtually no
viable local competition:
We went down there and started working with it, but we were
frustrated because there was no information available. It was all new. We
persisted, however, and after awhile we began getting results, producing a
product that worked and was reasonably reliable. These early boards were
basically single-sided. They weren’t plated through, or even plated, they
were all hand-drilled using electromechanical drills, hand-held by skilled
operators. They were designed for use with sockets, but remember that
once they left our shop, we didn’t know what the customer did with them.
That has been historically true with most of the fabrication business. We
would make boards custom-designed for each individual customer.
We were chemically etching boards, applying a resist, using the old
techniques used by lithographers for years. Kodak had a product called
KOR, or Kodak Ortho Resist. That worked fairly well; we used that in
the early days, then they came out with a KPR, or Kodak Photo Resist,
which became very popular. We would apply the resist, expose it, follow

17
 through with the developing process, and then it went into an etching
bath which was in those days ferric chloride. Once they were etched, we
hand-drilled tooling holes, pinned them together, two, three, or four deep,
depending on the circuitry, then finished them off with a hot solder dip.
We would dip them in a hot solder bath and squeegee off the excess.
In those days, in many cases we used eyelets, especially where you
needed extra support, for example, if you thought that you would have
to pull a component out. The eyelets were used later as through hole
connections, especially when we started doing double-sided boards. This
was in the early 1960s.

Robinson eventually founded his own company Exceltronics in 1964. The

company served the needs of a niche market, with the motto “Quality and
Fast Turnaround.” This concept was novel in that era. The era before CAD
(computer aided design) was a good time for a facility specializing in quick turn
prototype manufacturing. Board designs were being mostly manually created,
and would sometimes require up to five or six revisions before the part would
work, which meant that follow-on orders were almost always available.
Robinson describes various innovations that changed the process of
creating boards:
We started building boards with plated-through holes in 1962, when
we installed our first Shipley electroless copper bath. Shipley was a
pioneer in the electroless process. The best thing about the advent of the
process is that it eliminated the eyelets, first and foremost. Eyelets were
costly and labor intensive; they were essentially like rivets, and had to be
installed by a skilled operator. As boards became more densely packed,
an operator could spend hours and hours on a single board installing
eyelets of varying sizes, and this drove up the cost of each board.
Additionally, eyelets needed larger holes, so they absorbed more board
real estate and thus stood in the way of miniaturization. With plated-
through holes, we were able to condense the circuitry, especially since the
science of creating the boards was developing, and materials were getting
better.
Once semiconductor materials came along, such as the little three-
prong transistors that were very popular, well then everything began
to rapidly progress smaller and smaller. Changes followed very rapidly
thereafter. The first half of the ‘60s decade was a time of extremely rapid
change and advancement in everything from components to materials to
fabricating technology. New plating techniques and plating baths were
developed.

“Perhaps the biggest advancement was the development of better hole

drilling technology, particularly with the advent of CNC machines to automate
18
the drilling process,” Robinson says. Until that time, drilling had been laborious,
imprecise, and created a great deal of waste. Imprecision created a lot of scrap,
and manual drilling was labor intensive and drove up costs as boards became
more complex with a greater number of holes with ever-tighter tolerances.
“We would lose sometimes thirty percent or more of our parts just due to hand
drilling,” Robinson recalls. With improvements in tooling and automated drilling
technology, repeatability improved, and scrap and costs were reduced. High
speed steel drills had a short life, especially once fiberglass board materials
came into use. “You’d get 150 holes and then your drill would turn into a nail,”
he remembers. When carbide drills became available, they were very expensive
and brittle as well, and broke often. Automated drilling equipment and better
carbide drill manufacturing, resulting in cheaper drills that were also more
durable, greatly improved the process.
In Northern California, “quick-turn” became Exceltronics’ niche. The
demand for boards by design groups and R&D groups was such that they
were demanding parts “tomorrow, not three weeks from tomorrow.” While
volume fabrication of boards became entrenched in southern California, many
companies in the north focused on design and the technology. Robinson
ordered the first multilayer press in the area and delivered the first multilayer
boards locally fabricated at that time. He was among the first to use UV cured
inks and masks on a regular basis.
Eventually, in the industry, there would be problems between the
designers and the producers, where designs were being specified that could
not practicably be built. There would also be friction between assemblers
and board fab people. The problem was really the fault of both, in Robinson’s
opinion. Board fabrication people didn’t really know what happened to the
board once it shipped; they weren’t involved in assembly. “Once the board
left our shop, we really didn’t have anything to do with it,” he says. Similarly,
assembly folks weren’t always cognizant of the manufacturing issues faced
by the board fab people, prompting the concept of focusing on “Design for
Manufacturability” or DfM. This allowed all three groups to interact with ideas
to improve the finished reliability of the PCB.
In the late 1960s — possibly 1967, Robinson was introduced to the DuPont
Corporation’s new dry film photo-resist (Riston) at a trade show:
I thought to myself, this is the future. Then I ordered a system right
from the show there, and got the first one in the entire western part of the
United States. It revolutionized imaging. It was easy to use and generated
consistent, excellent results. It was so good, in fact, that we were now
under pressure to generate better phototools. Now, we could do very
good imaging and, although pen and ink were long gone, we needed to
improve our methods. Spaces and traces became smaller, so ultimately
19
 the next step would be scanning and photoplotting, and when that came
on board, we were making significant progress. This would have been in
the early 1980s. All boards were still through hole for leaded components
however. We didn’t start to see much in the way of surface mount boards
until the mid-1980s.

After Exceltronics was sold in 1970, Robinson founded Phase II, a company
based on the same principles that had proven successful with Exceltronics.
Phase II prospered. Robinson became involved in professional organizations
and was elected as an officer and then president of the California Circuits
Association (CCA).
In his early years at Phase II, Robinson pioneered the use of computers to
facilitate order entry, job tracking (real time) and inventory controls. Software
had to be created, since none was available for many of these tasks. Robinson
introduced foil construction along with vacuum lamination into the fabrication
of his multilayer circuit boards while it was still considered a novel concept.
Ralph Robinson retired as President and CEO of Phase II in 1987, returning
on a part-time basis to work in engineering and special projects until retiring
fully from the company in 1993. He continues consulting today.

20
World War II and Hybrid Circuits
World War II brought circuit developments that took a different turn.
Again, we look to Dr. Gilleo’s historical chronology to illuminate the
forces driving change during these times.
The need for extremely robust microelectronics for military
ordnance spurred development of ceramics. Secret projects developed
highly reliable ceramic substrate and conductive inks, called cermets
— ceramic-metal. This process, now widely practiced in the ceramic
hybrid industry, involved screen printing or stenciling circuit inks,
followed by high temperature firing. The process was used to produce
tens of thousands of electronic ordnance fuses and is discussed in
detail by Cadenhead and DeCoursey4. The war efforts resulted in both
the development and optimization of high volume, thick film printed
circuit manufacturing.
After the war, the U.S. government under the auspices of the
National Bureau of Standards (NBS) disseminated printed circuit
technology. Conferences were held and publications described virtually
all of the circuit making concepts, including subtractive etching. A
Circuit Symposium sponsored by the U.S. Aeronautical Board and
the National Bureau of Standards was held in Washington, D.C., in
October 1947. Dozens of speakers and hundreds of attendees interacted
at the conference. The more than two dozen processes were condensed
down to six methods:
Painting (really printing): Metal-filled inks are applied and cured
or fired; includes Ceramic Thick Film (CTF) and Polymer Thick Film
(PTF) that remain important today.
Spraying: Molten metal or composite conductor material is
sprayed through a mask or stencil. The mask can be a resist applied to
the substrate. Process is no longer used.
Chemical Deposition: Electroless and electrolytic plating are
included. Dozens of early patents described electroless, electrolytic
and combination plating. Chemical deposition remains an important
process in many circuit-making schemes.
Vacuum Deposition: Sputtering and evaporation through a mask
were the key processes mentioned. Thin film circuits are made by
vacuum depositing copper, gold and other metals. The method is still
used today.
Die Stamping: Many of the early patents claimed cutting and die
stamping as the process for patterning conductors. Modern methods
simultaneously bonded the weakly adhered metal foil to the substrate
21
during the die cutting process. This was accomplished by using
B‑staged adhesive and a heated die bed. The method, although low cost
and environmentally friendly, has become all but obsolete as tolerances
become tighter and density demands increase.
Dusting (conductive powder over tacky ink): Application of
graphite or metal powder over wet ink or adhesive is one of the earliest
processes reported. Some of the later patents apply solder to the dusted
conductors. The process does not appear to be in use today.5

22
Recollection:

A Copper Plating Discovery

By Don Pucci

Frustration, Lab-tinkering, and an odd Russian textbook lead to a

breakthrough plating technology in 1969 that is still in use today by
rigid and flex circuit makers today.
I have been in the PCB and Flex circuit industry for nearly 40 years and
have been at the forefront for many of those years. My anecdote refers to a day
at an IPC meeting in Washington, D.C. in 1969 attended by people from all
over the world. I gave a paper at this meeting that stimulated the conversion to
the high throw copper sulfate process used by all PCB and Flex suppliers in the
world today.
The session I gave my talk at was billed as a great debate between three
industry experts on which copper plating process would dominate the future.
The combatants were myself (I worked at a small PCB shop called Microfab in
Amesbury, Massachusetts as its Chief Engineer) who was preaching the virtue
of high throw copper sulfate; Joe Poach from Westinghouse who, believe it or
not, believed in copper cyanide; someone else who supported a chemistry
called copper pyrophosphate; and another person backing high throw copper
fluoborate.
I had actually developed the high throw copper sulfate process in a lab
when I worked at Sanders Associates in New Hampshire at their Flexprint
Division. At the time I was frustrated with the other three chemistries. They all
had fatal problems. One day, on the advice of a friend of mine from Shipley,
Gerry Lordi, I went to the MIT library and spent the whole day looking in the
physical chemistry section. Near the end of the day, I came across a Russian
text book translated to English. In this book there was a chapter on throwing
power and the authors described how lowering the metal content and
increasing the acid concentration drastically improved the throwing power of a
copper sulfate plating solution.
I had experience using copper sulfate plating for a non PCB application,
so I knew it did not have many of the problems associated with the others, just
poor throwing power.
When I returned to my lab at Sanders, I began experimenting in a
prototype tank and the results were astonishing. I used a brightener found in the
auto industry that was designed for lower acid content.

23
 While it worked great, the high acid of my new formulation degraded the
organic brightener too fast and it had to be carbon treated all too often.
At this time, Gus Fletcher was the Sel Rex (chemistry vendor) sales manager
in our area. He watched my development and he convinced Sel Rex to develop
a brightener that would stand up to my formulation without breakdown. They
did and the high throw copper sulfate we all use today was born.
Back to the IPC meeting and the great debate forum; I was young and had
never given a presentation in my life — especially to a large international group.
I prepared for weeks in front of a mirror and with a tape recorder for days on
end leading up to the meeting.
The night before, a few of my supplier friends took me for a night on the
town in DC. We hit every joint in the city, I think. It was around 4 or 5 in
the morning when I got to bed. My talk was at 9:00 am. I was still somewhat
inebriated when I stepped up to the podium for my turn. It was a good thing I
had prepared and rehearsed so well. The talk went off perfectly. It finished with
a standing ovation from the 500 people in the room. A friend, Charlie Cobb,
VP of sales and marketing for MacDermid, said it was the finest presentation he
had seen.
Anyway, it did the trick and, from that moment on, the other copper plate
chemistries disappeared in favor of high throw copper sulfate.
Don Pucci
Director of Strategic Marketing
Mflex

24
Recollection:

Ice Cream Days at IPC

By Bernie Kessler

As one may understand, in an

organization such as IPC, there are many
types of attendees at the semi-annual
meetings. While it is a very significant and
productive technical forum and people on
the design, processing and quality assurance
ends made up the bulk of the attendees in
the ‘60s and ‘70s, there were, of course,
many from sales as well, such as myself. But
on one particular night when we were free
of meetings, many appointments were made Bernie Kessler
for dinner, especially by salespeople who
didn’t attend but were “hawking” the show, i.e., they descended on their prey
only after the meeting session and took one or several out to dinner. However,
not everyone was available for such appointments and several of us just stayed
together to socialize and take our semi-annual walk together. My rule was
quickly and readily adopted; we were forbidden to talk business at these get-
togethers. This was strictly a relaxing time and we did indeed hop on anyone
who may have joined us without knowing the rule. No business. It’s difficult
to remember all the names but the core group was Dieter Bergman, George
Messner, Gerald Ginsberg, Mark Saverin, Phil Derrough, Vivian Vosberg and
me.
In April 1973, the semi-annual meeting was being held in Boston. I was in
New Jersey with my wife, visiting with our daughter who was scheduled to give
birth any day. With the full understanding of my family, I left that Sunday, April
1, to attend the IPC meeting. When I arrived at the hotel I called N.J. to discover
that shortly after I left for the airport the family left for the hospital and on that day
my second grand-daughter was born, Jennifer Melissa. It was a pleasant surprise
but also a frustration because I had missed the birth of my first granddaughter
(same parents) due to an emergency need to go to France and London and I had
promised that it would not happen again. I then went downstairs and grabbed the
guys I knew very well and told them of my great event and invited one and all to
celebrate by having a big dish of ice cream together. This celebration extended
to the celebration of all children and grandchildren. The ice cream consumption
became the mandatory means of celebration at the end of our traditional walks

25
and so two traditions merged into one. This practice continued and many of
the members knew of the ice cream bit and the walks and we’d have a different
fringe group join us at each meeting.
On April 1, 1990, seventeen years later to the day, the meeting was again
scheduled to start in Boston and I took my granddaughter Jennifer and my wife
to this meeting. David Bergman knew the story and their attendance and had
invited both of them to our membership luncheon. He also arranged for the
hotel to serve ice cream for dessert. I was invited to the podium to introduce
the “ice cream” gal to the members present and explain the origin of the
tradition, and I did so. I went on to explain that Jennifer and the ice cream were
reminders to all of us that while we wildly pursue our goals on our career paths,
we can’t help but diminish some of the family events that we must of necessity
miss. I asked all to take the time to enjoy the sweetness of the ice cream, a
tribute to families and friends whose understanding we need in making our lives
meaningful, and everyone had a great time. I’ve been active in IPC for about 45
years, give or take a year. Of all the memories I have, none is as treasured as
the human side, this story being just one of many.

26
Recollection:

Developing PCB Manufacturing Techniques During the First Decades

By Gene H. Weiner
As a student technician at MIT Lincoln Laboratories, I tested and validated
the first photoplotter during the days of hand taping patterns and photoreducing
a picture taken with a large Brown Camera.
We converted a Head milling machine,
replacing the bit with a hypodermic needle
through which we passed light from a Xenon
point source. The hypodermic needle served
as a collimator. Photosensitive film was
vacuum-locked onto the tooling plate while
the needle traversed it with the light switching
on and off to make the exposure of the circuit
pattern.
While at Lincoln Laboratories, we also
built the first HDI additive circuit as part of
Gene Weiner
a PWB memory plane in 1957. We punched
holes in XXXP substrate, dropped in memory cores, encapsulated with Dow’s
Sylguard, metallized with immersion Ag, electroplated Cu to thickness, applied
photoresist (KPR by Kodak), contact printed flat surfaces, and simultaneously
projection printed patterns through the holes in the ferrite cores. We etched
and stripped the resist, and voila, X, Y, Drive, and inhibit circuits were formed
through each core as well as the two sides of the structure. Lines and spaces
were initially 10 mils through a 50 mil ID core. Later (1958) we printed 6 mil
lines and spaces through a 30 mil ID core. E.A. Guditz and I demonstrated
additive circuit techniques and projection printing through planar mask on
WGBH-TV (educational TV) in 1957.
In 1958, a laboratory error in the cellar of Charles and Lucia Shipley’s
elegant home in fashionable Auburndale, Mass., turned into one of the
industry’s major inflection points — the development of Catalyst 6F, a colloidal
solution containing Pd, which eliminated the need for sanding deposits off of
panel surfaces after metallizing drilled holes in laminates. It sounded the death
knell for using eyelets to connect circuitry from one side of a panel to the other.
I was fortunate enough to become Shipley’s first full-time employee and worked
on the development and testing of a wide variety of acidic, organic (albumen),
and alkaline catalytic materials for patent applications on materials that would
initiate electroless plating.

27
 In 1960, I introduced the first alkaline etchant in the PWB industry (Etchant
M-U [for minimal undercut] by MacDermid). At its peak, it and its descendants
became the primary industry etchant. Simple waste treatment provided a variety
of marketable salts out of the dissolved copper. M-U was a laboratory curiosity
named x-381. It was developed to remove copper from heat treated steel
typewriter balls for NCR, but had never been commercialized. I asked if it could
be used to etch Cu from Cu-clad PWB laminated and was told “NO!” I tested
it in a 3.5 gallon Chemcut etching machine in a laboratory hood. It worked
and the alkaline nature (ammonia based with a pH of about 9.8 +/-) eliminated
pinholes and reversed the normal undercut caused by acidic etchants (ferric and
chromic acids) of the period when etching gold plated boards. I set up a test
with Bert Krasnow for a warm summer Friday afternoon at Precision Circuits in
New Rochelle, New York. Shortly after we began the test, we heard the sound
of feet scrambling down the stairs from the offices located over the production
facility. The exhaust from the etcher went to the roof. It was located next to
the roof-top air conditioning units, picked up the ammonia and blew it into the
office causing the most rapid and complete evacuation in company history.
Later, in 1961, Metex Etcant M-U was named product of the year at one of the
first major NEPCON shows held at the Coliseum.
In the mid-’60s, as vice president of marketing and sales for Dynachem,
I introduced the world’s first totally aqueous developing dry film photo resist,
from the now extinct company. The product was one that was developed to a
planned goal by Mike Gilano and Irv Martinson, Dynachem founders, and Dr.
Mel Lipson. It was one of the few industry products designed from scratch to be
what it became. Later iterations of semi-aqueous developing (dilute alkali with a
touch of butyl cellusolv) resists also garnered a large segment of the market due
to their increased resistance to process chemicals.
It is ironic to note that Dynachem changed the industry but nearly vanished
before it conquered. It was technically insolvent when it was rescued by
Thiokol. It was growing so fast that it outstripped its resources and suppliers had
shut off its credit lines. Thiokol bought the company for less than $12 million.
Later years had months with greater than $12 million in sales and pre-tax
operating profits in excess of 20%.
There are many stories of the true industry pioneers whose trials and
successes may not be noted or remembered, but without whose pioneering
spirit and actions we would not have progressed as far as we have.
Gene H. Weiner
Weiner & Associates, Inc.

28
Recollection:

Remembering the Beginning of Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing

By Bob Swiggett
Looking back 58 years to 1948, I recall five things that led me to
found Photocircuits Corp., which became the first company in the world to
manufacture printed wiring boards as its sole line of business. These five things
were as follows:

1. I read a short report written by the Signal

Corps Engineering Laboratory describing
the “autosembly” process for electronic
assemblies using plastic boards with etched
copper foil patterns where the axial lead
components were inserted through holes in
the board and dip soldered to the foil pattern;
2. I met Russ Davis, a salesman for the National
Vulcanized Fibre Co., at the wedding of a
friend. Russ pitched me regarding what he
thought was going to be a great new product,
copper foil-clad plastic laminate; Bob Swiggett
3. I worked as a process engineer for Chemco Photoproducts, a
company that made plastic film, process cameras, etching, and other
equipment for photoengraving printing plates as well as operating three
photoengraving plants. We really knew everything about printing and
etching processes; and
4. RCA had asked one of our plants to try photoetching coils for a new
TV tuner using the new NVF copper clad plastic;
5. My boss at Chemco, A. Jay Powers, enthusiastically supported my
request to set up a small laboratory and investigate the potential for
what just might become a big business.

After visiting the Signal Corps and the National Bureau of Standards, the lab
was put together in the cellar of one of Chemco’s buildings in Glen Cove, New
York. In the beginning, there was no market and little interest. After World War
II, military electronics was “dead.” Radio manufacturers claimed that they could
hand-wire a five-tube AC/DC set for 35 cents. TV was just coming alive. IBM
didn’t have a single vacuum tube in any of its punched card equipment. The
computer business hardly existed. Nobody had heard of the transistor yet.
However, there were customers for the complex rotary switches that we
could make. Etched inductances such as the RCA tuner coils were interesting to
29
many. We made large quantities of TV antenna filters and couplers, and other
products.
Bell Labs came to us for a few small cards that they used to make the
first logic circuits with this new “transistor” to be shown at their three-
day symposium in 1950, where they introduced it to the world. It seems
quite significant in retrospect that the only way that they could mount and
interconnect these devices was on a printed wiring board. Amazingly, at the
symposium, I sat next to three guys from a small geodesic test equipment firm
from Texas — Texas Instruments. They expressed interest in getting a license.
Our antenna filters used two-sided cards where conductors on opposite
sides were interconnected by brass eyelets that were soldered. Temperatures
on the roof produced open circuits. There was panic! This stimulated violent
process development in our lab to produce electroplated holes that would not
open. Solving this problem opened the doors to many new applications.
As quantities increased, we developed inks, screen printing machines,
etching and electroplating equipment, solder masks, and other products and
process tools. Military customers wanted better high-temperature resistance
and strength than could be achieved with the early paper-based laminates.
We tried many resins, and the best turned out to be a new “epoxy” material in
combination with glass cloth. Since the laminators such as NVF had only high-
pressure presses, they could not, at the time, use epoxy resins. We acquired a
small press and began producing materials ourselves.
My brother Jim, fresh out of Princeton, brought order to our production
systems, as well as pricing; still, we lost money operating out of a cellar and a
garage. Despair set in, and we almost quit.
Then, in a stroke of good fortune, we convinced the Radiation Laboratory
at M.I.T., then in technical control of the computers that were used by the SAGE
early system, to use two-sided plated-through hole boards. IBM, the prime
contractor, gave us orders, as well as hope for huge long-term business. Since
we were the only company capable at the time of producing plated holes, the
Air Force forced us to teach IBM what we knew in order to create a second
source. In return, we were guaranteed half the business.
Quitting and failure were thus avoided. We built a new 30,000 square foot
facility in 1956 and became profitable in the much more efficient layout. By
1957, several small competitors and captive shops had appeared. Inexperience
and lack of uniform specifications led to unfortunate pricing. The National
Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) proved to be an ineffective answer
to the need for a printed wiring board manufacturer’s association. So, we met
with Al Hughes of Electralab at our plant in Glen Cove, and then, by phone, set
up a meeting in Chicago with a few other competitors. From that meeting came
the organization of IPC.

30
Printed Circuit Fabrication Process Pioneer:
Charles R. Shipley, Jr. (1917-2004)
When he passed away in June 2004, Shipley
left the world a rich legacy of scientific invention.
Charles R. Shipley, Jr.’s rise to prominence as
an inventor seemed unlikely. He took just one
chemistry course at Yale and left the university
before graduating. Yet, he would ultimately
compile some 20 U.S. patents and more than 70
international ones in the electronics field. His
Shipley Company made significant discoveries
in specialty chemicals and its involvement in
microelectronics and semiconductors resulted in
many technological innovations. One example Charles Shipley Jr.
of Shipley’s ingenuity was using a colloidal metal
catalyst for electroless chemical plating onto nonconductive plastic substrates.
This process became the universally practiced method of manufacture for
printed circuit boards and was also used in decorative plating of molded plastic
parts, such as grilles for automobiles.
Following World War II, Charles and Lucia Shipley (married in 1941)
moved to Massachusetts, where Charles worked for Farrington Manufacturing’s
Electralab Division and was in charge of printed circuit board production.
The couple founded their company in 1957 to supply the embryonic printed
circuit manufacturing industry with products and processes. As the business
prospered, the Shipleys moved it to a research facility in Newton Lower Falls.
In 1992, Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials of Marlborough, Mass.,
merged with the Shipley Company. By then the Shipley work force had grown
to 1,000 and its annual sales exceeded $200 million.
“Charlie’s ability to anticipate the unbelievable changes in the electronics
marketplace are in large part unsurpassed,” observes Raj L. Gupta, CEO of
Rohm and Haas. “In no small measure, his work is the foundation upon which
Rohm and Haas’s $1 billion electronics business has been successful.”
The Shipleys won the Winthrop-Sears Medal of the Chemical Industry
Association for Entrepreneurial Achievement in 1984 and the Semiconductor
Equipment and Materials International Trade Organization Award in 1990.

Edited Text and Photo from Clarkson University Alumni Magazine (online
archives), Fall 2004: clarksonalumni.com/stay_connected/magazine/fall_04/
shipley.html.

31
Interview

Making a Case for Printed Circuits:

Ray Pritchard and the Founding of IPC
The story of every industry is ultimately
about people, not machines or infrastructure.
In the electronics manufacturing industry,
many have made their mark, some very visibly,
others behind the scenes. From engineers
to entrepreneurial characters, our industry
has known its share, certainly within recent
memory, certainly since the emergence of SMT.
But going back further, to the mid-1950s, the
view is dustier, dimmer, more black and white,
the image of white shirts and thin ties, horn-
rimmed glasses and homburg hats, the era of
Truman. The world was a different place then, Raymond E. Pritchard
yet remarkable similarities exist.
The story of the beginning of what is now known as IPC — Association
Connecting Electronics Industries is interesting, even a little bit amusing. One
day in the autumn of 2005, I sat down in the offices of IPC in Bannockburn,
Illinois, just north of Chicago, and listened to Raymond E. Pritchard, IPC’s
executive director for 35 years, recall the early days of the organization and of
the PWB industry in general. Still spry and energetic for his years, Ray’s sharp
memory and engaging manner were a delight. Ray resembles, in a distant way,
actor and film director Ron Howard; or perhaps it’s the other way around;
but in any case, Ray is a unique guy. At IPC’s organizational meeting in 1957,
five companies joined together to form the Institute of Printed Circuits. At that
meeting, Ray was appointed executive director. Thus began his long career
of involvement with the PWB industry and later the whole of the electronics
manufacturing industry.
In 1982, Ray became the third recipient of IPC’s Hall of Fame Award,
presented to him in recognition of his first 25 years of service as the executive
director of IPC. Ray was on hand at the founding meeting of IPC and provided
creative and innovative ideas for programs that have benefited the membership
and the industry. In addition to structuring many unique programs, he provided
leadership and encouraged an environment of cooperation and trust that has
made the organization’s voluntary programs so successful.

32
 Ray retired from IPC as executive director emeritus in 1992, on the
occasion of IPC’s 35th anniversary and his 35 years of service. He remains
occasionally involved and always interested in the organization and the industry
that it serves. Here is Ray Pritchard’s personal account of those very beginnings.
I really grew up with Harry Dolan and the Investment Casting
Institute. In 1952, I went to work for Harry Dolan, who operated a trade
association management company. When I joined him, Harry managed
three small industry associations. I went to work for him when he was
in the process of signing up a new fourth group: the Investment Casting
Institute.
Five years later, in 1957, two fellows walked into our office: Bill
McGinley from Methode and Gene Jones from Electralab. Harry was
out on an errand at the time, and I happened to be available. They were
meeting next door at the Palmer House in Chicago, trying to organize IPC.
They realized they needed professional help, so they opened the yellow
pages and our firm was in the building right next door. I went next door
to meet with their group, and told them and showed them what we were
doing for the Investment Casting Institute. It consisted of many programs
that fit their needs: industry standards; industry promotion; statistical and
market studies; and technical meetings. They recognized these were the
kinds of programs they needed, and saw we had the knowledge and
experience to make them work. We shook hands and we were their new
managers. It was that simple.
Harry and I were not “money” people. We only had three girls
working for us in the office, and I think we signed IPC up for a $12,000
per year retainer. It seemed like a reasonable amount of money back
then. By working with several associations we could share costs of rent,
office equipment and new ideas. We eventually built our association
management business to where we managed ten separate trade
associations.
Eventually I went out on my own, managing several associations,
including IPC. I had gained a great deal of very valuable experience
managing multiple trade associations, but eventually IPC was taking
practically all of my time. In the late 1980s, I ceased working with any
other associations and became an official employee of IPC.
IPC was a joy to work with. They were a joy because they had
so many problems to solve, which meant an opportunity to undertake
programs to solve those problems. But equally important was that,
starting at the beginning, all the presidents were young entrepreneurs
who were open to tackling new ideas for programs. I don’t think I ever
went to an IPC meeting that I didn’t have a new idea for a program for
them. Sometimes these ideas were met with a lukewarm reception, but

33
eventually, by suggesting the new idea at successive meetings, acceptance
grew, until it was approved. I learned it takes time to sell a new program,
even when your programs have been successful.
In the beginning, the board guys were essentially involved in a new
industry. The only markets of any significance were the military and
television sets. Zenith, who arguably had the best TVs, used to advertise
against printed circuits: “Zenith TV sets have no printed circuits.” Zenith
was suggesting that printed circuits were unreliable.
So, we contacted all of the other TV set manufacturers and their
marketing managers, and invited them to meet with us in New York.
The fact was that consumers had no idea of what a printed circuit might
be, and Zenith’s ads were being successful. The reality was that printed
circuits were actually more reliable than hand soldering, and ultimately
circuit boards were going to be the wave of the future. In fact earlier, we
brought the president of the TV Repairmen’s Association to one of our
IPC meetings and he presented statistics showing the better reliability of
printed circuit boards. So why not capitalize on this fact. We suggested
that each TV manufacturer put a little tag on every TV set sold, that stated
“YES! We have printed circuit boards,” and include statistics and a brief
message with a statement: “Here’s why printed circuits are better.”
It was agreed we would develop such a program, but it never
materialized. Apparently news of our planned program reached Zenith
and, a few months later, Zenith stopped their anti-printed circuit
advertising.

Industry Technical Research — Round Robin Test Programs

Another example of this working together involved by the controversy
of plated-through holes versus eyelets that arose in the early years of IPC.
IBM and AT&T were the main users of eyelets. Eyelets were being used to
interconnect both sides of the circuit. The idea of plating through a drilled
hole came along and these big users did not want to take a chance on
something with which they did not have experience.
Evaluating the plated-through hole versus eyelet debate was a big
issue, with a lot of opinions and controversy. Would the new technology
be acceptable? How does one know? Do you pay a million dollars to an
independent research laboratory to do a study, when you know when the
results are reported, industry members are going to ask: “What do they
know about printed circuit boards?”
It was decided we would put together a committee of technical
experts to write a specification for producing boards with plated-through
holes. Then we invited any interested member to participate by building a

34
plated-through hole circuit board. Each participating company was issued
a code number, and then submitted the final product anonymously for
testing.
IPC had many OEM members with large and competent research
facilities. These facilities were already involved in evaluating various areas
of the printed circuit technology for their own company’s information. We
invited such OEMs to be a part of our study and do the necessary testing.
Parts produced by the participating companies were then sent to
three volunteer testing companies. The testing companies would send
their test results back to another committee of experts from both user
companies and manufacturers of printed circuit boards for the final
evaluation. The final result of this program determined that the plated-
through hole was a reliable and cost-effective replacement for eyelet
technology. It changed the industry. (Unfortunately, IPC eventually lost all
members that were supplying the eyelets.) This was the first Round Robin
Test Program, and was the first of many.
In all, there were probably 30 or more testing and evaluation
programs sponsored by IPC. These Round Robin studies established facts
and knowledge regarding various segments of our technology and refuted
any rumors or erroneous reports. What we were really pleased about was
that, when we reported the results, we never reported which companies
submitted the successful test samples. Participants were anonymous, and
it wasn’t commercialized.
One of the biggest benefits of the Round Robin Test Programs was
the tremendous amount of money saved by conducting the tests and
evaluations through member companies. A singular advantage was the
relevance aspect — i.e., testing conducted by companies actively involved
in the use and manufacturing of printed circuit boards. The information
that came back was respected and of tremendous value to everyone. This
was especially important because IPC members needed to keep pace
with the overall electronics technology which is constantly advancing.

Cooperation with Government

From early on at IPC, we learned the value of group cooperation,
whether it meant fighting unfair practices, working with EPA and other
government agencies, understanding new technological developments,
solving a marketing problem, providing educational material for member
companies, or whatever. Get the involved people together: understand
your problem; work together to solve it. That has been one of the secrets
of IPC’s success over the years. This is an approach that we have taken
many times.

35
 We began working with government agencies right from the
beginning. This was particularly true of those segments of the government
that were writing the specifications and standards for products of our
industry. Early on, a decision was made to include representatives from
government agencies as Allied Members, with no dues required. We
wanted to get them involved, encourage them to attend our meetings.
Once you talk to people and establish relationships with them, you can
solve problems and issues amongst yourselves. Communication is key.
We had so many great government people become part of our programs
over the years due to this approach, and it has benefited the industry, the
organization, and the transfer of knowledge tremendously. For example,
it was the valuable input from the folks at Martin Marietta that resulted
in a major early success for us, the Acceptability Standards document
that has become universally popular, and a benchmark over the years. In
terms of military and government agency standards, the evolution of this
cooperation was such that, for many years now, it is IPC that writes the
standards that are then adopted by the government.

The Importance of Knowing Your Market

The Technology Marketing Research Council was something we
developed because everyone recognized that market studies, statistics,
and marketing information were tremendously valuable. Our members
needed more market data, and it was decided that it would be more
economical and certainly more effective and convenient to bring this
element in-house. Much of the data was based on IPC’s comprehensive
statistical programs which had gathered data on our market since our first
year of operation. Data included not only information on the U.S. market,
but also data on the world market for printed wiring boards.

Assemblers Become a Vital Part of IPC

For many years, IPC was an association of board manufacturers,
users of printed wiring, and suppliers to the industry. It did not include
“assemblers.” In fact, there was a big hullabaloo when the idea of bringing
in the assemblers was first introduced. Board manufacturers initially
didn’t like the idea. Board manufacturers had grown up working with
OEMs and had developed good working relationships. They were able
to communicate back and forth with changes in drawings that would
provide quality circuits at optimum costs. Working with the first group of
assemblers seemed more difficult. The presidents saw that the assemblers
had two jobs: to assemble, but also to cut costs on components and

36
 boards. As time went on, however, the board manufacturers realized that
companies doing the assembly in the U.S. would be vital to their future.
They could see that the assemblers were ultimately going to be a
big factor in the industry, especially with the advent of surface mounting
technology.
A lot of the OEMs did not want to make the investment in surface
mounting equipment right away. OEMs felt that surface mounting
was something new and there would be many expensive iterations
in the equipment used to assemble surface mount components. The
assembly people (now identified as companies that provide electronic
manufacturing services) were sure that surface mounting was the wave
of the future and they were willing to take the risks and make those
investments.

So Much More
Of course, since I retired in 1992, so much more has been done by
IPC. It has become a worldwide leader. The leaders of IPC have expanded
significantly on the previous programs and moved forward to many new
areas that have provided significant benefit to its many members. What I
can say from a long-term perspective … is that it was a challenge and a
joy to be part of the early growth of what I felt was a wonderful industry.

An IPC-sponsored Reliability Seminar on Printed Circuit Boards in TV Applications.

(L to R) are Bob Swiggett, Photocircuits; John Currier, New England Laminates; and
Frank Moch, a representative from NATESA, who reported on the survey results.

37
Sources:

1. The History of the Printed Circuit Board, Opencollector.org, “Local PCB

History,” 2/23/06.

2., 5. From Circuitree Magazine (Online), “The Circuit Centennial” by Ken

Gilleo, Ph.D., published April 28, 2003; URL: www.circuitree.com/CDA/
Articles/Web_Only_Editorial/dc439de37efe7010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0.
Used with permission.

3. Cadenhead R. and DeCoursey D., “The History of Microelectronics, Part

One, “The International Journal of Microelectronics,” Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 14-
30, Sept., 1985. Used with permission.

4. My Life with the Printed Circuit, by Paul Eisler, Lehigh University Press
and Associated University Presses, 1989. URL: www.lehigh.edu/library/
lup/BookPages/EislMyLi.htm?SciTech. Used with permission.

38
 IPC Chronology: 1958-1970
1958
• Off to a bold start: An announcement was sent to all known PWB
manufacturers and suppliers to attend an organizational meeting
in New York. Forty-one individuals attended, representing 27
companies. At this session, the speakers outlined their ideas for plans
and programs, and signed up all interested companies. IPC was
off to a rapid start in 1958, publishing its first landmark document,
a book titled How to Design and Specify Printed Circuits, which
eventually sold over 25,000 copies. At the same time, IPC developed
a bold, innovative new idea, a “round robin” test program to compare
plated-through holes with eyelets and grommets. IPC also initiated a
monthly statistical program and agreed to open membership to users
(OEMs).

The first publication put out by IPC was a book titled How to Design
and Specify Printed Circuits. They printed more than 20,000 copies
and basically gave it away, distributing it primarily to the member
companies’ customers. The focus of the book was how to order printed
circuits, how to specify them, and more. This was something critically
needed at the time, because up to that point, there were no guidelines
and very few people knew how to do it.
— Dieter Bergman

1959
• Opposition from Zenith: In IPC’s early days, the development of a
market for “printed circuits” was being hampered by advertising
from the powerful Zenith Radio Corporation. Zenith proclaimed that
their television sets contained “no printed circuits,” suggesting that
printed circuits were less reliable than point-to-point soldered sets.
In 1959, IPC cooperated with the National Association of Television
Repairmen to undertake a survey, the results of which concluded that
printed circuits were indeed reliable. Later in the year, IPC held a
meeting in New York with representatives from RCA, Westinghouse,
and Sylvania to develop a cooperative program to educate users to the
advantages of using printed circuits. As this campaign progressed,
Zenith, becoming aware of it and its implications, discontinued their
advertising slogan. The cooperative program was also discontinued,
since its reason for being had ceased to exist.

39
 • IPC published the first analysis of “costs and profits” in the PWB
industry. This program has continued throughout IPC history.
• IPC opened membership on a complimentary basis to representatives
of government agencies involved in preparing standards and
specifications. This was a bold move, not only strategically sound, but
also innovative and proving to be a wise policy in subsequent years.

Shown in the photo are speakers at the Fall Meeting in Chicago who
presented papers on “Printed Circuit Design Parameters for Data Processing
and Communications Equipment.” They are (L –R) Stark Roberts, IBM;
Hobie Weaver, Western Electric; Ken Mills, Martin Company; John Hauser,
Convair; and Bob Rennie, Bureau of Engraving, Inc.

1960
• By 1960, IPC’s semiannual meetings had become the focal point of
the Association’s activity. The rapid advances of new and growing
technology exacerbated the need to exchange ideas. IPC was able
to encourage the best and the brightest from member companies to
present papers at seminars as well as at committee meetings. At that
time, more than 100 members were attending to share ideas and to
work on the development of new standards and specifications.
• IPC published the initial standard IPC-D-300, Dimensions and
Tolerances for Single- and Double-Sided PWBs.
• IPC launched the IPC Technical Review (now the IPC Review), and
became involved with the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).

40
1961
• Technology exchange continued to be important to IPC members
and plated-through holes were of major importance in expanding the
range of applications for PWBs.
• At the IPC Spring Meeting in New York, a panel of experts
participated in a discussion of plated-through holes. Participants
included Jack Rausch, Bell Labs; Dick Zens, Electralab; and Oscar
Gamble, Burroughs.
• IPC released a movie, The Printed Circuit Story, which was made
available to members for promotion.
• IPC completed the first detailed study of the U.S. PCB market,
which reported $50 million sales by independent manufacturers and
$80 million OEM sales. Independent PCB manufacturers reported
operating at 60 percent of capacity with 55 percent of their production
for government/military applications.

President Dick Zens is shown on the left after presenting special awards
to (L-R) Dave Radovsky, IBM; Bob Matzinger, Martin Marietta; Lynn
Gunsaulus, Photocircuits; and Ed Wright, Bell Labs.

1962
• The efforts of individual members have made IPC programs
successful. In 1962, IPC began presenting awards to those individuals
who made outstanding contributions.
• IPC established a committee to write standards for flexible flat cables.
• IPC formed a new committee to develop data on solderability.

41
 • IPC established a joint working group with the National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA) and American Society for
Testing Materials (ASTM) to develop data on punching and shearing
of laminates.
• IPC formed a new committee to study multilayer boards.

1963
• Many new committees, subcommittees, and working groups were
developed and in need of coordination. IPC formed a Technical
Planning and Standards Coordinating Committee to oversee
committee/group activity and make recommendations to the Board
of Directors. The first members of the new Standards Coordinating
Committee were Bob Matzinger, Martin-Marietta; Gene Szukalski,
RCA; Lynn Gunsaulus, Photocircuits; Hugh Medford, Westinghouse
Electric; Stark Roberts, IBM; and Dean Stephenson, Amphenol.
• A comprehensive numbering system was implemented to identify
IPC standards.
• IPC published Technical Manual Handbook containing a copy of all
standards and specifications published by IPC.
• IPC published the first PCB Wage Rate and Fringe Benefits Survey.

The first members of the

new Standards Coordinating
Committee.Seated (L-R): Bob
Matzinger, Martin-Marietta; Gene
Szukalski, RCA. Standing (L-R):
Lynn Gunsaulus, Photocircuits;
Hugh Medford, Westinghouse
Electric; Stark Roberts, IBM; and
Dean Stephenson, Amphenol.
42
1964
• Acceptability requirements for PWBs, to some extent, were
based on opinions. In 1964, to provide a common set of standards
for customers and suppliers, IPC published the first version of
IPC‑A‑600, Acceptability of Printed Boards. To appreciate the
significance of this document, it is worth noting that, since 1964, this
document has been revised and updated seven times.
• IPC formed a joint IPC/Government Specifications Steering
Committee to coordinate IPC specifications with military
specifications.
• IPC initiated the Raw Materials Roundtable where members could
bring up any problems with raw materials.

1965
• One of the highlights of 1965 was a plant visit to the IBM facility in
Endicott, New York. This came about as the result of an IPC seminar
on numerically-controlled manufacturing systems sponsored by the
Multilayer Committee. There was tremendous interest in the work
being done by IBM. Nearly 100 IPC members traveled to Endicott to
participate.
• The American Society of Association Executives (ASAE) presented
its Grand Award to IPC. This award was the highest honor given by
ASAE for association programming.
• IPC completed the first Round Robin Test Program to evaluate the
state-of-the-art technology for multilayer boards.
• IPC completed a study of various freight rates being applied to
industry products.

1966
• In 1966, the IPC President’s Award was established.
• IPC opened membership to overseas companies.
• IPC published a comprehensive Multilayer Handbook.
• IPC sponsored a marketing seminar to discuss a Five-Year Outlook
for Printed Circuit Applications.

43
1967
• Special hands-on workshops had become an important part of IPC
semiannual meetings. To expand technology exchange and to provide
an additional incentive for participation on working committees, a
policy was adopted to encourage chairmen to invite special speakers
to committee sessions. Since these were smaller groups, they
provided the opportunity for more in-depth discussions of the topics
being addressed.
• IPC decided to become more active in the International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) and named Ken Varker, IBM, to
be an official member of IEC TC 52 and also to provide an interface
with all committees impacted by IEC activity.
• IPC established a liaison membership for colleges and universities.

1968
• By 1968, IPC committees, subcommittees, and working groups had
expanded to the point where certain technologies were of concern to
more than one group. As a result, IPC’s technical committee structure
was revised.
The Standards Coordinating Committee was expanded to include
the chairmen of all general technical committees and the name was
changed to the Technical Activities Executive Committee (TAEC).
Bernie Kessler, Mica, was named the first Chairman of the TAEC.

In 1968, IPC released Component Mounting Handbook. The core

group who made it possible are shown in the photo; (L-R) Hank
Koons, Bell Labs; John DeVore, General Electric; Bert Isaacson,
Electralab; and Bob Wathen, Fairchild. A co-chairman for the project
(not shown in the photo) was Dominick Dellisante, Picatinny Arsenal.

44
 In addition, a new group, the Committee Chairmen Council
(CCC), was formed to include all general committee, subcommittee,
and working group chairmen. This IPC Technical Committee
structure still exists today.
• IPC sponsored a meeting in Brighton, England. As a result of
that session, European manufacturers decided that, in addition to
participating in IPC, they should have an organization in Europe.
The following year (1969), the European Institute of Printed Circuits
(EIPC) was formed.
• It was agreed that all future IPC documents would contain metric
equivalents.

1969
• While standards and technology continued to be the major focus of
IPC activity, there was also a continuing interest in the market. In
1969, IPC published its first major study of the marketplace. The data
showed the following composition of the market:

Two-sided rigid PWBs 54%

One-sided rigid PWBs 23%
Multilayer PWBs 20%
Flexible circuitry 3%

100%
• IPC initiated a new program to understand potential industry air and
water pollution problems.
• IPC held its first “film festival,” at which all movies produced by
various members describing details of the technology or market were
presented at the annual meeting.

1970
• IPC formed the Environmental Protection Committee with Glenn
Affleck, Hewlett Packard, and Jim Rogers, Raytheon, serving as co-
chairmen. This committee is now called the Environment, Health and
Safety Committee and continues to be very active.
• IPC completed the second Round Robin Test Program to evaluate the
state-of-the-art technology for multilayers.

45
46
Chapter 3: Components, Processes,
and the rise of Silicon Valley

The half-baked ideas of people are better than

the ideas of half-baked people.
— William Shockley

William Shockley, Walter Brattain, and John Bardeen invented the

transistor at the Bell Telephone Laboratories. They received the Nobel
Prize in Physics in 1956. William Shockley had established Shockley
Semiconductor Laboratory in 1955. In turn, Shockley recruited a group
of talented physicists and
engineers to work with him:
Robert Noyce, Gordon Moore,
Jay Last, Eugene Kleiner, and
Jean Hoerni, among others.
The fascinating story of the
invention of the transistor is
told by Christophe Lécuyer
in his article Technology and
Entrepreneurship in Silicon
Valley, published in late 2001.
Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley
Lécuyer describes how these
men, rebelling against Shockley’s heavy-handed management style, left
to start their own company, Fairchild Semiconductor, with financing
from Fairchild Camera and Instruments in 1957. These next few pages
are excerpted from his article.
In a few years, Fairchild Semiconductor revolutionized the
semiconductor industry. Using a new process recently developed at the
Bell Telephone Laboratories, Fairchild was the first commercial firm to
introduce high frequency silicon transistors to the market. Its research
and engineering staff later made major process and design innovations
to meet the strict performance and reliability requirements of the U.S.
military.
In 1959, Hoerni developed the planar process, a revolutionary
innovation which made possible the manufacture of highly reliable
silicon components. Capitalizing on this process, Noyce invented a
planar integrated circuit. (Jack Kilby had earlier developed a mesa
integrated circuit at Texas Instruments.) The integrated circuit idea was
put into silicon and developed as a product in the next two years by a

47
group directed by Last. Fairchild Semiconductor introduced its first
family of digital integrated circuits to the market in 1961.
Responding to a decline in the military demand for electronic
components in the early 1960s, Fairchild Semiconductor created new
markets for its transistors and integrated circuits in the commercial
sector. To meet the price and volume requirements of commercial
users, Fairchild’s engineers introduced mass production techniques
adapted from the electrical and automotive industries and set up plants
in low labor cost areas such as Hong Kong and South Korea. The firm’s
application laboratory also developed novel systems such as an all-solid
state television set and gave these designs at no cost to its customers,
thereby seeding a market for its products. To further convince
commercial users of the potential of integrated circuits, Moore
published his famous “Moore’s Law” in 1965. Moore predicted that
the number of transistors that could be crammed on a silicon circuit
would double every year — from 50 individual components in 1965
to 65,000 ten years later. Using these marketing techniques, Fairchild
developed a large market for its devices in the consumer electronics
and commercial computer industries by the mid-1960s. By 1966,
Fairchild had established itself as a mass producer of integrated circuits
and controlled 55% of the market for such devices in the United States.
Fairchild Semiconductor also brought venture capital and venture
capitalists to the Silicon Valley area. Financiers and engineers involved
in the establishment of Fairchild Semiconductor set up a series of
venture capital partnerships such as Davis and Rock, and Kleiner
Perkins. Fairchild’s success led also to an extraordinary entrepreneurial
expansion on the San Francisco Peninsula in the 1960s and early 1970s.
Sixty semiconductor companies were established in the area from 1961
to 1972. They were almost all founded by former Fairchild engineers
and managers. For example, Noyce and Moore incorporated Intel in
1968. Other Fairchild employees set up Amelco, Signetics, Intersil,
National Semiconductor, and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD). These
corporations exploited the revolutionary technologies developed by
Fairchild Semiconductor and further enlarged the commercial markets
for integrated circuits. Intel used a new MOS process developed at
Fairchild to manufacture high performance computer memories. A
group of Intel engineers around Ted Hoff, Federico Faggin, and Stan
Mazor, also designed the microprocessor, a computer-on-a-chip,
in 1971. As a result of these and other innovations, the Peninsula’s
semiconductor industry grew from 6,000 workers in 1966 to 27,000
in 1977. This rapid expansion deeply reshaped the region’s electronics
48
 manufacturing complex. It transformed an industrial district dominated
by tube manufacturing into the “Valley of Silicon,” as the area became
increasingly referred to in the early and mid-1970s.
Electronic component businesses and the venture capital industry
that emerged from them provided the foundation for Silicon Valley’s
explosive growth around new system industries such as computing,
instrumentation, and telecommunication in the 1970s and 1980s.
Fortunes made in components were reinvested in computing,
telecommunication, and instrumentation ventures. More importantly,
ever more powerful and cheaper integrated circuits made possible the
design of totally new systems. Start-ups and established firms exploited
these new technological and commercial opportunities. Hewlett-
Packard, which until then had concentrated on electronic measurement
instruments, expanded their business into calculators, minicomputers,
and inkjet printers. New ventures concentrated on fail-safe computers
(Tandem), video games (Atari), and telecommunication equipment
(Rolm). But it was the personal computer industry which established
Silicon Valley as a major center in electronic system manufacturing.
This industry, not unlike power grid tube manufacturing forty years
earlier, was started by a group of electronics hobbyists.

Early Microprocessors

• First microprocessor, the Intel 4004,

released in 1971, designed by Ted Hoff
for Japanese calculator company Busicom
• Followed by Intel 8008 and 4040
(1972) and 8080 (1974); entire computer Intel 4004
packaged as a single integrated
circuit chip, equivalent to having an
analytical engine the size of a shirt
button
• Motorola 6800 (1974)
• MOS Technology 6502 (1975) Intel 8080

• Zilog Z80 (1976)

49
 These enthusiasts congregated around an informal club, the
Homebrew Computer Club. The club spawned more than ten personal
computer ventures such as Processor Technology, Apple Computer,
and Osborne Computer in the mid-1970s. Funded by the Peninsula’s
venture capital community and employing experienced managers from
Fairchild and Intel, Apple rapidly emerged as the dominant personal
computer maker in Silicon Valley. It introduced a series of innovative
machines, including the Macintosh in 1984. In turn, Apple’s rapid
growth fueled the expansion of the software and disk drive industries
on the San Francisco Peninsula.
Startup companies such as Cisco Systems, Sun Microsystems,
Silicon Graphics, and MIPS Computer Systems, during the 1980s and
much of the 1990s, established themselves as key suppliers of advanced
workstations, routers, and other internet devices.1

IPC Standards
In relating the history of IPC, it is important to remember and
recognize the many standards that have been developed as part of
IPC programming. Indeed, the standardization programs of IPC have
been the backbone of the association’s success. What is so impressive
in realizing the extent of IPC’s standardization activity is the simple
realization that not merely hundreds, but thousands of individuals have
been involved in the creation and development of IPC standards.

The combined, dedicated work of countless professionals over the years has given
the industry IPC’s most notable contribution, IPC Standards.

50
 A Silicon Valley Timeline

1955 William Shockley establishes Shockley

Semiconductor Laboratories.

1957 Formation of Fairchild Semiconductor

1959 Invention of the planar process by Jean Hoerni at

Fairchild Semiconductor. Entry in Robert Noyce’s
patent notebook on the integrated circuit

1960-1961 A research and development team under Jay Last develops

the integrated circuit idea into a product.

1961 • Formation of Amelco and Signetics

• Varian merges with Eima.
• Gordon Moore proposes his “Moore’s Law” in
electronics.

1966 Charles Sporck of Fairchild Semiconductor takes over

National Semiconductor, an East Coast semiconductor
firm, and transforms it into a major Silicon Valley-based
integrated circuit manufacturer.

1968 Noyce and Moore incorporate Intel.

1971 Ted Hoff, Federico Faggin, and Stan Mazor develop the
microprocessor at Intel.

1975 Formation of the Homebrew Computer Club

1976 Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs establish Apple Computer.

1981 Andreas Bechtolsheim designs the SUN work station.

1982 • William Yeager develops a router for the Stanford

University Network.
• Formation of Sun Microsystems

1984 • Apple Computer introduces the Macintosh computer.

• Formation of Cisco Systems

51
 Moore’s Law and Other Dire Predictions

By 1965, integrated circuits or “chips” embraced as many as 50 elements.

That year a physical chemist named Gordon Moore, co-founder of the Intel
Corporation with Robert Noyce, wrote in a magazine article: “The future of
integrated electronics is the future of electronics itself.” He predicted that the
number of components on a chip would continue to double every year, an
estimate that, in the amended form
of a doubling every year and a half
or so, would become known in the
industry as Moore’s Law. While the
forecast was regarded as wild-eyed in
some quarters, it proved remarkably
accurate. The densest chips of 1970
held about 1,000 components. Chips
of the mid-1980s contained as many
as several hundred thousand. By the
mid-1990s some chips the size of a
baby’s fingernail embraced 20 million
Gordon Earle Moore is the co-founder
components.2 of Intel Corporation and the author of
Author Tim Dean countered in an Moore’s Law
article in PC Authority3 that “Moore’s Photo Source: Fachhochschule Augsburg
Fachbereich Elektrotechnik,
Law is not, nor has it ever been, www.fh-augsburg.de
defined as a doubling of transistors on a
chip every 18 months.” Dean says that Gordon Moore, then director of Fairchild
Semiconductor’s R&D Labs, stated in his infamous article, “Cramming More
Components Onto Integrated Circuits” in Electronics Magazine, (April 19, 1965)
that “the complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of
roughly a factor of two per year ... Certainly over the short term this rate can be
expected to continue, if not to increase.”
Dean adds:
Now, this couple of sentences alone is not enough to garner
Moore’s Law straight away — it needs a little translation. By
“complexity” Moore means the number of transistors, or “components,”
on a single integrated circuit. Easy enough. But the key comes from
the term “minimum component costs.” Moore noted that the more
components you crammed onto a chip, the lower the cost per
component. However, there were significant technical challenges to
cramming huge numbers (i.e., numbers in the 1000s) of components
on a single chip. That meant costs increased rapidly once you started
reaching the limits of the manufacturing capabilities.
52
 These two forces worked against each other and determined that
there was an optimal level of complexity that gave the highest number
of components on a chip for the lowest cost per component. Moore’s
observation was that the number of components per chip at this optimal
complexity level was doubling every 12 months, and that there was “no
reason to believe it will not remain nearly constant for at least 10 years.”
However, it only took until the early 1970s before Moore was forced
to revise his prediction. As more components were crammed on to the
chips, the design of the chips became increasingly more complex, which
made manufacturing even more difficult and expensive.
This slowed things down to a 24-month cycle, which became the
official formulation of the law in 1975 — the same formulation that
remains with us today. In fact, if you chart the number of transistors in
all of Intel’s mainstream processors since 1971 you’ll find they fit with
uncanny precision to Moore’s 24-month formulation.4

Sources

1. From Technology and Entrepreneurship in Silicon Valley, by

Christophe Lécuyer, published December 3, 2001, online at
www.nobelprize.org, specifically at: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/
physics/articles/lecuyer/index.html. Used with permission.

Lécuyer is also the author of Making Silicon Valley: Innovation and the
Growth of High Tech, 1930–1970.

2. National Academy of Engineering, www.greatachievements.org/?id=3967,

“Electronics History 4; Transistors.”

3., 4. Tim Dean, “Moore’s Laws flawed?” PC Authority, May, 2006

53
Spotlight:

IPC Round Robin Test Programs

Perhaps the most popular, and arguably the most valuable programs
instituted by IPC, have been the Round Robin Test Programs. A simple
statement in the report for 1958 reads “Initiated a new idea: a round robin
test program to compare plated-through holes with eyelets and grommets.” At
the time, many OEMs did not believe that plated-through holes (PTH) had the
same level of reliability as eyelets. Claims and promises meant nothing, the
OEMs wanted proof. The IPC Board of Directors came up with a basic idea,
which was to develop an appropriate cooperative program that would allow the
industry to evaluate the viability of through holes. Thus, a committee developed
an appropriate test sample. All manufacturers in the industry were invited to
submit samples for testing. Several companies volunteered to do the testing,
including Bell Labs.
The results demonstrated without question that PTHs were reliable, and
the program proved, from the outset, to be so successful that IPC has continued
to use this cooperative approach to constantly reevaluate the state-of-the-art
for many critical subjects including multilayers, additive process, hole size
capability, surface mounting and many other topics. The significance of this
approach is that the final data represents truly what the industry is capable of in
any particular area. It is believable data and provides a launching point for the
industry to move ahead to even greater accomplishments.
In the case of some of the major studies, such as evaluation of the state-of-
the-art for multilayers and for the additive process, the studies were undertaken
every two years to monitor progress.
Many of these major studies required significant voluntary investment by
participants. This included the time contributed by members to develop the
test programs, the time and money to produce the samples, the comprehensive
testing itself; and the time spent by individual experts to review and analyze the
test data. It has been estimated that the voluntary contributions of participants
together amount to many hundreds of thousands of dollars for many individual
projects. If these individual projects were to be undertaken by an outside
research company, the cost for some studies could easily have reached well
over a million dollars, while the sum of all the cost of effort to complete all of
the Round Robin Research Programs would amount to many millions of dollars.

54
IPC Technology Exchange
From the very beginning, technology exchange was an essential part of IPC
programming. Semi-annual meetings provided the opportunity for technology
exchange through papers presented at individual committee meeting sessions,
through major technical seminars on significant topics of the day, and through
evening workshops.

In 1975, IPC began sponsoring separate individual short courses and

workshops. The first was a design course held at Boston University. Workshop
and short course activity has grown steadily over the years. In 2005, IPC
sponsored more than 100 events worldwide, with many hundreds of individual
participants. IPC now holds events in Asia and Europe in addition to North
America.

55
Back East: Chuck Gladstone and
“Potted in Timonium”
Over the years, I became the unofficial historian for a company that
originated as Electronic Modules Corporation (EMC)
in Timonium, Maryland. Founded in 1961, the
company produced potted modules that performed
the rudimentary operations of early integrated circuits
(flip-flops, gates, etc.) These were then populated in
different combinations onto printed circuit boards
to perform various functions. The company’s early
brochures proclaimed “Potted in Timonium.”
Everyone would call about this new potting material, Module, Sept. 1978
only to discover that Timonium is a place instead of a
material.
The company’s ownership, name and direction changed numerous times
over the years, and I finally established a separate contract manufacturing
business with two partners several years
ago. But I still have the old images and
brochures! Here are a couple that always
make me smile.

Regards,
Chuck Gladstone
VP Operations
Chesapeake Manufacturing

EMC circa 1970 Hybrid Module Room

EMC circa 1970 Welded Module Room

56
 IPC Chronology: 1971-1975
1971
• 1971 was a recession year. The industry had been growing at
more than 20% each year and then suddenly dropped to 30% of
expectations. At this time, no one was certain where new applications
might come from, and the industry was nervous. Nevertheless, it was
agreed that IPC would continue to aggressively pursue all existing
programs.
• “Measles” on printed circuit boards continued to be an acceptability
issue for the industry. Particularly in a down market, measles rejects
could cause a serious blow to a struggling company. As a result,
IPC technical committees organized a comprehensive campaign to
understand and address the measles issue.
• IPC organized all policies and procedures into a single policy manual.
• George Messner, PCK Technology, presented the results of Multilayer
Round Robin III.
• IPC established a cooperative program with Underwriters
Laboratories (UL) to reduce unnecessary testing of printed circuit
board and laminate materials. This activity continues today.

The experts who served on the historic first “measles” committee. Seated:
(L-R) Frank Papiano, RCA; Dick Castonguay, Mica; Ed Cuneo, Cinch-
Graphik; and Chairman, Jim Swiggett, Photocircuits. Standing: (L-R) Arnie
Andrade, Sandia; George Knox, Uniglass; George Smith, NSA; Charles
Moser, Bureau of Engraving; and Dick Sarazin, Norplex

57
1972
• A major activity in 1972 was an upgrade of the structure for
finalization of IPC standards. Recommendations included the
following:
• Developing a standard format for IPC specifications.
• Deciding that IPC would process all of its standards through
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) via the
Electronics Industry Association (EIA).
• That a mechanism should be provided to more formally
provide test data to substantiate data used in IPC specifications.
(This led eventually to the development of the IPC Testing
Committee).
• Initiate a program to determine which member companies
had test resource facilities and would be willing to undertake
cooperative testing programs on subjects in which they had an
interest.
• More active participation in the International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC).
• Under the chairmanship of Joe Poch, Westinghouse Electric, IPC
published a Flat Cable Handbook.

1973
• Aware of the increasing need for more and better marketing
information, a special planning committee was formed to organize a
market-oriented seminar.
• IPC published the IPC Test Methods Manual under the chairmanship
of George Smith, Department of Defense (DoD).
• IPC issued a significant report on “Measles” which was later included
in IPC-A-600, Acceptability of Printed Boards.
• IPC formed a Policy Review Committee to meet periodically with
committee chairmen.
• IPC investigated ideas for a format to provide for cooperative
technical research. (Aside from the Round Robin Test and Evaluation
Programs, additional cooperative research did not materialize).

58
 Attendees at the special planning committee for a market seminar.
Seated (L-R): Dan McMillan, McGraw-Hill; Marv Larson, Bureau of
Engraving; and Bill McGinley, Methode. Standing (L-R): Meridith
Suhr, Collins; Ray Pritchard, IPC; Steve Loud, Owens-Corning;
George Messner, Photocircuits; Tom Burke, T.M. Associates; Jeff
Montgomery and Charles Hill, Quantum Science; Charles Wolff,
Western Electric; Ken Varker, IBM; and Wayne Boucher, The Futures
Group.

1974
IPC joined with the National Association of Metal Finishers
(NAMF) to interface with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to develop effluent standards impacting all electroplating
activity. IPC also participated with NAMF in filing a suit against
the EPA, objecting to the initial guidelines. To help underwrite this
project, IPC members were asked to make financial contributions and
more than $100,000 was collected.

Members of the 1974 Board. Seated (L-R): Henry Kalmus, Sr., Kalmus
& Associates; Jim Swiggett, Photocircuits and President of IPC; Marv
Larson, Bureau of Engraving; and Dennis Stalzer, Graphic Research.
Standing (L-R): Bill McGinley, Methode; Dave Easton, Agard; George
Morse, Cinch-Graphik; George Holmes, TRW; Ted Thomas, Ansley; Bill
Hangen, Sheldahl; Dick Zens, Electralab; and Bill Guyette, ACD Litton.
59
1975
• Market research is one of the key membership benefits offered by
IPC. IPC created the Technology Marketing Research Council
(TMRC), brainchild of Marv Larson, now called the Executive
Market and Technology Forum, to provide customized market
research and technology trends to TMRC members.
• IPC established a formal program to develop long-range plans for
IPC.
• IPC participated as a co-sponsor with the Electrical/Electronics
Insulation Conference (E/EIC) holding a joint industry trade show.
This program continued for three years.
• IPC published the IPC Process Effects Handbook under co-Chairmen
Jim Cost, Raytheon, and Jack Bramel, Honeywell.
• IPC sponsored its first workshop, a design course held at Boston
University. Today, IPC conducts hundreds of workshops a year
addressing both technical and management topics.
• Don Dinella, Western Electric, presented data from the first Round
Robin Test Program to evaluate the state-of-the-art of the additive
process.

Members of the original TMRC Steering Committee. Seated (L-R): Ken

Malgren, Norplex; Milt Smith, Westinghouse; Marv Larson, Bureau of
Engraving; Don Goffredo, Chemcut. Standing (L-R): Steve Hudson,
Owens-Corning; Jerry Siegmund and Charles Cobb, McDermid;
Shipley representative; Chris Kalmus, Kalmus & Associates; and Jack
McFalls, Western Electric.

60
Chapter 4: New Assembly Processes

In all science, error precedes the truth,

and it is better it should go first than last.
— Hugh Walpole

Interview

Gert Schouten on Soldering:

Focal Point of Circuit Assembly Technology
While advances in circuit assembly technology were moving apace
in the United States, European companies were advancing as well. Years
before the advent of surface mount technology (SMT), through hole
technology peaked as the primary technology for circuit board assembly,
and wave soldering was king. On both sides of the Atlantic, increasingly
sophisticated wave soldering
machines were finding their
way into production assembly
facilities.
At early trade shows,
the equipment line-ups were
certainly far different from
those of today. Instead of pick
and place machines, there
were insertion machines, plus
Early wave soldering of a through hole demo
board, late 1960s machines for plating, drilling,
crimping, cutting, everything
that had nothing to do with surface mount technology. Printing machines
were small; they mostly used screens, and did not print solder paste!
But even then, soldering was the focal point of the process, the means
by which, after board fabrication, all of the connections were made.
Soldering became the dominant step in the circuit manufacturing
process, and would remain so, especially once SMT stepped out on stage
and into the spotlight.
In the meantime, process and equipment engineers were working
behind the scenes to develop better ways of soldering and to build more
capable industrial machines to accomplish the job. These engineers
found guidance in the publications and standards issued by IPC, both in
the U.S. and abroad.

61
 One of those engineers was Gert
Schouten, who began early on in his career
to focus on machine soldering. Schouten,
now a senior engineer with Vitronics Soltec
in Oosterhout, the Netherlands, recounts
a remarkable 40 years of involvement in
machine soldering development. He has
written numerous papers and studies on the
progress of soldering technology; his is a
remarkable perspective.
Gert Schouten began working at Philips
Gert Schouten
Telecommunication Industry (PTI) in
1966 as process engineer. “My first major task was to set up the first
wave soldering machine in that plant” he writes. “The installation was
successful and of course we learned a great deal developing the process
to manufacture our products. I investigated areas such as solderability,
solderable coatings, fluxes, layout aspects and the effect of machine
settings on solder quality.”
During the time Gert worked for Philips, some automatic soldering
equipment was developed in the consumer electronics branch. A board
with components was dip fluxed, pre-dried and then placed over a
solder bath where it was dipped for a few seconds. Then, the board was
lifted out and given some time to cool down before the next board was
put into the machine. This was the state of the art in the late 1950s and
early 1960s, he says. “During the early sixties, the first wave soldering
machine generations became mature and were introduced to the shop
floor. Although Europe had its own wave soldering machine brands, such
as Fry, the main suppliers of wave soldering machines were at that time
Hollis and Electrovert.
“I learned something very important early on, that circuit boards
would have to be modified or adapted to the wave soldering process, not
the other way around. The solder joints on the boards at that time had
never been designed for a process like wave soldering. Before machine
soldering came about, all joints were soldered by hand using a soldering
iron. This, of course, meant that for every solder joint, the assembly
worker could choose or create the best soldering conditions for that
particular joint. The contact time for the soldering iron could be changed
per joint and also the amount of solder that was applied was decided by
the person who soldered the joints.
“When such an assembly was transferred to automatic, uniform
machine soldering, a lot of problems naturally showed up. Joints
62
contained less solder or were not sufficiently soldered due to lack of
solderability, or due to a board design that did not match the desired joint
layout for automatic soldering. These problems had not been foreseen
and as a result, wave soldering initially took the blame for these poor
soldering results. With hand soldering, all joints looked perfect, but now
after wave soldering a lot of touch-up was necessary. People asked, what
could be the benefit of such an automated soldering process?
“That was a question that was often asked in the beginning. Later,
when we realized that, in automatic soldering, each joint gets the same
treatment, such as soldering time and temperature, we came to the
conclusion that we had to design all joints so that they would fit into that
time/temperature frame that was directed by the machine.”
Apart from these design aspects, solderability issues became
important too. Schouten said that “The soldering machine will never
compensate for poor solderability. But what solderability level is
necessary for good soldering? Additionally, what surface finishes are
solderable, even after longer storage? What fluxes can be used, and will
the remaining residues be safe for the equipment? All of these questions/
problems required a quick answer and a good solution.”

Horizontal Versus Inclined Wave Soldering

The first wave soldering machine used in PTI was provided with a
horizontal conveyor, Schouten says. One benefit of its design was that
the infeed and outfeed were on the same level; “But on the other hand,
we found after comparing test results with other soldering lines that had
an inclined conveyor that the soldering results, such as bridge formation,
flags and spikes could not easily be optimized on machines with the
horizontal conveyor. Even when the solder wave nozzle was optimized,
the machine settings were rather critical, although good solder quality
could be achieved. The critical process window at the machine with a
horizontal conveyor was the main reason that, later on, within the Philips
organization, only machines with an inclined conveyor system were used
for wave soldering.
“Philips Telecommunication Industries was also involved in the
early 1970s in European space programs such as ELDO (the European
Launcher Development Organisation) and ANS (Astronomical
Netherlands Satellite). A totally new philosophy had to be developed,
combined with a comprehensive training course, for soldering that type
of equipment.”

63
The Impact of IPC-S-815
“In the mid-1970s, the European
electronic industry was confronted
with IPC directives that required
cleaning after soldering (IPC-S-815).
In the European telecommunication
industry, however, cleaning was not a
common practice. Strict solderability
requirements were observed for
components and boards, so that we were
able to solder with mildly activated
colophony-based fluxes. The flux
residues left on the board after soldering
proved in climatic tests to be harmless ANS, Astronomical Netherlands
Satellite, 1970s
for the equipment, so there was no
direct need for cleaning. In fact, many of the components used on such
boards, such as open coils or small transformers, were not designed for
immersion in a cleaning solution. It was felt that this would actually
increase the risk of problems in the long term, since such a cleaning
action could deposit a film of “contaminated” cleaning liquid in all
capillaries. After the evaporation of the cleaning liquid, a film of active
dirt may be left.
“With this scenario in mind, companies like Philips, Siemens and
Ericsson joined in their efforts to bring this subject to the IPC council
that was responsible for the content of IPC-815. As a result, IPC-815
adopted this European no-cleaning process as an alternative to standard
cleaning, necessary for more activated fluxes, into IPC-S-815.”

Solder-Cut-Solder Lines
“A new development in soldering during the mid-1970s was the use
of a double soldering system with a lead cutting unit positioned between
the two soldering machines. The idea was that the components could
be placed on the board without the extra lead cutting operation that was
normally used before soldering.
“This alternative method made use of a drag soldering machine or
a high wave soldering machine that was used to create the solder joints,
without looking to the side effects such as solder bridges and spikes or
flags that were a result of this technique due to long leads. Next, the
soldered board passed a unit with horizontal circular cutting blades
that trimmed all leads to the desired length. Finally, this board with the
trimmed leads that were already soldered was soldered for a second
64
time in a standard wave soldering machine to provide good soldered
joints without bridges and spikes. This so-called “SCS” (Solder-Cut-
Solder) system turned out to have some serious drawbacks as well. The
introduction of automatic component insertion machines by companies
such as Universal Instruments finally made the SCS system obsolete.
“Soon after wave soldering systems were introduced in the Philips
factories, it became clear that the whole production line in front of such
machines were
dependent on the
wave soldering
machine’s reliability.
If a wave soldering
machine had a
problem, it had a
great impact on the
entire production
line.
“At that time,
the wave soldering Horizontal production wave soldering machine,
machines from the mid-1960s
main suppliers Hollis
and Electrovert were new to the European market and the companies
had not yet established adequate service resources in Europe to handle
customer process problems. Their stocks of spare parts were rather
small. As a result, Philips was faced with serious losses when a machine
had a problem and went down for several days due to unavailability of
service.”
In a move to alleviate the problem, Philips called on a nearby
company, the Dutch Zeva Company, already their supplier for other
soldering equipment such as solder pots and soldering irons. “At that
time, the German branch of Zeva made drag soldering systems, but the
people at Philips had already decided that they wanted a wave soldering
system with an inclined conveyor.
This created a conflict in the Dutch and German Zeva organizations.
Finally they decided to separate the company and each would go their
own way. From that moment on, Harry Roepers, who owned the Dutch
Zeva Company, changed the company’s name to Soltec and decided to
develop a wave soldering machine according to the Philips demands.
“In the mid-eighties, all basic process developments on soldering
had been completed and were recorded in Philips standards. At that
point, I left Philips to join Soltec.
65
 “It was around that time that the development of SMDs for
reflow soldering resulted in consumer products that began to use chip
components not only in reflow soldering, but also in wave soldering.
Since these components were never designed for wave soldering in the
first place, we had to find ways in the process to promote good solder
joint formation. The obstacle here is often the component body, like the
SOT 23, that presses the solder wave away from the joint area. This is
due to a combination of the non-wettable epoxy body that in combination
with the surface tension of the solder create a “shadow” area where the
solder is unable to wet the board. It happens to be in that shadow region
that the connection leads are positioned where the solder joint must be
made.
“The solution to this problem was use of a dynamic wave that was
able to disturb this shadow effect, in combination with a good solder
pad design. This dynamic wave, the so-called “chip wave,” was often
a thin parabolic wave with a high velocity that resulted in the dynamic
behavior when the wave hit the board. In most cases, this dynamic wave
was followed by a second wave, the main wave, with a smooth flow. This
was necessary to create the optimal drainage conditions for bridge-free
soldering. Other solutions were developed, such as the “smart wave,”
which created a dynamic area at the front of the solder wave, followed by
a smooth wave part to achieve optimal solder drainage conditions.”

Reflow Soldering System Development

Gert Schouten has always been a wave soldering guy, but he
remembers when his company jumped into the reflow soldering
equipment supplier fray. It happened parallel with the development of
special waves for the soldering of chip components that were fixed with
a glue dot on the solder side of PCBs that additionally had common
leaded components. “More boards began to appear that just contained
only SMDs that should be mounted in solder paste and then soldered.
The joint formation for such boards required another technique. The
process profile was not only depending on the component diversity and
the board, but was also directed by the solder paste properties. All these
requirements made it necessary to create an oven that could be tuned for
the correct reflow profile.”

The Use of Nitrogen in Wave Soldering

“New synthetic fluxes for wave soldering were developed that
did not need cleaning after soldering. These “no-clean” fluxes were
characterized by very low solids content, often less than 4%. However,
66
they also had a very critical or small process window for wave soldering.
This is where wave soldering process engineers began to look at nitrogen
to support the flux action during the solder drainage at the area where
the board separates from the solder wave. At this stage of the process,
the joint acquires its final shape, going from all bridging joints to
individual solder joints. If, at this point, too much oxide (formed by
oxidation in-process) is present, solder bridging is likely to occur. The
function of the nitrogen was to replace the oxygen at least in that part of
the process.
“Nitrogen hoods and special nitrogen diffusers around the solder
wave(s) were developed to support the process. The ultimate solution
was found in a closed tunnel filled with nitrogen that had an oxygen level
of less than 10 ppm. An entry and exit vacuum lock closed this tunnel,
in which the air was
replaced by nitrogen in
a double flushing and
vacuuming operation.
In this inert-atmosphere
wave soldering machine
there was no need for
common soldering
fluxes. For this process,
we needed only just that
part of the flux activity
that was necessary to
remove the oxides from Wave soldering machines, early 1970s.
the metal parts, leads
and pads, to create good solder wetting conditions. Since this soldering
process did not introduce new oxides and had an absolutely clean solder
wave, no further flux activity was necessary. This process produced very
clean boards after soldering.”

Selective Soldering
“With the increasing use of more complex SMDs that could only
be soldered using a reflow soldering machine, only a few leaded
components that could not be replaced by SMDs were left. These
components, that often could not withstand a reflow soldering process,
still needed to be soldered. Hand soldering was sometimes an option if
just a few joints had to be soldered, but quality demands often mandated
machine soldering. This could be wave soldering with special pallets that

67
covered the reflow soldered components, or using components that could
withstand the reflow process and using “pin-in-paste” technology.”
Both of these solutions had their drawbacks, Schouten says. “This
is where a specific machine for selective soldering could offer a good
solution. Today’s selective soldering machine, in essence, contains a
fluxing station able to flux only those joints that need to be soldered,
has a preheat station, and has a soldering robot that makes it possible to
solder single joints, or to drag solder a row of selected joints. The robot
manipulates the board with the selected joints over a small solder nozzle
at which a spherical solder well is positioned. All separate joints can be
given their own specific dwell time. The drag speed and drag angle can
be set as required. Even different solder nozzles can be used for such a
process. If a board contains many joints with leaded components, there
is the possibility to dip-solder all those joints simultaneously in one
process.” For this process, a board-specific nozzle plate is used, so that
the selective soldering process will not affect surrounding components,
while all selected joints are soldered at the same time.
Long-time industry veteran and SMT technology pioneer Phil
Marcoux also recalls some of the significant milestones in the
development of the wave soldering process, such as the hot air knife.
“This device helped remove excess solder collected by the SMT
components that were glued onto the wave side of the board. I think that
the technology was introduced by Sensbey in the early 1980s since I
recall needing to buy one in the 1983-84 timeframe.”
Another issue with wave soldering was the use of special fixturing to
accommodate unique soldering applications or board designs. Fixtures
tended to be expensive, since they were by nature custom fabricated, and
often made of costly metals with low thermal coefficients of expansion.
Marcoux remembers “spending a lot of money on special fixtures”; it is
likely that many others remember doing the same. Schouten says that
“Many of the fixtures that Phil remembers were often used to keep the
front of the board flat to create a smooth entrance into the solder wave
and to reduce the risk of solder flooding over the top side of the wave.
Also, when a board had large slots or cutouts, these openings needed to
be covered by fixtures, especially when SMDs had to be soldered with a
turbulent wave. Sometimes one could avoid using some fixtures when it
was possible to install a wire support in the solder wave.”
Marcoux also remembers the push to develop suitable adhesives for
SMDs on the underside of wave soldered boards. “The properties of the
adhesive were critical because the adhesive had to hold the component
in place through the wave but not form so strong a joint as to damage
68
the board if a component needed to be replaced. Eventually, someone
created an adhesive that had strong shear strength but broke easily when
twisted with tweezers.” Marcoux recalls that application of the adhesive
was also a “sticky” issue. At first, it had to be stenciled, which was a
messy process. Then, a Japanese company developed a pin transfer
method that neatly applied a consistent dot of adhesive to the board, just
the right amount to hold the body of the component in place without
interfering with the solder connection areas.
Not only did the SMDs need to be glued, Schouten recalls, but
the adhesive required curing, usually by heating. “Indeed, Phil is right
that the glue had to be strong enough to hold the SMD, but had to easily
break when the component had to be replaced.” Sometimes heating the
board softened the adhesive enough so that it would twist off with very
little resistance. “In the process of glue application that Phil describes,
there was also the alternative to dispense the glue with a syringe. But as
Phil said, pin transfer was the most common system.”
It has been a long road for Gert Schouten, but he has few regrets;
indeed, he sums up his experience as thus: “In 40 years involved in the
development of machine soldering in electronics, I’ve never had a dull
moment.”

69
 IPC Chronology: 1976-1977
1976
• In 1976, IPC worked with the U.S. Defense Electronics Supply
Center (DESC) to review their approach to developing military
specifications. In the past, DESC contracted with outside experts
to prepare initial drafts which were then reviewed by a joint
government/industry group. DESC agreed to have their future initial
drafts prepared by volunteer experts from IPC member companies,
thereby providing a better resource for the initial draft and at no cost
to the government (and taxpayer).
• IPC formed two special Blue Ribbon Committees, one for the study
of Insulation Resistance, and the other for Electromigration.

1977
• 1977 was the year that IPC officially changed its name to the Institute
for Interconnecting and Packaging Electronic Circuits. Discussions
had started in 1974 on broadening the group’s name to reflect the
inclusion of packaging and interconnects other than printed boards.
The name change was first approved by a blue ribbon steering
committee, the Committee Chairman Council, the Technical
Activities Executive Committee and the Board of Directors. It was
approved by a vote of the membership with 87% in favor.

IPC members who served on the committee to change IPC’s name. Seated
(L-R): Marv Larson, Don Dinella, Bill Hangen, and Ken Varker. Standing (L-R):
Arnie Andrade, Jim Swiggett, George Smith, Stan Randall, and Bernie Kessler

70
 • The IPC “Hall of Fame” was instituted. The first recipient of the
award was Bill McGinley, IPC’s first president.
• A discussion began concerning the possible need for staff access to a
computer.
• Ken Hafften, Bureau of Engraving, and Dwayne Poteet, Texas
Instruments, led a committee that developed the IPC multi-purpose
test board (IPC-B-25).

The new name and logo of IPC were displayed for the first time in 1977.
Shown at the presentation are (L-R) Jim Swiggett, IPC President; Bill
McGinley, IPC’s first President; and Bernie Kessler, first chairman of the
TAEC.

71
72
Chapter 5: The Rise of Surface Mount Technology

Science never solves a problem without creating ten more.

— George Bernard Shaw

The emergence of Surface Mount Technology, or SMT, in the early

1980s was the beginning of a seismic change in printed circuit board
design and manufacturing technology. SMT meant radical changes
“across the board” not only in component types and lead configurations,
but also in new types and technologies of assembly equipment. To
complicate matters, there were
traditional through hole boards,
100% SMT boards, and a bevy
of combinations in between, with
“percentages” of surface mount
content.
SMT changed everything. Some
welcomed it; some did not. The effect
on the industry was all-transforming,
for SMT came on the scene sweeping
all before it. It was an enabling Surface mount passive components,
technology, allowing much greater large and small (center and adjacent)
miniaturization of circuits, higher
complexity of circuits, and increased power and functionality.
The transition to SMT was, of course, neither sudden nor absolute.
Through hole products continued to be built, the difference being that
more and more boards had an increasingly higher percentage of surface
mounted devices (SMDs) comprising them. There were entirely SMT
assemblies, and there were “mixed-technology” boards. Eventually, they
were given descriptive classifications such as Type I, Type II, and Type
III; ultimately, however, the proliferation of diverse board types and
styles rendered such classifications inadequate, and thus they are little
used today.
Today, virtually all mass-produced electronics circuitry is
manufactured using a large percentage of surface mount technology
(SMT). Once SMT started to be used in the 1980s, the change from
conventional leaded components to SMDs took place quickly in
view of the enormous gains that could be made using SMT. Mass
produced electronic circuit boards need to be manufactured in a highly
mechanized manner. The traditional leaded electronic components do
not lend themselves to this approach. Although some mechanization was
73
possible, component leads need to be preformed, and, when they were
inserted into boards automatically, problems were often encountered as
wires did not fit properly, thus slowing production rates considerably.
It was reasoned that the wires that had traditionally been used
for connections were not actually needed for printed circuit board
construction. Rather than having leads placed through holes, the
components could be soldered onto pads on the board instead. This also
saved the need for drilling as many holes in boards.
As the components were mounted on the surface of the board, rather
than having connections that went through holes in the board, the new
technology was called surface mount technology or SMT. The idea for SMT
was adopted very quickly because it enabled greater levels of mechanization
to be used, and it considerably saved on manufacturing costs.
To accommodate surface mount technology, SMT, a completely new
set of components was needed. New SMT outlines were required, and
often the same components, e.g., ICs were sold in both traditional leaded
packages and SMT packages. Despite this, the gains of using SMT
proved to be so large that it was adopted very quickly.
SMDs were a motley lot at the beginning of the SMT era. Certainly
there were passives, chip components that lent themselves easily to
the new process. But there was a shortage of SMDs in many forms,
and many through hole components were simply unavailable in SMT
configurations. Accordingly, many were modified. In many instances,
through hole components such as Dual In-line Packages (DIPS) simply
had their leads snipped, and they were soldered to SMT pads with
soldered butt-joints, i.e., their leads were perpendicular to the pad
surface. This was not the most flexible type of joint, though strong, and
there were concerns that, through thermal cycling, these joints might fail
ultimately due to stress. Again, these through hole packages were never
meant to see molten solder temperatures; accordingly, many melted,
fused, or charred when run through a reflow oven.
Another problem had to do with the board material; epoxy/glass
boards, such as FR-4 material, tended to move around a lot when
heated. They might warp, or bow, or twist, or at least change somewhat
dimensionally, depending upon how much copper they had inside of
them, and how it was distributed. FR-4 also went through a rather
soft “glass transition” phase when heated. Accordingly, it was deemed
necessary to come up with more flexible lead designs for components
on epoxy/glass boards than had been required of hybrids, whose
components had similar thermal coefficients of expansion (TCEs) to that
of their substrates, such as Leadless Chip Carriers (LCCs) on cofired
74
ceramic. Thus, the now-familiar gull-wing and J-leads were developed.
Some of the following is taken from www.radio-electronics.com.
The various stages in the SMT production processes include adding
solder paste to the board, pick and place of the components, soldering,
cleaning (sometimes), inspection, and test. All these processes are
required, and need to be monitored to ensure that product of the highest
quality is produced.
Solder paste: Prior
to the addition of the
components to a board,
solder paste must be added
to those areas of the board
where solder is required.
Typically, these areas are
the component pads. This
is achieved using a solder
screen or stencil.1
Pick and place: The
board with the added
solder paste is then passed Rework of gull-wing leaded SMDs: applying liquid
flux prior to heating. Components in foreground
into the pick and place have “fine pitch” lead spacing.
process. Here, a machine
loaded with reels of components picks the components from the reels or
other dispensers and places them onto the correct position on the board.
The components placed onto the board are held in place by the tension of
the solder paste. This is usually sufficient to keep them in place. In some
processes, automated dispensers add small dots of adhesive to secure the
components to the board. This is normally done only if the board is to be
wave soldered. The disadvantage of the process is that any repair is made
far more difficult by the presence of the adhesive, although some glues
are designed to degrade during the soldering process.
Soldering: Once the components have been added to the board,
the next stage of the process is to pass it through the reflow soldering
machine. Wave soldering is often used for passive components on the
bottom of a double-sided board or, for some through hole parts, with
the PCB mounted in a custom pallet. Increasingly, selective soldering
machines are used for these individual components and connectors.
Wave soldering, the primary means by which through hole
connections were made, did not become obsolete with the advent of
SMT. In fact, wave soldering continues to enjoy widespread use today
in part due to the development of large components, connectors, odd
75
form components, and other applications. As mentioned earlier, as
SMT occupied an increasingly larger percentage of circuit assemblies
and boards became double-sided, we often saw situations wherein chip
components would be attached to the bottom side of a PCB with epoxy
dots (and then cured), and then run through a wave soldering machine
whereby the through hole components and glued chips were soldered at
once. The top side of the board held the other SMDs, plastic parts and
those that could not withstand direct contact with the wave, or would
not wave solder properly due to their design (entrap solder, etc.). This
side of the board would be
printed with solder paste,
components placed upon it
by hand or (later) by pick
and place robotics, and
then sent through a reflow
soldering oven to reflow the
top components. The PCB
was usually transported in
a boat or fixture to keep the
bottom-side components
Ball Grid Array (BGA) packages
from touching the conveyor
belt. Later, these boards would travel on beltless edge conveyors. Care
had to be taken because, regardless of whether the top or bottom side
was processed first, one side or the other was going to inescapably see a
second reflow. This presented dangers and tradeoffs; for example, many
through hole components were not designed to see extended exposure
to reflow temperatures as they would be in an SMT reflow oven. Also,
with a second reflow, there was once again the concern for solder joint
oxidation and dewetting. What if anything on the bottom side needed
rework? Now parts of that board would see a total of four exposures
to molten solder temperatures; two for manufacture, two for rework
(removal of a defective part, and the re-soldering of a new one in its
place).
Although most SMT processes use no-clean pastes and fluxes,
cleaning is often required for high reliability (Hi-rel) assemblies.
Inspection: After the boards have been passed through the soldering
process, they are often inspected. Manual inspection is not an option for
surface mount boards employing a hundred or more components. Instead,
automatic optical inspection is a far more viable solution. AOI/AXI
machines are available that are able to inspect boards and detect poor joints,
misplaced components and, some instances, in the wrong component.1
76
 Test: It is necessary to test electronic products before they leave the
factory. There are several ways in which they may be tested.
Increasing circuit density, power, and complexity led to a greater
number of smaller lead connections; thus “fine pitch” technology was
born. This created its own set of manufacturing problems because it
required tighter tolerances literally everywhere. Whereas 50-mil spacing
between the centers of leads had been common, fine pitch took that
spacing down to 10 mils and less. Pick and place machines had to be
more accurate.
The ball grid array, or BGA, became the solution to the problem
of producing a miniature package for an integrated circuit with many
hundreds of pins. Pin grid arrays and dual-in-line surface mount
(SOIC) packages were being produced with more and more pins, and
with decreasing spacing (pitch) between the pins, but this was causing
difficulties for the soldering process. As package pins got closer together,
the danger of accidentally bridging adjacent pins with solder grew.
BGAs do not have this problem because the solder is factory-applied
to the package in exactly the right amount. Also, the connections are
beneath the package, utilizing all of that valuable real estate, rather than
around the periphery. The BGA package rests on solder spheres, or balls,
of higher-temperature solder that does not melt during reflow, but the
lower-temperature solder connecting the balls to the package, and then to
the pads or footprint on the PCB below, makes a physical and electrical
connection to the board.
A further advantage of BGA packages over leaded packages is the
lower thermal resistance between the package and the PCB. This allows
heat generated by the integrated circuit inside the package to flow more
easily to the PCB, preventing the chip from overheating.

77
Multichip Modules

The mid-1990s saw the emergence of the Multichip Module, or

MCM, an electronic package structure consisting of two or more
“bare” or unpackaged integrated circuits interconnected on a common
substrate. The interconnects were usually multiple layers, separated by
insulating material, and interconnected by conductive vias. MCMs in
concept were not new at the
time, but the new generation
offered wiring densities of up
to 90% as compared to only
about 10% for conventional
printed circuit boards. Their
re-emergence was driven by the
need to miniaturize and improve
the performance of conventional
PCBs. MCMs offered better
performance density per unit cost The DataStar Supercomputing cluster at
the San Diego Supercomputer Center has
than conventional single-chip 2464 processors and is the 35th most
packages on PCBs. powerful supercomputer in the world. One
As workstations approached DataStar node, the IBM p655+, employs
an 8-processor Power4+ -based multichip
the performance of mainframe module (shown above), that consists of
computers, and personal four integrated dual-core chips.
computers and laptop computers Source: University of California, San Diego, Dept.
of Computer Science and Engineering (www-cse.
approached workstations, the
ucsd.edu/).
need to reduce wiring delay
by eliminating individually packaged chips seemed obvious. Signal
delay is minimized in MCMs due to a reduction in total length of
the interconnect which, in turn, reduces parasitic circuit elements.
Depending on the supporting substrate, MCMs were classified as MCM-
L (laminate), MCM-C (ceramic), or MCM-D (deposited). MCM-Ls
used advanced printed circuit board technologies, copper conductors,
and plastic laminate-based dielectrics. Although MCM technology
evolved from conventional printed circuit board technology, significant
differences existed between MCMs and PCBs. Developed in response to
advances in integrated circuit technology, especially VLSI technologies,
the compact design of bare chips on MCMs helped make laptop and
notebook computers possible due to the MCM’s ability to provide
superior system performance and reliability, increased operating speed,
and reduced system size and weight.

78
EMS: The Birth of an Industry and IPC
By Tony Hilvers, IPC
The arc of the Electronics Manufacturing Services Industry can
take your breath away. A group of hearty entrepreneurs establish their
companies in their basements or small offices, sell their services like
crazy and, aided by technology, grow to be a global force in a little more
than 20 years.
Yet, very little reflection has been given to
the birth and growth of this industry. Maybe
the industry has no historical father. Or the
culture of the EMS industry doesn’t tolerate
companies or individuals who reminisce
about past successes: in other words, looking
back means you’re not looking ahead. Maybe
they believed as Andy Grove did that “success
breeds complacency. Complacency breeds
failure. Only the paranoid survive.”
The birth of an industry usually has
one colorful, strong or eccentric leader that
personifies an entire industry: software has
Bill Gates, semiconductors have Andy Grove Tony Hilvers
and the personal computer is intimately linked to Steve Jobs. The careers
of these industry giants nicely parallel the birth and growth of their
respective industry.
Not so for the EMS industry. There were multiple strong, eccentric
and colorful leaders: SCI’s Olin King; Manu-Tronics’ Roger Mayer;
Roger Main at IEC; Bonnie Fena at Hibbing Electronics; Bruce Ramsey
at AVEX; Phil Marcoux at AWI; and Winston Chen at Solectron to
name only a few. They came from all parts of the country and all were
exceptionally competitive.
These individuals were a study in contrasts. Californian Winston
Chen, a Buddhist, was raised in Taiwan, received a doctorate in physics
from Harvard and worked for IBM with several patents to his credit.
He was reserved and unassuming and yet competitive enough to grow
Solectron to become a multi-billion dollar company.
As an example, Solectron was advertising in the late 80s their
“surface mount capabilities” although most of the SMT components
they placed were by hand. A figurative stone’s throw away, however, his
competitor AWI, founded by Phil Marcoux, arguably the father of SMT,
featured a complete, functioning SMT line.
79
 Conversely, Olin King, a rocket scientist (which no doubts explains
the reason why his company was established in Huntsville, Alabama)
was a hard charging, mercurial southerner and the consummate
salesman. And like Winston, he too dramatically grew his company.
Olin probably has more folklore attached to him than anyone else in the
EMS industry.
Tino Gonzalez, who at one time worked for SCI in their Rapid City,
S.D. facility, said that Olin would personally approve his travel to IPC
meetings. Which meant the founder of what was then a $500 million
and growing corporation was approving a process engineer’s travel
authorization.
The director of sales at a top tier EMS company, many years
ago, was escorting a potential major customer through their facilities
in Huntsville. He tried his best to have his president meet with the
customers but the president couldn’t find the time. After the tour ended
at 4:00 pm, the director of sales thanked his customers for coming and
asked them what time they were flying out of Huntsville.
“We’re flying out tomorrow night,” the customers said. “Olin King
is cooking dinner for us at his house tonight and then he’s giving us a
guided tour of his plants tomorrow.”
California or Alabama; rocket engineer or physicist; the competitive
drive of Chen, King and other industry pioneers energized the growth of
the EMS industry.

IPC and the EMS Industry

If the EMS leaders were advocating growth and opportunity for this
new industry, IPC was adding legitimacy.
In 1983, an IPC member in Texas questioned why IPC didn’t collect
market research data on contract assembly companies or “board stuffers”
as they were also called. Ray Pritchard, IPC’s executive director, asked
me to take a look at the potential market.
I started calling companies — first the one in Texas who asked
for the market research data. Then I called his competitors and their
competitors and over time I collected a list of nearly 50 companies.
When I asked them what they did, they said they assembled printed
circuit boards but “don’t tell anyone else because we think we’re the only
ones providing this service.”
Using this list of companies and IPC’s database, IPC (Ray Pritchard
really did all the number crunching and data analysis) published its first
market research report “Survey of the Assembly Market” in 1984. IPC
estimated that the “outside service to assemble PWBs” in 1983 was
80
$1 billion in the United States and it was estimated to grow to $1.7
billion in 1984.”
Nearly 100 OEMs and 37 independent assembly companies returned
questionnaires. The report especially mentioned that these 37 companies
were extremely optimistic about the growth of outside assembly service
in the next two to three years. In a harbinger of the things to come, IPC’s
sample reported they expected to grow 110 percent the following year.
We were extremely happy about the assembly report. We published
a press release on the report commenting on the size of this new
independent assembly market. The news, in turn, was reported by
industry trade publications.
Almost immediately I received a call from Wayne Moxley, president
of Avco Electronics in Huntsville. Avco would later become Avex and
still later merge into Benchmark Electronics.
Wayne was upset. “Hey, I read your press release on the independent
electronics assembly market. You valued the industry at $1.7 billion.
What a bunch of bull —. You have dramatically undervalued the market.
Olin King and I have almost $500 million in revenue alone. How do
you explain the difference? You put us at real disadvantage with the
investment community.”
“Well,” I said, “our market study did not include value add.” “Ah,
o.k., never mind,” he said and hung up the phone.
At that time, most companies were still operating a consignment
business — they would receive the components and printed circuit
boards from their OEMs customers and the independent assembly
company would then complete the assembly. During this period, the
industry was often called “board stuffers,” a not too flattering term.
Avco and SCI and a handful of companies were transitioning to
turnkey assembly or value add — they would buy components and
boards for their customers and complete the assembly. As a result, the
cost of the components and PWBs would rightly show up in their sales
data.
This would be one of the only studies reporting non-value added
revenue. The industry quickly transitioned to turnkey assembly and the
future IPC market research reports would report sales revenue. Later
of course, IPC added a “systems build category” to recognize EMS
companies’ persistent march to product design and system or product
manufacturing.
IPC continues to conduct market research on the EMS industry. We
estimate that in 2006 the EMS market in North America was $53 billion
while the global EMS industry had total revenues of $213 billion. For
81
North America alone, the $53 billion represents a 17 percent compound
annual growth rate since IPC’s first market research report in 1983.
Without a doubt, IPC’s market research lent credibility to the EMS
industry. Companies would trot out the IPC market research study to
their banker and say “if you don’t believe how fast we’re growing, take a
look at the research of this independent trade association.”
Our market research also received a lot of notice from Wall Street.
As a result, analysts began to report on the industry and its growth.

Meetings and Networking

IPC’s original survey asked the independent assembly companies
(we struggled with this name for several years) on how we, IPC, could
be of service to them. Development of standards or guidelines rated high
and the lowest rated item was informal meetings.
Yet, by working with the PWB presidents and the technical
committees, we knew the power of networking by industry peers. We
knew if the senior managers of EMS companies would come together,
they would work together for the betterment of the industry. They would
also of course become IPC members.
Gathering the EMS executives together for the first few years
was a tough go. We created a mini focus group in the late 1980s to
determine the direction we could take for EMS programming. Attending
the meeting were Joe Sullivan, president of Flextronics, a real up
and coming assembly company; Bonnie Fena, president of Hibbing
Electronics; Jack Calderon, Interconics; Roger Mayer, Manu-Tronics;
and John Endee, president of Photocircuits.
John Endee and Ray Pritchard described some of the programs IPC
was conducting for the PWB presidents, including a two hour breakfast
meeting in the spring and fall where the presidents would share market
data.
Joe Sullivan was brief and to the point in responding to our request
for insight into potential programs for EMS companies: “I’m extremely
busy growing my company. I don’t want to necessarily talk to my
competitors. Give me a reason to attend the meeting. Give me something
to learn.”
It was clear to IPC staff that EMS company leaders would attend
an IPC meeting but there needed to be a formal program developed and
directed specifically at and for EMS companies.
This focus group led to the creation of the IPC EMS management
council soon after. The Steering Committee was initially chaired by

82
Roger Mayer, Manu-Tronics, and later by Stan Plzak, Pensar; David
Frayden, IEC, and currently by Steve Pudles, Nu Visions.
The steering committee created programming for the bi-annual
EMS management meeting as well as a number of groundbreaking
programs to help EMS companies. These programs created or advocated
by the steering committee included the EMSI-TC2 - IPC Sample Master
Ordering Agreement for EMS Companies and OEMs, EMS Program
Manager Certification, and the IPC-A-610 Certification Program.

From Board Stuffers to the IPC Board

In the early 1990s, a trade association based in Detroit began angling
for “contract manufacturers.” The association’s membership included
office cleaning services as one of their key membership groups.
Although eminently better than board stuffers, I never liked the
name “contract manufacturers.” To me, the term conjured up day labors
coming to the job site in yellow school buses. It also reminded me that
this new but hotly growing industry would have other groups vying for
their attention.
We (Sue Mucha, Brian Throneberry, Leo Reynolds, Steve Pudles,
Bonnie Fena and Stan Plzak) had an ad hoc meeting in a hotel lobby.
I mentioned I didn’t like the term contract manufacturers. They didn’t
either. After lots of brainstorming, the name “Electronics Manufacturing
Services Industry” was decided by the group or EMSI for short. They
reasoned the name more fully represented the wide range of services
their companies were now providing.
The name was proposed to attendees at the EMS management
meeting in October, 1991 in Anaheim, Calif. I would like to report it was
a unanimous, quick and positive vote by the attendees. That wasn’t the
case.
Jack Calderon was in favor of removing the “s” from electronics
while Sue Mucha favored keeping the “s.” Each had very persuasive
reasons for their position. However, for the life of me, I can’t remember
their reasons. I’ll bet though if you asked them, they would both have a
reasoned, articulate response to that question.
After an exhausting two hour debate, Plzak called for the question
and the majority at the meeting voted to keep the “s.” The industry had a
new name. Almost immediately (or so it seems now but it probably took
a couple of years), the companies began to refer to themselves as EMS
providers. It didn’t hurt that Wall Street analysts loved the name and
began calling the companies they followed EMS companies.

83
 A compelling business model, charismatic leaders, market research,
a new name and attention by Wall Street all conspired to drive the EMS
industry to continued double digit growth. What was left? For IPC, it
meant a seat on the board of directors for EMS leadership.
Two historic firsts occurred in 1991 for IPC: Bonnie Fena, president
of Hibbing Electronics became the first woman and the first EMS
company representative to be elected to the IPC Board of Directors. Fena
became the chairman of the IPC Board of Directors in 1996. The EMS
Industry was fully invested in IPC.

Why EMS?
While I certainly believe IPC played a valuable role in the formation
and growth of the EMS industry and I certainly include industry
leadership in the equation for success, the growth of the EMS industry
was really the result of a “perfect storm” in the electronics industry. This
perfect convergence was the drive to strategically outsource electronics
assembly and the advent of surface mount technology.
Strategic outsourcing was taking corporate business practices by
storm and the electronics industry was not immune to this business
model.
In the past, OEMs had used outsourcing tactically when they needed
extra capacity. As the need for surface mount technology capability
became apparent, OEMs finally saw the EMS as a strategic solution.
Rather than invest in the capital demands of SMT and training of their
human capital — and take the technology risks — OEMs started to
depend on EMS companies. The movement was hastened by the value in
time-to-market capabilities.
The computer industry was one of the first industries to fully
embrace the outsourcing model, adding legitimacy to outsourcing of
electronics assembly. With the technology revolution of the 1990s,
new OEM players emerged. These companies found EMS companies
to design and build their products. The new startups, as a result, were
not burdened by capital equipment and brick and mortar investment in
electronics manufacturing facilities. Investors loved this business model.
Andy Rappaport, a speaker at an IPC marketing meeting in 1992,
predicted the rapid outsourcing by the computer industry in his award
winning Harvard Business Review article “The Computerless Computer
Company.”
He said that, by the end of the century, the most successful
computer companies would be buying computers rather than building
them. Defining how computers are used, not how they are built, would
84
create real value. Three new rules would guide the computer industry’s
strategic transformation: 1) compete on utility, not power; 2) monopolize
the true sources of added value; and 3) maximize the sophistication
of the value delivered, while minimizing the sophistication of the
technology consumed.
Some may disagree with Rappaport’s Numbers 1 and 3 but the
electronics industry is certainly “monopolizing the true sources of value
add.” The massive, vertically integrated company is gone. It has been
replaced by companies who embrace an outsourcing strategy that prizes
time to market and cost reduction and recognizes the consistent drum
beat of globalization.

Source:
1. Source: www.radio-electronics.com, “Electronics Manufacturing.”

85
Recollection:

The Birth of SMT

By Phil Marcoux

In my early involvement in SMT, I recall that

it was the digital watch industry that was really
responsible for the birth of SMT, in the late 1970s. I
was with the Analog Division of Signetics, a Philips
subsidiary at the time, when we got some parts in
that a watch manufacturer sent to us to see if we
could find a way to build them into a digital watch
product.
These packages were through hole packages,
much smaller than through hole packages at the
time, and they had a pitch of something like 40
mils, with through hole leads. We were excited, Phil Marcoux
thought these might have applications, but not in
that format. We didn’t think that any of the board manufacturers that we knew
at the time could make the through holes small enough to make these practical.
One of our team, while examining them, bent the leads and commented that if
the leads were bent and splayed out, we might be able to mount them on the
surface of the tiny board. These led to the SOIC package that we know today.
There were many fathers to the success story. About the same time, TI
started talking about a package that they had come out with for memory
devices that had a J-lead on it, and that became the PLCC package.
Around 1980, things began happening very quickly in the development
of surface mount technology. Surface Mount had actually not been named or
coined at the time, so we gave a paper at the NEPCON show (1981) where
we referred to it as the “Micro-Min” process for mounting these components
on circuit boards. Then, Philips decided that the interest in these packages
— particularly their chip capacitors — was more than had been expected, and
was actually growing at an unprecedented rate.

86
Recollection:

More Thoughts on the EMS Industry

By Brian Throneberry

When I reflect on the last 25 years of the EMS industry, what comes to
mind are the internal and external events that have shaped this business as well
as my career. I think of the one individual who had a profound influence on my
career, Bruce Ramsey. Bruce taught me
and a lot of people in the EMS business to
treat others in this business as you would
want to be treated; i.e., fairness was at
the top of his list not only with employees
but with the customer as well. He taught
me to market and sell this business to
customers. Bruce had a saying “You
bid jobs to win; you build jobs to make
money.” This saying was more about how
you market your company to customers
Brian Throneberry
than it was about pricing.
The fun thing about this business is seeing the first technologies that
have shaped our lives. I can remember seeing the first PC-1 board before
it was announced to the public. When Teledyne won the PC Jr. Program in
1983, it set the standard for the quest for the sub-$1000.00 PC. However, that
threshold was only met in the last six years when the PC became a household
appliance. It was a novelty to see surface mount products in 1984 such as a
wrist watch alarm for diabetic children. Not until 1990 did surface mount hit the
mainstream as the de facto technology for PCBA assembly. I remember building
a search engine PCBA in the 1980s that was a predecessor to today’s internet
search engines. I saw many firsts in the 1980s in the electronics industry, such
as the first touch screen panel, first universal power supply, the first TV gaming
modules, the first video-on-demand system, and the reduction from the 8 inch
and 5 inch disk drives to the first 3 ½ inch disk drive. Business was ripe for start-
ups such as Dell, Cisco, and Compaq. The decade of the ‘90s was more about
globalization of the EMS Industry and the OEMs selling their manufacturing
capacity to the EMS providers.
The EMS Industry was a decade ahead of the now controversial
“outsourcing trend” that other companies in different markets are using today.
Reflecting back on some of the firsts, I remember when IPC held their first
meeting for the EMS Industry. I was representing Avex at the time. The other

87
attendees were from Group Technologies, Solectron and SCI, four companies
who kept a suspicious eye on each other. From that meeting, IPC has gone on
to have a profound effect on the industry in training, standardization, access
to investment capital, lobbying for beneficial government laws for the industry,
and marketing the EMS Industry for legitimacy. It will be hard to see what other
challenges IPC will face in the future, but I have all the confidence that they will
be up to it.
The one thing that I miss today in the EMS Industry is the bravado that
certain individuals gave to the industry, which created a certain espirit de corps.
I miss the persona of Olin King, Roger Main, Bill Morean, Michael Marks,
Winston Chen, Bonnie Fena, and Roger Mayer. These individuals shaped
this industry into what it has become today. The passion they put into their
companies made every company in this industry better because you wanted
to beat them at their own game. I am sure employees who were close to these
individuals could tell hours of intriguing stories on how they won certain jobs
and how they manage their companies. I have my own stories about going up
against these individuals in head-to-head marketing. It was always the sweetest
pleasure to win business from one of these companies when they personally
were involved in the sale.
When I was asked about writing my thoughts on the EMS Industry, I went
back through all of my old business cards. I have a large collection of them and
would put them up against anyone. Going back through those cards was like
going through one’s senior yearbook. You remember a lot of people, and some
you don’t, and wonder where some of them are today. You recognize that a lot
of them are no longer here with us and those are the ones who are truly missed.
They have left a legacy that all of us benefit from today.

88
Recollection:

Thoughts on the Electronics Manufacturing Services (EMS) Industry

By Leo Reynolds

I came into the electronics assembly industry in 1972 through the back
door. I had just graduated with a BS degree in electrical engineering and
started working for a major OEM that produced
business equipment of all sorts. Since I was an EE
and they had just bought a wave solder machine
they put us together. It was the job of every good
employee of that company to develop what were
called “programs for profit,” a methodology for
encouraging cost reduction efforts by all associates.
The company had installed a wave solder machine
in the belief that they could produce their large
variety of printed circuit board (PCB) assemblies at
lower cost than their vendors could. It was up to
me and a small band of “intraprenuers” to make
Leo Reynolds that happen.
We were off and running and writing programs for profit on a weekly
and sometimes daily basis, saving this large OEM hundreds of thousands of
dollars a year, or so I thought. While doing this I became the company’s main
liaison with its many subcontractors, getting to know many of the people who
eventually became my competitors. Somewhere along the way on my blissful
path of saving bucket loads of money one of the production managers at
the plant asked me if I thought we were really saving all the money we were
claiming. I assured him the analysis for savings were carefully prepared and
the numbers spoke for themselves; we were saving anywhere from 5% to 10%
on each assembly we brought in from the outside vendors. He then asked if
I’d read the latest annual report from the OEM that we both worked for and
pointed out that the corporation was making 23% pre-tax profit. He suggested
that actually if I didn’t save at least the 23% I was wasting the corporation’s
resources since they were able to do 23% profit and a much higher ROI than
our internal assembly facility.
This production manager was not a business school graduate or an
accountant but he put his finger on a concept that the rest of the hard goods
manufacturing industry would learn to embrace many years later. It was at that
point that I decided I wanted to be part of the assembly industry. I stayed at that

89
OEM and worked for one other, but in 1980 started Electronic Systems, Inc. in
Sioux Falls, SD.
I credit that OEM’s production manager and many of my competitors for
my enthusiasm for being part of what has become the EMS industry. I’ve always
said, and believe to this day, that my competitors are the best and brightest
in industry. This is a low margin business with very little tolerance for poor
performance or even mediocrity, the waters are fast and deep and only the
very strong even survive, let alone prosper. Specifically some of my mentors
include Dick LaBorde, former president and founder of Ramsgate and Hibbing
Electronics, as well as Bonnie Fena, also a founder and later president of
Hibbing Electronics, first female IPC Board Member and first female Chairman
of the IPC Board of Directors. Many of the people I’ve had the opportunity to
learn from came about due to the EMS Council of IPC.
The EMS Council formed in 1988/1989 and consisted of a small band
of industry professionals including, but not limited to, Bonnie Fena, Steve
Pudles, Mark Trutna, Dave Fradin, Stan Plzak, Sue Mucha, Brian Throneberrry,
Harry Bowers, Mark Wolfe and others. It was immediately agreed that we
shared many common issues and concerns and that the value we saw from
helping each other far outweighed any potential downsides. This group started
enthusiastically and has remained strong through to the present day because
there is obvious continuing value for each member of the council. In its simplest
and most powerful form, it is a place where EMS industry professionals can go
and learn from carefully selected programming and, most importantly, from
each other.
In 1996, shortly after I was elected to the IPC Board of Directors we
started the Assembly Market Research Council (AMRC) based on the already
established and very successful TMRC. These were later combined into one
group which is now called the Executive Market & Technology Forum.
EMS has been a great industry to be part of and the friendships developed
with other industry people have been a both a personal and professional
blessing.

90
 IPC Chronology: 1978-1983
1978
• In 1978, IPC sponsored the first Printed Circuit World Convention
(PCWC) in London. This was one of the first major IPC international
events. PCWC brought together PWB associations from around the
world. These included IPC, EIPC (European Institute for Printed
Circuits), ICT (Institute of Circuit Technology — UK), JPCA (Japan
Printed Circuit Association), and Printed Circuit Group — IMF
(Institute of Metal Finishing — UK); all sponsors of the first PCWC.
• The IPC Board created an expanded Long-Range Planning
Committee composed of past Presidents. Their recommendations
were presented to the TAEC and to the Board of Directors.
• The Board also formed a special Finance Committee to meet for
several days each year to develop a proposed budget for presentation
to the entire Board.
• IPC cooperated with the Joint Electronic Device Engineering Council
(JEDEC) to develop standard packaging for LSI chips.
• A new quarterly statistical program for IPC PWB supplier members
began.
• IPC sponsored the first major management meeting at the Fall
Meeting in San Diego. Rolly Mettler, Circuit-Wise, chaired the
meeting.

1979
• While environmental issues continued to be high on the IPC agenda,
IPC also identified emerging problems concerning the availability of
energy.
• A policy was established that required all IPC standards and
specifications to be reviewed every five years to be reaffirmed,
revised, or withdrawn.
• IPC introduced its first videotapes for sale.
• IPC sponsored the first European Technology Market Research
Council (TMRC) meeting in Munich, Germany.
• IPC sponsored a statistical marketing meeting in Tokyo.
91
1980
• In 1980, IPC worked with the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) on
a Certification Program for PWB Manufacturers. IPC also formed
a Blue Ribbon Committee to review the impact of rising gold prices
and developed seminars and documents on the subject.
• IPC received approval of IPC-T-50, Terms and Definitions, from the
U.S. Department of Defense, superseding MIL-STD-429C.
• Details regarding the state-of-the-art on additives developed during
Round Robin III were presented by Dave Frisch, Photocircuits, and
Don Dinella, Western Electric.
• IPC installed its first computer.
• IPC developed a policy to add metric dimensions to IPC standards.

Members of the newly formed Energy Committee. George Messner, PCK

Technology, and Jim Rogers, Digital Equipment, were the original co-chairmen.

1981
• A highlight of the 1981 IPC meeting in Washington, D.C. was
the special evening session where almost 800 members had the
opportunity to listen to Dr. W. Edwards Deming.
• IPC’s video department produced 30 new videotapes for members.
• IPC participated as a joint sponsor of Printed Circuit World
Convention II (PCWC II) in Germany.
92
 • IPC elected the first member of the IPC Board of Directors from an
overseas company: Ralf Gliem, Schoeller & Company, Germany.
• IPC published the Handbook on Safety in Handling Chemicals under
Tom Mathias, Digital Equipment Corp.

Bernie Kessler, Herb Pollack, Dr. Deming, and Jim DiNitto, who as Program
Chairman, had arranged for Dr. Deming to address IPC members at the
special evening session in Washington, D.C.

1982
• The 25th Anniversary Meeting was held in Boston and was attended
by 1,040 members.
• IPC and International Society of Hybrid Microelecronics (ISHM)
cooperatively published the Hybrid Microcircuit Design Guide.

1983
• IPC appointed a study group to determine how to coordinate
implementation of a new technology called surface mounting. The
study group estimated that surface mount technology would impact
more than 50 IPC technical committees.
• IPC again sued the EPA over the requirements for Total Toxic
Organics (TTO). The result of the suit was a revision in the EPA’s
requirements for TTO.
• IPC established a new Advanced Packaging Technology Committee
under the chairmanship of Foster Gray, Texas Instruments.
93
 • IPC released IPC-A-610, Acceptability of Electronic Assemblies. IPC
has published more than 200,000 printed copies of this document since
1983, with hundreds of thousands of electronic file users. The IPC-A-
610 is the most published and most referenced standard in IPC’s history.
Today, the document is also available in many different languages.

Receiving the IPC President’s Award. Front (L-R): Jim Hardman, AMP;
Fred Disque, Alpha Metals; John Reust, Beech Aircraft; Foster Gray,
Texas Instruments; and Pete Gilmore, Hamilton Standard. Back (L-R): Jim
DiNitto, Raytheon; Jack Kerr, USN Electronics; Robert Moore, Sperry; Paul
Gould, GTE Sylvania; and Tom Brown, FabriTek.

Presenting at the 1983 Fall Meeting in Denver were (L-R) H.

Sakata, Matsushita; I. Hishioka, Sharp; K. Tsukanishi, Hitachi
Chemical; Y. Yoshikawa, Daisho Electronics; and Dr. Hayao
Nakahara.

94
Chapter 6: Printed Circuit Technology Moves Ahead

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds
new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” but “That’s funny...”
— Isaac Asimov

Concurrent with the development of surface mount technology,

many exciting new developments were occurring in the world of
electronics assembly and manufacture. Components were getting
smaller, more powerful, and more complex; circuit boards went from
single layer to double-sided to multilayer; flex circuitry was developed.
As more complicated and powerful electronic devices were
developed, technology, driven by the need for greater power, complexity,
and miniaturization, also changed on the board level and on the
component level. We saw the emergence of High Density Interconnect
(HDI) technology, and the emergence of chip-scale packaging, such as
the famous MicroBGA.1
Design methods changed as well; traditional phototools and
Rubylith gave way to faster, more accurate CAD systems. At the same
time, looming on the horizon of an increasingly global industry, were
regulatory changes that would shake the foundations of the industry.
These included the Montreal Protocol and the elimination of CFCs, the
resultant development of no-clean fluxes; and the imposition of RoHS
and WEEE, and the elimination of lead from the soldering process.

HDI Technology
The following description of HDI technology is excerpted from
From “High Density Interconnect Technology,” published online at
www.mdatechnology.net.
High Density Interconnect (HDI) is a packaging technology
that provides connections between a very complex system of
semiconductor chips. HDI is a suite of technologies that allows three-
dimensional wafer-scale packaging of integrated circuits. By using a
laser to direct-write patterns of interconnect layouts and drill microvia
holes, individual chips can be connected to each other using standard
semiconductor fabrication methods. To take the packaging to the third
dimension, wafer-scale components are stacked like a deck of cards
and connected by patterning interconnects at their edges. The result is
an electronic assembly that used to be spread out over a large circuit
board can now be packaged in a small cube.

95
 The technology uses a polyimide overlay as the insulating layer
over bare chips on a ceramic substrate. Integrated circuit chips are
connected in three dimensions through microvia holes to the individual
bonding pads. High-speed via-hole formation and interconnect
metallization were accomplished using a laser-assisted direct-write
adaptive lithography system. In laser-assisted patterning, a computer-
driven laser writes the integrated circuit pattern on the polyimide
overlay. Conducting paths are patterned on the edges to electrically
interconnect the layers. Once patterned, the wafers are overlaminated
with glue and then the microholes are drilled. After the chips are
coated with metal, the layers of photoresist and pattern lines are
applied.
Direct writing by laser allows selective deposition of metal into
patterns, bypassing the traditional photolithography and etching
steps that limit the amount of miniaturization possible when forming
interconnects on integrated circuits. By also using a laser to drill
microvia holes between insulating layers, the process further increases
the interconnect density. The higher interconnect density means more
electronics in a smaller area.
“The advantage of the technology is in making things smaller,
lighter, and cheaper. The technology is on the right path to support that
kind of technical evolution into the next century,” said Mike Cristoforo,
director of technology programs, Government and Electronic Systems
Division, Lockheed Martin. The technology is ideally positioned
with one foot in semiconductor technology and one foot in printed
circuit board technology. The process essentially builds a microcircuit
board on top of the semiconductors, directly writing the interconnect
structures that connect one circuit to another. It also eliminates
wire bonding, which is a thermomechanical process, with a direct
metallurgical connection to the integrated circuit pad.
Small HDI substrates can be made into modules the size of
a chip, turning the HDI substrate into its own package that can
be put right onto a computer PC board. The efficiency of the
packaging technology could be applied to getting energy in and
out of computer chips faster to make 1-gigahertz processors.
Semiconductor makers looking for advanced packaging could use
the chip-scale package version of the plastic process.
There are many other ranges and types of power signals that
could benefit from HDI integration. The HDI technology provides
96
 miniaturization and improved performance for small environmental
and stress monitors, medical imaging, and test equipment. Specialized
aerospace and space applications could provide for the development
and scale up of the production of this technology. As the cost goes
down, it may find second-order applications in consumer products
like cellular phones, laptops, and hand-held personal communications
devices. For cellular phones, for example, the technology can make the
boards and other parts of the assembly simpler.2

HDI History Timeline by Happy Holden

1978: Pactel in Los Angeles produces a sequential-plated

post substrate with 10 mil blind holes and fine lines.

1980: IBM and Burroughs use lasers to drill small thru-

vias for mainframe boards with buried-vias.

1983: Hewlett-Packard (HP) creates Finstrate using laser

blind-via drilling.

1985: HP goes into production of Finstrate for their first

32-bit computer, small enough to fit into a child’s
lunch box.

1987: Siemens in Germany begins production of the

laser-drilled polyimide film multilayer for their
large computer.

1988: Dyconex begins plasma-drilled blind and thru vias.

1989: IBM-Japan introduces the SLC technology using

CIBA liquid soldermask as a photo-dielectric.

1992: HP licenses Dyconex plasma drilling for HDI but

using RCC and not polyimide.

1994: Laser drills appear on the market.

97
Tape Automated Bonding (TAB)
On the component level, packagers had for some time been looking
for an alternative to conventional wire bonding. In the early 1990s, tape
automated bonding emerged. TAB is the process of mounting a die
on a flexible tape made of polymer material, such as polyimide. The
mounting is done such that the bonding sites of the die, usually in the
form of bumps or balls made of gold or solder, are connected to fine
conductors on the tape, which provide the means of connecting the die to
the package or directly to external circuits. Sometimes the tape on which
the die is bonded already contains the actual application circuit of the
die.3
Tape automated bonding offers the following advantages:
1) it allows the use of smaller bond pads and finer bonding pitch;
2) it allows the use of bond pads all over the die, not just on the die
periphery, and, therefore, increases the possible I/O count of a given
die size; 3) it reduces the quantity of gold needed for bonding;
4) it limits variations in bonding geometry; 5) it has a shorter
production cycle time; 6) it results in better electrical performance
(reduced noise and higher frequency); 7) it allows the circuit
to be physically flexible; and 8) it facilitates multi-chip module
manufacturing.
On the other hand, it has the following disadvantages: 1) time
and cost of fabricating the tape; 2) need to “tailor-fit” the tape pattern
after each die; and 3) capital expense for TAB equipment since TAB
manufacturing requires a set of machines different from those used by
conventional processes.
Thus, TAB is a better alternative to conventional wirebonding
if very fine bond pitch, reduced die size, and higher chip density are
desired. It is also the technique of choice when dealing with circuits
that need to be flexible, such as those that experience motion while in
operation, e.g., printers, automotive applications, folding gadgets. Tape
automated bonding is generally more cost-effective for use in high-
volume production, since returns on the time and cost of developing the
tape will be maximized under this situation.3

Chip-on-Board (COB)
Chip-on-board refers to the semiconductor assembly technology
wherein the microchip or die is directly mounted on and electrically
interconnected to its final circuit board, instead of undergoing
traditional assembly or packaging as an individual IC. The elimination

98
 of conventional device packaging from COB assemblies simplifies
the over-all process of designing and manufacturing the final product,
and improves its performance as a result of the shorter interconnection
paths.
The general term for COB technology is actually direct chip
attachment, or DCA. Aside from circuit boards used for COBs, various
substrates are available for use in DCA. There are, for instance,
ceramic and glass ceramic substrates that exhibit excellent dielectric
and thermal properties. Organic substrates that weigh and cost less
while providing a low dielectric constant also exist. There are also
flex substrates which, being pliable, have the ability to bend. DCA
assemblies have received a number of other names aside from COB
based on these available substrates, e.g., chip-on-glass (COG), chip-on-
flex (COF).
The COB process consists of just three major steps: 1) die attach or
die mount; 2) wirebonding; and 3) encapsulation of the die and wires.
A variant of COB assembly, the flip-chip on board (FCOB), does not
require wirebonding since it employs a chip whose bond pads are
bumped, which are the ones that connect directly to designated pads on
the board. As such, FCOBs have their chips facing downward on the
board (hence the name flipchip). Aside from encapsulation, it is also
necessary to underfill a flip chip to protect its active surface and bumps
from thermo-mechanical and chemical damage.
Advantages offered by COB technology include: 1) reduced space
requirements; 2) reduced cost; 3) better performance due to decreased
interconnection lengths and resistances; 4) higher reliability due to
better heat distribution and a lower number of solder joints; 5) shorter
time-to-market; and 6) better protection against reverse-engineering.4

Chip Scale Packages (CSP)

The chip scale package is defined as “a generic terminology for
a package that is slightly larger than the size of the chip.” Although
this definition is vague, the CSP is approximately 20 percent larger
than existing ICs. It is classified as a derivative item from an existing
package. The most widely-known CSP format is Tessera’s µBGA
package. Tessera was founded as a multi-chip module (MCM)
company to address the Known Good Die (KGD) problem facing the
semiconductor industry. To solve this problem, Tessera developed a
small and testable chip carrier that also dramatically improved package
performance and reliability. This chip carrier, Tessera’s micro ball
grid array (µBGA®) package, is still very popular today. In terms of
99
advantages over traditional package types, BGA/CSP packages offer the
advantages of compact size and high-speed.

Flip-Chip Assembly
The term “flip-chip” refers to an electronic component or
semiconductor device that can be mounted directly onto a substrate,
board, or carrier in a “face-down” manner. Electrical connection is
achieved through conductive bumps built on the surface of the chips,
which is why the mounting process is “face-down” in nature. During
mounting, the chip is flipped on the substrate, board, or carrier with the
bumps precisely positioned on
underfill die bumps
their target locations. Because flip
elmBE
chips do not require wire bonds,
their size is much smaller than
their conventional counterparts.5
BGA balls laminate mold
The flip-chip concept is not
new, having been around as early as the 1960s when IBM used them for
their mainframes. Since then, various companies have developed the
flip-chip for use in thousands of different applications, taking advantage
of the size and cost benefits offered by this assembly method. Flip chips
have likewise eliminated performance problems related to inductance and
capacitance associated with bond wires.
The flip chip is structurally different from traditional semiconductor
packages, and therefore requires an assembly process that also differs
from conventional semiconductor assembly. Flip chip assembly consists
of three major steps: 1) bumping of the chips; 2) “face-down” attachment
of the bumped chips to the substrate or board; and 3) under-filling,
which is the process of filling the open spaces between the chip and the
substrate or board with a non-conductive but mechanically protective
material. Given the many different materials and technologies used in
the bumping, attachment, and underfilling steps, the flip chip is now
available in a vast array of variants.

Changes in Printed Circuit Board Design

Advances in miniaturization and micro-miniaturization have driven
changes in PCB design since the early printed circuit boards. Surface
mount technology made even finer levels of miniaturization possible,
but this also created headaches for board designers. Not only did finer
features require tighter design tolerances, but also placed burdens on the
manufacturing process. As parts have evolved in complexity and density,
so have the boards that hold them. Modern computers can contain
100
boards with more than 20 layers of tiny conductive traces — fine lines of
copper etched down to widths of 0.003 inch. Production of such complex
boards has required the development of vastly more sophisticated
manufacturing processes and software tools to assist with design and
layout. For example, the presence of surface mounted components on the
bottom side of wave soldered assemblies, for instance, required board
design rule changes to prevent “shadowing” of some components by the
solder wave. It placed restrictions on miniaturization; these were (and
are still) referred to as design for manufacturability issues.
In the early days of PCB design and fabrication, photographic
imaging processes dominated; manufacturers relied on such tools as
Rubylith, a red masking film, a separable two-layer acetate film of red or
amber emulsion on a clear base. It was invented and trademarked by the
Ulano Corporation, and consisted of two films sandwiched together. In
printed circuit design, rubylith was used to produce masks when using
a photoresist for the etching and plating of individual copper layers of a
PCB. In the 1970s, as layout had become onerous with growing circuit
complexity, so did the placement of circuit elements and routing of
wires. There simply were too many elements to physically place them by
hand, making the use of emerging CAD tools essential.
In the early 1970s we saw the emergence of dedicated CAD systems
from vendors such as Applicon and Calma for mass production.
Automated pattern generation came into vogue as designs grew larger.
People realized that it was no longer feasible to do these designs by hand,
just by drawing them and cutting the rubylith. It was far preferable to
have a database in which one could store the patterns. If it was necessary
to make a change, one could just go into the database and change it.
Daisy, along with fellow newcomers Mentor Graphics and Valid,
dominated design automation in the early 1980s as full-custom design
methodologies took hold. Initially intended for PC board design, these
turnkey systems found applications in IC design as well. Daisy and Valid
plied the path of proprietary hardware while Mentor went with Apollo
workstations. The workstation-based systems represented a unification
of design capture, simulation, layout, and verification on one platform in
one package.

The Evolution of Flexible Circuits

The following description is based on the article “Flex Circuits Bend
to Fit More Applications,” by Ann R. Thryft,
Merely a novelty just a few years ago, flexible circuits have moved
into mainstream use in many applications. Designers are deploying
101
flex circuits for high-volume, surface-mount PCB applications, as
well as for array and stacked IC packaging techniques, such as flip-
chip, micro-ball grid array (BGA), tape BGA (TBGA), 3D, chip-scale
packaging (CSP) and system-in-package (SiP)
Flex circuits are already the technology of choice for small,
portable systems that require tiny, thin substrates, such as mobile
flip-phones, laptop computers, watches and hearing aids, in addition
to medical electronics and MEMS. More recently, flexible electronics
are finding their way into RFID tags and photovoltaics, and being
considered for lighting and displays.
There are, of course, design constraints when working with flex
circuits. Generally, footprint and copper pad sizes must be larger than
is the case with rigid PCBs. Unless special pad stacks are made, copper
can become detached from the dielectric layer. Delamination can be a
problem without sufficient extra clearance to board edges. Interfacing
issues between pads and circuit traces can be avoided by using hold-
down tabs or fillets at the ends of each pad. Routing traces at right
angles to the curve can diminish stress in the copper when flexing
occurs.
Several different types of IC package and PCB substrate material
are used for flexible circuits, depending on variables such as system
size and application. These include polyimide films, liquid crystal
polymer (LCP), adhesiveless polyimide laminates, and thermoplastic
polyimides.
Thermoplastic materials, such as LCP and thermoplastic
polyimides, have become much more common in flex manufacturing,
as well as in rigid PCB fabrication. For both, they offer higher
frequency and lower moisture. In addition, the newer plastic substrates
and manufacturing processes provide increased reliability, greater
impedance control, and fewer mechanical connectors. 6

102
Flex Circuitry: A Dynamic Breakthrough Technology

Flexible circuit technology has roots deep into the beginnings of

the last century; however, beginning in the late 1970s and early 1980s,
flex circuit technology took very long strides finding itself used in an
ever expanding range of applications. Built on flexible substrates such as
polyimide and other heat-resistant materials,
circuit patterns were and are now created in
many different ways including printing of
conductive and dielectric inks or by etching
and plating processes. While often used
to interconnect electronic assemblies with
moving parts such as printers, the three
dimensional interconnection aspects of
flexible circuit technology, which enable the
design and fabrication of ever more feature
dense electronics products, has become a
major area of application. Industry expert
Joe Fjelstad, co-founder, SiliconPipe Inc.,
Joe Fjelstad
has had a long interest in flexible circuits
and has a keen understanding of them even as they now evolve into 21st
Century applications. “Flex and rigid circuits have diverged significantly
in recent years — targeting different markets and occupying unequal
amounts of market share....” Fjelstad says. He believes that the opening
range of applications, even more so than advances in the circuit
technology, will revive and expand the flex-circuit sector. “It’s certainly
finding more applications. The technology has a sort of ubiquity, but
it does continue to branch out in more areas.” Military and tracking
technologies are major R&D drivers, he adds. Fjelstad also finds a lot
of variation in the definitions offered to describe flex circuits. As the
definition is broadened, the market encompassed by the term grows
larger.
RFID tags are an example of flex-
circuit technology found in widespread
use and dynamic applications — wherein
electronic components must be able to
bend and move. Fjelstad discusses the
evolution of technologies like RFID
tags as incremental improvements on
flex-circuit design and manufacture. “As
features get finer, we are not inventing RFID Tag
103
a new technology, but often improving an existing one,” he says. These
improvements could lead to viable and cost effective photoelectric
applications, such as solar cells, and printed circuits with conductive
nanoparticles comprising the ink.
Another area of interest for flex circuits relates to the environment.
Flex circuit technology has the potential to help lead the drive to
safer, healthier modes of living. For example, printing circuitry onto
flexible, organic substrates like paper or cloth obviates the need for
other potentially less environmentally friendly materials both in terms
of materials and manufacturing processes of PCBs. “Moreover, solar-
powered devices created using flex circuits offer the potential to generate
energy without the use of fossil fuels, though cost efficiency is not yet
optimum,” he concluded.

Assorted types of flex circuitry

Photo courtesy of Tech-Etch Inc., www.tech-etch.com.

104
Printed Circuit Board Technology Evolves
By Dieter Bergman
With the development of printed circuit boards (PCBs), many
companies began replacing hard wiring in electronics. The radio
work done initially by Marconi and others for the war effort needed
more exotic interconnections than just point-to-point. Additionally,
computers called for some other method of providing the electronics
that could create ones (1) and zeros (0), the language of the computer. To
address this dilemma, IBM combined electronic tube technology with
that of single-sided printed wiring boards, using the best of both and
eliminating many of the errors associated with hand-wired circuits.
Wires were still required to attach tube
sockets to the PCBs. The idea of another form
of interface was born; i.e., to provide a robust
method of interconnection from the single-
sided board to other parts of the circuit, using
turret terminals on the PCB as the method of
attachment. The terminal was swaged on the
side of the board with the copper circuitry,
and soldered in place. Wires were added to the
turrets as needed, mechanically secured and
soldered in place. This practice is still used
today in NASA’s space shuttle programs where
Dieter Bergman
very robust connections are needed.
Although much of the drudgery of hand
wiring had been eliminated, a single layer of copper soon proved
insufficient to make all the interconnections possible. The IBM tube
socket computer module demonstrates that wires were needed to jump
over the circuit on the underside of the board. The term jumper wires
became a popular term and the use of short wires to realize the total
connectivity became part of the assembly operation. The short wires
were added at the same time the components were inserted, then swaged
over on a copper land. The connection was then wave soldered when the
through hole components were attached.
Plug-in assemblies became very popular with computer companies.
After the transistor was invented, many companies followed IBM’s
lead in taking discrete components and converting them into the logic
functions needed in computer technology. AND gates, inverters, flip flops
and other logic functions were assembled on single-sided boards out of
discrete components. An AND gate was easy to replicate in a two-input
105
gate when two inputs were needed to get one signal out. A single-sided
board could hold two of these functions. Even these , however, needed
extra wiring to make the circuit complete.
It became obvious that a single-sided board made of phenolic
material would not
serve the long term
needs of the industry.
To address the need
for designers to have at
least two opportunities
to make conductive
interconnections,
boards began featuring
a conductive pattern on
both sides. During this
time, frame designers
experimented with another modular concept, that of the Cordwood
Modules. The idea was very popular with computer specialists. As the
term implies, discrete components were stacked like sticks of wood
between two single-sided boards. The design became so popular that it
was used by the National Security Agency (NSA) in many of their voice
coding devices. Known as “Flyball Modules,” the components leads
were jammed into notches of two single-sided boards and the leads were
soldered in place.
The thirst for a double-sided board continued. As material suppliers
provided double-sided phenolic material, designers created circuitry on
two sides using a short wire to connect one side to the other. Known
as “Z” wires because of their shape in the final configuration, many
boards were designed as two-layer printed circuit boards. Installing the
“Z” wires was not always easy, e.g., when one side was being soldered,
the other side became liquid and partially melted. Many boards had to
be retouched to create good connections. If the wire was added before
assembly, one side could be soldered when the board went across
the solder wave. If everything was hand soldered, it still required a
good deal of dexterity. The solution was to use an eyelet to create the
connection. The United Shoe Company built a machine that could install
an eyelet into a hole, swage it on both sides, and melt the excess solder
coated on the eyelet to form a reliable connection.
The U.S. military thought highly of the double-sided board with
eyelets as the interfacial connection between the two sides. Many pieces
of military hardware were successfully designed using these boards
106
and performed exceedingly well in the field. In addition, once swaged
and soldered in place, the eyelet was very reliable. The down side of
eyelets, however, was that if the board were heated on one side, such
as assembling through wave soldering, the bottom eyelet flange melted
while the top became soft. The soft side didn’t have sufficient heat to
melt and reform and a new defect called a “cold solder joint” appeared.
It was characterized by a crystalline appearance instead of a bright and
shiny one.
Everyone wanted to improve the process. Some designers put the
leads of through hole components into the inside of the eyelet. This
only made matters worse, as cold solder joints appeared and now the
lead had to be heated or retouched to form a proper joint. In addition,
the eyelet machine required that one eyelet at a time be added to the
double-sided circuitry. This practice was very time consuming although
the board when completed was reliable. If a change had to be made
in the field it became difficult to replace a part without disturbing the
eyeleted structure. During this time, chemical suppliers were exploring
the use of plating techniques to create a structure inside the holes that
had been drilled into the board. The practice generated wide differences
of opinion. Some independent and captive printed board fabricators
installed plating baths that first catalyzed the inside of the drilled hole,
and then added a thin electroless copper layer. The thin copper provided
electrical continuity between the two sides permitting electroplating to
finish the job of plating inside the hole. Thus, plated-through holes
were created.
IPC conducted a study to prove that plated-through holes were
as reliable as eyeleted holes. By this time, materials had improved
dramatically. Paper-based phenolic material had given way to an epoxy
resin with a woven glass structure as reinforcement. The newer materials
were more robust when subjected to heat, in particular when the material
expanded and thickened. The IPC Round Robin Test Program indicated
that the plating in the hole would not crack when subjected to stress if it
were plated properly. Nevertheless, those who chose eyelets continued on
that path. The Sidewinder missile developed for the U.S. Navy had four
double-sided boards with eyelets and welded modules and highlighted
the missle’s reliability in explaining their adherence to this methodology.
To show that more than two layers could be eyeleted, some designs had
two double-sided boards with eyelets sandwiched together and eyeleted
through the stack. Interconnections existed between layers one and two,
three and four, and one and four in the final stack-up.
In the end, the military decided that if the plated-through holes could
107
pass their thermal shock test, the concept would be useful for military
hardware applications. The thermal shock test (going from -65º to +125º
for 400 cycles) was intended to simulate an aircraft on the desert and
then in two minutes, at a high altitude where it would be exposed to
severely cold temperatures. The time spent at the temperature extremes
was 15 minutes and the ramp time up and down was two minutes.
The military during the 1960s was the industry’s largest customer.
OEMs who did work for the tri-services (Army, Navy, and Air Force)
had the most advanced technology. The contracts they received from
the military continued to push the envelope and independent board
manufacturers who built products for the military benefited from
the technology interchange. Representatives of the military services
participated in IPC and were provided a forum where they could speak
frankly about their needs and concerns. A strong rapport was built with
the services during those years thanks to the help of personnel at the
Defense Electronics Supply Center (DESC).
Component technology continued to drive electronic interconnection
concepts and conductive mounting patterns. Once the transistor was
developed, many companies found ways to use it in the design of
electronic equipment. Although the electronics industry could be divided
into eight basic markets, the two main market drivers were the military
and the evolving computer industry. Different methods of mounting to
make electronic interconnections were the subject of debate. Groups
in both the military and the computer industry supported organic
substrates. Others chose ceramic technology in which conductors were
either copper paste (thick film technology) which was fired in order
to harden or sputtered copper (thin film technology) following the
semiconductor metallization processes. The media loved the controversy
and several editorials predicted the demise of printed circuit technology.
It was also a time when many things were evolving; semiconductor
integration, multilayers, combinations of rigid and flex organic
substrates, and using unpackaged semiconductor die.
“Flip chip” solder bump interconnection technology was born
during this time of debate. IPC now had many OEM members from both
the military and computer camps. To facilitate the debate, the “Next
Generation Multilayer” Committee was formed where ideas could be
openly discussed but not recorded. The “Hybrid Circuits” Committee
also was formed and a cooperative effort with the International Society
for Hybrid Microelectronics (ISHM) developed the IPC Hybrid Design
Guide. Varying preferences over an unpackaged die versus a packaged
equivalent fed the industry debate. In 1960, IBM, as the leader in
108
the computer industry, developed Solid Logic Technology (SLT)
using hybrid electronic circuitry in IBM’s System 360 computers and
introduced it in April 1964. At that time, transistor packaging used
hermetically-sealed metal cans with glass-sealed wires emerging from
a header upon which the germanium or silicon chip was metallurgically
back bonded. Manual thermo-compression wire bonding to the chip was
the common technique.
Although transistor technology was much more reliable than
the vacuum tube technology that preceded it, the packaging and
interconnection technologies were weak. Faulty manual wire bonds,
purple plague (gold-aluminum intermetallic formation), and aluminum
corrosion of thin film interconnections on the chip, even in hermetic
packages, were all reliability concerns. In addition, manufacturability
and productivity were deficient. SLT transistors and diodes were glass
passivated at the wafer level to protect aluminum wiring from the
environment. Glass frits of borosilicate glass were fused on the surface
of transistor wafers after the aluminum wiring was formed. The glass
film obviated the need for a hermetic enclosure because the transistor
was sealed at the chip level. The military required hermetic sealing.
Thus, the issue became one of a packaged or unpackaged semiconductor.
Additionally, if flip chip technology were to be used inside or outside
of a package, the coefficient of thermal expansion needed to match the
silicon die. This indicated a need for the ceramic substrate as opposed to
an organic PCB.
IPC, to allow all parties involved with the opportunity to present
their viewpoint, decided to change its name. No one wanted to give up
the initials IPC, so a committee developed the name “The Institute for
Interconnecting, and Packaging Electronic Circuits.” Most continued to
use the name IPC, though many new committees were formed that went
far beyond the concepts of traditional printed circuits. These included
connectors, flat cable, hybrid multilayer, and others related to electronic
packaging.
Equally important to the elimination of hermetic packaging
and manual wire bonding was the profound improvement in
manufacturability of circuits. Glass passivated transistors and diode
chips were so robust that they could withstand random mechanical
handling in vibratory bowl feeders. Testing and chip placement were
highly automated, attaining process rates of 3 to 6 chips per second.
Chip joining to substrates was done with thousands of solder joints
being created simultaneously in reflow furnaces. Low cost and high
productivity were closely associated. Those factors, along with the
109
mechanical ruggedness, made the flip chip attractive to the automotive
industry. General Motors (through Delco Electronics) became an early
high-volume user of hybrid flip chip technology for voltage regulators
and ignition modules.
As the number of circuits grew from three to four to tens of circuits,
the number of I/O bumps on logic chips grew as did the demand for pins
in the substrate. Interstitial pins were put in the pin grid array to increase
the I/O count. Rent’s rule was found to apply to logic chips as well as
to logic cards (empirical observations showed that card I/O terminal
count is directly related to the number of logic circuits). The packaging
concept kept the printed circuit industry vibrant. Several techniques
were tried in order to continue to use organic materials to interconnect
semiconductors. The initial transistor case identified by the Electronic
Industries Association as the TO5 can was expanded to handle more that
the three input/output leads needed for the transistor.
Packaging designs in the semiconductor industry were evolving as
well. To reduce the cost of the package, the flat pack configuration was
developed. Each semiconductor manufacturer chose a slightly different
configuration. Some designers called this era “the age of the component
packing dilemma.” It seemed that every few months, a new configuration
was developed. They were round, square, rectangular, oval, or whatever
shape could reduce the cost to the IC manufacturer. Backed against the
wall, printed circuit board designers developed ways to interconnect
them. Bending the flimsy lead structure required good tooling. Hughes
Aircraft developed a soldering process that could attach an entire row of
leads to the surface lands known as “hot bar soldering.” It was around
1960 that surface mounting became known as SMT and was known
as Planar Technology. Other designs bent the leads into a through hole
configuration so as to avoid mixing attachment technologies.
When electronic designers demanded a better solution, the
component industry complied. The Joint Devices Electronic Engineering
Council (JEDEC) was formed and its participants created a new design
for packaging semiconductors. To meet the needs of potential users, the
package needed to be hermetically sealed and be available in a cost-
effective plastic version. In addition, the package needed to be easy
to incorporate into the PCB technology and infrastructure that had
developed. Many OEMs began working with independent manufacturers
to take advantage of process sharing. They worked with the industry and
the chemistry supplier community to develop research and methodology
to interconnect the components in the most cost-effective manner.
The contractors who built for the National Security Agency found
110
their engineers helping to develop hole cleaning techniques and thus
“etchback” was born. However, the most dramatic breakthrough was the
registration configuration of the dual in line package (DIP).
Every semiconductor manufacturer in the world saluted the concept
of the dual inline package. It could be built in a ceramic configuration
(CERDIP) or with a plastic body. The military and computer industry
were ecstatic. It was the ideal configuration for design, inspection,
automatic insertion, automatic attachment using wave soldering,
and testing both in-circuit and functional. A tool called a “ROACH”
was developed that could clip onto the DIP and exercise some of the
functions inside the component to prove that nothing had been damaged
during the assembly. Standard design grids were developed, 0.100; 0.050,
0.025, and 0.005 inch, and adopted worldwide to match this desirable
component configuration. The original designs were on double-sided
boards with plated-through holes. By the time the DIP was developed,
the industry had mastered the double-sided plated-through hole
concepts, and enough testing had been completed by the industry and
the customer OEM base to prove that plating of the two copper layers
provided a highly reliable interconnection method.
Around this time, a new industry debate began. Up to this point,
organic boards were produced with subtractive technology. The laminate
industry provided glass epoxy copper-clad laminate with different
thicknesses of copper as the starting foil. To remove the unwanted
copper, the foil was subjected to an acid bath which etched it away; the
remaining copper formed the surface topology. This gave rise to an etch
factor since, not only did the acid etch down, it also etched laterally.
Some felt that the process was a waste of time, since the spent copper
had to be reclaimed and could not to be dumped into streams, rivers or
sewers. Additive technology developed by independent manufacturers
such as Photo Circuits, or OEMs such as AT&T, IBM, and others was to
provide a straight wall conductor. IPC once again provided the vehicle
to test the concepts and several Additive Technology Round Robin
Test Programs were held to prove that this process provided reliable
interconnection technology.
Research at the industry level became very important. The OEMs
assumed a leadership role. They shared their technology and helped
many independent manufacturers hone their conductor-producing
skills. The supplier industry was also a big player in order to serve the
infrastructure. During the sixties, the ratio of Captive to Independent
manufacturers was 60% Captive (owned by an OEM for its own purpose)
to 40% Independent (serving a total industry) The ratio, however,
111
gradually shifting. Another reason much of the research became
important was that companies were still trying to use double-sided
boards to interconnect dual inline packages. The first designs were only
with lands on 0.100 inch centers. The land diameter was 0.080 inches
and the clearance between lands was 0.020 inches. This practice didn’t
last too long in that the logic inside the DIP became more exotic and
now required more interconnection wiring. The idea of one conductor
between lands seemed the logical answer. This concept expanded to two
between and three between. The lands were trimmed across the area
where the conductors were routed and additive technology was tested to
see if it could handle long thin conductors without a cut or break.
The industry worked closely with the U.S. Tri Services and many
joint meetings were held to develop military standards. It was a time
of very close cooperation since military customers represented a very
large market and many OEMs built product for the military under
specific contract requirements that called out military standards and
specifications. It was incumbent on industry not only to influence
what was written in the standards that impacted their work, but also
to understand what was meant by the text or descriptions written in
the MIL documents. At this time the single- and double-sided board
specification for rigid PCBs was MIL-P-55110. Multilayer board
technology was right around the corner and already in use by some of
the industry leaders. There was also a flexible single-sided, double-
sided MIL specification. In addition, IPC had also run several multilayer
Round Robin Test Programs to convince the industry and the two major
market users that the technology was robust and reliable.
People shied away from multilayer board technology for three
reasons: the need to prove its reliability, the high cost and slow delivery
of boards. General multilayer boards took four to six weeks to deliver
and their cost was five to ten times the cost per layer of the double-sided
version. The military called a joint industry group together to develop
a military version of MIL-P-55110. It was identified as MIL-P-55640
and the group met for three days to discuss the differences between the
single-sided and double-sided product. The group discussed reliability
and how to measure it. As a result the military required that pre-
production boards be made for every contract. Any OEM that received
a military contract that invoked MIL-P-55640 was required to build
six sample boards of the most complex construction from the contract.
This required agreement of what constituted the most complex board.
Did it have the maximum number of layers, the thinnest conductor, the
smallest plated-through hole, or the most exotic material combination?
112
That negotiation took four weeks, so many started producing multilayer
boards before they got approval in order to meet the schedule required
by the contract.
The new standard also required that heavy copper be used on the
inner layers of the multilayer. Two ounce copper (0.0028 inches) was
required and every multilayer panel had to have a coupon with six
plated-through holes that could be thermally stressed (dropped in hot
solder 260º C) and then micro-sectioned to examine the conductive
structure. If a contract called for 100 panels it meant 150 micro-sections,
since some had the holes cut horizontally and another half of the holes
oriented and cut vertically. The coupons were usually positioned near
the corners of the panel, since it was felt that this was the least desirable
location. The new MIL Specification stated that layer registration could
also be measured when looking at the micro-section. The land furthest
to the left was examined and its center located. This was compared to
the center of the land that was furthest to the right. If the two centers
were off no more than 0.014 inches the layer registration was acceptable;
if larger than the 0.014 inches the board was scrapped.
In those days, the conductive pattern was produced using polyimide
film on which crepe tape was attached to represent the conductive
pattern. The pattern was usually scaled larger than full size—sometimes
2:1, 4:1, or 10:1. (Semiconductor die patterns were usually produced
at 100:1 using a scribe-coat coordinatograph where the coating was
peeled away to leave the represented IC Pattern). For printed circuits,
the crepe tape could be bent as it was applied and so smooth conductor
images were produced. The tape, however, tended to return to a straight
line from its curved position, thus photographic reproductions were
made and retained while the taped masters were discarded. The film
masters also were not completely stable. They could absorb moisture and
stretch in one direction and shrink in the other. Only glass masters were
impervious to this condition and, for some complex multilayer boards,
the glass material was used to retain registration and accuracy.
Registration, accuracy, time to market, and total cost were driving
the industry at every turn. Photocircuits, an independent manufacturing
leader, developed many techniques that were useful in meeting the
industry’s immediate needs. They had a camera setup that was locked
into a fixed position with a copy board that was able to capture an
enlarged image at about 20:1. Operators on ladders placed enlarged
lands on a grid background and created a “Pad Master.” The pads stayed
in-place while the circuit pattern was positioned to arrive at the proper
layer interconnection. Once photographed, the enlarged conductors were
113
removed and the next conductive circuit layer was attached. The layer
registration was as perfect as possible, since it all came from the same
pad master.
Photocircuits also developed an additive process and licensed it to
potential users. It was successful in Europe, a few tried it in the U.S. and
Japan made it work wonders. Hitachi had both subtractive and additive
processes and both groups competed for double-sided work. But only
subtractive processes were used for multilayer production. To meet
the need for faster turnaround, Photocircuits developed “Multiwire,”
a technique that used a double-sided board with a ground and voltage
pattern and all circuitry was provided by a wire that was pressed into
an adhesive coating. The wire ends went to a plated-through hole where
the wire end made contact with the plated-through hole barrel. The wire
was insulated and could stand several layers on top of one another. The
idea led to a thinner wire known as “Microwire.” There was even a
model that had a ground shield around the wire making it a coax wiring
concept.
Interconnection was so important that many companies looked at
ways to make multiple connections. “Wirewrap” was based on the idea
of a pin soldered in a board. The pin could take three gas tight wraps
per pin to spread the interconnections. “Termipoint,” developed by Amp
Inc., used a clip that made it easier to make a change as the clips could
be moved up and down on the pin. Each had an automatic machine that
added the wires by routing them through specific channels and then
making the attachment. Whether multiwire, wirewrap, or termipoint,
these discrete wiring techniques were more cost effective than using 100
multilayer board panels. Thus, many companies chose discrete wiring
techniques to prove out their designs in prototype and, when moving to
full production, amortized the multilayer setup cost over a larger volume.
IPC, at the request of the military, developed IPC-DW-425 Design
and End Product Requirements for Discrete Wiring Boards for people
handling military contract work.

Multilayer Boards Gain Acceptance

With military contracts calling for adherence to MIL-P-55640, the
Tri Services promoted their own multilayer products. The National
Security Agency also had a multilayer board; their version was a little
unusual since it didn’t include layered pairs of copper clad laminate.
The NSA board was a seven-layer board which included a center single-
sided copper voltage plane, sandwiched between two ground planes. A
circuit layer on either side of the voltage and ground distribution system,
114
followed by the outer layers made up the seven-layer construction. The
agency was concerned about the reliability of their multilayer product
and insisted that all contractors use only a pyrophosphate copper plating
bath to produce the conductive copper barrel that made up the plated-
through hole. Other manufacturers used various acid baths that were
a little easier to control, however NSA insisted that the pyrophosphate
chemistry provided a more elastic copper. Copper elasticity was an
important characteristic so when the thickness of the board expanded,
the copper wall in the barrel could accommodate the strain without
creating a “barrel crack.”
It was the late 1960s and everyone wanted a multilayered product
and they also wanted reliability. During this timeframe IBM was a clear
leader in interconnection design for computer technology. The company
continued to use ceramic products due to the coefficient of expansion
difference between the silicon die and the mounting substrate, while they
experimented with organic material and tested the product for reliability.
The National Security Agency was the leader in the military
procurement of multilayer boards. Under the guidance of George
Smith, NSA moved to correct some of the deficiencies noted during
their procurement activity. There were several discrepancies repeatedly
noticed at several plants producing product for the agency throughout
the years and corrective action needed to be taken before the fabricators
could consistently produce a quality product.
The NSA team indicated that it had been proven time and time
again that rigid process controls were essential for fabricating quality
multilayer printed wiring boards. To bring the message home to the
industry, Smith had NSA join IPC and he personally became involved
with many of the committees and various testing programs. His industry
colleagues looked to him as an expert in testing and evaluation of
product quality. As such Smith recommended that IPC develop a testing
methods manual so that the quality assessment characteristics of any
product could be clearly understood. He envisioned a manual that
also would provide a consistent, repeatable and well founded testing
methodology. The IPC-TM-650 Test Methods Manual is still in use
today and available for downloading on the IPC Web site.

IPC Multilayer Round Robin Test Programs

To validate the IPC standards and database of intellectual
information, the process of round robin testing was developed. The
concept was one where an IPC committee developed a test plan, and
industry IPC member companies volunteered to produce the test
115
specimen shown in the test plan. Other members volunteered to do the
testing, and the committee that developed the test plan usually evaluated
the results and wrote the final report. During the years of multilayer
development, a total of five Multilayer Round Robin test programs were
organized and executed. Each program had a specific purpose and goal.
Hundreds of production and testing hours were contributed without
charge by the industry experts. It was a way of sharing information
without necessarily identifying a particular company or company
process. The test plan called for specific control points and a data sheet
was required from each manufacturer.
The two driving industries were the military and the computer
industries. Into the early 1960s most computer manufacturers made
their own logic out of discrete components. These were mounted in
single-sided boards. It wasn’t to be long before all of the computer
manufacturers started exploring the use of multilayer products.
Although most computers were for commercial use, the Tri Services
had a great deal of interest and funded many research programs in order
to evaluate the reliability of multilayer printed boards used in a severe
military environment. The proof was usually some form of military
thermal cycling or thermal stress. In all of these test programs, it was
the plated-through hole reliability that was in question. Resin content,
copper ductility, copper thickness, hole diameter, and manufacturing
quality were the main issues identified by NSA in their survey of
manufacturing capability.
The IPC Multilayer Performance Subcommittee organized all of
the Round Robin programs. The first three were primarily intended
to provide the industry with meaningful data on the performance and
reliability of plated-through holes in multilayer boards. Round Robin
I, completed in 1969, was only done to sample the industry. The Test
plan was largely unstructured, and fabricators were asked to use
their best practices and design features in the absence of controlling
specifications. There was a wide variation of the design parameters
used by the different participants; however, the thermal cycling results
provided a good database from which to structure Round Robin II.
The second Round Robin followed on the heels of some of the work by
IBM and the NSA. Round Robin II had a dual objective; first, to gain
additional insight into the effect of hole wall thickness on plated-through
hole reliability; second, to evaluate hole wall cleaning comparing the
performance of etch-backed holes to non etch-backed holes. It should be
understood that the chemistry for etch-back was very severe (sulfuric
acid) and not many fabricators wanted to assume the operator risk. On
116
the flip side was the IBM committee leadership who claimed that, if
one drilled properly, there wasn’t any resin smear, thus etch-back or
any smear removal chemistry was unnecessary. Round Robin II was
completed in September 1970.
Round Robin III also had a twofold objective; one was to continue
to evaluate etch back compared to non-etch back smear removal; the
second objective was to determine if a correlation existed between a
lengthy time-consuming thermal cycling test and a relatively short
solder shock or hot oil shock test. The idea was to see if a one day test
could replace the long thermal cyclic exposure. There were a total of
27 different fabricators who participated in the three round robins;
however, only a small percentage submitted boards with etch back hole
cleaning. The third round robin was completed in September 1971 and
presented orally at the IPC Fall Meeting. Testing for Round Robin I was
accomplished by North American Rockwell; testing for Round Robin
II and III was done jointly by IBM and the Department of Defense. The
participation was in accordance to the following table:

Participating Fabricators Round Robin

I II III
Total Fabricators 7 16 17
Fabricators submitting Etch back holes 1 5 3

The test specimens were all approximately 0.060 inch thick

consisting of five conductive layers (three internal with one a ground
plane). The boards were 2.5 x 2.5 inches and consisted of holes in a
connected pattern where the diameter was 0.020, 0.030, and 0.040
inches. Each hole-pattern had 80 holes connected in series for a total
of 240 holes. The materials for Round Robin I and II were G-10; it was
FR-4 material used for Round Robin III. Each test program had failures
in a different region of the plated-through holes. The small diameter
holes failed first, while the larger diameter holes lasted a longer number
of cycles. There was no real coordination between the thermal cycling
and solder or hot oil shock tests. There was no attempt to assess what
this meant to product in the field; however, the testing teams agreed that
the thermal cycling was much more severe than any product would see
in normal field use. Rarely do field thermal exposures reach the level
of testing done by the round robin programs. In addition, a crack in a
plated-through hole would usually be masked by a solder plug in the hole
or a lead that was soldered into the hole. Nevertheless, IPC held an open
117
forum to let any additional data be presented that related to field failures.
The general consensus at the seminar was that field failures were very
low and insignificant compared to other hardware failures.

Military Specification Updating

With all of the work being done by the industry to define the
reliability of multilayer boards it became important to update the
military specifications that governed hardware requirements for the tri-
services. In the early 1970s, after the third IPC Multilayer Round Robin,
the industry and military representatives met to discuss an update of the
requirements for printed boards. Some wanted to have thinner copper on
inner layers, others wanted reduced testing requirements. Since military
hardware included single sided, double sided, and multilayer boards
it was agreed that one specification could define all the requirements.
Thus, during the updating of MIL-P-55110, all types of rigid product
were defined. The requirement for the thickness of inner layer copper
was reduced to one ounce with the conditional requirement that the first
layer in from the top and from the bottom would be two ounce copper.
The idea was that the heavier copper would help to lock the plated-
through hole in place. Another restriction was imposed on the minimum
dielectric separation. Because the services were worried about the larger
plated profile of electrodeposited copper used to make the foil of double
sided copper clad laminate, a spacing limitation was defined as no less
than 0.0035 inches with two layers of reinforcement separating the plated
side of the foil.
MIL-P-55640 was superseded as the new MIL-P-55110 took effect.

Metal Cladding

T
Dielectric
Maximum T
Thickness Peak-to-Peak
Typical of
min. - 0.09mm (Microsection)
[0.0035"]
Mechanical T
Thickness T
Measurements
T
Average of Peak
to Valley Thickness
Metal Cladding (Equivalent to
Weight)
IPC-I-002023
T

One element still remained, and that was that the contractor had to
build six pre-production samples before production could theoretically
start. Industry complained that instead of meeting the requirements of
the Military contracts they spent more time building pre-production
118
samples that they spent on contractual requirements. The subject was
under continuous discussion during any conference that dealt with
multilayer or double-sided fabrication for military customers. The Tri
Services were too fragmented to provide a solution; However, with the
help of the Defense Electronics Supply Agency (DESC), an appointment
was arranged with the office of the secretary of Defense. Lester Fox,
listened patiently while a group of industry Military hardware suppliers
explained the situation. The group suggested that a much better model
would be to have a standard certification panel that could be tested and
approved by an independent laboratory. Once approved, a fabricator
could be qualified for a year to build hardware for any tri service
contract.
When Fox asked if there were such a certification panel, the group
offered the double sided IPC-B-25 board that was used for industry
insulation resistance testing. The board had some very small conductors
and comb patterns that were ideal to evaluate a fabricators capability.
When it came to the multilayer board the industry only had a four layer
board used in IPC Round Robin IV. George Smith suggested that the
four layers be duplicated and two surface layers added. This would
provide a ten layer certification specimen. Several samples were built
and, with the backing of the Tri Services, the director of the Secretary
of Defense agreed to try the methodology. DESC was appointed as the
auditing agency for the Tri Services and multilayer concepts for MIL
hardware moved forward.
Over the next several years, during the 1970s, several revisions were
made to the military specifications. It was a time of great cooperative
efforts thanks to Ivan Jones, DESC and some of the industry leaders.
There were continuous meetings being held in Dayton, Ohio, where
the industry and Tri Services discussed and improved the quality of the
standards, and the interpretation that could be derived from the text.
Many MIL specs were worked on together during this time; MIL-P-
13949 on Laminate, MIL-P-28809 on Assembly, and others. It was also
a time when IPC specifications were approved for use by DoD such
as. Terms and Definitions (IPC-T-50), and Solder Mask (IPC-SM-840).
Toward the end of this era, the military needed to increase the severity
of solder shock testing. The original concepts were to take a coupon
with six plated-through holes and float the specimen on the solder for
10 seconds. The test method called for the solder temperature to be
260ºC, measured one half inch below the surface. In spite of the severity
of the test, the services were still experiencing problems when board
assemblies were repaired in the field. So, on the next revision of
119
MIL-P-55110, the solder shock test temperature was raised to 288ºC.
The 1970s were also a time for IPC to get its specifications in order.
The Multilayer Performance Specification IPC-ML-950 was originally
released in January 1966. The specification was supplemented by the
design standard IPC-D-910 and the Documentation Standard IPC-D-975,
and was updated in September 1970 with revision A. After the industry
had made the request of the DoD to develop a qualification board, the
IPC performance standard was updated again. Revision B released
in December 1977 paralleled the MIL specs in that there were two
multilayer qualification boards. One was a six layer board, Type I, which
used the four layer artwork originally developed for the Round Robin IV
test program. The four circuit layers were internal and the surface layers
were used for testing. The Type II board was a ten layer board that used
similar artwork and had the same eight test specimens.
• Interlayer Insulation Resistance Specimen A
• Plating Adhesion, Short to Ground Specimen B
• Flexure Strength Specimen C
• Water absorption Specimen D
• Flammability Specimen E
• Terminal Pull Strength Specimen F
• Continuity Test Specimen G
• Intralayer Insulation Test Specimen H

In the IPC specification, qualification testing was agreed to between

user and fabricator; in the MIL specifications, it was mandatory if one
wanted to be listed on the Qualified Product list (QPL). DESC had many
QPLs for electronic parts such as resistors, capacitors, and connectors.
However, the QPL for boards was that the fabricator had built the
qualification board and was tested to verify that he was qualified to
produce a product of a certain number of layers using a particular
material. After having built the qualification samples and having passed
all the tests, the fabricator was qualified for three years, provided that
every year he sent in a summary of his group A and B test results. If the
fabricator had provided good product during the year, DESC extended
his qualification. So the industry built multilayer boards to a variety
of specifications. The military equipment contractors built to MIL-P-
55110, while industry built to IPC specifications. Of course, IBM had
their own internal specifications as did many of the computer-based
companies such as RCA, Sperry Univac, Digital Equipment, Philco, and
Texas Instruments. At Philco, rather than re-invent the wheel, the official
representative purchased 500 copies of IPC-ML-950 and the industry
120
specification was inserted into every engineering manual with a cover
letter from the general manager stating support of the Specification.
It became obvious during the late 70s and early 80s that every
industry and every product market had their own views of what
constituted a good multilayer product. The concepts could be broken
into three basic segments; Commercial, Military, and High-Rel. Each
group had their own view of what made sense and how the products
should be evaluated. On one issue they all did agree, and that was the
issue of cracks in the plated-through hole. Different test methods began
to evolve, and there was concern regarding how long some of the testing
took, and whether it was representative of product in the field. The test
procedures were very different. There was thermal stress (solder float at
260ºC for 10 seconds); there was thermal shock (-55ºC to +125ºC for 100
cycles – 2 minute ramp/15 minutes at the extremes); there was thermal
cycling (-55ºC to +125ºC for 400 cycles – 30 minute ramp/30 minutes
at the extremes); there was hot oil and fluidized sand stress (ambient to
260ºC for 30 cycles); and there was commercial thermal cycling (0 to
100ºC for 1000 cycles – 30 minute ramp/30 minutes at the extreme). At
least the industry agreed on the definition of cracks and so these were
added to all the specifications.
As the industry tried to come up with methods of test and techniques
for evaluation, product was still being built. The qualification test boards
that were developed helped set the stage for some of the concepts. It all
instances, the evaluations were based on the value of a four layer board
and that of a ten layer board. As IPC embarked on Multilayer Round
Robin V, these two types of test specimens were used for the evaluations.
The group set the defect limits for the three industry categories which
were as follows:

• Commercial: Essentially products sophisticated enough to

require multilayer boards such as computers, controllers, etc.

• Military: Essentially military type hardware meeting most but

not all requirements of MIL-P-55110.

• High Rel: Equipment in both commercial (pacemakers etc.), or

military equipment. Strict interpretation and understanding of
the specifications and requirements was necessary to evaluate
the products in this category. This category meets essentially all
the requirements of MIL-P-55110C.

121
 The Round Robin V program consisted of 20 four layer boards
and 24 ten layer boards. Many hundreds of hours were donated by IPC
member companies to evaluate the products submitted. There were
literally thousands of microsections. The committee took all the samples
and evaluated them against the criteria of commercial, military or high
rel requirements. Approximately 80% of both the four layer and ten
layer boards were acceptable for commercial product, but only a little
over 40% would meet the requirements for high reliability equipment.
It should be remembered that these were the same products that had
been tested and only the evaluation decided whether they could be
shipped to the customer or put into the trash bin. Independent board
fabricators found it a very confusing time, especially if they served
different markets from the same facility. The QA personnel also were
at odds, since a product that was OK for one group would not serve the
requirements of another.
It was stated earlier that the military had changed the thermal stress
test temperature in the “C” revision of MIL-P-55110 from a solder float
of ten seconds at 260ºC to a new temperature of 288ºC. The solder that
wicked into the plated-through holes of the coupon caused such a severe
stress on the barrel that, when the microsection was polished, one saw
little black voids between the wall of the plating and the drilled hole
wall. When asked what that black area represented, an expert at an
industry/military coordination meeting said it was a “sulfonation void.”
Some of the delegates at the meeting didn’t understand the term, so the
expert went on to explain the resin had not been fully cured and the heat
of the hot solder caused the resin to shrink further and pull away from
the hole. So how much was permitted? The military representatives said
none; the industry representatives opted for 100%. After two hours of
debate, resin recession was born; Without having any technical data a
compromise was reached. Forty percent (40%) recession was permitted
after thermal stress; forty-one percent (41%) was scrap. Of course none
was permitted in the coupons before stress.
For the next five years, those fabricators who supplied military
customers scrapped boards that had 41% or more resin recession. The
industry standards didn’t mention the defect (IPC-ML-950); only
the MIL-P-55110 revision C where the higher stress temperature was
imposed. Nevertheless, the cost impact of resin recession was discussed
at every IPC meeting from the end of the ’70s to the early ’80s. For these
reasons, Round Robin V was formed to evaluate the long-term effect of
having resin recession in the multilayer printed board. Specimen “E”
of the test program identified the manner in which this defect would
122
be evaluated. The plan was to take a specimen and subject the product
to multiple stress tests. A coupon was developed that contained six
specimens which were submitted to multiple stress cycles. After each
cycle, one of the six coupon was microsectioned and examined. The
testing temperature was set to match the MIL-P-55110C temperature of
288ºC. The results of six solder stress exposures did not do excessive
damage to the barrel of the plated-through hole. Those products that
were inferior when originally submitted did get worse; however, those
that passed many of the other tests, including electrical continuity,
stayed good even though some of them exhibited resin recession in the
as-received condition. The defect did not get worse.
Thus, five years of pain came to an end for the contractors who
provided equipment for the military. It was an experience just to
determine how to evaluate the product to see if it was defective or not.
By this time, the “A” coupon had been changed to nine holes so that it
could be microsectioned in either direction. After cutting and polishing
the three holes, the images were examined to determine if there was a
greater amount of resin recession than permitted by the specification.
The operator would measure all the resin and glass in each wall of the
plated-through hole sides and compare the total to the amount of dark
dots that represent the voided area. If, when dividing the amount of
resin and glass total into the amount of resin recession, image total was
less than 40%, it was permissible to ship the boards to the customer.
If the loss was more than 40%, the panels were scrapped. Once the
Round Robin results were made public in 1984, it didn’t take long for the
industry to react. The military contractors asked the military to develop
the “Thermal Zone” concept. This would mean that, after thermal stress,
laminate imperfections such as resin recession were not evaluated, only
the structural integrity of the plated-through hole.
Resin recession was not permitted in the as-received microsection
even though the board had seen some stress when submitted to hot air
solder leveling. The military made a new revision to MIL-P-55110 and
the D rev. spelled out all the requirements in great detail. MIL-P-55110D
was published on December 31, 1984, and all the military contractors
breathed a sigh of relief.

123
Recollection:

Beginnings of the Flexible Circuit Industry

By Herb Pollack

One of the earliest ideas to manufacture flexible printed wiring had

its beginning in the late 1950s at Sanders Associates, a New Hampshire
military/aerospace company. The product was meant to replace the bundle
of discrete wires that made up a cable
harness. The insulating material used was a
thermoplastic, Teflon, making the process
difficult, with resulting low yields. For this and
other reasons, sales were limited to certain
military applications, with not very substantial
usage. In the late 1960s Dupont introduced
a thermoset adhesive on polyimide, which
provided more stability for the process.
The market was still limited by the primary
application of the product as a replacement
for a wire harness. I joined Sanders in 1965 to
manage several divisions of the company. One
of these divisions was the Flexprint Division,
and was my first introduction to printed circuits Herb Pollack
having been recruited out of the microwave
test instrumentation industry. I was intrigued by the potential for flexible wiring
technology, particularly with the advent of the new material. I left in 1970 to
start my own company, Parlex Corporation.
Very early we realized we had to expand the technology to broaden
the applications. We developed a process to selectively rigidize the flexible
circuit with plated-through holes connecting the flex to the rigid areas so
that components as well as connectors could be assembled to the circuit. At
the time, it was a complex process since the hole to be plated consisted of
varied surfaces made up of the flex and the rigid materials. This 3-dimensional
rigid-flex circuit technology that we developed could now be considered
an interconnect subsystem for unique packaging and miniaturization of
electronic devices. The applications and markets grew. This was followed by
the development of production processes for a rigid-flex multilayer, which was
initially used by the military and, subsequently, applications in many other
commercial markets. Companies in the US, Europe and Asia, particularly
Japan, took note of this upcoming flexible circuit technology and the number of

124
producers and users expanded. Today, it is probably one of the fastest growing
segments of the global printed circuit industry. Amazingly, after some 40-plus
years, it is a product whose time has come.
My personal involvement with IPC began about 40 years ago and my
company’s membership about 32 years ago. As a member, board member
and president, I was privileged to participate in the growth of an industry and
IPC. The President’s Breakfast was an event where competitive CEOs and
presidents discussed legitimate business issues and became good friends. The
TMRC meetings with interesting and informative speakers provided a better
understanding of our industry and technology. The many committees wrote
standards and design guidelines to better educate our customers and us. The
annual board of directors meetings were places where Ray Pritchard made
us work for several days in a row and then showed us how to relax and play,
usually in the sun. The world meetings were events where the printed circuit
was the common denominator between many cultures. These and many more
events made IPC a factor for my business and me.
Parlex became a global company and was sold in 2005 to a major, global,
Hong Kong based electronics company and I retired. For me, flexible circuits,
and my involvement with IPC has been a great adventure with many fond
memories.

125
Recollection:

Memories of the PCB Business at PCK Technology Division

By Brewster F. Barclay

I joined the PCK Technology Division in January 1982 as a fresh-faced

young MBA with lots of ideas on how to change the world. My first task was
to make the coffee every morning which brought me down to earth. Today, I
would think that most people do not remember who PCK Technology was. The
full name was Photocircuits Kollmorgen Technology
Division. When Photocircuits was purchased by
Kollmorgen in the early 1970s, every group within
Photocircuits was made into a division and the group
that had been developing and licensing technology
became its own separate division.
What was fantastic about PCK was the wealth
of experience of PCB technology distributed among
the people. Photocircuits had been at the forefront
of PCB technology for 30 years by the time I joined.
They had invented a whole range of technologies Brewster Barclay
which by then people took for granted: FR-4 laminates,
CNC drilling, solder mask, tin/lead etch resist, ductile electroless copper
for PTH, some of the first multilayers, the semi-additive process, the CC-4
fully additive process, NT-1, which was way ahead of its time for plating,
hole plugging and etching, and more. The people who had invented these
technologies were almost all working at PCK.
John McCormack had been Bob Swiggett’s second or third employee and
he had an encyclopaedic knowledge of PCB technology and could immediately
point one in the right direction when there was a problem. Rudi Zeblisky had
been a key chemist developing ductile copper for PTH and had been there at
the inception of fully additive copper. I asked him why they had called it CC-4.
Simple, it was the fourth copper chelate that they had tried and it worked. Frank
Nuzzi was another great source of information. Page Burr was looked up to as
the great inventor of the printed circuit motor and his technology skills were
used in all areas of Kollmorgen’s business.
Dr. Karl Egerer was one of the unsung heroes of Photocircuits’ success in
developing technology. It was due to his efforts that technologies were patented
and then licensed to the world. Through him, almost all the large electronic
companies and materials suppliers to the PCB industry were licensees of PCK
Technology. I learned all I know about negotiating from Dr. Egerer and his

126
protégé, the inimitable John Dennis-Brown. John was able to go anywhere in
the world and negotiate deals of stunning complexity. I worked directly for John
for eight years and enjoyed many great times with him throughout the world of
PCB manufacturing.
I also had the chance to work with many other remarkable people. George
Messner and I shared an office for many years. He was a wonderful, kind
and helpful person who was always willing to share his experiences with me.
However, I never learned his knack of being able to take a nap of precisely
20 minutes at lunch and wake up completely refreshed. Dr. Hayao Nakahara
was another office partner and his worldwide knowledge of PCBs was already
phenomenal. His ability to integrate between the east and the west was
certainly a vital part in the development of a global PCB industry.
PCK Technology has come and gone but it was a place of great intellectual
excitement and a ferment of new ideas which I have never seen since then.
There are many people I do not have the space to mention but all of the people
who worked there should be remembered for the remarkable impact they had
on the PCB industry.
After my 10 years at PCK Technology I spent another 10 years at Orbotech
and so have remained with PCB technology for almost my whole business
career. I am now running a software company but I still stay in touch with many
of my old colleagues and friends.

127
IPC and Trade Shows

For almost three decades after its founding, IPC did not hold an
industry trade show. Leaders were stridently opposed to producing a
show because they believed that an IPC-produced trade show might
cause undue influence on the development of standards through
hospitality suites and its commercial focus. In short, the objectivity of
the standards process could be seriously compromised.
Industry trade shows produced by for-profit businesses, without
serious association competition, flourished in the printed circuit board
and electronics assembly industries.
Companies, spurred on by show management, waged pyrrhic battles
for the size and location of their booths and the elaborateness of their
hospitality suites. Show management offered backroom deals and a
staggering breadth of sponsorship opportunities… from name badges to
floor mats to hotel key cards.
This competition, as well as the proliferation of trade shows,
continued to grow in the 1980s fueled by the advent of Surface Mount
Technology (SMT). Electronics assembly, once a sleepy technology
backwater, exploded with the advent of SMT.
Surface mount technology took the electronics industry by storm,
impacting the entire electronics supply chain from board design to
components to reliability. It was also a catalyst for the growth of a new
industry: Electronics Manufacturing Services (EMS). OEMs choosing
not to invest in this new placement technology instead outsourced their
electronic assembly operations to EMS companies.
In 1986, IPC and the then-Electronics Industries Association
(EIA) formed the Surface Mount Council. Gathering some of the best
technologists from both associations, the Council would look for ways to
facilitate SMT implementation.
Part of the work of the two associations and the council was
the creation and support of a yearly “Surface Mount and Related
Technology” — SMART — Conference. The focus of the conference
was the presentation of technical papers and in addition, prompted
by EIA, a small exhibition of 20 to 30 companies. With the SMART
Conference, IPC dipped its proverbial toe in trade show waters. A few
years later, IPC would dive in.
Trade shows took advantage of this almost unquenchable interest
in the new technology. It wasn’t a stretch to say that there was not
one region of the country that didn’t host a trade show and technical
conference for SMT. Predictably, an association, the Surface Mount
128
Technology Association (SMTA), also grew out of this technology.
As their influence grew, SMTA joined the Surface Mount Council in
1989. At one of the first Surface Mount Council meetings with SMTA in
attendance, SMTA volunteers invited the EIA and IPC to join them and
Miller Freeman Exhibitions in a joint SMT event.
This joint event, called Surface Mount International and produced by
IPC, SMTA, EIA and Miller Freeman, was first held in San Jose in 1991.
It was a resounding success. The event featured more than 400 booths
plus an extensive technical program. From a trade show perspective, IPC
was getting its feet wet.

PCB Suppliers Demand a Voice and an Exhibition

Early in IPC’s history, the governance of the association was
concentrated in the hands of the PCB manufacturers. In 1991, printed
circuit board (PCB) suppliers met to identify new possibilities for them
as a group within IPC. This new IPC PCB Suppliers Council developed
a number of initiatives; one of the key points made during their first
meeting was “Getting the Most Bang for our Trade Show Buck.”
Faced with the excesses of industry trade shows, members of the
IPC PCB Suppliers Council wanted a different kind of event. They
wanted an exhibition that was fair, focused and cost effective. They
wanted every exhibitor to be treated the same, regardless of booth size.
They wanted an event focused on their customers—the printed circuit
board industry. And as business leaders, they wanted a cost effective
event with reasonable space rates where booth sizes would be capped.
Finally, they wanted to reinvest the profits of the event back into the
work of their association.
Looking back, this request for an IPC-produced PCB industry
trade show should have been widely accepted by IPC governance and
the membership. It was not. The IPC board was cautious about the new
event; IPC had never produced a trade show on its own.
Some of IPC’s technical committee leadership was resistant to the
trade show. They worried the trade show would be a zero sum game; the
trade show would take away their resources for standards development.
In the end, the IPC PCB Suppliers Council got their wish and the
first IPC Printed Circuits Expo was held at the Hynes Convention Center
in Boston in 1994. The event featured 60,000 square feet of exhibit space
and 1,700 attendees. Several hundred technologists also participated in
standards meetings, mitigating the concern of the technical committees.
IPC had produced its very own conference and exhibition. But
another conference and exhibition would soon follow.
129
Surface Mount Equipment Manufacturers
SMT gained acceptance and widespread use by the electronics
assembly industry by the late 1990s. A new technology could support a
significant number of trade shows and conferences; a mature technology,
which SMT was rapidly becoming, could not.
The four partners of Surface Mount International, facing dwindling
exhibitor support and exhibition attendance, cancelled their partnership
agreement in 1998.
That same year, several leading assembly equipment presidents
reached out to IPC for representation. Through their efforts, the Surface
Mount Equipment Manufacturers Association (SMEMA) became an
IPC council. They had several goals, including standards for assembly
equipment and statistical programs for equipment manufacturers.
With their trust in IPC growing, the SMEMA Council decided in
1999 that an event produced by IPC, under the principles of “IPC Printed
Circuits Expo—fair, focused and cost effective,” would be in the best
interests of their membership.
This new event, called IPC SMEMA Council APEX® conference and
exhibition, was first held in 2000 in Long Beach, Calif. Like IPC Printed
Circuits Expo®, APEX® was an instant success, in addition to being one
of the largest trade show introductions in the exhibition industry.
At the first APEX, 2000 technologists took advantage of the
workshops and technical conference. The exhibit hall in Long Beach
sold out with nearly 300,000 square feet of exhibit space; 5,700 attendees
visited the show floor. With IPC Printed Circuits Expo moving to
southern California, IPC continued to hold separate events for the PCB
and electronics assembly industries.
The industry downturn five years later prompted IPC Printed
Circuits Expo and the SMEMA Council APEX event to merge. In 2005,
IPC created the Designers Summit — a program focused on printed
circuit board designers — and added it to the event. Today, the shows
rank in the top 200 trade shows in the United States.

International Event
In 2002, IPC partnered with the Hong Kong Printed Circuit
Association to create the International Printed Circuit and Electronics
Assembly Fair. The first event was held in Guangzhou, China, and
attracted 13,000 visitors to more than 800 exhibit booths. The event
continues to grow and has been held in Dongguan, China, since its
launch.

130
Conclusion
Through the years, IPC Printed Circuits Expo and APEX have been
produced by IPC. The exhibitor’s space rate (even in the face of sold-out
shows for several years) has not changed; it is still $19 a square foot for
IPC members, the same as it was in 1994.
What also has not changed is the active involvement in the events
by the trade show subcommittees and the PCB Steering Council and
SMEMA Council. It is fair to say that the structure of IPC’s trade shows,
as well as their operation, is a model which has been copied successfully
by others and has saved the industry millions of dollars. They truly are
events “by and for the industry.”

131
Sources:

1. Evolution of a Wiring Concept, by Dr. Lars Martin, November 1, 2006,

CircuiTree Magazine, www.circuitree.com.

2. “High Density Interconnect Technology,” Spinoff Technology

#439, published online at www.mdatechnology.net/techsearch.
asp?articleid=439#sec6 , by the General Electric Corporate R&D Center
(Hanover, MD); Site sponsored by National Technology Transfer Center
— NTTC — Washington Operations.

3. www.siliconfareast.com, www.siliconfareast.com/tab2.htm

4. www.siliconfareast.com, www.siliconfareast.com/cob.htm

5. www.siliconfareast.com,www.siliconfareast.com/flipchipassy.htm

6. Flex Circuits Bend to Fit More Applications, by Ann R. Thryft,

(November 2006 Issue, Nikkei Electronics Asia)

132
 IPC Chronology: 1984-1994
1984
• IPC was the first organization to recognize the importance of a
group of companies called contract electronics manufacturers.
IPC completed the first major study of the market for the industry,
reporting sales of $1.4 billion (non-value added) for U.S. contract
manufacturers.
• Printed Circuit World Convention III (PCWC III) was held in the U.S.
in Washington, D.C.
• IPC developed an electronic information retrieval program for
members.
• Applied for and received ANSI accreditation as a standards
developing organization.
• IPC members voted unanimously to revise the by-laws to include
contract assembly companies as Regular Members.

1985
• While technology and marketing programs continued to play a major
role in programming in IPC, there was also increased interest in

Key representatives of PCWC III. Seated (L-R): Reuben Josephs, Nevin Electric;
Rolly Mettler, Circuit-Wise; Theo Passlick, Fuba-Hans Kolbe; and Hitoshi Aizawa,
Hitachi Chemical. Standing are members of the Operations Committee (L-R):
Russell House, Imasa Ltd; Bernie Kessler, Kessler & Associates; Dwayne Poteet,
Texas Instruments; Dick Douglas, Hughes Aircraft; Jim DiNitto, Analog Devices;
Hayao Nakahara, Photocircuits; George Messner, PCK Technology; Ray Pritchard,
IPC; Dieter Bergman, IPC; and Kiyoshi Takagi, Fujitsu Ltd.
133
 management programs. In 1985, in cooperation with the Wharton
School of Finance, IPC conducted East Coast and West Coast
Financial Management Seminars.
• IPC published a promotional brochure describing the importance of
PWBs and circulated it to member companies, as well as colleges and
universities.
• With more than 20,000 individuals on the IPC mailing list, it was
impossible to send all mailings to everyone at each member company.
It was, therefore, agreed to create a new category of Participating
Member (at a cost of $200) to receive the same mailings sent to
Official Representatives.
• IPC headquarters moved to Lincolnwood, Illinois.
• EIA and IPC initiated the Surface Mount and Reflow Technology
Conference and Exhibition (SMART).

Members of the committee that organized the Financial Management Seminars.

Seated (L-R): Bob Wright, Midi; Sam Sapienza, Wharton School of Finance; John
Misilli, Photocircuits; and Rolly Mettler, Circuit-Wise.

1986
• By 1986, only 15% of PWB panels contained one or more surface mount
applications. The outlook, however, was that surface mount technology
(SMT) would eventually dominate the electronics industry and there was
a tremendous need to share information on the technology.

134
 Out of this need, the Surface Mount Council (SMC) was formed
in 1986. It was a joint effort between IPC and EIA. The intent of the
council was to gather the most knowledgeable experts from EIA and
IPC to identify and create programs to overcome the technological
barriers to SMT.
• The IPC Long-Range Planning Committee targeted six areas for
programming:
• International Standards
• Need to Improve Communications
• U.S. Regional Meetings/Chapters
• International Meetings and Seminars
• Expanding Packaging Activities
• Format for Semiannual Meetings
• For the first time, IPC held meetings in Europe and Asia to review a
proposal for a new standard. It was the standard for surface mount
land patterns (IPC-SM-782).
• Recognizing that almost 80% of all independent PWB manufacturers
had sales of less than $5 million, IPC sponsored management
meetings on the East and West coasts aimed directly at the interests
and problems of small PWB manufacturers.
• Under the leadership of Maynard Eaves, Hewlett-Packard, IPC
published a Quality Evaluation Handbook for PWBs and a
comprehensive series of slides.

1987
• Printed Circuit World Convention IV (PCWC IV) was held in Tokyo,
Japan.
• IPC surveyed membership interest in Europe and followed up with
a meeting in Zurich to discuss how IPC could best serve European
members.
• Working with the International Society of Hybrid Microelectronics
(now called IMAPS), IPC initiated the Hybrid Marketing Research
Council to develop market statistics and technology trends.
• IPC determined that there should be an expanded structure for
technical activities to provide a separate section for interconnections
and packaging.
135
The members of the initial group of experts who served on the Surface Mount Council.
Seated (L-R): Mike Busby, Interconics; Owen Layden, U.S. Army; Ray Prasad, Intel;
Dieter Hauser, KDA Speer; Whit Ackerman, Universal Instruments; Don Mitchell and
Max Moore, EIA; and Chairman Dick Rahill, Corning. Standing (L-R): Dean McKee,
Naval Oceans Systems Center; Mike Lazar, Burndy; Ken Hafften, Bureau of Engraving;
Phil Marcoux, AWI/SCI; Dieter Bergman, IPC; Gerald Fehr, LSI Logic; David Nixen,
Aerospace Corporation; Foster Gray, Texas Instruments; Stephen Hinch, Hewlett
Packard; Ray Pritchard, IPC.

1988
• Two lawsuits were filed against 20 IPC PWB manufacturing
companies contending that materials in the laminate (fiberglass)
caused cancer. IPC organized legal counsel from all 20 companies to
act in concert to defend these suits. Because of this strong cooperative
effort, both suits were dropped.
• DoD 2000 series of soldering standards was a significant step in
aligning the multiple standards developed by various government
agencies. IPC sponsored workshops throughout the country with
representatives from government and industry to reach agreement on
the DoD soldering specifications.

1989
• In 1989, EPA undertook research to replace chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs) and sought experts to develop appropriate evaluation and
testing programs. IPC volunteered to conduct these studies and
developed a benchmark testing program to evaluate alternatives to
CFCs for assembly defluxing.
• Cooperated with DoD on future standards using statistical process
controls (SPC) rather than end product performance.

136
 • Published, in cooperation with the EIA and American Society for
Testing Materials (ASTM), a joint document on Standardization and
Implementation Requirements for Fine Pitch Technology.
• IPC held the second joint U.S./European meeting, in cooperation with
the EIPC and the Printed Circuit Interconnection Federation (PCIF),
in Denmark.
• Shearson Leahman published a scathing research report on the U.S.
PWB industry which set in motion a series of management programs
designed to blunt the report.

1990
• Ending an era, Ray Pritchard retired. Thomas Dammrich replaced
Pritchard as IPC’s Executive Director.
• Printed Circuit World Convention V (PCWC V) was held in Glasgow,
Scotland.
• Work began on the creation of the World Federation of PWB
manufacturers. A meeting was held in September in the U.K.,
attended by representatives from IPC, the JPCA, and the following
European organizations: EIPC, PCIF, and Verband Der Deutschen
Leiterplattenindustrie BV (VdL).

IPC leadership (L-R): Ray Pritchard,Thom Dammrich, and Larry

Velie, President of IPC.
137
 • A new program, “Audit for Excellence,” was launched by IPC for
PWB manufacturers. This program included a series of audited
criteria. Individual companies could then measure how their company
compared to others in the industry. Later in the year, this program
was renamed “Excellence Through Leadership,” which outlined 14
separate categories for leadership.
• Cooperated with MIT School of Management to study inter-firm
relationships between PWB manufacturers, their customers, and
PWB suppliers.

Retiring IPC President Bill Miller, Prestwick Circuits (at the podium) presented
the 1990 President’s Award to these industry experts. Seated (L-R): Mikel
Harry, Motorola; Laura Turbini, Georgia Institute of Technology; Joe Felty, Texas
Instruments; Art Mabbett, Mabbett-Capaccio & Associates; and Leslie Guth, AT&T.
Standing (L-R): Happy Holden, Hewlett-Packard; Gary Ferrari, Tech Circuits; Walt
Custer, Dynachem; William Jacobi, Jacobi & Associates; and Charlie Brooks, AMP.
Other receipients not shown were Lutz Treutler, Comargus; Bill Kenyon, DuPont;
and Vince Gatto, Tyco Printed Circuit Group.

1991
• In 1991, IPC began in earnest to develop a presence in Washington,
D.C. to represent member interests in legislation and regulatory
activities.
• IPC participated with the National Association of Metal Finishers
(NAMF) in the first Capitol Hill Day. Members, during the day, met
with U.S. senators and congressmen to begin the long journey of
making these representatives familiar with the industry.
• In recognition of IPC’s need to play a stronger role in legislation but
also environmental issues, R. Wayne Sayer was retained as the official
Washington-based Government Relations Consultant. It was further
decided that IPC would henceforth hold its own Capitol Hills Days.

138
• Approved a $10,000 contribution to the California Circuits
Association (CCA) for their efforts to fight unreasonable
environmental legislation in California.
• The IPC Board of Directors received approval from the members for
a new Mission Statement:

The IPC is a United States based trade association dedicated to

furthering the competitive excellence and financial success of
its members worldwide, who are participants in the electronic
interconnect industry.
In pursuit of these objectives, the IPC will devote resources
to management improvement and technology enhancement
programs, the creation of relevant standards, protection of the
environment, and pertinent government relations.
The IPC encourages the active participation of all its Regular,
Allied, and Associate Members in these activities and commits
to full cooperation with all related national and international
organizations.
• The EMS Management Council determined that a more appropriate
identity for contract assembly companies needed to be created. They
correctly believed the industry would expand their services from
consignment to turnkey and then to system build. They created and
popularized the new name: the Electronics Manufacturing Services
Industry (EMSI). Wall Street welcomed this new name change,
which helped reposition the industry to the investment community.
• The Board reviewed 91 separate ideas for expanding IPC programs.
These ideas were organized into nine categories:
• International Program
• Membership Definition
• Management Programs
• The Need for Excellence
• Environmental Issues
• Understanding Members’ Needs and Cooperation with Related
Groups
• Statistical Process Control (SPC) Programs
• Technology Requirements
• Meeting Structure
139
 • IPC was invited to join the Electronics Roundtable, composed of key
representatives of the major electronics industry associations that
provide a focus and direction for public policy activities of the U.S.
high technology community.
• IPC was named administrator for OZONET by ICOLP (International
Cooperative for Ozone Layer Protection) because of our ability to
provide electronic information retrieval. This was a joint project to
provide a worldwide resource on eliminating the use of CFCs.
• IPC participated as a co-sponsor with EIA, Surface Mount
Technology Association (SMTA), and Miller Freeman in presenting
the first Surface Mount International (SMI) conference and exhibition
in San Jose, California. The initial conference and exhibit was a
success with 432 booths and more than 4,000 attendees. The event
merged the IPC and EIA Smart Conference with the SMTA and
Miller Freeman SMTA conference and exhibition.

1992
• To help members address the growing influence of ISO 9000, IPC
published the General Requirement for Implementation of ISO 9000
Quality Systems.
• IPC held third European Joint Technical Conference in Brussels,
Belgium.
• IPC published the results of the first comprehensive IPC
Benchmarking Study, providing participants with an opportunity
to measure their capabilities against the “best” companies in a wide
variety of technical and management categories.
• Translated and published a 194-page JPCA report on The Printed
Circuit Industry in Japan.
• Officially formed the IPC Designers Council to meet the needs of
individual designers and support better design for manufacturability
throughout the industry. Today, the IPC Designers Council, with
more than 1,000 members and 33 chapters, is an international
network of designers. Its mission is to promote printed board and
printed board assembly design as a profession and to encourage,
facilitate and promote the exchange of information and integration of
new design concepts through communications, seminars, workshops
and professional certification through a network of local chapters.

140
 • Introduced a bi-annual wage and salary study for the EMS members.
• Released an IPC “Book-to-Bill” ratio for U.S. PWB manufacturers.
The book-to-bill ratio could be used as one of the predictors for the
industry and is still watched closely by financial analysts today.
• Wanting increased influence and programming within IPC, the PWB
Suppliers held an organizational meeting in San Jose. Dan Feinberg,
Morton Electronic Materials, was selected as the first chairman of
the IPC PWB Suppliers Management Council. Initial priorities of the
council identified during the meeting were as follows:
1 Getting the most for their “trade show buck”
2 OEM-Technology Interchange
3 Recycling

Key participants in IPC government relations activity. (L-R): R. Wayne Sayer, IPC
Govt. Relations Rep.; Sam Altschuler, Altron; Pat Sweeney, Hadco; Thom Dammrich,
IPC; Mary Vessely, aide House Armed Services Com.; Ron Underwood, Circuit
Center; and David Lovenheim, Northeast Midwest Institute.

1993
• IPC, with the support of the PWB Suppliers Council, announced
plans for the first IPC Printed Circuits Expo® to be held in 1994
in Boston. A trade show subcommittee of the Council created a
revolutionary philosophy for the event: fair, focused and cost effective
by and for the industry.
• To serve the electronics assembly industry’s need for market research
and technology trends, IPC launched the Assembly Marketing
Research Council (AMRC). The Council was patterned after the
highly successful TMRC. The first meeting was held jointly with
TMRC in New Orleans in December.

141
 • IPC, recognizing the importance of providing the industry with the
requirements for future technology, held a workshop in Chicago to
begin work on development of the Technology Roadmap. The IPC
Technology Roadmap is still published today and made available at
no charge to IPC members.

1994
• 1994 marked a major event in the history of IPC — the opening
of IPC Printed Circuits Expo in Boston. More than 1,700 people
attended IPC Printed Circuits Expo, which featured 275 booths
representing 158 companies.
This was not simply an exhibition, however; the event reflected
a major effort to provide technology exchange within the industry.
IPC Printed Circuits Expo featured more than 60 technical papers, 17
workshops, and nearly 100 committee meetings to develop standards
for the industry.
• IPC established the Interconnect Technology Research Institute,
(ITRI), to be headed by D. Marshall Andrews. This was a key
recommendation of the IPC Technology Roadmap released in 1993.
To keep pace with international technology, it was clear that the U.S.
PWB manufacturing industry needed a practical forum to undertake
cooperative technical research.
• Implemented the first IPC certification and training program based on
IPC-A-610B, Acceptability of Electronic Assemblies. Today, IPC-A-
610 training is now conducted in many languages around the world,
and has a user base of more than 10,000 instructor certifications.
These instructors, in turn, have trained nearly 125,000 engineers,
operators, inspectors, buyers and members of management teams. In
addition, this certification program spawned a number of other IPC
certification efforts.
• The IPC Designers Council made plans for a new certification
program for designers as a means to improve the education and
stature of designers in the electronics industry.
• IPC video expanded into interactive multimedia production on CD-
ROM, allowing students to learn at their own pace.
• IPC staff became accessible by e-mail.

142
Chapter 7: The Environment and the Future

If we wish to make a new world we have the material ready.

The first one, too, was made out of chaos.
— Robert Quillen

Eliminating CFCs and the Montréal Protocol

The Montréal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
was one of the first international agreements made to restrict human
activities that were damaging to the environment. Its goal is to reduce
and eventually eliminate the emission of ozone-depleting chemicals. The
initial document was signed by twenty-four countries on September 16,
1987. Since then, amendments have been made on two occasions, the
London Amendment in 1990 and the Copenhagen Amendment in 1992.
There are currently 175 countries that have committed themselves to the
goals of the Montréal Protocol.
The Montréal Protocol identifies various halocarbons, the chemicals
that hasten the decomposition of stratospheric ozone. They include
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), tetrachloride, hydrochlorofluorocarbons
(HFCFs), and methyl bromide. By limiting the production and use of
these chemicals, the goal of the Protocol is the eventual elimination of
all emissions of these chemicals. Within the document is a clause that
allows developing countries another ten years to comply with the control
measures, so long as the per capita use of the halocarbons remains
sufficiently low.

Early Research on Stratospheric Ozone

Research on the ozone layer began as early as the 1930s. In the
1970s, concerns arose that stratospheric transport aircraft might
damage the ozone layer. It was at this time that the theory was
proposed on the role of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the depletion of
the ozone layer. At the time, CFCs were used in refrigeration, aerosol
cans, and some industrial processes. Initially greeted with a great deal
of skepticism, further research and monitoring began to convince the
scientific community the CFC hypothesis might be valid.1

The Road to Montreal

In 1977, the Coordinating Committee on the Ozone Layer was
established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),
and UNEP’s Governing Council adopted the World Plan of Action
143
 on the Ozone Layer. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, some national
governments, including the United States, Canada and Scandinavian
countries, imposed bans on CFCs as aerosol propellants in non-
essential uses: antiperspirants, hairsprays and deodorants.
The period between the Vienna Convention (March 1985), and the
Montreal Protocol (September 1987), was characterized by incredible
progress. The global scientific community reached consensus on
outstanding matters, while meetings were held in Rome to clarify and
quantify the current global emissions of ozone-depleting substances
and future trends, and new mechanisms for control were discussed.
By September 1987, the disagreements and lack of understanding
had given way to trust. In turn, the trust offered the prospect of
consensus on control measures. Thus it was on September 16, 1987 that
the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was
signed by 24 countries.
On January 1, 1989, the Protocol came into effect. All Parties
agreed to meet near-term targets of freezing consumption of key
CFCs and halons at 1986 levels, and reducing consumption by 50%
within 10 years.
The list of states that have ratified the Protocol has now grown to
175. Since 1992 at the Second Meeting of the Parties in Copenhagen,
the Parties have adopted a number of significant amendments,
including an expanded list of regulated substances and the introduction
and subsequent acceleration of actual phase-outs for regulated
substances. For example, at the Ninth Meeting of the Parties in 1997
in Montreal, the Parties decided to accelerate the phase-out of methyl
bromide. In 1999, at the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties in Beijing, the
Parties decided to add bromochloromethane to the list of controlled
substances and to ban its production and consumption by 2002. The
use of CFCs and halons has decreased dramatically. Many countries
are well ahead on other Montreal Protocol targets, and there is evidence
that concentrations of CFCs in the lower atmosphere have begun to
drop.2

Impact on the Electronics Manufacturing Industry

The impending ban on CFCs, HCFCs, and the like created a storm
of controversy within the electronics manufacturing industry that in
some ways anticipated the RoHS firestorm that was still in the future.
In the late 1980s, working as a process engineer for a small electronics
manufacturing company off Massachusetts’ I-495 belt, I [Martel] recall
how virtually all of our solder pastes for SMT assembly contained
144
“water-white rosin” based fluxes. I thought this curious, since the flux
really was amber-colored and hardly water-white. But it was a natural
product, true rosin, and the most effective way of cleaning it at the
time was to use a vapor degreaser filled with Freon solvent based on
methylene chloride. It was common to have the used cleaning solution
reprocessed, as drums of reprocessed material were less costly than new
drums of fresh solvent.
With the protocol, vapor degreasers, methylene chloride, Freon,
and the like began to be phased out. Other cleaning methods such as
saponifier baths with water rises were used, but with far less success
than the results that had previously been delivered by Freon solvents.
Some applications (non-military, non-hi-rel) allowed fluxes to be left on
the board, sometimes referred to as a “poor man’s conformal coating.”
Surface Insulation Resistance (SIR) problems, dendrite growth in
high-humidity environments, and other factors disallowed this for
most electronic assemblies, however. This thinking, however, led to the
development of no-clean fluxes. If one could only develop fluxes that
became effectively inert after processing, they could be left on most
boards, it was reasoned. Water-based cleaning was also tried for some
water-soluble fluxes but, in many cases, these proved to be unsuitable for
the SMT process and for the formulation of solder pastes. The powerful
activity of these fluxes would quickly deteriorate the solder particles, or
oxidize them, reducing shelf life dramatically, or would turn them brick-
hard while still in the jar.
The solution, ultimately, was the development of no-clean fluxes,
now in use today virtually across the industry. Some hi-rel applications
such as military electronics still require cleaning, but no-clean fluxes
have penetrated virtually every segment of electronics assembly. The
development of synthetic rosin technology has further improved the
activity of these fluxes as well as product shelf life for solder pastes.
Synthetic based fluxes are more tolerant of high heat, especially the
higher temperatures required for lead free solders. In the beginning,
users found quickly that not all no-clean formulations were compatible.
For example, an assembler using Company A’s no-clean solder paste
might use Company B’s no-clean cored wire flux for touch-up; when the
two fluxes mixed, a highly corrosive residue could sometimes result!
These incompatibilities were corrected, and by 2000, virtually every
supplier of soldering materials could offer high-performance, superior
no-clean products. The era of CFCs in electronics manufacturing was
officially over.

145
Going Green: The Emergence of RoHS and WEEE
The European Union (EU) adopted a requirement, going into effect
July 1, 2006, to reduce the use of hazardous materials in consumer
electronics products in order to limit the amount of these substances that
end up in landfills. “The Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous
Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations,”
abbreviated as RoHS, is one more step in what is likely to be an
increasing trend of environmental requirements that will affect all
manufacturing worldwide.2
Market drivers for “environmentally friendly” products have been
prevalent for some time, but most were not legislated. In the last few
years, the need to produce environmentally friendly products has shifted
from a consumer-led initiative to a legal requirement. The European
Union is spearheading the charge for green products by being the first
to adopt legislation. RoHS is based on broader regulations governing
the recycling of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE, also
used to refer to the legislation itself), but RoHS specifically identifies six
key materials whose use is to be strictly limited. Several other countries,
including the U.S., Japan, and China are adopting similar environmental
regulations.
RoHS impacts any company that: manufactures and sells, resells,
imports, or exports electrical or electronic equipment. Products
not meeting the criteria of the RoHS directive won’t be allowed on
the market in the European Union’s 25 member states, threatening
significant revenue loss for those not able to comply. The manufacturer,
as the producer of the electronic product, is responsible for ensuring
that its products contain controlled concentrations of the six substances
restricted by the Directive:
• Lead
• Mercury
• Cadmium
• Hexavalent chromium
• Polybrominated biphenyls (PBB)
• Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE)

At the time of this writing (end of 2006), however, a vast majority

of electronics manufacturers worldwide have not met the deadline, and
the implementation of RoHS is causing significant product reliability
problems, some of them related to tin whisker growth, especially in all
146
manner of products from wristwatches to avionics. Exemptions to RoHS
are multiplying, and RoHS has been referred to by a variety of industry
notables, including Indium Corporation’s Dr. Ron Lasky, as “The most
disruptive event in the history of electronics.”
The first draft of the RoHS directive appeared in 2000, although
there had been rumblings prior to that, such as the 1988 EU Council
Resolution to invoke a Community action program to combat cadmium
pollution, and the 1996 Review of EU strategy for waste management
that identified the need to reduce certain hazardous substances.
Electronics manufacturers began exploring alternative alloys and
process requirements prior to 2000 and, in the more than six busy
years since, volumes have been written, billions have been spent on
research and technology, and an incredible amount of effort has been
spent to implement the RoHS directive. New alloys and flux systems for
soldering have been developed; new processes developed and proven;
and the science of lead free soldering has advanced a great deal, but
the volume of problems associated with lead free soldering has been
staggering.
The higher temperatures required for lead free processing has
meant the necessity of replacing nearly all existing soldering machines
in manufacturing facilities worldwide. It has required the changing of
inventories of parts to lead free finishes, development of synthetic fluxes
to survive the higher heat, as well as costly process modifications. In
the end, lead free assemblies are still prone to tin whisker growth, poor
wetting/soldering results, and other problems. A new family of lead free
solders has emerged, led by the popular SnAgCu (“SAC-alloys”) group.
There is too much to this story to recount here; however, the last chapter
in the global conversion to lead free electronics manufacturing has yet to
be written. The controversy surrounding RoHS, as well as the pressure
for repeal or added exemptions remains strong; certain types of military,
aerospace, and medical products (among others) are exempt from the
requirement and the range and scope of these exemptions is likely to
increase.

147
The Future of Technology - 50 Years Ahead
By Ken Gilleo, Ph.D
ET-Trends, Warwick, RI
The last 50 years of progress have had a profound effect on the lives
of almost every person on the planet whether they embraced or shunned
technology. Electronics will continue to advance, but new materials,
designs, architectures, systems and processes will be needed to stay
on track. There will be a widespread merging of the fields of science,
engineering, and technology, even at
chip level. Electronics and photonics
will come together with greater
synergy for higher efficiency and
lower cost. We’ll finally fulfill the
vision to “fab the world on a chip.”
Although electronics and photonics
have been used together for well over
a century, these key technologies
will soon merge to cause a seismic
shift in devices that will profoundly
affect packaging and printed circuit Figure 1
boards. While the past 50 years have been remarkable, the next 50 will
be incredible.
We can better predict future events by understanding the
interrelationships between segments of technology. Electronics can
be divided into a simple hierarchy consisting of devices, component
packages, printed circuit boards (PCBs), and the integrated system
(the product). These technical sectors can be viewed as a pyramid
with devices at the pinnacle because they have the most pronounced
effect on the others (Figure 1). These slices of the pyramid represent
different segments of the industry that have become more distinctive
as the electronics industry has specialized and discarded the vertical
integration business model.
The transition from vacuum tube electronics to solid-state devices
had a profound influence on packages, PCBs, and systems, and was
the most momentous event to date. We only need to compare the early
massive, power-hungry, console radios to the latest wearable products, to
appreciate the importance of change at the device level. But it took about
50 years to move from tubes to transistors. We should expect a major
device change every 50 years; the IC was invented in 1958. We are due
for a major event!
148
A Century of Progress
Surprising perhaps, the challenges for the next 50 years are more or
less the same as those of the past 50. In fact, the goals and challenges
have not really changed since the beginning. Throughout the First
Century of Electronics, scientists and technologists were tasked with
grand challenges that remain as guideposts as we travel into the future.
These key criteria are the following:

Grand Challenges
• Density (smaller)
• Performance (faster)
• Cost - value (cheaper)
• (Addition of other technologies to electronics at the device level)
These fundamental challenges can be applied to our basic segments
shown in the pyramid; the device, package, printed circuit, and total
system. Density has been at the top of the task list from the beginning
- even when the original “high tech” products, like the telegraph and
telephone, were based on electricity. High tech began, at least for our
purposes, as the Telecom Revolution launched in the late 1800s. This
incredible revolution continues today, and telecom has moved to the top
as the most important driver for technical advancement. The first printed
circuit patent set the stage by defining the first goal, “…it is desirable
to have a large number of conductors… within very small compass….”
The same statement is equally true today! Expect future advances to
replace copper - the king of conductors, eliminate silicon - the incumbent
semiconductor, and to even replace the venerable electron as the
workhorse messenger. Solder, the 7,000-year old “glue of electronics”
will also be retired. Indeed, we are in for serious disruptive changes.3-6
Let’s begin with the device, with its top-of-the-pyramid, high-
leverage position. Today’s marvelous semiconductor technology enables
hundreds of millions of transistors to be crafted on a single postage
stamp-size chip usually made from silicon and its compounds. The
semiconductor industry continues to increase density in many ways;
however, silicon-based devices will eventually fall short as demands
continually increase. Many scientists have high hopes for fundamentally
new device technology that will meet needs far into the future. These
include Nanoelectronics, quantum devices, molecular electronics,
single-electron switches, photonic logic engines, and even bio-centric
computational machines.
149
Beyond Silicon
Although Nanoelectronics may be the next big technology, there are
other contenders that are fundamentally different. Nanoelectronics, even
if it employs non-silicon materials, is following the “silicon blueprint.”
They will probably operate using the same principles as today’s silicon-
based ICs. The end result will be more dense and powerful chips, but
there may not be much change for the other electronic segments. Present
packages and PCBs will probably be adequate. We need to include
all-photonic and bio-centric computers in our future tech list. Over the
next 20 to 30 years, we can expect success for all-photonic computing
technology, where photons replace electrons in a fundamentally different
system. We’ve become so accustomed to charge-based logic and memory
technology, that other viable approaches have been ignored. Consider
that the human brain employs principles that are much different from
today’s IC mechanisms. But there is an intermediate step to consider,
where electrons handle logic and memory functions and photons will
deal with data transmission. We must keep in mind that what happens
outside of the chip is just as critical as what happens within. The chip
must be efficiently connected to the outside world.

Silicon Photonics
The chargeless photon is the most important information messenger
for the Internet, telephones, wireless, etc. Photons carry a wealth of
information but have not yet succeeded in solid-state logic and memory
devices. So it makes sense to develop a hybrid IC where electronics are
used for computations and photonics take on the messenger task. Internet
and telephone hardware were designed to partition the computation/data
transmission tasks allowing the photon to handle medium and long-
distance transmissions while electronics were retained for switching
and control. The world is connected by “optical wires.” The data-laden
photons race along glass optical fiber links that circle the globe as
underground and submarine cabling. Photons travel through a single
thin glass fiber at the speed of light and can carry about 1-million times
more information than electrons using a copper wire. Nothing beats
the photon for bandwidth and the reasons are due to the fundamental
differences of charged electrons vs. neutral wave-differentiated photons.
Remarkably, hundreds, or even thousands, of different wavelengths can
independently travel through the same thin (9-micron) fiber. Photonics
can send hundreds, or even thousands of different wavelengths through
a single fiber using powerful wave division multiplexing (WDM) since
photons are relatively non-interactive. Could this mega-bandwidth
150
method eliminate the “copper bottleneck” that limits chip-to-chip data
transfer by electrons?
The final breakthrough, in a succession of many, occurred when the
team built the world’s first electrically powered Hybrid Silicon Laser
using standard silicon manufacturing processes. The Internet uses rather
expensive modules built from discrete components. These researchers
were able to marry light-emitting Indium Phosphide (InP) to silicon
(Si). The InP and Si layers were combined by wafer-level bonding.
Since silicon is transparent to the wavelengths used, it can be fabricated
with light-manipulating capabilities such as channels, waveguides,
prisms, splitters and frequency-separating diffraction gratings. MEMS
fabrication methods
could also be used
to produce optical
structures in silicon.
Application of voltage
to the InP laser
structure produces
infrared “light” that
travels through the
silicon waveguide to Figure 2
create a laser beam
that can drive other silicon photonic devices. So we can expect hybrid
chips, especially the CPU, to move into the mainstream during the next 4
to 10 years (see Figure 2).
But how will the hybrid chip affect packaging and printed circuits?
The chip package will need to provide optical pathways. The photonic-
capable PCB will also need optical paths, or at least be able to handle
optical fiber connections. Assembly could require precision alignment.
Silicon Photonics will require much closer interaction and cooperation
between semiconductor, package and board designers, something that
has already begun and is referred to as “concurrent design.”
Fortunately, many researchers, developers and designers have been
working on photonic linkage for many years and a number of concepts
have emerged. Concurrently, the photonic Internet in our Net-centric
world, will gradually replace copper wire links with wireless and
fiber-to-the-home (FTTH). Several large providers now offer fiber
connections. The photonic hybrid computer chip will eventually connect
directly to the Internet by fiber for incredible speeds making trips even
faster and cheaper — and hopefully, friendlier. We can expect Internet
bandwidth to surpass the 100 Gigabit/second mark in another decade.
151
Future communications will depend more and more on photons. Copper
wire communications will go the way of the telegraph, but never
completely disappear. Wireless will continue to play an increasing
role for short-range links, but please note that both light waves and
radio waves are part of the same electromagnetic spectrum. The basic
difference between light waves and radio waves is frequency (inversely
proportional to wavelength).

Nanoelectronics
Although photonically-linked silicon chips will become available
relatively soon, silicon will inevitably run out of gas within the next
two decades, even with help from photons. Nanoelectronics is listed on
virtually every roadmap and substantial investments in Nanotechnology
make it highly probable that efforts will succeed. But first, a clarification
of terms for over-hyped and chaotically-described “nano.” Many
materials and structures are in the nano-scale range (1 to 100 nm), but
this does not necessarily mean that they fit into Nanotechnology.
Our amazing semiconductor lithography, that can craft structures
falling right in the middle of the
nano-scale range (~50-nm), is still
traditional electronics. While our
present semiconductor fabrication
technology is extraordinary, it is still
a clumsy “stone chiseling” process
compared to the more optimum device
structures of the future. Some believe
that the ultimate electronic devices
should be built atom-by-atom or
“bottom up.” But the more prominent
and successful “Top Down” approach,
where structures are synthesized or Carbon nanotube (CNT) transistor
constructed by removing existing
material from larger entities, is much closer to success.
Carbon-based chemistry, the same chemistry used to construct
the human brain, has taken the lead in Nanoelectronics. The carbon
nanotube (CNT) transistor, a semiconductor device made with this
pure carbon molecule, is the most likely replacement for silicon. IBM,
and others, succeeded in making CNT transistors several years ago,
and major efforts are now focused in this area. Researchers are moving
closer to building a CNT-based integrated circuit (CNT-IC) that could
be ready for production by 2020, but perhaps sooner. But there are hosts
152
of other candidates for non-silicon electronics including single-electron
devices and others that can be classified as molecular electronics.
Whatever the winning technology, we will most certainly move “beyond
silicon” in less than two decades.

Beyond Electronics
Sometime within the next 50 years, we can expect a full-photonic
computer, not to be confused with photonically-linked chips, to
compete with, and perhaps replace, electronic designs. Concurrently,
a more complete understanding of DNA and the brain structure at the
molecular-level, can lead to the long-envisioned bio-computer. Even
today, considerable research is aimed at connecting electronic chips to
the human body, including neural centers. Simple “thought-controlled”
computer experiments are succeeding and advancing. But perhaps
we’ll merge logic technology with humans to enter the age of bionic
enhancement that began many years ago. While bionic beings have been
the theme of fiction writers, and the dream of some scientists, brain
enhancements may be on the horizon. But do we even need hardware?
The ultimate personal technology may be DNA modification that
enables the mind to perform most of the functions now provided by our
wearable electronics. The choices come down to external hardware,
implants, or genetic engineering. In the next 50 years, the bioengineering
of humans could provide extreme memory enhancement, a boost in left-
brain computational capability (like savants), and the ability to receive
and send data by RF. Many life forms can sense external energy forces,
including regions of the electromagnetic spectrum, well beyond the
range of humans. For better or for worse, we will have the knowledge to
re-engineer humanity.

More than Just Electrons

We tend to think of high tech as electronics only, but most products
incorporate other technologies, especially mechanics and optics. Our
favorite gadgets typically use all three. Even the cell phone combines
these technologies in the form of video displays, cameras, flash lamps,
sound systems, pedometers and digital input means. But what if we
could combine them on a single chip? We don’t have to wait for the
future — the concept is here today. MEMS (Micro-electro-mechanical
systems) combine clusters of technologies into a microchip. The optical
version, MOEMS (add opto-), or call it optical MEMS, is a subset
that adds light control and other optical features to electronics and
mechanics. But while MEMS has been around for years, in simple forms
153
like inkjet printer chips and air bag sensors, we’re just at the beginning
of advanced MEMS.
MEMS, and other not-just-electrons devices, will play a key role
in future health care. But conventional advanced electronics will work
in concert to enable home visits by doctors using telemedicine. While
today’s fledgling telemedicine uses strap-on blood pressure sensors
and cumbersome monitors, the future version will use wearable and, in
some cases, implanted MEMS devices linked to heath care providers
via wireless telemetry. We will have automatic emergency responses
where the center can diagnose the condition and perhaps handle the
problem remotely.

Future Products
Now that we’ve explored many of the future building blocks of
technology, what products can be constructed? Since we’ll continue
to take on the grand challenges listed earlier, expect telecom personal
products to be much more compact, loaded with features, highly efficient,
and truly friendly. During the next 50 years, the smart phone that
replaced the cell phone will evolve into a completely wearable Personal
Interface (PI) product set. The Personal Interface will adopt form factors
from today, such as sunglasses, watch/bracelets, pens, and rings.

Personal Interface Set

154
 Health care, or wellness maintenance, is another big area for future
technology. Medical electronics will reach high plateaus to help bring
a new era to personalized medicine. Although DNA “adjustments” will
help reduce hereditary disorders, not all diseases will be eliminated.
Efforts will focus on early detection and intervention. Electronics,
Optronics, Bio-MEMS, and Nanotechnology will help identify
cautionary pre-conditions early, even before they can be called health
problems. These technologies will also help contain costs as medicine
moves from the hospital, to the clinic, to the doctor’s office, and finally
to the home. Telemedicine will be used as the primary method of
evaluation so that individuals can have routine check-ups at home or
from the near by cyber-office. Within the next 50 years, implants will be
able to analyze and treat, with drugs and other means. There will also
be wellness agents that can be injected by syringe. A mobile MEMS
device team may “swim” through your circulatory system and routinely
remove plaque, growths, or anything that could develop into a problem.
The mobile MEMS devices will use lasers, mechanical surgical tools,
and drugs. In the future, doctors will make house calls without leaving
the medical center. And health care micro- and nano-agents will work
tirelessly — internally and invisibly, generating self-sustaining energy
from body chemistry.

Conclusions
We have reached a point of no return for technology. The future
world cannot exist without technology and would catastrophically
collapse. But, technology must continue to advance to keep pace with
problems — some of which are created by technology itself.
The future will be exciting but some will mourn the loss of favorite
technologies. Copper will be replaced by organic molecules, solder
will make way for reconnectable technologies, including Lego®-like
structures and micro-Velcro®, and circuit boards will no longer be
etched. For those who embraced emerging technology for the past 50
years, get ready — the next 50 will really be something. Thanks to
medical advancements, we might all be here to watch it unfold. Finally,
to those who are new to the tech game, you are in for a thrilling half-
century of progress, but don’t just be a spectator.

155
Sources

1., 2. The Montreal Protocol: History, www.ec.gc.ca/press/001219_b_e.htm

3. Hanson, A., British Patent 4,681, 1903.

4. Gilleo, K., “First 7000 Years of Soldering - Part 1 - Metallurgy,” Circuits

Assembly, pp. 30-34, October 1994. Used with permission from Circuits
Assembly/UP Media Group.

5. Gilleo, K., “First 7000 Years of Soldering - Part II- Polymers,” Circuits
Assembly, pp. 44 - 45, November 1994. Used with permission from Circuits
Assembly/UP Media Group.

6. Gilleo, K., “The 7,000 Year Cycle,” Circuits Assembly, Vol. 16, June 2005.
Used with permission from Circuits Assembly/UP Media Group.

156
 IPC Chronology: 1995-2006
1995
• With the increasing growth in IPC programming, IPC outgrew
its building in Lincolnwood, Ill. In 1995, IPC moved to new
headquarters at 2215 Sanders Road, Northbrook, Illinois.
• To enhance the executive director’s ability to work with peers in
Washington, D.C., the Board revised the titles of key officers of IPC.
The title of the chief elected officer was changed from president to
chairman of the Board of Directors. The title of the executive director
was changed to president.
• ITRI released its first technical report: Improvements/Alternatives to
Mechanical Drilling of PWB Vias.
• Membership in IPC hit an all-time high. Two thousand companies/
divisions of companies located in more than 50 countries were
members of IPC in 1995.
• Over 100 IPC members participated in the development of a Long
Range Strategic Plan approved by the Board in March 1996. The
Long Range Plan defined five specific strategies to carry IPC into the
new millennium:
• Industry Leadership
• Workforce Development and Training
• Industry Standards/Technical Assistance

With increasing interest in PWB developments in China, IPC sponsored a tour

of PWB plants in Beijing and Shanghai. Additionally, tour participants attended
the China Printed Circuit Association International Printed Circuit Technological
Equipment Exhibition in Shanghai.
157
 • Communications, Networking and Participation
• Global Involvement to Benefit Members
• IPC was awarded a grant from the state of Illinois along with
Northwestern University to create an Illinois Electronics
Manufacturing Extension Center to aid Illinois manufacturers.
• In recognition of the excellence of IPC standards, the Department of
Defense adopted IPC-J-STD-001, J-STD-004, J-STD-005 and
J-STD-006.
• Due to increasing interest in the growth and development of China,
IPC sponsored a tour of PWB plants in Beijing and Shanghai. In
addition, participants in the tour attended the China Printed Circuit
Association International Printed Circuit Technological Equipment
Exhibition in Shanghai.

1996
• Printed Circuit World Convention VII was held in May, so that once
again technology and management executives from around the world
had an opportunity to exchange ideas and information. In addition
to the technical paper sessions and the special management sessions
for PWB company presidents, there was a “first time” session for
representatives from worldwide organizations to discuss details
regarding the size and scope of the PWB markets in all major countries.
• IPC was successful in having HR537 introduced by U.S.
Representatives Meeham, Farr and Esho. The bill allowed machinery
and equipment used in producing PWBs and electronics assemblies to
be depreciated in three years instead of five years.
• IPC established a close working relationship with the California
Circuits Association and begain staffing the CCA.
• IPC launched its first Web site (www.ipc.org).
• IPC created seven e-mail forums including: TechNet, ComplianceNet
and DesignerCouncil. More than 2,000 technologists participate on
these forums.
• Completed the first comprehensive benchmarking study on the
market for electronics manufacturing services. This information on
financial and operating performance provided an opportunity for
EMS members to compare themselves to other industry companies.
158
1997
• After 40 years, standards
were still critical to IPC’s
success. To further their
acceptance, IPC decided
to submit all standards to
ANSI for approval.
• The 1996 Market for EMS
Providers published by IPC
reported that the industry
reached revenues of $14.5
Participants in the PWB Presidents’ session
billion in North America in at Circuit Center, Inc., Dayton, OH.
1996.
• IPC released the first European PWB financial benchmark survey.
• The Technical Activities Executive Committee voted to post all IPC
test methods on IPC’s Web site to keep them as current as possible.
• The IPC Board of Directors agreed to include a non-voting member
elected by the PWB Suppliers Management Council. The Council
elected Richard Kessler, LeaRonal.

1998
• The World Federation of PWB Manufacturers, founded in 1990,
became a reality as the World Electronics Circuits Council (WECC).
Thom Dammrich, IPC president, was named to a one-year term as
secretariat of WECC.
• IPC and the SMTA held the first Electronics Assembly Expo in
October in Providence, R.I. The event featured 100 booths and hosted
1,300 attendees.
• Secured funding for the PCB Manufacturing Technology Center at
Redstone Arsenal in Alabama.
• IPC (originally the Institute of Printed Circuits and later Institute
for Interconnecting and Packaging Electronic Circuits) changed its
name to the initials “IPC” with the identifier “Association Connecting
Electronics Industries®.”
• The last Surface Mount International Conference and Exhibition was
held in August in San Jose.
159
 • Driven by IPC, the “Printed Circuit Investment Act of 1998” was
introduced in the U.S. House and Senate. Introducing the bill, Florida
Senator Connie Mack said: “Printed wiring boards and assemblies
are literally central to our economy as they are the nerve centers of
nearly every electronics device.” The Act allowed manufacturers to
depreciate their equipment in three rather than five years.

Presidents Meeting at IPC Printed Circuits Expo. (L-R): Rolly Mettler, Circuit-
Wise, Dale Blanchfield, Bureau Electronics Group, Stephen Mettler, Circuit-
Wise, Joel Yocom, Litchfield, and Ren Sanscrainte, Pentex Schweizer.

1999
• IPC merged with the Surface Mount Equipment Manufacturers
Association (SMEMA) to form a new group called the IPC SMEMA
Council, an IPC operating division. In addition, IPC amended its by-
laws to provide voting representation on the board for both SMEMA
and for the IPC PWB Suppliers Council. Gerhard Meese, Universal,
joined the Board as the SMEMA Council representative.
• In addition, the Board eliminated IPC membership categories of
regular, allied and associate members, resulting in eligibility for the
IPC Board of Directors of any individual from any IPC member
company.
• TechNet, IPC’s e-mail peer-to-peer forum, surpassed 1,700
subscribers.
• IPC released the GenCam® (Generic Computer Aided Manufacturing)
standard, a robust data description format to replace limited Gerber
files.
160
 • Launched a certification program on rework and repair training,
based on the IPC-7711 and IPC 7721 assembly rework and repair
specifications.
• The Department of Defense cancelled 11 military specifications and
authorized their replacement with IPC documents.
• The IPC Board of Directors published a position statement of the
growing concern over lead free legislation. The Board’s position: “ …
all available scientific evidence and U.S. government reports indicate
that the lead used in U.S. printed circuit board (PCB) manufacturing
and electronic assembly produces no significant environmental or
health hazards. Nonetheless, in the opinion of IPC, the pressure to
eliminate lead in electronic interconnections will continue in the
future from both the legislative and competitive sides.” A lead free
roadmap began at IPC’s fall meeting.
• IPC President Thomas Dammrich resigned to head the National
Marine Manufacturers Association.
• 580 designers had, by this time, passed the IPC Designer Certification
exam.

2000
• Denny McGuirk, head of the National Fluid Power Association,
became IPC’s third president in January.
• IPC launched the SMEMA Council’s Electronics Assembly Process
Exhibition and conference (APEX®) at the Long Beach Convention
Center in March. 337 exhibitors filled more than 140,000 square
feet of floor space and 5,700 attendees visited the exhibition. Retired
General H. Norman Schwarzkopf keynoted the event to a standing-
room-only crowd.
• U.S. customs officials were trained by IPC to recognize PWBs and
substrates, alleviating years of problems with mis-classifications and
suspect import data.
• IPC Printed Circuits Expo® attracted 309 exhibitors and 4,200
attendees.
• To keep up with changes, the Technical Activities Executive
Committee voted to completely remove test methods from printed
standards and post them online instead.

161
 Ribbon cutting at the first APEX. (L-R): Bob Balog and Steve DeCollibus,
Speedline Technologies; Jim Donaghy, Sheldahl, Inc.; Denny McGuirk,
IPC; Bonnie Fena, K-Byte-Hibbing Manufacturing; Gerhard Meese,
Universal Instruments; Ron Underwood, Circuit Center; Steve Hall, EKRA
America; Stan Plzak, Pensar Corp.; Leo Reynolds, Electronic Systems;
and JARA Representative.

• With the rise of the internet, reverse auctions for printed boards
appeared, along with internet portals intent on squeezing costs
from the supply chain. IPC formed an e-business and Supply Chain
Committee to acquaint members with internet supply chain issues.
The committee released a white paper, The Myths of E-commerce.
• Published IPC-7095, Design and Assembly Process Implementation
for BGAs.

2001
• To avoid millions of dollars in compliance costs for the PWB
industry, IPC swiftly organized opposition to the EPA’s Effluent
Limitation Guidelines for the Metal Products and Machinery. EPA
subsequently abandoned the guidelines.
• PWB shipments for March 2001 decreased 14.6 percent over March
2000 while orders decreased 51.4 percent.
• IPC ended its relationship with its lobbyist in Washington and
brought the function in-house with a full time director.
• Due to a need expressed by the EMSI council, IPC launched
EMexcess, a searchable database for components.
• The IPC Board voted to close the Interconnection Research
Technology Institute, based on a lack of industry support.

162
 • A “Needs Assessment and Member Loyalty” survey concluded that
IPC members were satisfied with services and programs. The most
highly rated services were standards, market research and training/
certification.
• Based on “Focus-on-the-Future” member meetings and the
membership survey, the IPC Board adopted a new long range plan.
The four objectives were:
• Establish the IPC as the recognized global association for the
electronics interconnection industry.
• Strengthen IPC’s position as the industry’s worldwide
standards-setting organization.
• Expand the reach of IPC to all membership segments
• Expand IPC’s global data collection, analysis and dissemination
process.

2002
• Published IPC-A-620, Requirements and Acceptance for Cable and
Wire Harness Assemblies. The document was well-received and
became one of IPC’s most widely-used standards in its first year.
• IPC launched EMS program manager training and certification.
• Executives from global solder manufacturers became part of
IPC as the Solder Products Value Council. The group formed a
subcommittee to “resolve the confusion of alloy choice” for lead free
solders.

Denny McGuirk, IPC president (center), with new IPC staff, members
of the U.S. Consulate and representatives from the China Printed Circuit
Association.

163
• The U.S. Department of Defense adopted IPC-A-610.
• As the industry began to focus on the European Union’s Restriction
of Hazardous Substances, IPC and JEDEC jointly organized
a conference on lead free technology in San Jose. Nearly 300
technologists attended.
• IPC participated at the third JISSO International Council Meeting in
San Jose where technical volunteers from associations from Japan,
the U.S. and Europe work to seek agreement on standards adoption
and use.
• IPC opened a representative office in Shanghai, China. IPC President
Denny McGuirk said “This is the first of many steps IPC plans to take
in seeing that our long-range plan comes to fulfillment.”
• Supporting the effort, the U.S. Department of Commerce awarded
IPC a grant under its Market Development Cooperator Program. The
grant was intended to support IPC’s efforts to promote the adoption
and use of IPC standards in China.
• Congress passed realistic depreciation under President Bush’s “Job
Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002.” The act included
a bonus of 30 percent first year depreciation allowance for newly
qualified capital investments.

Recipients of Distinguished Committee Service Awards for IPC-2221A,

Generic Standard on Printed Board Design (L-R): Lionel Fullwood,
WKK Distribution Ltd.; Mike Green, Lockheed Martin Space & Strategic
Missiles; Randy Reed, Merix Corp.; Chris Conklin, Lockheed Martin
Corp.; Don Dupriest, Lockheed Martin Missiles & Fire Control; and
Werner Engelmaier, Engelmaier Associates, L.C.

164
2003
• The Printed Board Process Capability, Quality and Relative
Reliability database, a joint effort between IPC and Conductor
Analysis Technology, Inc. continued to gain OEM acceptance. The
program provided quantitative data to compare the capability, quality,
and reliability demonstrated by printed circuit board suppliers on
test boards. IPC and CAT, Inc. expect the program to reduce PWB
qualification costs for board manufacturers.
• The first project on liquid crystal polymers was launched by the
Electronic Interconnection Center for Excellence. The center, a
partnership formed by IPC and the Naval Surface Warfare Center
— Crane Division, was intended to increase PWB research and
development in the United States.
• IPC California Circuits Association held its first “Capitol Hill Day” in
Sacramento.
• IPC and the Hong Kong Printed Circuit Association co-produced the
first International Printed Circuit and Electronics Assembly Fair in
September in Guangzhou, China.
• In spite of the political and economic climate, IPC Printed Circuits
Expo® attracted 3,000 visitors to Long Beach in March. Five days
later, IPC APEX® attracted 5,000 attendees to Anaheim.
• After 28 long months, the IPC Printed Circuit Board book-to-bill
remained above the 1.0 mark for three straight months for the first
time since March 2000. However, U.S. rigid PWB production in
North America fell to $4.4 billion in 2003.

Showing IPC standards at the HKPCA/IPC show.

165
 • More than 100 technologists attended IPC’s first conference on
embedded passives.
• IPC and Soldertec, produced their first European lead free technical
conference in Brussels.
• IPC urged membership support for “Buy America” provisions
contained in the U.S. House of Representatives version of the fiscal
year 2004 Defense Authorization Bill. Sixty-seven IPC members
contacted the Senate co-authors of the bill in support of its passage.
• 2,000 designers by this time had successfully become certified
interconnect designers through IPC’s designer certification program.
• IPC standards became available for download in IPC’s online store.

2004
• Continuing efforts to drive cost from the supply chain, IPC
released IPC-2581, Generic Requirements for Printed Board
Assembly Products Manufacturing Description Data and Transfer
Methodology. This document ended the war over competing data
transfer formats and united the industry with a single standard for
data interchange.
• IPC and other standards setting organizations filed an amicus (friend
of the court) brief in support of Infineon and JEDEC versus Rambus
Technologies. The landmark case tested the boundaries of patent
disclosure during the standards setting process. Two years later, the
court ruled in favor of Infineon and JEDEC.
• To rave reviews from the industry, IPC co-located IPC Printed
Circuits Expo®, APEX® and the Designers Summit in Anaheim.
• Hired a European representative to support IPC members and
programs in Europe.
• The core of IPC documents describing manufacturing and
acceptability for printed wiring boards, revision B of IPC-6012,
Qualification and Performance Specification for Rigid Printed
Boards, and revision G of IPC-A-600, Acceptability of Printed
Boards, were released. In all, 17 new standards or revisions were
released throughout the year.
• In response to the growing concern over the lead free implementation
dictated by the European Union’s Restriction of Hazardous
166
 Substances (RoHS) requirements, IPC launched a new lead free Web
site. The high costs of raw materials prompted IPC to begin posting
raw materials’ costs including gold, copper, tin, silver, nickel, lead
and indium.
• IPC opened a wholly owned foreign enterprise (WOFE) in Shanghai.
• IPC held its first interim standards meeting in China in December
during the joint IPC/Hong Kong Printed Circuit Association
conference and exhibition. Several IPC standards for both PWBs and
assemblies were discussed during the meeting.

2005
• IPC provided the voice of the industry during a National Academies
Workshop examining the impact of PWB technology on U.S. military
readiness.
• IPC released the blockbuster revision D versions of IPC-A-610 and
Requirements for Soldered Electrical and Electronic Assemblies
(J-STD-001), introducing lead free criteria.
• The collocated IPC Printed Circuits Expo®, APEX® and Designers
Summit took place in February in Anaheim, along with a successful
Electronic Circuit World Convention 10.
• Sentry Insurance partnered with IPC to provide insurance for EMS
and PWB companies.
• With the significant drive to lead free products, the IPC Board of
Directors added a fifth objective to the Long Range Plan: “Position
IPC as the Source of Assistance for Compliance Issues for Lead
Free and RoHS Regulatory Compliance.” In other action, the board
removed the “designated” seats held by the suppliers. The message
the board sent was “rather than they (suppliers) are being short-
changed, they have arrived and are full partners in the association.”
• IPC Solder Products Value Council issued a final reliability research
report on the tin/silver/copper family of lead free solder alloys. The
report recommended SAC 305 as the solder paste alloy of choice.
• Nineteen designers at Huawei Technologies in Shenzhen, China
became the first Certified Interconnect Designers in China.

167
2006
• Responding to the global need for a streamlined and standardized
materials declaration system, IPC released IPC-1752, Materials
Declaration Management. One of the fastest documents ever
released, it was downloaded by more than 10,000 people in 70
countries.
• With IPC’s site membership becoming problematic in an internet
age, IPC created telecommuter memberships for individuals working
remotely for member sites.
• The new OEM Critical Components Council released its first
IPC standard: IPC-9591, Performance Parameters (Mechanical,
Electrical, Quality and Reliability) for Air Moving Devices. With the
use of a content expert, the standard was developed in nine months.
During 2006, the Council also began work on lithium-ion batteries
and power conversion.
• In recognition of the dramatic changes in the industry, the TMRC was
reshaped and relaunched as the Executive Market and Technology
Forum.
• In addition, in the unrelenting quest for global data, IPC launched
a global PCB statistical program partnering with seven other PCB
associations under the auspices of the World Electronic Circuits
Council (WECC).

IPC Printed Circuits Expo¨, APEX¨ and the Designers Summit leave Anaheim for Los
Angeles in 2007 and beyond.
168
• Launched IPC Certification for RoHS Lead Free Electronics
Assembly Process Capability Program, an audit program for lead free
implementation and validation. Solectron in Charlotte, N.C., was the
first site certified.
• During 2006, IPC-A-610D and its certification program were
translated into seven languages. Two popular desk reference manuals
were translated into Swedish.
• In China, interest in training and certification continued to grow. By
mid-2006, more than 200 trainers and 19 designers had been certified
in three years. The training materials for IPC-A-610D and IPC-A-
600G were translated into Chinese in 2006.

169
Appendix A

Board chairmen/volunteer presidents

IPC has had 21 volunteer presidents and 4 board chairmen over course of
its 50 years. Many volunteered in various capacities
for 10 years. Each leader has brought his or her
own personal commitment to excellence, striving to
ensure that IPC would never be satisfied with past
successes, urging constant improvements in standing
programs, and welcoming ideas for new programs to
benefit the membership.
The status of IPC today reflects the quality of the
commitment of time, energy and talent that all of our
top leaders have contributed to ensuring the success
William J. McGinley
of the IPC, and welcoming ideas for new programs Methode Electronics, Inc.
to benefit the membership. 1957-1960

Robert L. Swiggett Richard G. Zens Robert C. Rennie

Photocircuits Printed Electronics Corp. Bureau of Engraving, Inc.
1960-1962 1962-1964 1964-1966

George J. Hart Wally F. Moore George C. Morse

Cinch-Graphik Div. TRW The Sibley Comapny Cinch-Graphik Div. TRW
1966-1968 1968-1970 1970-1972
170
 Marvin A. Larson James E. Swigget Dennis L. Stalzer
Bureau of Engraving, Inc. Photocircuits Corp. Graphic Research Div.
1972-1974 1974-1976 1976-1978

Norman E. Ronkainen William J. Hangen Rollin W. Mettler

Diceon Electronics Sheldahl Co. Circuit-Wise, Inc.
1978-1980 1980-1982 1982-1984

Herbert W. Pollack John Endee William Miller

Parlex Corporation Photocircuits Prestwick Circuits Ltd.
1984-1986 1986-1988 1988-1990

Note: Until 1995, the top volunteer on the IPC Board was referred to as
the IPC President and the Chief Staff Officer was the Executive Director.
Ultimately, the Board decided that IPC’s Chief Staff Officer would be
President; the top Board leader became the Chairman of the Board.
171
 Larry N. Velie Sam Altschuler Peter Sarmanian
Velie Circuits Altron Incorporated Printed Circuit Copr.
1990-1992 1992-1994 1994-1996

Bonnie Fena James Donaghy Ron Underwood

Hibbing Electronics Corp. Sheldahl, Inc. Circuit Center, Inc.
1996-1998 1998-2000 2000-2002

Stanley Plzak Peter Murphy C. James Herring

Pensar Corporation Parlex Corporation Circuit Service, Inc.
2002-2003 2003-2006 2006-2008

Note: Until 1995, the top volunteer on the IPC Board was referred to as
the IPC President and the Chief Staff Officer was the Executive Director.
Ultimately, the Board decided that IPC’s Chief Staff Officer would be
President; the top Board leader became the Chairman of the Board.
172
Appendix B

The President’s Award

The many accomplishments of IPC are a direct result of the tremendous
dedication and personal expenditures of volunteer time and effort by many
hundreds and even thousands of individual members over the course of IPC’s
50 years. Without the application of their tireless efforts, energy, and talent over
the decades, IPC programs and projects could not have achieved the levels of
success that they have had, or have even been possible. While it is difficult,
if not impossible, to recognize all of these very worthwhile contributions, the
Board decided in 1966 to establish a special award, called the President’s
Award, to honor those individuals who were deemed to have made the most
significant contributions to IPC programs during the term of office of each
departing IPC president (the title of president was changed to Chairman of the
Board in 1995).

Recipients of the IPC President’s Award

Name Company Year Awarded

Warren G. Abbott Hollis Engineering 1982
Glenn Affleck Hewlett-Packard 1972
Raffic Ali Underwriters Labs 1978
Bernie Alzua MICA 1966
Arnie Andrade Sandia Labs 1970
Wilhelm Angele NASA 1968
Phil Anthony Autonetics 1970
Edward Aoki Hewlett Packard 1997
Masamitsu Aoki Toshiba Chemical 1992
George Aronen Burroughs 1966
Vic Asfour Formica 1970
John Balde Interconn Decision 1984
Paul Baller Bureau of Engineering 1968
Ed Barber Sandia Labs 1970
Martin Barton Preferred Designs 1994
Tom Basterash Honeywell 1974
Jeff Bean IBM 1974
Rufus Benton Chemcut 1970
Dieter Bergman Philco-Ford 1968
Erik Bergum Polyclad Laminates 1998

173
Name Company Year Awarded
Mark Bird Amkor Technology Inc. 2001
Peggi J. Blakley NSWC-Crane 2002
Myron Bloom T&B Ansley 1984
Dennis Bossi T&B Ansley 1972
Jerry Bouska Isola Laminate Systems 2001
Jack Bramel Lamination Technology 1976
Charles Brien Sibley 1966
Charlie Brooks AMP 1990
Tom Brown Fabri-Tek 1980
Mike Bryant Burlington Glass Fabrics 1986
Gordon Buchi Ciba-Geigy 1976
Paul Bud Electrovert 1968
Tom Burke Venture Strategies 1988
Page Burr Photocircuits 1970
Mike Busby Unistructure 1988
S. Michael Buscher Assembléon America Inc. 2003
Frank Cala Church & Dwight 2000
Jack Calderon EFTC 2001
Joe Cannizzaro IBM 1968
Michael Carano Electrochemicals Inc. 2003
Karen Carpenter IBM 2001
Richard Carpenter IBM/Endicott 1994
Walt Cavender Quality Circuits 1988
Lou Charles Martin Co. 1968
Gene Cody Photocircuits 1970
Leon Cohen Formation, Inc. 1994
William G. Collings Ciba-Geigy 1982
Charles Connor Methode 1966
Jim Cost IBM 1966
Norm Cotter DuPont 1968
Carl Crawford Univac 1968
Walt Custer Dynachem 1990
Jennifer Day STI 2000
Steve DeCollibus Cookson Electronics 2001
Dominic DelliSante Picatinny Arsenal 1966
Phil Derrough Radiation Corp. 1966
John DeVore General Electric 1968
Fred Dienst Contraves AG 1988
James Dilliplane Berg Electronics 1976

174
Name Company Year Awarded
Don Dinella Western Electric 1972
Jim DiNitto Raytheon 1980
Fred Disque Alpha Metals 1980
R.R. Douglas Fortin Laminating 1972
Don DuPriest Lockheed Martin 2002
Maynard Eaves Hewlett-Packard 1984
Ed Ellis Image, Inc. 1972
Werner Engelmaier AT&T 1988
Roy Erickson Bell Labs 1966
Bill Everts General Electric 1968
Tom Fay Formica 1966
Dr. Robert J. Fedor Gould, Inc. 1994
Daniel Feinberg Morton Electronic Materials 1996
Joe Felty Texas Instruments 1990
Gary Ferrari Tech Circuits 1990
Jeff Ferry Circuit Tech. Center Inc. 2002
John Figliozzi IBM 1974
Jack Fisher ITRI 1996
Joe Fjelstad Tessera 1996
Lee Fleming Honeywell 1970
Nelson Foran Cinch-Graphic 1968
Daniel L. Foster Soldering Tech. Int’l. 2002
Bob Foster Defiance 1966
Allan Fraser GenRad, Inc. 2001
Charlotte Frederick Digital Equipment 1984
Martin Freedman AMP, Inc. 1996
David Frisch PCK Technology 1986
Dennis Fritz MacDermid Inc. 1997
Lionel Fullwood WKK Distribution Ltd. 2003
Thomas Gardeski E.I. DuPont & Co. 2005
Vince Gatto Tyco Printed Circuit Group 1990
David Gendreau DMG Engineering 1986
Floyd Gentry Sandia Labs 2000
B. Gerpheide Hughes 1966
Bob Geshner RCA 1966
Pete Gilmore Hamilton-Standard 1980
Gerry Ginsberg Philco-Ford 1968
Ralf Gliem Schoeller & Co. 1986
Dan Goffredo Chemcut 1978

175
Name Company Year Awarded
Ozzie Goldman IBM 1968
Patricia Goldman Qualitron 1984
Ed Golonsbe Methode 1970
Charles Gonder Multiwire Division 1984
Constantino Gonzalez SCI Mfg. Inc. 1994
Paul Gould IBM 1980
Foster Gray Texas Instruments 1980
Al Green NVF 1968
Russell Griffith Dynaco 1992
Lynn Gunsaulus Photocircuits 1966
Leslie Guth AT&T 1990
Steve Hall BTU 2000
K.E. Hafften Bureau of Engraving 1978
John Hanne Texas Instruments 1968
George Hansell W.L. Gore & Associates 1970
Dick Hanson Methode 1968
Jim Hardman AMP 1980
Elise Harmon Autometics 1968
Mikel Harry Motorola 1990
Robert Hart Digital Equipment 1986
Ernie Hausmann Budd Co. 1966
Ralph Hersey Lawrence Labs 1974
Jim Hickman E.I. DuPont 1996
Mike Hill Texas Instruments 1986
David Hillman Rockwell Collins 1999
Steve Hinch Hewlett-Packard 1988
Phil Hinton Hinton “PWB” Engrg. 1992
Happy Holden Hewlett-Packard 1990
Paul Horbay Honeywell 1978
Fred Horn Amphenol 1968
Bruce Houghton Celestica 2000
Ken Hurley Hughes 1966
Les Hymes GE Medical Systems 1988
Irv Ireland Shipley 1976
Bill Jacobi William Jacobi & Assocs. 1990
Martin Jawitz Litton Guidance 1986
Charles Jennings Sandia Labs 1978
Kathryn Johnson Naval Weapons Center 1986
Ivan Jones DESC 1966

176
Name Company Year Awarded
Lea Jones EDX 1992
Roger Jones AT&T 1988
Chris Kalmus Kalmus & Associates 1974
Roger Kauffman W.L. Gore & Associates 1974
Russ Keller Goodyear 1968
John Kelly Motorola 1992
Robert Keltz Westinghouse/Fortin 1992
Bill Kenyon DuPont 1990
Jack Kerr Naval Electronics Sys. 1980
Michael Kerr Circuit Center, Inc. 1994
Bernie Kessler Mica 1966
Larita Killian EMLC, EMPF 1996
Jerry Kirschenbaum Trace Laboratories 1986
Bob Klotz McDonnell Douglas 1970
Colin Knopton ITT 1978
Bob Knowles Winchester Electronics 1966
Jeff Koon Raytheon TI Systems 1998
H.B. Koons, Jr. AT&T Bell Labs 1966
Dana Korf Hadco 1999
Jim Kubik Hughes Aircraft 1976
Mark Kwoka Harris Corporation 1994
Joe La Liberte Trans Circuits 1974
Leo Lambert Digital Equipment 1988
J.D. Lando Bell Telephone Labs 1978
Roger Landolt DuPont 1984
Ralph Landreth Western Electric 1974
William Lange Lange Associates 1986
Marv Larson Bureau of Engraving 1968
Dick LaVash Shipley 1968
Clarence Leski Methode 1966
Al Levy RCA 1966
Andy Lietz Hadco Corporation 1994
Gerry Lordi Shipley 1970
Dr. John Lott E.I. DuPont Electronics 1996
Gail Love Martin-Marietta 1966
Lincoln Low Hughes 1970
Dave Luzadis Bendix 1972
Gene Lyman Western Electric 1974
Art Mabbett Mabbett & Capaccio 1990

177
Name Company Year Awarded
Andy Mackie Praxair 2001
Florian Madina DuPont 1986
A. D. Magistro Army Ordnance 1966
Jim Maguire Intel Corporation 2001
Howard Manko Alpha Metals 1966
Susan Mansilla Robison Laboratories 1988
Bill March Lawrence Labs 1976
Phil Marcoux PPM Associates 1992
David Martin Intel Corporation 2001
Dick Martz U.S. Navy 1966
Bob Matzinger Martin Co. 1966
William Dean May NavSea Crane 2005
Vivian Mayfield Teradyne Central 1982
John McCormack Photocircuits 1968
Jack McCreary IBM 1970
Brian McCrory Delsen Labs 1996
Bill McDaniel Western Electric 1972
Garry D. McGuire NASA/Goddard Center 2002
John McKay General Electric 1968
Michael McLay NIST 1999
Paul McNamara Aeroscientific 1988
Hugh Medford Riegel Paper 1966
Lou Messina RCA 1970
George Messner Photocircuits 1966
James H. Moffitt Moffitt Consulting Services 2002
Bob Moore Sperry Univac 1980
Frank Morris RCA 1970
Rene Moser General Electric 1976
Charles Mosher Bureau of Engraving 1968
Sue Mucha Xetel Corporation 1994
Leigh Mueller Printed Circuit Builders 1992
Joe Mulcahy Philco-Ford 1974
George Muller Synthane-Taylor 1968
Gabriel Munck Perstorp Electronics 1988
Greg Munie Lucent Technologies Inc. 2001
Terry Munson CSL 2001
Fred Murphy Unisys 1988
Tom Murray Bendix 1974
Judee Mussehl-Aziz Dept. of Commerce 1994

178
Name Company Year Awarded
Bud Musselman Ansley 1970
Nilesh Naik Eagle Circuits 2003
Hayao Nakahara PCK Technology 1984
Robert Neves Microtek Labs 1996
Norm Nichols Ericcson 1992
Dave Nicol Lucent Technolgies 2001
Tony Orlowski U.S. Army 1966
Peter Palmer Cookson Electronics 2003
Harry Parkinson Digital Equipment 1996
Don Parrish Electralab 1968
Melvin Parrish Mfg. Tech. Train. Cntr. 1996
Douglas Pauls Contamination Studies Labs. 1997
James Paulus Norplex 1982
Nick Pearne BPA 1992
Ed Penczyk Stromberg-Carlson 1966
Fred Pescitelli Phoenix Designs 1994
Richard Pinto Excellon Automation 1997
J. Philip Plonski Prismark Partners 2003
Joe Poch Westinghouse 1966
Dick Pommer Interconics 1984
Dwayne Poteet Texas Instruments 1978
Francis Powell Raytheon 1972
Ray Prasad Intel 1988
Ray Pritchard IPC 1968
Jim Raby Naval Weapons Center 1984
Dave Radovski IBM 1966
Stanley H. Randall Park Electrochemical 1982
Jim R. Reed Raytheon PCR 1998
Randy Reed Merix Corporation 1997
John Reust Beech Aircraft 1980
Bruce Rietdorf Magnavox 1988
Walt Rigling Martin-Marietta 1976
Tim Ristine Computervision 1974
Stark Roberts IBM 1966
Jim Rogers Raytheon 1974
Bill Ross Storage Technology 1992
Jerold Rosser Hughes Aircraft 1994
Dave Rossi Conductron 1968
Teresa Rowe AAI Corp. 1998

179
Name Company Year Awarded
John Sabo Rockwell/Allen-Bradley 1999
Tom Sarnowski PCK Technology 1976
Mark Savrin RCA 1974
Don Sayrs AMP 1966
Herb Schachter Agard 1972
Lou Schmidt ITT Canon 1970
William Schmid Bell Labs 1970
Don Schnorr RCA 1970
Dave Schoenthaler AT&T 1984
Laura Scholten Optrotech 1992
Duane Schroeder Methode 1966
Werner Schuele Texas Instruments 1968
Alan J. Seabright Computing Devices 1982
Karl Seelig AIM 2003
Linda Self Litton Interconnect Tech. 2001
Robin Sellers Naval Avionics 1992
Dr. Dongkai Shangguan Flextronics International 2006
Jerry Siegmund MacDermid 1976
Steve Simpson E. I. DuPont 1995
Rick Smedley Raytheon 1999
Barry Smith MCD 1966
George Smith DoD 1970
Joe Smith Philco-Ford 1970
Douglas Sober Essex Technologies 1992
John Sohn Lucent Technologies 2001
Vern Solberg SCI 1992
Al Sorkin Digital Equipment 1982
Rick Steiner Gould Electronics 2001
Dean Stephenson Amphenol 1966
John Stonis Methode 1968
Walt Stubbings Methode 1966
Mario Suarez-Solis Encore Computer 1994
Jorgen Svensson Ericsson Telecom 1992
Patrick Sweeney Hadco Corporation 1996
Eugene Szukalski AMP, Inc. 1982
Bob Tabor Sanders 1966
Dr. Karen A. Teelefsen Alpha Metals 2002
Max Thorson Compaq Computer Corp. 1997
Rainer Thueringer Friedberg University 2003

180
Name Company Year Awarded
Fred Tolley Western Electric 1976
Lutz Treutler Comargus 1990
Aroon Tungare Motorola 2002
Laura Turbini Georgia Tech 1990
Tom Turner Nelco 1986
Joe Tutchton Martin-Marietta 1994
Paul Twigg IBM 1976
Henry Utsonomiya Eastern 1996
Robert VanNess Army Ordnance 1966
Ken Varker IBM 1966
David Vaughan E.I. DuPont de Nemours 1997
George Voida Sandia Labs 1974
Eric Vollmar Methode 1992
George Vybiral Thiokol 1966
R.T. Walsh General Electric 1968
Bernie Wargotz AT&T Bell Labs 1992
John Waryold Humiseal 2000
Bob Wathen Fairchild-Hiller 1966
George Watrous Budd Co. 1970
Nick Watts Tektronix 1992
R.W. Weaver Martin Company 1966
Clark Webster Precision Diversified Industries 1999
Gene Weiner Nelco 1968
Al Weiss Methode 1966
George Wenger Andrew Corporation 2005
Tom White Hallmark Circuits 2005
Ted Wipple Universal Instruments 1968
Roger Wild IBM 1982
Charley Wolff Western Electric 1970
James Woodford Department of Defense 1998
Bob Wright Bell Labs 1978
John Wyatt Naval Electronics 1974
Jo Wynschenk Enthone-OMI, Inc. 1996
Joel Yocom Allied Signal 1992
Lou Zakraysek General Electric 1968
Bernie Zimmerman Department of Defense 1970
Benson Zinbarg Nelco 1966

181
Appendix C

IPC Hall Of Fame Award Recipients

This award is given to individuals in recognition of the highest level of
achievement, extraordinary contributions and distinguished service to IPC and
in the advancement of the industry, including the creation of a spirit of mutual
esteem, respect and recognition among members consistent with the goals and
mission of IPC on a long term basis. This is the highest level of recognition that
IPC can give to a member and is based on exceptional merit over a long term
basis, the operative imperative being long term.

Name Company Year Awarded

Vern Solberg Micro Electronic Engrg Services 2005
Gene Weiner Weiner & Associates 2005
Doug Sober Bakelite Epoxy Polymers 2004
Werner Engelmaier Engelmaier Associates, L.C. 2003
Ron Underwood Circuit Center, Inc. 2002
Walt Custer Custer Consulting Group 2001
Peter Sarmanian Printed Circuit Corp. 2000
Larry Velie Velie Circuits, Inc. 1999
Bill Kenyon Global Centre for Process Change 1998
Jerry Siegmund Circuit-Wise Inc. 1997
Gerald Ginsberg Component Data Associates 1997
Foster Gray Texas Instruments 1996
Donald Dinella AT&T 1996
Marv Larson Bureau of Engraving 1995
Rolly Mettler Circuit-Wise, Inc. 1993
Bernie Kessler Kessler and Associates 1991
George Smith Trace Labs 1990
George Messner AMP-AKZO 1987
Dieter Bergman IPC 1985
Raymond Pritchard IPC 1982
Robert Swiggett Photocircuits Corporation 1979
William McGinley Methode Electronics 1977

182
Appendix D Document Revision Table, updated November 2006
Sorted in NUMBER order, ignore all letters
Product ID and Document Status ANSI DoD
J-STD-001, Requirements for Soldered Electrical and Rev D 2/05 Apr-05 Apr-05
Electronic Assemblies Rev. C 3/00
Rev. B 10/96
Rev. A 1/95
Orig. 4/92; Supersedes
IPC‑S-815
J-STD-001CS, Space Applications Electronic CS 1/04
Hardware Addendum for J-STD-001C
IPC‑HDBK-001, Handbook and Guide to the Amend 2 10/05 Jul-01
Requirements for Soldered Electrical and Electronic Amend. 1 12/00
Assemblies
Orig. 3/98
SMC-TR-001, An Introduction to Tape Automated Orig. 1/89
Bonding Fine Pitch Technology
IT-WP-001, Myths of E-Commerce Orig. 9/00
SMC-WP-001, Soldering Capability White Paper Orig. 8/91
Report
SMEMA 1.2, Mechanical Equipment Interface Update
Standard IPC‑SMEMA-9851
JP002, Current Tin Whiskers Theory and Mitigation Orig. 3/06
Practices Guideline
J-STD-002, Solderability Tests for Component Leads, Rev. B 02/03 Y May-95
Terminations, Lugs, Terminals and Wires Rev. A 10/98
Orig. 4/92; Supersedes
IPC‑S-805
SMC-WP-002, An Assessment of the Use of Lead in Orig. 8/92
Electronic Assembly
J-STD-003, Solderability Tests for Printed Boards Rev. A 02/03 Y
Original 4/92;
Supersedes IPC‑S-804
SMC-WP-003, Chip Mounting Technology Orig. 8/93
SMEMA 3.1, Fiducial Mark Standard
J-STD-004, Requirements for Soldering Fluxes Rev. A 01/04 Y May-95
Orig. 1/95 Supersedes
IPC‑SF-818
SMC-WP-004, Design for Success Orig. 4/97
SMEMA 4, Reflow Terms and Definitions Orig.
J-STD-005, Requirements for Soldering Pastes Amend. 1 6/96 Y May-95
Orig. 1/95 Supersedes
IPC‑SP-819
SMC-WP-005, PWB Surface Finishes Orig. 4/97
IPC‑HDBK-005, Guide to Solder Paste Assessment Orig. 1/06
SMEMA 5, Screen Printing Terms and Definitions Orig.
J-STD-006, Requirements for Electronic Grade Solder Rev. B 01/06 Y May-95
Alloys and Fluxed and Non-Fluxed Solid Solders for Rev. A 05/01
Electronic Soldering Applications
Orig. 1/95
SMEMA 6, Electronics Cleaning Terms and Orig.
Definitions
SMEMA 7, Fluid Dispensing Terms and Definitions Orig.
WP-008, Setting up Ion Chromatography Capability Orig. 12/05
J-STD-012, Implementation of Flip Chip and Chip Orig. 1/96 Y
Scale Technology

183
 Document Revision Table, updated November 2006
Sorted in NUMBER order, ignore all letters
Product ID and Document Status ANSI DoD
J-STD-013, Implementation of Ball Grid Array and Orig. 7/96 Y
Other High Density Technology
IPC‑DRM-18, Component Identification Desk Rev. G 9/03
Reference Manual Rev. F 8/01
Rev. E 8/00
Rev. D 7/99
Rev. C 7/98
Rev. B 2/97
Rev. A 4/96
Orig. 9/95
J-STD-020, Moisture/Reflow Sensitivity Classification Rev. C 7/04
of Plastic Surface Mount Devices Rev. B 7/02
Rev. A 4/99
Orig. 10/96
J-STD-026, Semiconductor Design Standard for Flip Orig. 8/99
Chip Applications
J-STD-027, Mechanical Outline Standard for Flip Orig. 02/03
Chip or Chip Scale Configurations
J-STD-028, Performance Standard for Flip Chip Scale Orig. 8/99
Bumps
J-STD-030, Guideline for Selection and Application Orig. 9/05
of Underfill Material for Flip Chip and Other
Micropackages
J-STD-032, Performance Standard for Ball Grid Array Orig. 6/02
Bumps and Columns
J-STD-033, Packaging and Handling of Moisture Rev B 10/05
Sensitive Non-Hermetic Solid State Surface Mount Rev. A 7/02
Devices
Orig. 4/99
J-STD-035, Acoustic Microscopy for Non-Hermetic Orig. 4/99
Encapsulated Electronic Components
IPC‑0040, Standards Roadmap for Optoelectronic Orig. 5/03
Assembly and Packaging Technology
IPC‑DRM-40, IPC‑DRM-PTH, Through Hole Solder Rev D 11/05
Joint Evaluation Desk Reference Manual Renamed to DRM-PTH
Rev. E 2/02
Rev. D 7/00
Rev. C 9/99
Rev. B 1/99
Rev. A 8/97
Orig. 5/97
IPC‑T-50, Terms and Definitions Interconnecting and Rev. G 12/03
Packaging Electronic Circuits Rev. F 6/96
Rev. E 7/92
Rev. D 11/88
Rev. C 3/85
Rev. B 6/80
Rev. A 8/76
Orig. 8/75
IPC‑DRM-53, Introduction to Electronics Assembly Orig. 6/00
IPC‑DRM-56, Wire Preparation & Crimping Orig. 07/02

184
 Document Revision Table, updated November 2006
Sorted in NUMBER order, ignore all letters
Product ID and Document Status ANSI DoD
IPC‑SC-60, Post Solder Solvent Cleaning Handbook Rev. A 8/99 Oct-99
Orig. 4/87
IPC‑SA-61, Post-Solder Semi-Aqueous Cleaning Rev. A 6/02
Handbook Orig. 7/95
IPC‑AC-62, Post Solder Aqueous Cleaning Rev. A 1/96
Handbook Orig. 12/86
IPC‑CH-65, Guidelines for Cleaning of Printed Rev. A 9/99 Oct-99
Boards and Assemblies Orig. 12/90
IPC‑CS-70, Guidelines for Chemical Handling Safety Orig. 8/88 Obsolete
in Printed Board Manufacturing without replacement
IPC‑CM-78, Guidelines for Surface Mounting and Superseded by
Interconnecting Chip Carriers IPC‑SM-780
Rev. C 3/88
Orig. 11/83
IPC‑MP-83, IPC Policy on Metrication Orig. 8/85 Obsolete
without replacement
IPC‑PC-90, General Requirements for Superseded by
Implementation of Statistical Process Control IPC‑9191
Orig. 10/90
IPC‑QS-95, General Requirements for Obsolete without
Implementation of ISO 9000 Quality Systems replacement
Orig. 4/93
IPC‑L-108, Specification for Thin Metal Clad Base Rev. B 6/90 Superseded
Materials for Multilayer Printed Boards by IPC‑4101
Rev. A 10/80
Orig. 3/76
IPC‑L-109, Specification for Resin Impregnated Superseded by
Fabric (Pregreg) for Multilayer Printed Boards IPC‑4101
Rev. B 7/92
Rev. A 10/80
Orig. 3/76
IPC‑L-110, Preimpregnated, B-Stage Epoxy-Glass Rev. A Superseded by
Cloth for Multilayer Printed Circuit Boards IPC‑L-109 and IPC‑4101
IPC‑CC-110, Guidelines for Selecting Core Superseded by
Constructions for Multilayer Printed Wiring Board IPC‑4121
Applications Rev. A 12/97
Orig. 1/94
IPC‑L-112, Specification for Composite Metal Clad Superseded by
Base materials for Printed Boards IPC‑4101
Rev. A 6/92
Orig. 7/81
IPC‑L-115, Specification for Rigid Metal Clad Base Superseded by
Materials for Printed Boards IPC‑4101
Rev. B 4/90
Rev. A 10/80
Orig. 3/77
IPC‑L-120, Inspection Procedure for Chemical Obsolete without
Processing Suitability of Copper-Clad Epoxy-Glass replacement
Laminates

185
 Document Revision Table, updated November 2006
Sorted in NUMBER order, ignore all letters
Product ID and Document Status ANSI DoD
IPC‑L-125, Specifications for Plastic Substrates Superseded by
Clad or Unclad for High Speed/High Frequency IPC‑4103
Interconnections Rev. A 7/92
Orig. 8/83
IPC‑L-130, Specifications for Thin Laminates, Metal Superseded by
Clad, Primarily for General-Purpose Multilayer IPC‑L-108 and IPC‑4101
Printed Boards Orig. 1/77
IPC‑DD-135, Qualification Testing for Deposited Orig. 8/95
Organic Interlayer Dielectric Materials for Multichip
Modules
IPC‑EG-140, Specification for Finished Fabric Woven Superseded by
from “E” Glass for Printed Boards IPC‑4412
Amend. 1 & 2 6/97
Orig. 3/88
IPC‑SG-141, Specification for Finished Fabric Woven Orig. 2/92
from “S” Glass for Printed Boards
IPC‑A-142, Specification for Finished Fabric Woven Orig. 6/90
from Aramid for Printed Boards
IPC‑QF-143, General Specification for Finished Orig. 2/92
Fabric Woven from Quartz (Pure Fused Silica) for
Printed Boards
IPC‑CF-148, Resin Coated Metal for Printed Boards Rev. A 9/98 Oct-98
Orig. 6/90
IPC‑MF-150, Metal Foil for Printed Wiring Superseded by
Applications IPC‑4562
Rev. F 10/91 Changed
from CF-150 to MF-150
Rev. E 5/81
Rev. D 3/76
Rev. C 8/74
Rev. B 2/71
Rev. A 9/67
Orig. 8/66
IPC‑CF-152, Composite Metallic Material Rev. B 12/97
Specification for Printed Wiring Boards Rev. A 1/94
Orig. 6/90
IPC‑FC-203, Specification for Flat Cable, Round Obsolete 7/96
Conductor, Ground Plane Orig. 7/85
IPC‑FC-210, Performance Specification for Flat- Obsolete 7/96
Conductor Undercarpet Power Cable (Type FCC) Orig. 9/85
IPC‑FC-213, Performance Specification for Flat Obsolete 7/96
Undercarpet Telephone Cable Orig. 9/84
IPC‑FC-217, General Document for Connectors, Obsolete 7/96
Electric, Header, Receptacle,Insulation Displacement Reaffirmed 4/90
for Use with Round Conductor Flat Cable
Orig. 8/82
IPC‑FC-218B/EIA-RS-429, General Specification for Obsolete 7/96
Connectors, Electrical Flat Cable Type Reaffirmed 05/91
Reaffirmed 11/81
Orig. 7/76
IPC‑FC-219, Environment Sealed Flat Cable Obsolete 7/96
Connectors for use in Aerospace Applications Orig. 5/84

186
 Document Revision Table, updated November 2006
Sorted in NUMBER order, ignore all letters
Product ID and Document Status ANSI DoD
IPC‑FC-220, Specification for Flat Cable, Flat obsolete 7/96
Conductor, Unshielded Rev. C 7/85
Rev. B 8/75
Rev. A 1/74
Orig. 5/70
IPC‑FC-221, Specification for Flat-Copper Obsolete 7/96
Conductors for Flat Cables Rev. A 5/84
Orig. 8/75
IPC‑FC-222, Specification of Flat Cable Round Obsolete 7/96
Conductor, Unshielded 5/91 Reaffirmed
Orig. 6/80
IPC‑FC-225, Flat Cable Design Guide Obsolete (date)
10/85 Reaffirmed
Orig. 8/75
IPC‑FC-231, Flexible Base Dielectrics for Use in Superseded by
Flexible Printed Wiring IPC‑4202
Amend. 10/95
Rev. C 4/92
Rev. B 2/86
Rev. A 5/83
Orig. 7/74
IPC‑FC-232, Adhesive Coated Dielectric Films for Superseded by 4203
Use as Cover Sheets for Flexible Printed Wiring and Amend. 10/95
Flexible Bonding Films
Rev. C 6/94
Rev. B 2/86
Rev. A 5/83
Orig. 7/74
IPC‑FC-233, Flexible Adhesive Bonding Films Incorporated into
IPC‑FC-232B
IPC‑FC-234, PSA Assembly Guidelines for Single- & Orig. 12/97
Double-Sided Flexible Printed Circuits
IPC‑FC-240, Single Sided Flex Superseded by
IPC‑6013
Incorporated into
FC-250
Rev. B 1/74
Rev. A 5/69
Orig. 12/65
IPC‑FC-241, Flexible Metal-Clad Dielectrics for Use Superseded by
in Fabrication of Flexible Printed Wiring IPC‑4204
Amend. 10/95
Rev. C 4/92
Rev. B 2/86
Rev. A 5/83
Orig. 7/74
IPC‑RF-245, Performance Specification for Rigid-Flex Superseded by
Printed Boards IPC‑6013
Orig. 4/87
IPC‑D-249, Design Standard for Flexible Single-and Superseded by
Double-Sided Printed Boards IPC‑2223
Orig. 1/87

187
 Document Revision Table, updated November 2006
Sorted in NUMBER order, ignore all letters
Product ID and Document Status ANSI DoD
IPC‑FC-250A, Specification for Single - and Double- Superseded by
Sided Flexible Printed Wiring IPC‑6013
Rev. A 9/86
Orig. 9/86
IPC‑FA-251, Guidelines for Single and Double Sided Orig. 2/92
Flex Circuits
IPC‑D-275, Design Standard for Rigid Printed Boards Superseded by
and Rigid Printed Board Assemblies IPC‑2221 and 2222
Supersedes IPC‑D-319
and IPC‑D-949
Amendment.1 4/96
Orig. 9/91
IPC‑RB-276, Qualification and Performance Superseded by
Specification for Rigid Printed Boards IPC‑6011 and IPC‑6012
Orig. 3/92 Supersedes
IPC‑SC-320B and
IPC‑ML-950C
IPC‑D-279, Design Guidelines for Reliable Surface Orig. 7/96
Mount Technology Printed Board Assemblies
IPC‑D-300, Printed Board Dimensions and Superseded by
Tolerances IPC‑2615
Rev. G 1/84
Rev. F 11/74
Rev. E 10/70
Rev. D 1/70
Rev. C 10/65
Rev. B 1/64
Rev. A 7/61
Orig. 8/60
IPC‑D-310, Guidelines for Phototool Generation and Rev. C 06/91
Measurement Techniques Rev. B 12/85
Rev. A 12/77
Orig. 9/69
IPC‑A-311, Process Control Guidelines for Phototool Orig. 3/96
Generation and Use
IPC‑D-316, Design Guide for Microwave Circuit Superseded by
Boards Utilizing Soft Substrates IPC‑2252
Orig. 5/95
IPC‑D-317, Design Guidelines for Electronic Superseded by
Packaging Utilizing High-Speed Techniques IPC‑2251
Rev. A 1/95
Orig. 4/90
IPC‑HF-318, Microwave End Product Board Superseded by
Inspection and Test IPC‑6018
Rev. A 12/91
Orig. 6/85
IPC‑D-319, Design Standard for Rigid Single-and Superseded by
Double-Sided Printed Boards IPC‑D-275, then by
IPC‑2221/2222
Orig. 1/87

188
 Document Revision Table, updated November 2006
Sorted in NUMBER order, ignore all letters
Product ID and Document Status ANSI DoD
IPC‑SD-320, Performance Specification for Rigid Superseded by IPC‑RB-
Single- and Double-Sided Printed Boards 276
Supersedes IPC‑TC-500
Rev. B 11/86
Rev. A 3/81
Orig. 1/77
IPC‑D-322, Guidelines for Selecting Printed Wiring Reaffirmed 9/91
Board Sizes Using Standard Panel Sizes Orig. 8/84
IPC‑MC-324, Performance Specifications for Metal Superseded by
Core Boards IPC‑6011 and IPC‑6012
Orig. 10/88
IPC‑D-325, Documentation Requirements for Rev. A 5/95
Printed Boards, Assemblies and Support Drawings Orig. 1/87
IPC‑D-326, Information Requirements for Rev. A 1/04
Manufacturing Printed Board Assemblies Orig. 4/91
IPC‑D-330, Design Guide Manual Orig. 1972
IPC‑PD-335, Electronic Packaging Handbook Orig. 12/89
IPC‑NC-349, Computer Numerical Control Orig. 8/85
Formatting for Drillers and Routers
IPC‑D-350, Printed Board Description in Digital Rev. D 7/92
Form; Technical Content Identical to IEC-61182-1 Rev. C 10/85
Rev. B 8/77
Rev. A 2/75
Orig. 8/72
IPC‑D-351, Printed Board Drawings in Digital Form Orig. 8/85
IPC‑D-352, Electronic Design Data Description for Orig. 8/85
Printed Boards in Digital Form
IPC‑D-354, Library Format Description for Printed Orig. 2/87
Boards in Digital Form
IPC‑D-355, Printed Board Assembly Description in Orig. 1/95
Digital Form
IPC‑D-356, Bare Board Electrical Test Information in Rev. B 10/02
Digital Form Rev. A 1/98
Orig. 3/92
IPC‑AM-361, Specification for Rigid Substrates for Superseded by
Additive Process Printed Boards IPC‑4101
Orig. 1/82
IPC‑MB-380, Guidelines for Molded Interconnection Orig. 10/90
Devices
IPC‑D-390, Automated Design Guidelines Rev. A 2/88
Orig. 7/74
IPC‑C-406, Design and Application Guidelines for Orig. 1/90
Surface Mount Connectors
IPC‑CI-408, Design and Application Guidelines for Orig. 1/94
the Use of Solderless Surface Mount Connectors
IPC‑BP-421, General Specification for Rigid Printed Obsolete without
Board Backplanes with Press Fit Contacts replacement
Reaffirmed 4/90
Orig. 10/80
IPC‑D-422, Design Guide for Press Fit Rigid Printed Orig. 9/82
Board Backplanes

189
 Document Revision Table, updated November 2006
Sorted in NUMBER order, ignore all letters
Product ID and Document Status ANSI DoD
IPC‑DW-424, General Specification for Encapsulated Orig. 1/95
Discrete Wire Interconnection Boards
IPC‑DW-425, Design and End Product Requirements Rev. A 5/90
for Discrete Wiring Boards Orig. 9/82
IPC‑DW-426, Specifications for Assembly of Discrete Orig. 12/87
Wiring
IPC‑TR-460, Trouble-Shooting Checklist for Wave Rev. A 2/84
Soldering Printed Wiring Boards Orig. 1973
IPC‑TR-461, Solderability Evaluation of Thick and Orig. 3/79
Thin Fused Coatings
IPC‑TR-462, Solderability Evaluation of Printed Orig. 10/87
Boards with Protective Coatings Over Long Term
Storage
IPC‑TR-464, Accelerated Aging for Solderability Rev. A 12/87
Evaluations Orig. Pub.4/84
IPC‑TR-465-1, Round Robin Test on Steam Ager Orig. 1993
Temperature Control Stability
IPC‑TR-465-2, The Effect of Steam Aging Time and Orig. 1993
Temperature on Solderability Test Results
IPC‑TR-465-3, Evaluation of Steam Aging on Orig. 7/96
Alternative Finishes, Phase IIA
IPC‑TR-466, Wetting Balance Standard Weight Orig. 4/95
Comparison Test
IPC‑TR-467, Supporting Data and Numerical Orig. 10/96
Examples for ANSI/J-STD-001 Appendix D
IPC‑TR-468, Factors Affecting Insulation Resistance Orig. 3/79
Performance of Printed Boards
IPC‑TR-470, Thermal Characteristics of Multilayer Orig. 1/74
Interconnection Boards
IPC‑TR-474, An Overview of Discrete Wiring Obsolete without
Techniques replacement
Reprint 1984
Orig. 3/79
IPC‑TR-476, How to Avoid Metallic Growth Rev. A 6/84 (new title)
Problems on Electronic Hardware, Rev. A Orig. 9/77
Electrochemical Migration Electrically Induced
Failures In Printed Assembles
IPC‑TR-480, Results of Multilayer Test Program Obsolete without
Round Robin IV Phase I replacement
Orig. 9/75
IPC‑TR-481, Results of Multilayer Test Program Orig. 4/81
Round Robin V
IPC‑TR-482, New Developments in Thin Copper Orig. 1/76
Foils
IPC‑TR-483, Dimensional Stability Testing of Thin Rev. A 3/91
Laminates - Report on Phase I International Round Addendums 10/87
Robin Test Program
Orig. 4/84
IPC‑TR-484, Results of IPC Cooper Foil Ductility Orig. 4/86
Round Robin Study
IPC‑TR-485, Results of Cooper Foil Rupture Strength Orig. 3/85
Test Round Robin Study

190
 Document Revision Table, updated November 2006
Sorted in NUMBER order, ignore all letters
Product ID and Document Status ANSI DoD
IPC‑TR-486, Report on Round Robin Study to Orig. 07/01
Correlate Interconnect Stress Test (IST) with Thermal
Stress/Microsectioning Evaluations for Detecting the
Presence of Inner-layer Separations
IPC‑TR-549, Measles in Printed Wiring Boards Orig. 11/78
IPC‑TR-551, Quality Assessment of Printed Boards Orig. 7/93
Used for Mounting and Interconnecting Electronic
Components
IPC‑DR-570, General Specification for 1/8 Inch Obsolete without
Diameter Shank Carbide Drills for Printed Boards replacement
Rev. A 4/84
Orig. 1/79
IPC‑DR-572, Drilling Guidelines for Printed Boards Orig. 4/88
IPC‑TR-576, Additive Process Evaluation Obsolete without
replacement
Orig. 9/77
IPC‑TR-578, Leading Edge Manufacturing Orig. 9/84
Technology Report - Resulting of a Round Robin
Study on Minimum Conductor Width and Plated-
Through Holes in Rigid, Bare Copper, Double-Sided
Printed Wiring Boards
IPC‑TR-579, Round Robin Reliability Evaluation of Orig. 9/88
Small Diameter Plated Through Holes in Printed
Wiring Boards
IPC‑TR-580, Cleaning and Cleanliness Test Program Orig. 10/89
Phase 1 Test Results
IPC‑TR-581, IPC Phase 3 Controlled Atmosphere Orig. 8/94
Soldering Study
IPC‑TR-582, IPC Phase 3 No-Clean Flux Study Orig. 11/94
IPC‑TR-583, An In-Depth Look At Ionic Cleanliness Orig. 7/02
Testing
IPC‑WP/TR-584, IPC White Paper and Technical Orig. 04/03
Report on Halogen-Free Materials used for Printed
Circuit Boards and Assemblies
IPC‑TR-585, Time, Temperature and Humidity Stress Orig. 05/06
of Final Board Finish Solderability
IPC‑A-600, Acceptability of Printed Boards Rev. G 07/04
Rev. F 11/99
Rev. E 8/95
Rev. D ‘89
Rev. C ‘78
Rev. B ‘74
Rev. A ‘70
Orig. ‘64
IPC‑SS-605, Printed Board Quality Evaluation Slide Obsolete without
Set replacement
IPC‑QE-605, Printed Board Quality Evaluation Rev. A 2/99
Handbook
IPC‑A-610, Acceptability of Electronic Assemblies Rev. D 2/05 Apr-05 Apr-05
Rev. C 1/00
Rev. B 12/94
Rev. A 3/90
Orig. 8/83

191
 Document Revision Table, updated November 2006
Sorted in NUMBER order, ignore all letters
Product ID and Document Status ANSI DoD
IPC‑HDBK-610, Handbook and Guide to IPC‑A-610 Amend 1 10/05
(Includes B-C-D comparison) Orig. 9/02
IPC‑QE-615, Assembly Quality Evaluation Obsolete without
Handbook replacement
IPC/WHMA-A-620, Acceptability of Electronic Wire Rev A 07/06 Mar-02
Harnesses and Cables Orig. 01/02
IPC‑AI-640, User’s Guidelines for Automated Obsolete without
Inspection of Unpopulated Thick Film Hybrid replacement
Substrates Orig. 1/87
IPC‑AI-641, User’s Guidelines for Automated Solder Obsolete without
Joint Inspection replacement
Orig. 1/87
IPC‑AI-642, User’s Guidelines for Automated Obsolete without
Inspection of Artwork, Interlayers, and Unpopulated replacement
PWB’s Orig. 10/88
IPC‑OI-645, Standard for Visual Optical Inspection Orig. 10/93
Aids
IPC‑TM-650, Test Methods Manual Updated per test
method
IPC‑ET-652, Guidelines and Requirements for Orig. 10/90 Superseded
Electrical Testing of Unpopulated Printed Boards by IPC‑9252
IPC‑QL-653, Qualification of Facilities that Inspect/ Rev. A 11/97
Test Printed Boards, Components, and Material Orig. 8/88
IPC‑MI-660, Incoming Inspection of Raw Materials Orig. 2/84
Manual
IPC‑R-700, Suggested Guidelines for Modification, Superseded by
Rework and Repair of Printed Boards and IPC‑7711A/7721A
Assemblies Rev. C 1/88
Rev. B 9/77
Rev. A 12/71
Orig. 9/67
IPC‑TA-720, Technology Assessment Handbook on Orig. ’86
Laminates
IPC‑TA-721, Technology Assessment Handbook on Orig. ’88
Multilayer Boards
IPC‑TA-722, Technology Assessment of Soldering Orig. ’90
IPC‑TA-723, Technology Assessment Handbook on Orig. ’91
Surface Mounting
IPC‑TA-724, Technology Assessment Series on Orig. 4/98
Cleanrooms
IPC‑PE-740, Troubleshooting Guide for Printed Rev. A 12/97
Board Manufacture and Assembly Orig. 1/85
IPC‑CM-770, Printed Board Component Mounting Rev. E 1/04
Rev. D 1/96
Rev. C 1/87
Rev. B 10/80
Rev. A 3/76
Orig. 9/68
IPC‑SM-780, Component Packaging and Orig. 3/88
Interconnecting with Emphasis on Surface Mounting

192
 Document Revision Table, updated November 2006
Sorted in NUMBER order, ignore all letters
Product ID and Document Status ANSI DoD
IPC‑SM-782, Surface Mount Design and Land Superseded by
Pattern Standard IPC‑7351
Amend. 2 04/99
Amend. 1 10/96
Rev. A 8/93
Orig. 3/87
IPC‑SM-784, Guidelines for Chip-on-Board Orig. 11/90
Technology Implementation
IPC‑SM-785, Guidelines for Accelerated Reliability Orig. 11/92
Test of Surface Mount Solder Attachments
IPC‑SM-786, Procedures for Characterizing and Superseded by J-STD-
Handling of Moisture/ Reflow Sensitive ICs 020 and J-STD-033
Rev. A 1/95
Orig. 12/90
IPC‑MC-790, Guidelines for Multichip Module Orig. 8/92
Technology Utilization
IPC‑S-801 Superseded by IPC‑804
and J-STD-003
IPC‑S-803 Superseded by IPC‑804
and J-STD-003
IPC‑S-804, Solderability Test Methods for Printed Superseded by J-STD-
Wiring Boards 003
Rev. A 1/87
Orig. 1/82
IPC‑S-805, Solderability Tests for Component Leads Superseded by
and Terminations J-STD-002
Orig. 1/85
IPC‑MS-810, Guidelines for High Volume Orig. 10/93
Microsection
IPC‑S-815, General Requirements for Soldering Superseded by
Electronic Interconnections J-STD-001
Rev. B 12/87
Rev. A 6/81
Orig. 11/77
IPC‑S-816, SMT Process Guideline and Checklist Orig. 7/93
IPC‑SM-817, General Requirements for Dielectric Orig. 11/89
Surface Mounting Adhesives
IPC‑SF-818, General Requirement for Electronic Superseded by J-STD-
Soldering Fluxes 004
Rev. 12/91
Orig. 2/88
IPC‑SP-819, General Requirements and Test Orig. 10/88 Superseded
Methods for Electronic Grade Solder Paste by J-STD-005
IPC‑AJ-820, Assembly and Joining Manual Orig. 8/96
IPC‑CA-821, General Requirements for Thermally Orig. 1/95
Conductive Adhesives
IPC‑CC-830, Qualification and Performance of Rev B 08/02 Aug-02
Electronic Insulating Compound for Printed Board Amend. 1 7/99
Assemblies
Rev. A 10/98
Orig. 1/84
IPC‑HDBK-830, Conformal Coating Handbook Orig. 10/02

193
 Document Revision Table, updated November 2006
Sorted in NUMBER order, ignore all letters
Product ID and Document Status ANSI DoD
IPC‑SM-839, Pre and Post Solder Mask Application Orig. 4/90
Cleaning Guidelines
IPC‑SM-840, Qualification and Performance of Amend. 1 6/00 Aug-00
Permanent Polymer Coating (Solder Mask) for Rev. C 1/96
Printed Boards
Rev. B 5/88
Rev. A 7/83
Orig. 11/77
IPC‑HDBK-840, Solder Mask Handbook Orig. 09/06
IPC‑H-855, Hybrid Microcircuit Design Guide Obsolete without
replacement
Orig. 10/82
IPC‑D-859, Design Standard for Thick Film Orig. 12/89 Y
Multilayer Hybrid Circuits
IPC‑HM-860, Specification for Multilayer Hybrid Orig. 1/87 Y
Circuits
IPC‑TF-870, Qualification and Performance of Orig. 11/89 Y
Polymer Thick Film Printed Boards
IPC‑ML-910, Design and End Production Superseded by IPC‑D-
Specification for Rigid Multilayer Printed Boards 949, IPC‑D-275, and
subsequently IPC‑2221
for Design and IPC‑ML-
950, IPC‑RB-276, and
subsequently IIPC‑6011
for End Product
Specification
Rev. A 08/76
Orig. 06/68
IPC‑D-949, Design Standard for Rigid Multilayer Superseded by IPC‑D-
Printed Boards 275 and subsequently
by IPC‑2221/2222
Orig. 1/87
IPC‑ML-950, Performance Specification for Rigid Superseded by IPC‑RB-
Multilayer Printed Boards 276 and subsequently
IPC‑6011/6012
Rev. C 11/8
Rev. B 12/77
Rev. A 9/70
Orig. 1/66
IPC‑ML-960, Qualification and Performance Orig. 7/94 Y
Specification for Mass Laminated Panels for
Multilayer Printed Boards
IPC‑ML-975, End Product Documentation Superseded by IPC‑D-
Specification for Multilayer Printed Wiring Boards 325
Orig. 9/69
IPC‑ML-990, Performance Specification for Flexible Superseded by
Multilayer Wiring IPC‑6011
Orig. 9/72
IPC‑1043, Cleaning & Cleanliness Test Program Orig. 8/92
Phase 3 Water Soluble Fluxes Part 1
IPC‑1044, Cleaning & Cleanliness Test Program Orig. 10/92
Phase 3 Water Soluble Fluxes Part 2
IPC‑1065, Material Declaration Handbook Orig. 01/05
IPC‑1066, Labeling of PCBs and Assemblies Orig. 12/04

194
 Document Revision Table, updated November 2006
Sorted in NUMBER order, ignore all letters
Product ID and Document Status ANSI DoD
IPC‑TP-1090, The Layman’s Guide to Qualifying Orig. 7/96
New Fluxes for MIL-STD-2000A or MT-0002
IPC‑TP-1103, Manufacturing Concerns When Obsolete without
Soldering with Gold Plated Component Leads or replacement
Circuit Board Pads
IPC‑TP-1114, The Layman’s Guide to Qualifying a Orig. 1/98
Process to J-STD-001B
IPC‑TP-1115, Selection and Implementation Strategy Orig. 12/98
for A Low-Residue No-Clean Process
IPC‑1131, IT Guidelines for PWB Manufacturers Orig. 04/00
IPC‑1331, Voluntary Safety Standard for Electrically Orig. 3/00
Heated Process Equipment
IPC‑1710, OEM Standard for Printed Board Rev. A 7/04
Manufacturers’ Qualification Profile (MQP) 12/97 updated
Orig. 2/94
IPC‑1720, Assembly Qualification Profile (AQP) Rev. A 7/04
Orig. 7/96
IPC‑1730, Laminator Qualification Profile (LQP) Rev. A 6/00
Orig. 1/98
IPC‑1731, Strategic Raw Materials Supplier Orig. 6/00
Qualification Profile
IPC‑1751, Generic Requirements for Declaration Orig. 3/06
Process Management
IPC‑1752, Materials Declaration Management Orig. 3/06
(Includes 2 PDF forms)
IPC‑1902, Grid Systems for Printed Circuits Orig. 03/99
(equivalent to IEC 60097)
IPC‑2141, Controlled Impedance Circuit Boards and Rev. A 3/04
High Speed Logic Design Orig. 4/96
IPC‑2221, Generic Standard on Printed Board Rev. A 5/03
Design Amend. 1 01/00
Supersedes IPC‑D-275
Orig. 2/98
IPC‑2222, Sectional Design Standard for Rigid Supersedes IPC‑D-275
Organic Printed Boards Orig. 2/98
IPC‑2223, Sectional Design Standard for Flexible Rev. A 06/04
Printed Boards Supersedes IPC‑D-249
Orig. 11/98
IPC‑2224, Sectional Standard for Design of PWBs Orig. 01/98
for PC Cards
IPC‑2225, Sectional Design Standard for Organic Orig. 05/98
Multichip Modules (MCM-L) and MCM-L Assemblies
IPC‑2226, Design Standard for High-Density Orig. 4/03
Array or Peripheral Leaded Component Mounting
Structures
IPC‑2251, Design Guidelines for Electronic Orig. 12/03
Packaging Utilizing High Speed Techniques
IPC‑2252, Design and Manufacturing Guide for Orig. 7/02
RF/Microwave Circuit Boards
IPC/JPCA-2315, Design Guide for High Density Orig. 6/00
Interconnects (HDI) and Microvia
IPC‑2501, Definition for Web-based Exchange of Orig. 7/03 Y
XML Data

195
 Document Revision Table, updated November 2006
Sorted in NUMBER order, ignore all letters
Product ID and Document Status ANSI DoD
IPC‑2511, Generic Requirements for Implementation Rev. B 1/02 Y
of Product Manufacturing Description Data and Rev A 01/00
Transfer Methodology
Orig. 11/98
IPC‑2512, Sectional Requirements for Rev A 11/00
Implementation of Administrative Methods for Orig. 11/98
Manufacturing Data Description
IPC‑2513, Sectional Requirements for Rev A 11/00
Implementation of Drawing Methods for
Manufacturing Data Description
IPC‑2514, Sectional Requirements for Rev A 11/00
Implementation of Printed Board Manufacturing
Data Description
IPC‑2515, Sectional Requirements for Rev A 11/00
Implementation of Bare Board Product Electrical
Testing Data Description
IPC‑2516, Sectional Requirements for Rev A 11/00
Implementation of Assembled Board Product
Manufacturing Data Description
IPC‑2517, Sectional Requirements for Rev A 11/00
Implementation of Assembly In-Circuit Testing Data
Description – 2-11g - Chair, Bob Neal, Agilent
Technologies
IPC‑2518, Sectional Requirements for Rev A 11/00
Implementation of Part List Product Data Description
- Chair, Harry Parkinson, Parkinson Consulting
IPC‑2524, PWB Fabrication Data Quality Rating Orig. 02/99
System
IPC‑2531, Standard Recipe File Format Specification Orig. 03/99
IPC‑2541, Generic Requirements for Electronic Orig. 10/01 Y
Manufacturing Shop Floor Equipment
Communication
IPC‑2546, Sectional Requirements for Shop Floor Amend. 1 01/03 Y
Electronic Assembly Equipment Communication Amend. 2 01/05
Orig. 10/01
IPC‑2547, Sectional Requirements for Shop Orig. 01/02 Y
Floor Electronic Inspection and Test Equipment
Communication
IPC‑2571, Generic Requirements for Electronic Orig. 11/01 Y
Manufacturing Supply Chain Communication-
Product Data Exchange (PDX)
IPC‑2576, Sectional Requirements for Electronics Orig. 11/01 Y
Manufacturing Supply Chain Communication of As-
Built Product Data - Product Exchange (PDX)
IPC‑2578, Sectional Requirements for Supply Chain Orig. 11/01 Y
Communication of Bill of material and Product
Design Configuration Data-Product Data Exchange
(PDX)
IPC‑2581, Generic Requirements for Printed Board Orig. 3/04 Y
Assembly Products Manufacturing Description Data
and Transfer Methodology (Offspring)
IPC‑2615, Printed Board Dimensions and Tolerances Supersedes IPC‑D-300 Y
Orig. 06/00
IPC‑3406, Guidelines for Electrically Conductive Orig. 7/96
Surface Mount Adhesives

196
 Document Revision Table, updated November 2006
Sorted in NUMBER order, ignore all letters
Product ID and Document Status ANSI DoD
IPC‑3408, General Requirements for Anistropically Orig. 11/96
Conductive Adhesive Films
IPC‑4101, Specification for Base Materials for Rigid Rev. B 06/06
and Multilayer Boards Rev. A Amend 1 6/02
Rev. A 06/02
Supersedes IPC‑L-108,
IPC‑L-109, IPC‑L-112,
IPC‑L-115
Orig. 12/97
IPC‑4103, Specification for Plastic Substrates, Supersedes IPC‑L-125 Y
Clad or Unclad, for High Speed/High Frequency Orig. 01/02
Interconnection
IPC/JPCA-4104, Specification for High Density Orig. 5/99 May-99
Interconnect (HDI) and Microvia Materials
IPC‑4110, Specification and Characterization Orig. 8/98 Oct-98
Methods for Nonwoven Cellulose Based Paper for
Printed Boards
IPC‑4121, Guidelines for Selecting Core Supersedes IPC‑CC-
Constructions for Multilayer Printed Wiring Board 110A
Applications Orig. 1/00
IPC‑4130, Specification and Characterization Orig. 9/98 Dec-99
Methods for Nonwoven “E” Glass Mat
IPC‑4202, Flexible Base Dielectrics for Use in Supersedes IPC‑FC- Jun-02 Feb-03
Flexible Printed Wiring 231C
Orig. 05/02
IPC‑4203, Adhesive Coated Dielectric Films for Use Supersedes IPC‑FC- Jun-02 Feb-03
as Cover Sheets 232C
Orig. 05/02
IPC‑4204, Flexible Metal-Clad Dielectrics for Use in Supersedes IPC‑FC- Jun-02 Feb-03
Fabrication of Flexible Printed Circuitry 241C
Orig. 05/02
IPC‑4411, Specification and Characterization Rev. A 11/03
Methods for Nonwoven Para-Aramid Reinforcement Orig. 4/99
IPC‑4412, Specification for Finished Fabric Woven Supersedes IPC‑EG- Jul-02 Feb-03
form “E” Glass for Printed Boards 140A
Orig. 06/02
IPC‑4552, Specification for Electroless Nickel/ Orig. 10/02 Nov-02
Immersion Gold (ENIG) Plating for Printed Circuit
Boards
IPC‑4553, Specification for Immersion Silver Plating Orig. 06/05 Sep-06
for Printed Circuit Boards
IPC‑4562, Metal Foil for Printed Wiring Applications Amend. 1 May-05
Supersedes IPC‑MF- Sep-00 Feb-03
150F
Orig. 5/00
IPC‑4761 , Design Guide for Protection of Printed Orig. 07/06
Board Via Structures
IPC‑4821, Specification for Embedded Passive Orig. 05/06
Device Capacitor Materials for Rigid and Multilayer
Printed Boards
IPC‑5701, Users Guide for Cleanliness of Orig. 7/03
Unpopulated Printed Boards
IPC‑6011, Generic Performance Specification for Orig. 7/96
Printed Boards

197
 Document Revision Table, updated November 2006
Sorted in NUMBER order, ignore all letters
Product ID and Document Status ANSI DoD
IPC‑6012, Qualification and Performance Rev. B 08/04
Specification for Rigid Printed Boards Amend. 1 07/00
Rev. A 10/99
Orig. 7/96
IPC‑6013, Qualification and Performance Rev. A with Amend. 2
Specification for Flexible Printed Boards 04/06
Amend. 1 01/05
Rev. A 11/03
Supersedes IPC‑RF-245
and IPC‑FC-250
Amend. 1 04/00
Orig. 11/98
IPC‑6015, Qualification and Performance Orig. 2/98
Specification for Organic Multichip Module (MCM-
L) Mounting and Interconnecting Structures
IPC‑6016, Qualification and Performance Orig. 05/99 Aug-99
Specification for High Density Interconnect (HDI)
Layers or Boards
IPC‑6018, Microwave End Product Board Inspection Rev. A 01/02 Y
and Test Orig. 1/98
IPC/JPCA-6202, Performance Guide Manual for Orig. 2/99
Single- and Double-Sided Flexible Printed Wiring
Boards
IPC/JPCA-6801, Terms & Definitions, Test Methods, Orig. 1/00
and Design Examples for Build-Up/High Density
Interconnection
IPC‑7095, Design and Assembly Process Rev. A 11/04
Implementation for BGAs Orig. 8/00
IPC‑7351, Generic Requirements for Surface Mount Orig. 02/05
Land Pattern and Design Standard
IPC‑7525, Guidelines for Stencil Design Orig. 05/00 Jun-00
IPC‑7530, Guidelines for Temperature Profiling for Orig. 05/01
Mass Soldering (Wave and Reflow) Processes
IPC‑7351, Generic Requirements for Surface Mount Supersedes IPC‑SM-
Design and Land Pattern Standard 782A with Amendments
1&2
Orig. 02/05
IPC‑7711A/7721A, Rework, Repair and Rev A. 10/03
Modification of Electronic Assemblies Orig. 04/98 Supersedes
IPC‑R-700C
IPC‑7912, Calculation of DPMO and Manufacturing Rev. A 01/04 Jan-04
Indices for Printed Wiring Assemblies Orig. 07/00
IPC‑8413-1, Specification for Manufacturing Process Orig. 04/03
Carriers for Handling Optical Fiber
IPC‑9151, Printed Board Capability, Quality and Rev. A 5/03
Relative Reliability (PCQR2) Benchmark Test Orig. 06/02
Standard and Database
IPC‑9191, General Guideline for implementation of Supersedes IPC‑PC-90
Statistical Process Control (SPC) Orig. 11/99
IPC‑9194, Implementation of Statistical Process Orig. 09/04
Control (SPC) Applied to Printed Board Assembly
Manufacture Guideline
IPC‑9199, SPC Quality Rating Orig. 09/02

198
 Document Revision Table, updated November 2006
Sorted in NUMBER order, ignore all letters
Product ID and Document Status ANSI DoD
IPC‑9201, Surface Insulation Resistance Handbook Orig. 7/96
IPC‑9251, Test Vehicles for Evaluating Fine Line Orig. 7/00
Capability
IPC‑9252, Guidelines and Requirements for Supersedes IPC‑ET-652A
Electrical Testing of Unpopulated Printed Boards Orig. 02/01
IPC‑9261, In-Process DPMO and Estimated Yield Rev. A 10/06 Mar-02
for PWAs Orig. 3/02
IPC‑9501, PWB Assembly Process Simulation for Orig. 7/95
Evaluation of Electronic Components
IPC‑9502, PWB Assembly Soldering Process Orig. 4/99
Guidelines for Non-IC Electronic Components
IPC‑9503, Moisture Sensitivity Classification for Non- Orig. 4/99
IC Components
IPC‑9504, Assembly Process Simulation for Orig. 6/98 Oct-98
Evaluation of Non-IC Components
IPC‑9591, Performance Parameters (Mechanical, Orig. 04/06
Electrical, Environmental and Quality/Reliability) for
Air Moving Devices
IPC‑9691, User Guide for the IPC‑TM-650, Method Orig. 10/05
2.6.25, Conductive Anodic Filament (CAF)
Resistance Test (Electrochemical Migration Testing)
IPC‑9701, Qualification and Performance Test Rev. A 02/06 Y
Methods for Surface Mount Solder Attachments Orig. 1/02
IPC/JEDEC-9702, Monotonic Bend Characterization Orig. 06/04
of Board-Level Interconnects
IPC‑9850, Surface Mount Equipment Performance Orig. 7/02 Sep-02
Characterization
IPC‑SMEMA-9851, Equipment Interface Orig. 11/04
Specification
IPC‑DRM-SMT, Surface Mount Solder Joint Rev. B 4/00
Evaluation Desk Reference Manual Rev. A 3/99
Orig. 7/98
IPC‑EMSI-TC, IPC Sample Master Ordering Orig. 03/02
Agreement for EMS Companies and OEMs
Roadmap, National Technology Roadmap for Updated 2005
Electronic Interconnections Updated 2003
Updated 2001
Updated 9/97
Orig. 6/95

199