7-31h/k IPC-D-620 Comments
7-31h/k IPC-D-620
Comments in YELLOW dispositioned at APEX 2013 (02/20/2013)
Comments in GREEN dispositioned as “editorial” by Chair
Comments in BLUE dispositioned at IPC Fall 2013 (10/17/2013)
Comments in PURPLE dispositioned at APEX 2014 (03/26/2014)
Comment grid in RED dispositioned by Chair in preparation for SMTAI14
References in <RED> designate the new requirement number following rewrite.
Hint: just tab from the last cell and a new row will be added.
Commenters name, company / Reference / 0 / Type / Recommendation / Reason for Recommendation /Committee Resolution
TECHNICALDavid Gillies, Data cable Co, Inc. / General / 1 / T / Use the term “designer” and “user” / The terms “Supplier” and “User” have some ambiguity when it comes to a design, as opposed to producing a part. The User would determine the need/requirement to be designed by the “designer” who would be guided by this standard. The user may be an internal customer in the same company as the designer or may be in a supplier/customer relationship / A/M
For purposes of this document the Supplier is considered the design authority.
David Gillies, Data cable Co, Inc. / General / 2 / T /
- Rename the standard IPC-D-AS620
- Add a Class AS
David Gillies, Data cable Co, Inc. / General / 3 / T / Rename this standard IPC-D-AS620 and then create a new IPC-D-620 with entire sections removed and the “shall”changed to “should” / The prescriptive “Shall” is inappropriate for Commecial/Industrial where “should” would be used / Reject - OBE
GL (Les) Bogert. Bechtel Plant Machinery Inc. / 1
<1> / 4 / E / Delete the revision “A” from the 620 document reference. / IPC policy is to not include revision level of references withi a document. / Accept Chair
09/03/13
GL (Les) Bogert. Bechtel Plant Machinery Inc. / 1.1
<1.1> / 5 / E / Change “is intended to provide” to “provides”. / Use fewer words. / Accept Chair
09/03/13
GL (Les) Bogert. Bechtel Plant Machinery Inc. / 1.2
<1.2> / 6 / T / In the second paragraph, revise the second sentence to read as follows:
“The contract shall [A1A2A3] specify the performance class required, whether compliance to any of the A through E Appendices is required, and indicate any exceptions to specific parameters where appropriate.” / In accordance with 1.8, no appendix is binding unless specifically included in the contract; therefore, the User must identify which appendix applies as a mandatory requirement. / Accept
IPC Fall – 10/17/2013
GL (Les) Bogert. Bechtel Plant Machinery Inc. / 1.2
<1.2> / 7 / T / Change “Military/Space” to “Military Aviation/Space” all places within the document. / Most class 3 product is military but the Class 3/A requirements were intended to cover space product or military avation. The product class identifies that the equipment must survice vibration and thermal cycle environments This applies to lass 3 as well as 3/A. By changing the title of the class designation we clearly establish that we are only discussing aviation and NASA product. / Accept Mod
IPC Fall – 10/17/2013
GL (Les) Bogert. Bechtel Plant Machinery Inc. / 1.31 / 8 / T / Add the following after the last paragraph:
“Appendix A through E do not apply to performance Class 1, 2 or 3 unless specifically required in the contract; see 1.8”. / Required to clarify, that regradless of the class, none of the Appindices are mandatory unless specified in the contract. / Withdrawn
IPC Fall – 10/17/2013
David Gillies, Data cable Co, Inc. / 1.3.1
< N/A > / 9 / T / Remove references to inspection/analysis/prcoess / This is a design specification, not an acceptance standard. Defect Items identified that are not covered in the A-620 should be listed for addition at the next revision, and removed from this standard / Reject – OBE
Section was removed
Garry Mcguire & Jim Blanche,
NASA MSFC / 1.3.1
< N/A > / 10 / T / Delete / This is standards stuff, not design requirements. Covered by A-620 sufficiently.
The second paragraph has value, but not here. Maybe work it into 1.7. / Reject-OBE
Garry Mcguire & Jim Blanche,
NASA MSFC / 1.3.2
< N/A > / 11 / T / Delete / This is standards stuff, not design requirements. Covered by A-620 sufficiently. / OBE
Section was removed in rewrite
David Gillies, Data cable Co, Inc. / 1.4.1
< N/A > / 12 / T / Remove references to inspection/analysis/process / This is a design specification, not an acceptance standard. Defect Items identified that are not covered in the A-620 should be listed for addition at the next revision, and removed from this standard / OBE
Section was removed in rewrite
Jenny Wagner, Ducommun LaBarge Technologies / 1.4.1
< N/A > / 13 / T / Delete Paragraph / Not applicable to this document. / OBE
Section was removed in rewrite
Garry Mcguire & Jim Blanche,
NASA MSFC / 1.4.1
< N/A > / 14 / T / Reword from: Actual measurement of specific part mounting and solder fillet dimensions and determination of percentages are not required except for referee purposes. For the purposes of determining conformance to this specification, all specified limits in this standard are absolute limits as defined in ASTM E29.
To: Actual measurement of specific part mounting and solder fillet dimensions and determination of percentages are not required except for referee purposes. When specific dimensions are provided on engineering drawings, e.g., maximum component height, they shall be verified. For the purposes of determining conformance to this specification, all specified limits in this standard are absolute limits as defined in ASTM E29. / The statement as it is now, is fine for an assembly standard, but designers might put other dimensions on an assembly drawing that are critical.
There is an argument to delete this as it is covered by A-620, but it can add value if it is reworded to not imply that it is specific to the dimensions provided by A-620. / OBE
Section was removed in rewrite
Jenny Wagner, Ducommun LaBarge Technologies / 1.5
<1.5> / 15 / T / Was:
The design engineer is responsible for ensuring that all applicable design details are clearly and completely depicted on the engineering documentation (drawings). The USER (customer) has the responsibility to specify acceptance criteria.
Should be:
The design engineer is responsible for ensuring that all applicable design details are clearly and completely depicted on the engineering documentation (drawings). The USER (customer) has the responsibility to specify product acceptance criteria. / As stated in 1.3.1 the supplier has the responsibility for processes but the User has the responsibility to specify additional PRODUCT acceptance criteria. / A/M
GL (Les) Bogert. Bechtel Plant Machinery Inc. / 1.6 / 16 / T / Add the space addendum to the paragraph. / The space addendum is applicable. / Withdrawn
See Comment 123
IPC Fall – 10/17/2013
Jenny Wagner, Ducommun LaBarge Technologies / 1.6
<1.7> / 17 / T / Was:
The contract always takes precedence over this document, referenced standards and drawings.
Should Be:
The contract always takes precedence over this document, referenced standards and drawings.
When specifications are identified on drawings, the order of which the specifications are identified on the drawing take precedence.
Example: Drawing Note 1 says to build IAW J-STD-001. Drawing Note 2 says to build IAW IPC/WHMA-A-620. Should there be conflicting criteria between the two specifications; the criteria defined in J-STD-001 will take precedence over IPC/WHMA-A-620 since J-STD-001 was identified as a requirement first. / I think it would be good to have a clear understanding of how conflicting specifications / order of precedence should be handled when identified within engineering documentation. / Reject – Notes on drawings traditionally are not listed in precedence.
Jenny Wagner, Ducommun LaBarge Technologies / 1.7
<1.9> / 18 / T / Was:
Special requirements may exist which are not covered by, or do not comply with, the visual examples depicted in this handbook, and which are in conflict with program-specific documents, and/or the program-specified workmanship requirements. Engineering documentation shall [N1D2D3] contain the details for such instances, and shall [N1D2D3] take precedence over appropriate sections of this handbook and the applicable requirements document(s).
Should be:
Special requirements may exist which are not covered by, or do not comply with, the visual examples depicted in this handbook, and which are in conflict with program-specific documents, and/or the program-specified workmanship requirements. Engineering documentation shall [N1D2D3] contain the details for such instances, and shall [N1D2D3] take precedence over appropriate sections of this handbookspecification and the applicable requirements document(s). / This is not the handbook / Deferred – action item
les
1.9 in D-620-2
1.13.2 – j001
Garry Mcguire & Jim Blanche,
NASA MSFC / 1.7
<1.9> / 19 / T / Rename Departures From Standards And Requirements and reword from: Special requirements may exist which are not covered by, or do not comply with, the visual examples depicted in this handbook, and which are in conflict with program-specific documents, and/or the program-specified workmanship requirements. Engineering documentation shall [N1D2D3] contain the details for such instances, and shall [N1D2D3] take precedence over appropriate sections of this handbook and the applicable requirements document(s).
To: Special conditions, e.g., unique processes or a new component type, may arise that are not covered in IPC/WHMA-A-620. It is the designer’s responsibility to define additional or unique processes and criteria on engineering documentation. / Since approved drawings take precedence, Approval is not needed in the title and the requirement needs to be that the designer put those special requirements on drawings or other engineering documentation. / Obe – action item to les
David Gillies, Data cable Co, Inc. / 1.8
<N/A> / 20 / T / Remove references to inspection/analysis/prcoess / This is a design specification, not an acceptance standard. Defect Items identified that are not covered in the A-620 should be listed for addition at the next revision, and removed from this standard / OBE – move to handbook
Jenny Wagner, Ducommun LaBarge Technologies / 1.8.1
<N/A> / 21 / T / Was:
Modification changes the functional capability of the affected hardware. Modifications require written approval from USER and shall [N1D2D3] be fully detailed in the engineering documentation. The modification of a cable or wire harness assembly shall [N1D2D3] be limited to the revision / rerouting of circuit interconnections by the interrupting of conductors, the addition and deletion of conductors, correction of pin-out errors, correction of keying errors, addition of staking, and the addition or deletion of components in the cable or wire harness assembly (i.e.: a connector, addition / removal of contacts, etc.).
The maximum number of modifications shall not [N1D2D3] exceed six (6) per electrical wiring harness or cable assembly.
Should be:
Modification changes the functional capability of the affected hardware. Modifications require written approval from USER and shall [N1D2D3] be fully detailed in the engineering documentation. The modification of a cable or wire harness assembly shall [N1D2D3]should be limited to the revision / rerouting of circuit interconnections by the interrupting of conductors, the addition and deletion of conductors, correction of pin-out errors, correction of keying errors, addition of staking, and the addition or deletion of components in the cable or wire harness assembly (i.e.: a connector, addition / removal of contacts, etc.).
The maximum number of modifications shall not [N1D2D3]should not exceed six (6) per electrical wiring harness or cable assembly. / The modification will require customer approval so I see no need in making a Shall statement on what can be approved by the customer. These statements should only be treated as a recommendation or guideline. / OBE – section deleted possible handbook
Jenny Wagner, Ducommun LaBarge Technologies / 1.8.3
<N/A> / 22 / T / Was:
Solder Thermal Cycles. The maximum number of solder repairs to any one joint shall not [N1D2D3] exceed three (3) complete cycles (desolder and resolder).
The maximum number of repairs shall not [N1D2D3] exceed three (3) per electrical wiring harness or cable assembly.
Should be:
Solder Thermal Cycles. The maximum number of solder repairs to any one joint shall not [N1D2D3]should not exceed three (3) complete cycles (desolder and resolder).
The maximum number of repairs shall not [N1D2D3]should not exceed three (3) per electrical wiring harness or cable assembly. / The repair will require customer approval so I see no need in making a Shall statement on what can be approved by the customer. These statements should only be treated as a recommendation or guideline. / OBE – moved to handbook
GL (Les) Bogert. Bechtel Plant Machinery Inc. / 1.9
<1.9> / 23 / E / Change User to USER. Do a word search and make the changes to any place eles needed. / The word USER is in caps in some paragraphs. We need to have consistent use throughout the document. / Accept Chair
08/28/13
Jenny Wagner, Ducommun LaBarge Technologies / 2.1
<2.1> / 24 / T / All Revisions of Specifications should be removed implying that the latest revision of each specification would be applicable / This specification should not be controlling referenced specification applicability of revision. / accepted
Jenny Wagner, Ducommun LaBarge Technologies / 2.1
<2.1> / 25 / T / IPC?WHMA-A-620 should be added as a reference specification in addition to the currently specified IPC/WHMA-A-620AS / The addendum should not be the only document referenced. / accepted
GL (Les) Bogert. Bechtel Plant Machinery Inc. / 2.2
<2.2> / 26 / E / Add J-STD-001 and IPC-OI-645. Also add the GEIA standards listed in Appendix A. / Editorial / Accept Chair
08/28/13
Garry Mcguire & Jim Blanche,
NASA MSFC / 3
<3> / 27 / T / Change “Supplier” in the 1st sentence to “Designer”. / This is a design standard placing requirements on the designer. The proposed change clarifies the responsibility. / OBE – changed in 1.0
Ms. B.J Franco, Honeywell Aerospace – South Bend, IN. / 3.1.c
<3.1.c> / 28 / T / Suggested addition:
c. REACH, RoHS requirements / The designer must consider global requirements. Mentioning them here may prompt reflection. / a/m
GL (Les) Bogert. Bechtel Plant Machinery Inc. / 3.1.1
<3.1.1> / 29 / E / Change “need to” to “shall”. / Editorial / Accept-mod
Chair 08/28/13
Garry Mcguire & Jim Blanche,
NASA MSFC / 6.1
<3.1.1.1> / 30 / T / From: The reliability design requirements shall [N1D2D3] assure that the overall reliability requirements are met under the most severe extremes of acceptance testing, storage, transportation, testing, and operational environments.
To: The design shall [N1D2D3] assure that the overall reliability requirements are met under the most severe extremes of acceptance testing, storage, transportation, testing, and operational environments. / It is the design and not the reliability requirements that will assure that the overall reliability requirements are met. / Accept
IPC Fall – 10/17/2013
Garry Mcguire & Jim Blanche,
NASA MSFC / 6.5
<3.1.1.3> / 31 / T / Change the second sentence from: Conductors connecting contacts within the same connector shall [N1D2D3] extend 25-50 mm [1-2 in.] from the rear of the connector.
To: Conductors connecting contacts within the same connector shall [N1D2D3] extend far enough back to be captured under the cable clamp. / 1 to 2 inches can be excessive for small connectors or not enough for larger ones. / Accept / mod. 31, 32, 33
IPC Fall – 10/17/2013
Garry Mcguire & Jim Blanche,
NASA MSFC / 6.5
<3.1.1.3.a> / 32 / T / Change the first “shall” to a “should”. / There are many applications where even a Class 3 cable is more concerned with overall system weight than repair/rework. With hundreds of cables at anywhere from $1,500 to $10,000 per pound to orbit the extra length can be a consideration.
GL (Les) Bogert. Bechtel Plant Machinery Inc. / 3.1.1.3.a / 33 / T / Revise first sentence as follows:
“-----at least one (1) time, at both ends of the wire.” / Wires in a bundle may have terminations at both ends that may require replacement. It may not be possible to obtain the slack at one end if the other end is fixed therefore there should be sufficient slack at either end of the wire to make one repair at either end.
Garry Mcguire & Jim Blanche,
NASA MSFC / 6.6.b
<3.1.1.3.b> / 34 / T / Delete or change to a “should”. / The system design may preclude meeting this requirement. / Accept / mod
IPC Fall – 10/17/2013
GL (Les) Bogert. Bechtel Plant Machinery Inc. / 3.1.1.3.c / 35 / T / Change the “shall” to a “should” / Many connectors currently used for Class 3 are threaded type and not the quick disconnect type. We should not mandate a specific type of connector in the design. / OBE - rewrite
IPC Fall – 10/17/2013
Garry Mcguire & Jim Blanche,
NASA MSFC / 6.6.e & f
<3.1.1.3.e>
<3.1.1.3.f> / 36 / T / Delete / Redundant to 6.6.c. / Deferred
IPC Fall – 10/17/2013
Deleted
Garry Mcguire & Jim Blanche,
NASA MSFC / 6.6.g
<3.1.1.3.g> / 37 / T / Delete / This is not a cable design issue. The “shalls” in this paragraph apply to the designers of the electrical systems and subsystems – out of scope for D-620. / Deferred
IPC Fall – 10/17/2013
Deleted
GL (Les) Bogert. Bechtel Plant Machinery Inc. / 3.1.1.3.h / 38 / T / Delete this item. / This standard covers the design of cable and wire harnesses, not the boxes or systems they are installed in. The way the current paragraph is structured, one could interpret that if I have a simple wire harness with a connector at each end, then I need a test pint at each connector or otherwise located in the next higherassembly. Normally, for Class 3 product, no separate test points are located on the harness itself. / Deferred
IPC Fall – 10/17/2013
Deleted
Garry Mcguire & Jim Blanche,
NASA MSFC / 6.7
<3.1.1.4> / 39 / T / Almost all of the “shalls” should be “shoulds”. / This is good guidance but in many cases the cables must go where they must go and alternate routes are not available or practical. / Accept mod.
IPC Fall – 10/17/2013
GL (Les) Bogert. Bechtel Plant Machinery Inc. / 3.1.1.4.c / 40 / T / Change “Flat and ribbon cables” to “Cables”. / No type of cableshould impactair flow; round cables could impact air flow also. / Accept mod.
IPC Fall – 10/17/2013
Garry Mcguire & Jim Blanche,
NASA MSFC / 6.7.e
<3.1.1.4.e> / 41 / T / Conflicts with 6.5 which says enough slack for one re-termination. However, the MSFC comment to 6.5 to change this to a should applies here as well. / Accept mod
IPC Fall – 10/17/2013
GL (Les) Bogert. Bechtel Plant Machinery Inc. / 3.1.1.4.i(6) / 42 / T / Add the following to the end of the sentence:
“, unless otherwise required as an interface to other equipment/enclosures.” / We have cabinets that have wires routed through openings in the cabinets that must connect to other cabinets after the cabinets are installed. / Accept mod
IPC Fall – 10/17/2013
Garry Mcguire & Jim Blanche,
NASA MSFC / 6.3
<3.1.1.6> / 43 / T / Where did one year come from? Is this for warranty purposes? And where in the design documentation is it to be specified? / Does the cable and harness designer always know the service life of the system for which it has been designed? / Accept mod
IPC Fall – 10/17/2013
The 1 yr life was moved to Appendix A
GL (Les) Bogert. Bechtel Plant Machinery Inc. / 3.1.3.c / 44 / T / Delete this item or change shall to should. / As a Class 3 user, we have OEMs that may have cable or harness assemblies in their shop longer than 6 months awaiting installation into a cabinet prior to shipment.