Issue 15

BL fict R E rein bui wa effe pro ver Fig BL Set app per adv Fiv BL T CBT through itious times-t SULTS AND he resul average perform forcement in lt with glass s used for the ct, regarding nounced, ap sion of desig ure 8 : Results CBT with tw -Up 1 and B lication of th centage, the antage regar e more spec DT results w the averag o-failure bas D ISCUSSIO ts of the perf of nine m ances for the the surface fibre reinfor IL3 layers, the reinfor parently due n 1, resulting of the BLDT Figure 9 : B o different s LCBT Set-U e lower defle differences ding the mea imens were ere compare e number of ed on the nu N ormed BLDT easurements six tested bu layers. While ced IL3 layer resulting in a cement of th to the differ in a BLDT p performed on LCBT results et-ups were p 2 are pres ction amplit between the surement sca tested with s d with the B P. F. Fuchs et drops of al mber of drop are present respectively ild-ups. The design 1, ha s, performed worse BLDT e IL3 layers ent material erformance six PCB desig showing the am the standar performed o ented in Fig ude, resulted tested design tter, the faste et-up 1 to b LCBT result alii, Frattura ed l PCB build s until failure ed in Fig. 8 i . The resul large gap be ving unreinf worst of all performanc , could be o manufacture in the range o ns. Additiona plitude depe d deviations a n three speci . 9 in terms in significant s were very r set-up 1 wa e able to per s of set-up 1 Integrità Struttu -ups in the B of the BLD n terms of d ts show the tween design orced outer l designs. In e compared bserved as s. Design 6 f design 3. l to the averag ndence. Addit re indicated. mens for eve of cycles unt longer times similar for s chosen for form a statis . The numbe rale, 15 (2011) LDT. This T. rops until fai desired w s 1 and 2 res ayers (IL3), p design 3 a di to design 1. for designs 1 was a low d e values the st ional to the av ry design. T il failure. As until failure the set-ups. further tests tic evaluatio r of cycles un 64-73; DOI : 10 factor was u lure. The pill ide range o ults from the erformed ve fferent neat For designs 4 and 2. The ielectric cons andard deviati erage values he average re expected, se . Nevertheles As set-up 2 . n of the dat til failure in .3221/IGF-ESIS. sed to calcu ars represent f board BL influence of ry well, desig epoxy resin and 5 the s effect was tant epoxy r ons are indicat sults of BLC t-up 2, with s, if expresse did not have a. In Fig. 10 the BLCBT 15.07 69 late the DT the n 2, type ame less esin ed. BT the d in an the was