Issue 15

sec the Th the obs (Fig bot and des A s Th to per all S U (BL PC Th the fail T tional areas o image) with e failures cor BLDT (Fig. erved. The s . 12 a) is co h test metho not in the ign 1 and 2, w tatistical com ab y  e parameters failure of the formance tre examined des PCB Design Weibull Para BLDT BLCBT Table 2 : T MMARY AN he JESD of PCB reprodu CBT) was e Bs. e two metho refore the BL ure analysis f the two-sid the mounte respond to ty 11a) is comp older ball wa mpared to th ds, but differ solder ball. T hich further parison of th b ax b e x   1 a, the scale p BLDT are nd in the BL igns. In Fig. meter a 240 200 wo-paramete Figure designs D CONCLUS 22-B111 bo s under imp cibility and s valuated. In ds were com CBT may b showing that ed cut spher d componen pical failure ared to the f s cracked clo e failure of ent from the hus, it could supports th e BLDT and arameter, an fictive values DT Weibull 13 t he differ 1 b .4 2.4 .4 3.7 r Weibull distr 13 : The graphi 1 and 2. The r ION ard level drop act loads. A low test thro this method pared and e used to es the design 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.99 Probability P. F. Fuchs et e represent th t (at the top patterns men ailure of desi se to the mo design 2 in t design 1 loc be shown t e correlation BLCBT res d b, the shap and were ca analysis is m ence between 2 a b 27.4 2.7 33.9 2.1 ibutions for al cal representat esults of both test (BLDT s the rathe ughputs, an a , instead of evaluated fo timate the BL dependent fa 10 1 5 5 5 5 5 BLCBT BLDT alii, Frattura ed e solder ball of the image tioned in lite gn 1 in the B unted comp he BLCBT ( ation. Failur hat both me of the metho ults was base e parameter, lculated as d atched to the the Weibull 3 a b 147.4 2 159.2 2 l tested PCB d ion of the two methods, the B ) is the curre r complex t lternative te repeated dro r six differen DT perform ilure modes time to failur PCB 1 Integrità Struttu connecting ). The detec rature e.g. [4 LCBT (Fig. 1 onents. In F Fig. 12b). Ag e occurred in thods led to ds. d on the Wei are given fo escribed in E performanc distribution 4 a .4 104.8 .4 165.6 esigns are com -parameter W LDT and the nt state of th est set-up im st method wa ps, a contro t PCB desig ance. This c were indepe 10 2 e t, s PCB rale, 15 (2011) the printed c ted failures a , 9-12] . In Fig 1 b). A matc ig. 12 the fail ain, the failu the copper i the same fai bull distribut r all analyzed xperimental m e trend in the for designs 1 b a 3.6 86.6 2.3 90.0 pared for the eibull distribu BLCBT are p e art to evalu plicates som s analyzed. A lled cyclic di ns. The res onclusion w ndent of the 2 64-73; DOI : 10 ircuit board ( re indicated . 11 the failu hing failure l ure of design re location w nterconnecti lure modes f ion [13]. designs in T ethod compari BLCBT We and 2 is show 5 b 1.5 1 1.9 1 BLDT and th tions for resented. ate the reliab e drawback board leve splacement i ults correlate as supported test method .3221/IGF-ESIS. at the bottom by black arro re of design ocation could 2 in the BL as the same ons in the bo or the exami (1) ab. 2. The ti son chapter. ibull analysis n graphicall 6 a b 43.3 2.8 97.3 2.3 e BLCBT. ility and lifet s such as p l cyclic bend s applied on d very well by a perform . Additionall 15.07 71 of ws. 1 in be DT for ard ned mes The for y. ime oor test the and ed y, a