Issue 51

A. Falk et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 51 (2020) 541-551; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.51.41 549 strained that in the case of “Loading case 2”. These facts show clearly the influence of housing and cover geometries on the strain distribution. These distributions must be also correlated with the bumps arrangement shown in Fig. 3. These aspects can have a strong influence on the damage and the failure of the PCB components. The analysis of the strain distribution near the connection between the PCB and the components shows that these connections are subject to the important strains. This must be avoided, in order to prevent the components disbonding. The different segments indicated in Fig. 10 were used as the optical gauges to calculate the local maximum principal strain. The gauge positions are the same as the segments draw to interrogate the finite element analysis results. The idea is to compare the finite element analysis with the experimental measures by DIC using the same paths. A comparison between the experimental values obtained as a mean from the two tests (“test 1” and “test 2”) and the numerical results (obtained for the properties of FR4 from Ansys database) are plotted in Fig. 11. According to Fig. 8 and Fig. 11 could be observed that the DIC maximum principal strain results are in the same range with the results from the finite element analysis. This comparison shows a very good agreement between experimental and numerical results of maximum principal strain. The observed errors may be related to differences between boundary conditions implemented in the finite element analysis and real loading conditions from experiments. Figure 11 : Maximum principal strain comparison between DIC (mean values for the 2 tests) and FEA results The allowable strain limit of 700 microstrains is exceeded for both evaluation approaches on the path D1-D2. To conclude, the procedure based on DIC measurements allow an accurate measurement of strains on PCB’s, having the advantage of full field and minimum surface preparation. However, the numerical simulation results are easy to be obtained, but the results should be experimentally validated. In current practice, the experimental validation is carried on based on strain gauge measurement [8, 9, 34]. The methodology 250 270 290 310 330 350 370 390 410 430 450 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Strain [microstrain] Lenght [mm] A1A2 DIC Mean Loading case 1 DIC Mean Loading case 2 Simulation Mean Loading case 1 Simulation Mean Loading case 2 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Strain [microstrain] Lenght [mm] B1B2 DIC Mean Loading case 1 DIC Mean Loading case 2 Simulation Mean Loading case 1 Simulation Mean Loading case 2 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Strain [microstrain] Lenght [mm] C1C2 DIC Mean Loading case 1 DIC Mean Loading case 2 Simulation Mean Loading case 1 Simulation Mean Loading case 2 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Strain [microstrain] Lenght [mm] D1D2 DIC Mean Loading case 1 DIC Mean Loading case 2 Simulation Mean Loading case 1 Simulation Mean Loading case 2