You are on page 1of 19

SAND2014-1768C

Predicting Fatigue Failure of a Circuit Board in Random Vibration:
The Reference Model

Troy Savoie, Vit Babuška
Sandia National Laboratories*
Albuquerque, NM 87185

ABSTRACT
Energy-based fatigue damage metrics, well established in the earthquake engineering
community, are gaining traction in the aerospace and defense communities for assessing damage
to mechanical components in random vibration loading. To gain an understanding of how such
metrics perform, a reference failure model based on Miner’s rule was developed and used to
characterize the fatigue endurance of a printed circuit board that had four independent signal
generating circuits. Sinusoidal testing was not feasible so sixteen copies of a printed circuit
board were subjected to prescribed combinations of random vibration input profiles with high or
low energy content parsed into five frequency bands covering each of the dominant resonant
modes of the board below 2000 Hz. Each circuit board was energized and its output signals
measured during vibration testing to determine the time of failure for each circuit. Key locations
on each board were instrumented with accelerometers and strain gages to provide data required
to fit both energy-based and reference failure models. The challenge was to develop S-N curves
from broadband random vibration data measured during tests to failure for later use to predict or
bound time to failure. Reasonable Root Mean Square (RMS) stress S-N curves were obtained
for two of the four circuits. The responses were dominated by low frequency modes and the
responses to the input profiles were characteristic of a single degree-of-freedom system.

I. INTRODUCTION
Energy-based failure prediction methods, well established in the earthquake engineering
community, are gaining traction in the aerospace and defense communities for assessing damage
to mechanical components in random vibration loading. These methods use various
combinations of energy as calculated from an equivalent modal model of the component to
predict structural failure in an environment of interest [1]-[7]. The requirements for using these
methods are that the structure is linear, or only mildly nonlinear, and that its fixed-base modal
properties and the base input in the environment of interest are known. One key advantage of
energy-based methods is that once a failure model is built, the severity of different, arbitrary
input profiles can be readily evaluated for a wide range of purposes including as a hedge against
uncertainty in the environmental requirements.

The work described in this paper is part of an on-going project to study energy-based intensity
metrics for predicting failure of components in shock and vibration environments. One objective
of the project is to assess the prediction efficiency of energy-based fatigue failure models with
respect to a traditional fatigue failure model. To that end, a reference failure model based on
Miner’s method [8] was developed using operational failure criteria and demonstrated on a
printed circuit board subjected to random vibration.

*Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security
Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.

A printed circuit board (PCB) is the component of interest in this study. For these reasons. phenomenological models based on specific types of failures (e. or of traces in the PCB itself.g.. crack initiation) are not feasible and cumulative damage models are the most appropriate candidates for a benchmark method. an S-N curve. Two circuits generate sinusoidal signals and two generate square wave signals (Figure 2). S-N curves can be found in handbooks for specific materials and test conditions. we are not aware of published S-N curves that apply specifically to our test article subjected to random vibration loading with arbitrary spectral content. Failure is defined as failure of a circuit. random vibration tests . In addition. non-parametric method with a long heritage. however. Preliminary experiments on the PCB indicated that very long duration exposures were necessary. Connector Circuit 4 Circuit 1 Circuit 2 Circuit 3 Figure 1: PCB and the locations of the 4 circuits. Because of the complexity of the PCB and practical constraints on the scope of the project. also called a stress-life model is required. based on the assumption that every structural component has a specific fatigue life and every stress cycle uses up a portion of that fatigue life. which is likely caused by a structural failure of a component on the PCB. To use Miner’s Method. Therefore.Miner’s method is a relatively simple. rather than a material coupon. pg. no attempt is made to identify the specific structural failure associated with a circuit failure. It is similar to the energy method that is the focus of the project because it assumes fatigue damage is proportional to the work absorbed by the structure [8]. Usually stress-life models are generated from a series of experiments in which a specimen is subjected to single frequency sinusoidal loading. Miner’s method is specified in almost every design code because of its simplicity and because the engineering community has not found anything consistently better ([9]. 271). The PCB has four signal generator circuits (Figure 1). only a small number of PCBs was available and tests had to provide data for both the reference method and the energy-based failure models.

II. Conclusions are presented in Section VI. stress-life models are discussed in Section III. Section IV describes the vibration test and Section V discusses the results. 𝑛𝑗 = number of cycles experienced by the structure at stress 𝑆𝑗 .were used exclusively. (a) Circuit 1 (b) Circuit 2 (c) Circuit 3 (d) Circuit 4 Figure 2: Output voltage signals from the 4 PCB circuits. Fractional damage is accumulated as: 𝑀 𝑛𝑗 𝐷=� (1) 𝑁𝑗 𝑗=1 where 𝐷 = fraction of consumed fatigue life. MINER’S METHOD Miner’s method assumes fatigue damage is accumulated linearly and is proportional to energy absorbed by the structure. Defining fatigue damage properties from wideband random vibration data was a key challenge in the project. . with a discussion of random vibration stress- life models and techniques to estimate stress-model parameters from random vibration data. Next. Section II provides an overview of Miner’s method. This paper describes the traditional fatigue failure modeling approach and the results of the random vibration experiments on the PCB.

Figure 3 (b) shows the output signal of Circuit 1 in the reference segment and the first failed segment. it may over predict the fatigue life of a part that experiences the majority of large stress cycles early. In this study. the circuit output is qualitatively similar to the signal in the reference segment suggesting that the circuit has not yet failed catastrophically. Some assumptions underlying Miner’s method are: a. A part will be more likely to fail earlier in this type of environment than one that experiences a random distribution of stress cycles. the red dots are segments in which Circuit 1 has failed. failure is predicted to occur when 𝐷 = 1. This design practice is used because Miner’s method is not consistently conservative since it does not use any parameters of the environment and failure modes explicitly. c. since Miner’s method does not account for the order of applied stress. In theory. (a) Circuit 1 Normalized Amplitude (b) Circuit 1 Output Signal in Reference Variation Time History Segment and First Failed Segment Figure 3: Failure of PCB Circuit 1. Eq. The second segment is the healthy circuit reference segment. Figure 3 illustrates the criterion for Circuit 1. . 410). For example.3 for critical life-cycle electronic systems like those on man-rated space vehicles and 𝐷 = 0. 𝑁𝑗 = number of cycles to failure at stress 𝑆𝑗 determined from S-N curves. The amount of damage from a cycle only depends on the number of cycles to failure at the applied load amplitude for that cycle. In Figure 3 (a) the green dots are segments where the peak amplitude is within 1% of the reference segment peak amplitude.7 for typical electronic structures ([10]. The per circuit failure criterion is that the peak response in three consecutive segments deviates from the peak response in the reference segment by more than 1%. standard design practice uses 𝐷 < 1. Even in the failed segment. the circuit failure criterion is based on the output signal of each circuit on the PCB. b. For example. The amount of damage from a load cycle is independent of the total life consumed prior to application of the load cycle or the magnitude of previous loading. however. the blue dots are segments in which the peak amplitude exceeds the 1% threshold but they are not consecutive. 𝐷 = 0. pg. (1) is failure definition specific. The circuit output signal time history is divided into 20 sec segments.

0E+05 1. As a result.0E+08 Cycles to Failure..0E+03 1. and 𝐴1⁄𝑏 is the single cycle ultimate strength. (2) is used in this project because the structural failure leading to circuit failure is thought to be a crack in a circuit trace in the PCB or .0E+01 1. Both 𝑏and 𝐴 are empirically derived constants.0E+04 1.e. 10 Failure Stress. This relationship is expressed as an S-N curve. The power law model in Eq. The fatigue strength relationship in the form of Eq. whereas 𝑁 and 𝑆 are measured during test. A simplifying assumption in fatigue analysis is that fatigue strength obeys a power law relationship: 𝑁𝑆 𝑏 = 𝐴 (2) where 𝑁 is the number of cycles to failure.0E+07 1. Usually 𝑆 is a constant uniaxial maximum stress (i. (2) originated from fatigue tests on metals. S-N data are generated from sine-dwell tests. −1⁄𝑏 is the slope of the S-N line in log-log space). an example of which is shown in Figure 4.0E+00 1.0E+02 1.e. independent of load cycle). III. STRESS-LIFE MODELS The key to using Miner’s method is knowing the number of cycles to failure. at a particular stress level.. 𝑏 is the fatigue strength coefficient (i. 𝑆𝑗 . 𝑆 is the peak cyclical stress. It is sometimes referred to as Basquin’s equation and is based on observations that fatigue life is a function of strain range and that fatigue failure is fundamentally due to microscopic cracks initiated at stress concentration features that eventually reach a critical size and affect the structural properties of the material (from loss of stiffness to fracture). 𝑁𝑗 . N Figure 4: Notional S-N curve. S (MPa) 1 1.0E+06 1.

Eq. This is a linear equation from which 𝐴̂ 𝑏 and 𝑏 can be readily obtained by least squares estimation.(1): ∞ 𝑛(𝑆) 𝐷=� 𝑑𝑆 (5) 0 𝑁(𝑆) Let 𝑛(𝑆) = 𝑁𝑇 𝑓(𝑆) where 𝑓(𝑆) is the probability density function (PDF) of the stress range and 𝑁(𝑆) is the number cycles to failure at stress 𝜎. Substitution of Eq. and 𝐴̂ = 1� log10 𝐴. for 𝑁(𝑆) into Eq.a crack in an electrical component. and 𝑁𝑇 is the total number of cycles to failure at a given RMS stress level. both of which are metal material failures. 𝑆̂ = log10 𝑆. (5) gives: 𝑁𝑇 ∞ 𝑏 𝐷= � 𝑆 𝑓(𝑆)𝑑𝑆 (6) 𝐴 0 The integral term in Eq. Eq. Happily. (2). (1) yields an expression for the fractional damage in terms of stress amplitude and number of stress cycles: 𝑀 1 𝐷 = � 𝑛𝑗 𝑆𝑗𝑏 (4) 𝐴 𝑗=1 In this project. and is often written as: 1 𝑆̂ = 𝐴̂ − 𝑁� (3) 𝑏 where 𝑁 � = log10 𝑁. (2) into Eq. the in-service environment is random excitation and a fatigue damage relationship must be derived from random vibration tests rather than sine dwell tests. as shown in Figure 4. Substituting the power law relationship. (6) is the order 𝑏 moment of the stress range distribution: ∞ 𝐸[𝑆 𝑏 ] = � 𝑆 𝑏 𝑓(𝑆)𝑑𝑆 (7) 0 For 𝐷 = 1. (6) becomes 𝑁𝑇 𝐸[𝑆 𝑏 ] = A (8) . Consider the continuous form of Eq. (2) is a linear function in log-log space. and these stresses are randomly distributed over the duration of the test. so it is applicable. Under random excitation. Eq. a structure experiences a range of stress amplitudes rather than just one. Miner’s method assumes that damage accumulation is independent of the order in which loads are applied.

𝑏 > 0 (11) The equivalent peak stress 𝑆𝑒 is: 1 𝑏 𝑏 (12) 𝑆𝑒 = �√2𝜎� �Γ �1 + �� 2 Substitution of 𝐸[𝑆 𝑏 ] from Eq. (11) into Eq. a variation of this approach is to ignore cycles in a hysteresis band (i. the 𝜎 − 𝑁𝑇 line is parallel to but below the S-N line. The simplest method counts peak-to-peak cycles. is the same. The equivalent peak stress is: 𝑆𝑒 = (𝐸[𝑆 𝑏 ])1/𝑏 (9) If the response is narrowband the instantaneous stress has a Gaussian PDF. 𝑏.Note the similarity between Eqs. For �√2� Γ� +1� 2 𝑁 = 𝑁𝑇 . (8) gives a power law fatigue function i. (13) and (2) reveals that the slope. The rainflow method [11] [12]. (13) suggests a 𝜎 − 𝑁𝑇 fatigue damage relationship for broadband random excitation of the form: 𝑁𝑇 𝜎 𝑏 = 𝐶 (14) A Comparing Eqs. this will skew the cycle distribution statistics. a 𝜎 − 𝑁𝑇 curve. Equation (14) is the stress-life model used in this project. dead zone) around the mean response level. and the probability density function (PDF) of the stress range is a Rayleigh distribution: 2 𝑆 �−𝑆 � 𝑓(𝑆) = 2 𝑒 2𝜎2 (10) 𝜎 where 𝜎 is the stress standard deviation (RMS if the stress is zero mean). The stress is the RMS stress obtained from a strain gage on the PCB (discussed in the next section). and: 𝑏 𝑏 𝐸[𝑆 𝑏 ] = �√2𝜎� Γ �2 + 1�. and 𝐶 = 𝑏 𝑏 < 𝐴.e. Each defines a cycle differently. (2) and (8)... determining the . A variety of methods for counting the number of cycles 𝑁𝑇 in a response history have been proposed for fatigue life analyses [11].e. which counts closed stress/strain hysteresis loops is the industry standard for counting the number of stress cycles. Since large amplitude cycles cause the most damage. in terms of stress standard deviation and number of cycles to failure for narrow band random vibration: A 𝑁𝑇 𝜎 𝑏 = 𝑏 𝑏 (13) �√2� Γ �2 + 1� Eq. however.

The stress range is the peak-to-peak excursion of the cycle and mean stress is the midpoint of the cycle. very long data records (i.e. are determined empirically from measurements of 𝜎 and 𝑁𝑇 under broadband random excitation through least squares estimation as: 1 � 𝑏 � = [Ψ𝑇 Ψ]−1 Ψ𝑇 {𝜎�} (15) 𝐶̂ where 𝐶̂ = 1�𝑏 log10 𝐶.004 0. illustrated in Figure 5 was used.stress range and the mean stress for each cycle in a realization of a wide band random process.. The primary advantage of this definition is numerical. In this project. A cycle starts at an extremal point (i. -3 x 10 23 17 3 19 11 2 13 9 15 3 1 7 5 1 10 0 Strain 2 21 8 4 18 6 -1 Cycle Cycle 2 1 16 Cycle 12 -2 9 14 Cycle Cycle 5 6 Cycle 20 4 -3 Cycle Cycle Cycle 10 8 3 Cycle 7 -4 22 0 0. Through the use of peak and valley identification and clever indexing.01 Time (sec) Figure 5: Illustration of modified rainflow cycles. 𝜎�𝑙 = log10 𝜎𝑙 . 𝐶 and 𝑏. a modified rainflow cycle. > 10 M points) can be processed in seconds compared to hours with algorithms derived from Ref. [12]. 𝑁 �𝑇𝑙 = log10 𝑁𝑇𝑙 {𝜎�} = [𝜎�1 𝜎�2 … 𝜎�𝑙 ]𝑇 (16) and .008 0. The model parameters..002 0.e. The distribution of modified rainflow cycles is closer to Rayleigh for broadband excitation than a distribution of Downing [12] rainflow cycles.006 0. a green “+” trough symbols or a red “*” peak symbols) and stops at the next extremal point of the same type (trough or peak) that has a larger amplitude.

rather than a 𝜎 − 𝑁𝑇 curve.. IV. boards) have been tested to failure with random excitation and the stress amplitude distribution has been determined for each unit. The PCB and base were mounted on an Unholtz-Dickie T-2000 shaker (Figure 7) and excited in the vertical direction over a bandwidth of 40 Hz to 2000 Hz. the corner gage on several boards delaminated during the tests so only the center strain gage (Figure 8) was used in the study. THE VIBRATION TEST Sixteen nominally identical PCBs were subjected to random vibration imparted through an electrodynamic shaker. 𝑆2 . 𝑛2 . Unfortunately. The stress 𝑆𝑖 can be considered an equivalent peak sinusoidal stress. The number of cycles to failure at each stress level 𝑁1 .266. 𝑁2 . … 𝑛𝑀 . Discretize each stress peak distribution into at most 𝑀 bins. The board was attached to the base at two corners as shown in Figure 6.e. Average stress.. … 𝑁𝑀 is estimated with a constrained least squares optimization using Miner’s equation written in matrix form for all 𝑀 units: 1 2 min𝑁𝑖 �{𝐷} − [𝑛] �𝑁�� subject to 𝑁𝑖 > max𝑘=1…𝑀 𝑛𝑖𝑘 > 0 1. Two strain gages were mounted along the diagonal connecting the mounting points. 𝜐 = 0. 𝜎𝐴𝑉𝐺 . The accelerometer and strain gage output signals were sampled throughout the entire test at a rate of 8192 Hz. 𝐸 𝜀1 + 𝜀3 𝜎𝐴𝑉𝐺 = � � (19) 2 1−𝜐 was the quantity of interest. Assume 𝑀 units (i. … 𝑆𝑀 to obtain the total number of cycles 𝑛1 . One accelerometer was mounted to the connector and a second was attached at a free corner. . at each stress level. 2 where 1 𝐷 𝑛11 … 𝑛1𝑀 𝑁1 �⋮� = � ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ �� ⋮ � 1 𝐷 𝑛1𝑀 … 𝑛𝑀𝑀 (18) 𝑁𝑀 1 {𝐷} [𝑛] �𝑁 � This is not a trivial optimization problem because of the constraint. A quasi-isotropic Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio for the PCB were determined through static tests and were found to be: 𝐸 = 3. centered on 𝑆1 . Miner’s equation can be used to estimate the total number of cycles to failure at a given stress level to generate an equivalent S-N curve.795𝑥106 𝑝𝑠𝑖. � 𝑁 −1⎤ ⎡ 𝑇1 � −1⎥ Ψ = ⎢𝑁𝑇2 (17) ⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⎥ �𝑇𝑙 ⎣𝑁 −1⎦ When multiple random vibration tests to failure are available.

001 𝑔2 ⁄𝐻𝑧 over 20 to 2000 Hz. Input profiles were designed to excite the test board in these five frequency bands with prescribed combinations of high or low modal energy according to the design matrix. Accelerometers Connector Strain Gages Attachment Points Control Accelerometer Figure 7: Vibration test instrumentation. The board to board variation in modal properties is shown in the scatter plot of transmissibility peaks (Figure 9) measured by an accelerometer attached at a free corner of the PCB. which revealed four well-separated resonances with transmissibility peaks above 1 and a high-frequency band with many resonances having transmissibility peaks generally below 1. This design was chosen based on the board response to a flat random vibration input of 0. Figure 6: PCB attached to its fixture at two corners as tested. The high input level was 1 𝑔2 ⁄𝐻𝑧 and the low input level was . The divisions in Figure 9 correspond to the five divisions of the 2-level fractional factorial design matrix shown in Figure 10.

Each of the sixteen boards was exposed to its unique excitation profile for two hours and the failure times of each circuit were determined through post processing the output voltage time histories. 2-1 : ⊥ to diagonal 2-2 : center field 2-3 : ∥ to diagonal Figure 8: Strain gage location on the PCB. Figure 10 shows the PSD plots of three representative input profiles and the corresponding rows in the design matrix.1 40 80 110 300 700 2000 40 80 110 300 700 2000 Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Frequency (Hz) (a) example response (b) peaks for all boards Figure 9: Transmissibility peak distribution. sn13 10 A B C D E Control to Board.1 0.25 𝑔2 ⁄𝐻𝑧. In some cases. or 0. the circuit did not reach failure by the end of the two-hour vibration exposure. Those cases are called suspensions or right-censored data points and should be treated separately in the analysis.6dB below this. sn13 Transmissibility Peaks Transmissibility 1 1 0. 10 Control to Connector. . The term right-censored is used in recognition of time history plots that typically display the time axis as increasing from left-to-right along the abscissa and the assumption that failure would occur at an abscissa point to the right of the test suspension time.

The plus symbol (+) indicates high-level random vibration input in the frequency band and the minus symbol (–) indicates low-level input. . Design Matrix 16 Input Profiles Trial A B C D E 1 – – – – + 2 – – – + – 3 – – + – – 4 – – + + + 5 – + – – – 6 – + – + + 7 – + + – + 8 – + + + – 9 + – – – – 10 + – – + + 11 + – + – + 12 + – + + – 13 + + – – + 14 + + – + – 15 + + + – – 16 + + + + + Figure 10: Two-level fractional factorial design matrix with three example profiles.

however.1 0 2 3 10 10 Frequency (Hz) Figure 11: PCB average stress PSD from broadband excitation. Run10_SN017_DOE16 Gage 2 Average Stress PSD 1500 X: 168. The response is dominated by the 56 Hz mode.1 X: 40. taken over the 16 cases.04 X: 72. The range of average stresses calculated from the strain gage measurements is narrow.07 Y: 200. from 40 Hz to 2000 Hz. . The average stress. in which the input PSD was 1 𝑔2 ⁄𝐻𝑧 over the entire bandwidth. The response is dominated by the mode at 168 Hz. In nearly every case.26.2 Y: 219.e. The extracted stress-life model parameters in Eq. Table 1 summarizes the circuit failure times and the input and output RMS levels for each of the 16 cases.5 X: 152. Four of the input profiles did not cause any of circuits to fail during the 2 hour test. output) PSDs from Run 14 are shown in Figure 12.e. The low frequency modes are clearly observable but there is almost no participation by high frequency modes. is 151 psi with a coefficient of variation of 0. The input and average stress (i. V. (14) are shown in Table 2 for the case where the censored values (i. the response displayed narrow-band characteristics.. Nevertheless. RESULTS The results from the experiments were mixed.2 Power Spectral Density (psi /Hz) Y: 1283 2 1000 500 X: 96. Figure 11 shows the average stress Power Spectral Density (PSDs) from Run 10. circuits that survived the two-hour test) were omitted from the regression set and in Table 3 where the parameter estimates were made assuming that the circuits that survived failed at the end of the test.. the average stress cycle amplitude distribution is Rayleigh (Figure 13) suggesting a narrow band response. the 104 Hz and 184 Hz modes are quite participatory even though the input level in that band is 6 dB below the low and high frequency bands.1 Y: 242.09 Y: 347.

07 X: 184.2 Y: 111.05 Y: 190. Probability of Occurrence Stress Cycle Amplitude (psi) Figure 13: Average stress cycle amplitude distribution. 200 180 X: 56.6 160 Power Spectral Density (psi /Hz) 140 2 X: 104. .1 80 60 40 20 0 2 3 10 10 2 ASD (g /Hz) 2 1 0 2 3 10 10 Frequency (Hz) Figure 12: Average stress PSD and input ASD.1 120 Y: 107.5 Y: 111.8 100 X: 72. Run14 DOE Case 13.

49 16.16 162. This circuit is close to one of the attachment points and as such is in a high stress region.97 35. Figure 14 shows the S-N curves for both approaches to handling the censored data.67 239.94 No Failure 16.49 21.87 10. Model Parameter Circuit 1 Circuit 2 Circuit 3 Circuit 4 C 1.88 190.25 128.72 Table 2: Stress-life model parameters – censored data omitted.78 22. 5. Model Parameter Circuit 1 Circuit 2 Circuit 3 Circuit 4 C 1.18 Run08 DOE11 40.59 39.52 Run15 DOE05 22.98 182.64 90.270 --. --.75 No Failure Run05 DOE14 28.56 152. Input Avg.9 No Failure No Failure No Failure No Failure Run07 DOE07 25.99 53.89 Run06 DOE02 28.59x1018 8.12 152. Table 1: Circuit failure times.32 84. --.64 57.55 No Failure No Failure 84.70 No Failure 35. 8.31 56.90 25.14x1022 b 6.93 25.27 15.14 Failure No Failure 16.64 90.96 Failure Run02 DOE09 22.98 132.65 Run04 DOE04 43.66 106.33 50.92 120.32 79.65 74.86 32. 7.6 98.64 No Failure No Failure No Failure No Failure Run10 DOE16 44.316 --.03 Run14 DOE13 38.33 Run13 DOE12 30.42 180.35 161.54x1020 --.21 Failure 9.388 Circuit 1 failed in 12 of the 16 loading cases.93 121. .94 21. The coefficients of determination are greater than 0.49x1015 --.26 101. Stress Trial Circuit 1 Circuit 2 Circuit 3 Circuit 4 RMS (g) RMS (psi) Early Early Run01 DOE01 38.5 in both cases indicating a moderately strong linear relationship.573 Table 3: Stress-life model parameters – censored data included.22 No Failure No Failure No Failure No Failure Run03 DOE03 25.04 16.33 24.99 Run12 DOE06 42.19 66.429 4.41x1024 b 5.10 No Failure 118.30 36.06 90.67 Run09 DOE10 42.67 53.78 95.98 No Failure No Failure 49. 8.08 130.27 190.43 23.90 Run11 DOE15 26.90 No Failure No Failure No Failure No Failure Early Run16 DOE08 30.

NT (a) Circuit 1. the stress range is not very wide.503. However.59e+18 100K 1M 10M Total Cycles to Failure. σ 200 100 50 NTσb=A fit: b = 5.54e+20 100K 1M 10M Total Cycles to Failure. Censored Values Omitted from Regression σ -NT Curve Fit (R2=0. NT (b) Figure 14: Circuit 1 stress-life curves. valid values could not be derived. A = 1.015) 95% Confidence Interval 95% Prediction Interval 400 Failed (11 samples) Right Censored (4 samples) RMS Stress. A = 1.576.316. so the poor correlation between stress and cycles to failure was unexpected. σ 200 100 50 NTσb=A fit: b = 6. Circuit 2 failed in 9 of the 16 loading cases. . Censored Values Included as Failures in Regression σ -NT Curve Fit (R2=0. Circuit 2 has the largest areal footprint on the PCB and the strain gage is centered within its boundary. Circuit 1.429.001) 95% Confidence Interval 95% Prediction Interval 400 Failed (11 samples) Right Censored (4 samples) RMS Stress. p=0. p=0. The S-N curve is shown in Figure 15. Unless the censored data were included in the parameter estimation.

Circuit 4 failed in 11 of 16 loading cases. Circuit 2. although one was a “no-test” due to premature failure before the full excitation level was reached. so there were not enough data to estimate stress-life model parameters. NT Figure 15: Circuit 2 stress-life curve. they would reach a broader distribution in cycles to failure. Circuit 3 is located near a free corner of the PCB in a low stress area so it was not surprising that the circuit would be the most robust. The inclusion of the right-censored data. caused the confidence and prediction intervals to widen. It is reasonable to assume that if the exposure continued to failure for these five points. p=0. .299.49e+15 100K 1M 10M Total Cycles to Failure. which were closely spaced in cycles to failure but broadly distributed in RMS stress levels. It failed in only 7 of the 16 loading cases and Run 16 was a “no- test” because it failed prematurely before the input reached the full level. σ 200 100 50 NTσb=A fit: b = 4. Figure 16 shows the S-N curves for both approaches to handling the censored data. Censored Values Included as Failures in Regression σ -NT Curve Fit (R2=0. A = 8.270.028) 95% Confidence Interval 95% Prediction Interval 400 Failed (9 samples) Right Censored (7 samples) RMS Stress. a part of this circuit is close to one of the attachment points and as such is in a high stress region. Circuit 3 was the most robust. Like circuit 1.

which further supports the need for longer test times. σ 200 100 50 NTσb=A fit: b = 8. which are in high stress areas on the PCB failed most predictably. NT Circuit 4. The variability in the RMS stress levels was small and perhaps insufficient to estimate stress-life parameters for all four circuits. Circuits 1 and 4.41e+24 100K 1M 10M Total Cycles to Failure. A = 8.388. σ 200 100 50 NTσb=A fit: b = 7.573. Data from these two circuits was sufficient to estimate life-stress model parameters for predicting life expectancy in random vibration environments. p=0. CONCLUSIONS The results from the experiments were mixed.232. Circuit 4. p=0. NT Figure 16: Circuit 4 stress-life curves.069) 95% Confidence Interval 95% Prediction Interval 400 Failed (10 samples) Right Censored (5 samples) RMS Stress.013) 95% Confidence Interval 95% Prediction Interval 400 Failed (10 samples) Right Censored (5 samples) RMS Stress. The input levels were too low to fail any of the circuits in 4 of 16 input cases within the 2 hour time of the test. A = 5. Some circuits were more robust than expected. Censored Values Included as Failures in Regression σ -NT Curve Fit (R2=0. Censored Values Omitted from Regression σ -NT Curve Fit (R2=0.14e+22 100K 1M 10M Total Cycles to Failure. indicating that the tests need to be longer than 2 hours. .561. VI.

[11] ------. He earned a Ph. [3] Uang CM. 1988. 2nd Edition. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1990.D. January 1982. He has worked on various spaceflight programs and spacecraft R&D projects during his career. [10] Steinberg.. where he has worked since 2005. Report No. Stojadinovic B. Dr. in Mechanical Engineering in 2010 from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as a Draper Laboratory Fellow. ISBN 0-486-45015-5. Vibration Analysis for Electronic Equipment. K. Mexico. 10(3):193–217. Paez. [8] Miner.A..S. Bertero VV. T. P. Random Vibrations Theory and Practice. "Simple Rainflow Counting Algorithms. 1988. structural dynamics.L. [6] Akbas B. S. Vit Babuska is an Aerospace Engineer and Principal Member of the Technical Staff at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque NM. [9] Wirsching.D. where he has worked since 2011. Bertero VV. statistical design of experiments. Shen J. Japan. . optics and signal processing. Department of Civil Engineering University of California. and D. [12] Downing. 19:77–90.. Performance-based earthquake-resistant design of framed buildings using energy concepts. Hao TY.. John Wiley & Sons. ASTM Standard E1049-85 (2005). NM. A-159. Evaluation of seismic energy in structures. Socie. Guadalajara. Energy approach in performance-based seismic design of steel moment resisting frames for basic safety objective. Energy of earthquake response as a design tool. D. Ortiz. UCB=EERC-88=18. Ph. BIOGRAPHIES Troy Savoie is a Senior Member of the Technical Staff at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque. [7] Trifunac MD. Berkeley. 31-40. Proceedings of the 13th Mexican Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Babuska’s experience spans environmental test. [4] Terán-Gilmore A. Earthquake Spectra 1999. 16. Earthquake Engineering Research Center. University of Tokyo Press: Tokyo. Use of energy as a design criterion in earthquake-resistant design. 1995. Goel S.. 1996. [5] Leelataviwat S. REFERENCES [1] Uang CM. 15(3):435– 461. M. Earthquake Resistant Limit-State Design for Buildings.D. He earned his Ph. Todorovska MI. dissertation. ISBN 0-471-63301-1. risk assessment. and signal processing. He was the test director for the AFT acoustic test and thermal vacuum test. in Aerospace Engineering in 1993 from The University of Texas at Austin. Hao H. Dr. Dover Publications. 2001. 1985. “Cumulative Damage in Fatigue. [2] Akiyama H. pp. system identification and control of spacecraft systems. University of California.F. Berkeley. Toward performance-based seismic design of structures. The Structural Design of Tall Buildings 2001. Standard Practices for Cycle Counting in Fatigue Analysis.” Journal of Applied Physics." International Journal of Fatigue.H. Savoie has experience in environmental testing. September 1945.D. structural dynamics.