Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 144 (2016) 576 – 583

12th International Conference on Vibration Problems, ICOVP 2015

Vibration Response Prediction of the Printed Circuit Boards using

Experimentally Validated Finite Element Model
Somashekar V.Na, Harikrishnan Sb, PSM Aejaz Ahmedc, Kamesh Dd
a,d
SRG, ISRO Satellite Centre, Bengaluru-560017, India
b,c
SaiVidya Institute of Technology, Bengaluru-560064, India

Abstract

A spacecraft consists of a number of mechanical and electronic sub-assemblies. An electronic package is consists of printed
circuit boards placed in mechanical housings which are stacked together. Electronic components are mounted on the printed
circuit board (PCB). A spacecraft experiences various types of mechanical loads during its launch such as vibration, acoustic and
shock loads. The understanding of dynamic behaviour provides valuable insight to a design engineer, to improve the mechanical
design and product reliability when used in harsh vibration condition. Generally electronic package design for vibration loads is
verified by conducting tests on actual hardware.
This paper addresses on using basic FEA tool to accurately investigate the dynamic characteristics of the PCB and avoid
costly testing methods which require hardware. Here the normal modes & frequency response functions (FRF) of PCB are
determined and validated using vibration test on PCB. The validated model is used to predict vibration response for random
vibration input. It is shown here how the responses are accurately predicted for random vibration input for a design parameter
variation of PCB. The results are also validated using vibration test on PCB.

©
© 2016
2016TheTheAuthors. Published
Authors. by Elsevier
Published Ltd. Ltd.
by Elsevier This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of ICOVP 2015.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of ICOVP 2015
Keywords:Printed Circuit Board (PCB); Spacecraft;Vibration Response.

_________

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-9916680738/8951735632

E-mail address: krishnan1993@gmail.com, aejazahmed93@gmail.com

1877-7058 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of ICOVP 2015
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2016.05.044
 V.N. Somashekar et al. / Procedia Engineering 144 (2016) 576 – 583 577

1. Introduction

A spacecraft experiences various types of dynamic loads during its launch such as vibration, acoustic and shock
loads. The electronic packages are designed to withstand the launch vibration environment. The mechanical design
of electronicpackages is verified by subjecting to vibration testing. The electronic component failures have been
observed whenever there is change in its location on the PCB due to electrical design requirements. The basic failure
modes of components mounted on PCB due to random vibration environment are the results of the following
conditions: high acceleration levels,high stress levels,large displacement amplitudes andelectrical signals out of
tolerance [1]. The design failures during test and evaluation process have resulted in delay in the project schedule.
An effective methodology to verify the design other than testing has to be evolved and finite element (FE) analysis
has been an effective tool in predicting results. The FE analysis of electronic packages has a lot difficulties due to
many low mass individual elements present in it. Electronic systems are often simulated using simple masses,
springs and dampers to estimate the dynamic characteristics of the system. Simple one and two degree of freedom
systems are used to approximate the electronic systems. More complicated finite element models of electronic
systems are created to study the dynamic characteristics of the system and to estimate the fatigue life of critical
components mounted on the PCB. Finite element models can be either simplified or detailed. Detailed finite element
models are built by modeling the PCB and the components. However, this approach is rarely used as it is time
consuming and expensive. Instead, simplified models of PCB are created where the components geometry is
neglected. The component effects are included by increasing the Young's modulus and density of the PCB FE model,
so it effectively behaves as if components were present. The simple geometry of the board is modeled and meshed
using 2-D finite elements (i.e. by using flat shell elements). Sensitivity analysis of PCB finite element models was
carried out by Amy et al. [2]. They determined the factors of safety by using different simplification methods of
modeling the PCB.
Printed circuit boards are multi-layered structures with complex material properties that make the simulation of
their dynamic behavior complicated and hence to simplify this, a number of parameters affecting the PCB’s
dynamics have been studied through experimentation. Dynamic responses such as accelerations, strains are to be
closely monitored and controlled to achieve test results which are consistent and predict the structural behavior in
reality [3]. Printed circuit boards with multiple layers are suitable candidates preferable for high speed and high
density applications. In order to design electronic packaging systems for safety and standards criterion, the accurate
modeling of components influence on the multi-layered PCB becomes critical and complex due to various reasons.
Numerical model using finite element technique was developed to simulate the mechanical behavior of multi-
layered PCB and physical tests were conducted to validate the impact performance [4].
In this paper, vibration analysis of a typical PCB used for space applications is carried out. The normal modes &
frequency response functions (FRF) of bare PCB (without components) are determined and validated using vibration
test on PCB. The validated model is used to predict vibration response for random vibration input. It is shown here
how the responses are accurately predicted for random vibration input for a design parameter change of PCB. The
results are also validated using vibration test on PCB.

2. Vibration Response Prediction of PCB using FEM

In this study, a six layer PCB used for space applications is considered. The PCB is modelled as isotropic plate
with equivalent material properties such as Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio and mass density. FEA simulations of
PCB dynamics are made using MSC.PATRAN as pre-processor and MSC.NASTRAN as solver for bare PCB and
PCBwith components. Finite Element model consists of 3364 quadrilateral shell elements. Young’s modulus of
elasticity for PCB is obtained as 15 GPa by conducting a three point bending test for three different samples of PCB.
The PCB properties are given in Table (1). The FE model of bare PCB is analysed and validated for two different
boundary conditions i.e., i) PCB fixed/clamped at nine mounting locations shown in Figure (1) and ii) PCB with
fixed at eight mounting locations shown in Figure (2).
578 V.N. Somashekar et al. / Procedia Engineering 144 (2016) 576 – 583

Fig 1. FE model of PCB fixed at 9 mounting locations Fig 2. FE model of PCB fixed at 8 mounting locations

Further the analysis is carried out to predict response for random vibration input which is also validated with test
results. With these iterations it should be possible to predict the vibration response accurately for any change in the
PCB parameters.
To meet the requirement of an ongoing project, the existing PCB thickness has to be reduced. The vibration analysis
is carried out to predict the responses for the modified design. However, the response prediction by analysis is also
validated by conducting test on modified PCB.
Fixed/clamped boundary conditions are applied (PCB mounting locations) by arresting six degrees of freedom for
the nodes on the boundary of holes in PCB.

Table 1. Details of PCB

Parameter Value

PCB size 250×201×2.1 mm

Density of Bare PCB 1985 Kg/m3
Young’s modulus of Bare PCB 15 GPa
Poisson’s ratio 0.12
Boundary Condition Fixed/clamped

2.1 Finite Element Model

Normal mode analyses were carried out to extract first few fundamental natural frequencies for PCB with
nine mounting location and eight mounting location. The calculated first few natural frequencies and
corresponding test results are given in Table (3) and (4). Mode shapes corresponding first two natural
frequencies for both cases are given in Figures (3) to (6).

Fig 3. Mode shape of PCB with 9 mounting locations Fig 4. Mode shape of PCB with 9 mounting locations
 V.N. Somashekar et al. / Procedia Engineering 144 (2016) 576 – 583 579

Fig 5.Mode shape of PCB with 8 mounting locations Fig 6. Mode shape of PCB with 8 mounting locations
for first frequency for second frequency

The same FE model was used to obtain frequency response function (FRF) by subjecting it to base
excitation of 1g from 5 Hz to 2000 Hz. In this study, a structural damping coefficient of 2% is incorporated in the
model. The FRF at a specific location of the PCB are plotted in Figures (7) and (8). These values are then
compared with test data obtained from vibration tests. The same FE model (9 mounting location, 2.1 mm thick
PCB) was used to obtain vibration response subjected to random vibration input given in Table (2). The random
vibration response plot for 2.1mm PCB is given in Figure (9) & (10). In actual case the thickness of the PCB was
to be reduced to 1.6 mm and study the response change. The vibration response for the same random vibration
input for 1.6mm PCB is given in Figure (11) & (12).

Fig 7. Analysis FRF for PCB with 9 mounting location Fig 8. Analysis FRF for PCB with 8 mounting location

Table 2. Random vibration specification

Frequency (Hz) PSD (g2/Hz) Overall gRMS

20-100 3 dB/Oct
100-700 0.22 15.5
700-2000 -6 dB/Oct
580 V.N. Somashekar et al. / Procedia Engineering 144 (2016) 576 – 583

Fig9. Analysis random vibration response for 2.1 mm Fig 10. Analysis random vibration response for 2.1 mm
PCB location Q3L1 with 9 mounting location PCB location Q3L7 with 9 mounting location

Fig 11. Analysis random vibration response for 1.6 mm Fig 12. Analysis random vibration response for 1.6 mm
PCB location Q3L1 with 9 mounting location PCB location Q3L7 with 9 mounting location

2.2 Experimental Test Setup

The vibration test was conducted by mounting the 2.1 mm PCB with screws at nine and eight locations on
vibration table as shown in Figure (13) and (14) respectively. Figure (15) shows 1.6 mm PCB mounted on vibration
table. Accelerometers are mounted at various locations of the PCB to measure the responses. The vibration test was
carried out in the vibration test facility consisting of electro-dynamic shaker, control system, signal conditioners and
data acquisition system. The frequency response function (FRF) is obtained by conducting a sine sweep test. In sine
sweep test, the input acceleration is given to the test specimen using electro-dynamic shaker and the output
acceleration at various desired locations of the test specimen is measured using accelerometer. The ratio of output to
input acceleration gives the FRF at that location. The experimental frequency response plots for PCB with screws at
nine and eight mounting locations are shown in Figures (16) and (17) respectively.

Fig 13. 2.1mm PCB with 9 mounting location on vibration table Fig 14. 2.1mm PCB with 8 mounting location on vibration table
 V.N. Somashekar et al. / Procedia Engineering 144 (2016) 576 – 583 581

Fig 15. 1.6mm PCB with 9 mounting location on vibration table

The vibration test was carried out to obtain the vibration responses for the random vibration input and is given in
Table (5) & (6). The test was carried out for both 2.1 mm and 1.6 mm thickness PCB. The random vibration
response obtained from test is given in Figures (18) to (21).

Fig 16. Test FRF for PCB with 9 mounting location

Fig 17. Test FRF for PCB with 8 mounting location

582 V.N. Somashekar et al. / Procedia Engineering 144 (2016) 576 – 583

Fig 18. Test random vibration response for 2.1 mm Fig 19. Test random vibration response for 2.1 mm
PCB location Q3L1 with 9 mounting location PCB location Q3L7 with 9 mounting location

Fig 20. Test random vibration response for 1.6 mm PCB location Q3L1 with 9 mounting location

Fig 21. Test random vibration response for 1.6 mm PCB location Q3L7 with 9 mounting location
 V.N. Somashekar et al. / Procedia Engineering 144 (2016) 576 – 583 583

3. Results and Discussion

In this section, the FEM and experimental test results are compared. Analysis and test results for first few
fundamental frequencies of the PCB at 9 mounting locations are compared in Table (3) and for PCB at 8 mounting
locations are compared in Table (4). The analysis and test results for both the cases are matching well. The random
vibration response for 2.1 mm thickness PCB at 9 mounting locations for both analysis and test are compared in
Table (5). Table (6) shows the same comparison for 1.6 mm thickness PCB. Here the random vibration response
(overall gRMS) has reduced for 1.6 mm PCB versus 2.1 mm PCB. This is very well evident from analysis and test
results.

Table 3. Comparison of fundamental frequencies for PCB Table 4. Comparison of fundamental frequencies for PCB
FEM FEM
Fundamental Test Results Percentage Fundamental Test Results Percentage
Results Results
Frequency (Hz) Difference Frequency (Hz) Difference
(Hz) (Hz)
1 304.9 309.0 -1.3 1 174.5 171.5 1.74
2 328.3 348.9 -5.9 2 271.7 287.6 -5.5
3 343.4 367.7 -6.6 3 330.1 349.9 -5.65
4 350.6 384.4 -8.7 4 343.4 357.7 -3.99
5 549.1 526.7 4.25 5 434.5 483.5 -10.13
6 560.8 596.4 -5.96 6 524.8 520.9 0.74

Table 5. Comparison of random vibration responses for 2.1 mm Table 6. Comparison of random vibration responses for 1.6 mm
thick PCB with 9 mounting location thick PCB with 9 mounting location
Analysis Test Results, Percentage Analysis Test Results, Percentage
Location Location
Results, gRMS gRMS Difference Results, gRMS gRMS Difference

Q3L1 24.1 25.2 -4.36 Q3L1 22.8 23.6 -3.38

Q3L2 50.8 54.0 -5.92 Q3L2 46.8 42.1 11.16
Q3L5 58.1 63.2 -8.06 Q3L5 51.4 47.2 8.89
Q3L7 49.0 53.8 -8.92 Q3L7 43.9 47.5 -7.57
Q3L8 61.1 62.7 -2.55 Q3L8 54.8 49.9 9.81

4. Conclusions

Vibration analysis is carried out using FEM to obtain normal modes & frequency response functions (FRF) of PCB
and validated using experimental test on PCB. The validated model is used to predict vibration response for random
vibration input. It is shown from analysis that the responses predicted for random vibration input for a design
parameter change (thickness reduction) in the PCB are reducing. These results are also validated using vibration test
on PCB. The paper presents using FEM instead of test and evaluation method to predict vibration response
accurately. The work can be extended for simulating the components on the PCB.

References

[1] Steinberg, D. S. Vibration Analysis for Electronic Equipment. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.; 2000.
[2] Amy, R. A., Aglietti, G. S., Richardson, G. Sensitivity analysis of simplified Printed Circuit Board finite element models. Microelectronics
Reliability, 2009; Vol. 49, pp. 791-799.
[3] Jing-en Luan, Tong Yan Tee, Eric Pek, CheeTeck Lim, ZheoweiZhong. Dynamic responses and solder joint reliability under board level drop
test. Microelectronics Reliability, 2007; Vol. 47, pp. 450-460.
[4] Yuqi Wang, K.H. Low, H.L.J. Pang, K.H. Hoon, F.X. Che , Y.S. Yong. Modeling and simulation for a drop-impact analysis of multi-layered
printed circuit boards. Microelectronics Reliability, 2006; Vol. 46, pp. 558-573.
[5] Jayaraman S, Manish Trikha, Somashekar V N, Kamesh D. Vibration Analysis of Printed Circuit Boards. Interbational Journal of Applied
Engineering Research, ISSN 0973-4562 Vol.10 No.24 (2015)