See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/306030678

Ball-grid-array solder joint model for assembly-level impact reliability

prediction

Article  in  Microelectronics Reliability · August 2016

DOI: 10.1016/j.microrel.2016.08.001

CITATIONS READS

5 1,358

4 authors, including:

Chee Kuang Kok Liew Kia Wai (K. W. Liew)

Multimedia University Multimedia University, Malacca
35 PUBLICATIONS   182 CITATIONS    20 PUBLICATIONS   337 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Interface Temperature measurement on polymer materials View project

Flameless combustion of bio-fuels View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Liew Kia Wai (K. W. Liew) on 25 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Microelectronics Reliability 65 (2016) 184–191

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Microelectronics Reliability

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/microrel

Ball-grid-array solder joint model for assembly-level impact

reliability prediction
Chee Kuang Kok a,⁎, Wen Jie Ng a, Chin Chin Ooi b, Kia Wai Liew a
a
Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Multimedia University, 75450 Bukit Beruang, Melaka, Malaysia
b
Motorola Solutions (M) Sdn. Bhd., 11900 Bayan Lepas, Penang, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: It has been well established that lead-free solder underperforms conventional leaded solder in reliability under
Received 12 May 2016 dynamic impact. Common failures observed on ball-grid-array (BGA) solder balls on chip under board level im-
Received in revised form 13 July 2016 pact include bulk solder ductile failure, intermetallic (IMC) layer crack and pad-lift. In this work, a finite element
Accepted 1 August 2016
modeling approach was proposed to model bulk solder ductile failure and intermetallic layer crack. The use of
Available online 9 August 2016
beam elements and connector elements to represent the bulk solders and board/component side intermetallic
Keywords:
layers, respectively, offers the advantage of simplicity over the use of continuum elements and cohesive elements
Ball grid array for solder joints. This approach enables the modeling of assembly level impact with significantly less computa-
Lead-free solder tional resources. The model was verified by comparing its prediction of BGA solder reliability against actual
Dynamic impact test results in a dynamic four-point bend test. The physical tests consist of ball impact at varying heights on a
Solder joint failure board with a mounted chip, and the subsequent analysis of the failure modes of the BGA solder joints. Simulation
Finite element method results were in good agreement with test results. The study shows that it is feasible to model BGA solder joint
ductile failure and intermetallic layer crack under impact with simple elements with reasonable accuracy.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Portable device miniaturization and green-product requirement
have led to the use of lead-free ball-grid-array (BGA) to connect chip
package and printed circuit board (PCB). However, lead-free BGA is sus-
ceptible to drop impact failures [1]. Conventional solder bump shear
and pull tests, usually performed at high (N 300 s−1) or low speed levels
(b0.1 s− 1), fail to replicate BGA brittle interface failures at medium
strain rate during dynamic impact [2]. In addition, it was found that
BGA joint reliability correlated well with the percentage occurrence of
interface bond failures and not solder interface fracture strength [3].
To characterize the BGA impact reliability, a number of experimental
approaches had been proposed. Among them are JEDEC shock tower test
[4], dynamic four-point bend test [5], dynamic spherical bend test [6],
steel-rod-drop impact test [7], and Miniature Charpy Test [8]. These
tests and other high-speed ball pull/shear tests are effective in unearthing
common failures observed on ball-grid-array (BGA) solder balls under
chip, including bulk solder ductile failure, intermetallic (IMC) layer
crack and pad-lifts [9]. However, the availability of a model to reliably
and accurately predict such failures will greatly save cost and time.
There have been some successes in modeling BGA failures using the
finite element method. Caroll et al. [10] proposed the use of connector
elements to model individual solder joints in a BGA, and correlated
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +606-2523648; fax: +60 6 2316552.
E-mail address: ckkok@mmu.edu.my (C.K. Kok).
their model with experimental findings. Their model, however, did
not distinguish bulk solder failure and IMC layer crack. Lall et al. [11]
proposed the use of smeared property to model the solder interface,
and compared it against another model using Timoshenko beam for in-
dividual solder. Their focus was to verify the use of sub-modeling ap-
proach for assembly level impact. Progressive damage of the joints
was not modeled, which could limit the model prediction related to
the solder joint progressive failures. In another effort, the use of cohe-
sive elements for the solder interface was proposed [12], coupled with
the sub-modeling approach [13]. However, it was not clear how the ef-
fect of sub-model changes, such as solder joint progressive failures, on
the global model was accounted. Yeh and Lai [14], and Kim et al. [15]
modeled one individual solder ball with many continuum elements,
whose approach require significantly more computational resources
than practically available for assembly level modeling.
The primary challenge in finite element modeling of BGA failures for
assembly level impact lies in the selection of elements for their available
failure models and practicality, namely the accuracy and ease of model-
ing with reasonable amount of resources. The selection of failure
models, in turn, depends on the availability of test data. While bulk sol-
der material property can be obtained with standard and non-standard
test methods, the efforts to quantify the tensile and shear strengths of
IMC are relatively more involved. Past researchers had derived IMC fail-
ure data from characterization tests such as solder ball high-speed shear
[15,16] and pull test [3,9,16], and compression test with micro-force tes-
ter [17] to isolate tensile and shear contribution to individual solder

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.microrel.2016.08.001
0026-2714/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 C.K. Kok et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 65 (2016) 184–191 185

intermetallic bond failures. As a result of past efforts, there is now evi-

dence that with increased strain rate, the failure mode of lead-free
BGA shifts from ductile bulk failure and to brittle IMC interface failure
[3,8,16]. In addition, the tensile/shear stress and strain at IMC interface
failure is dependent on the strain rate, solder alloy, solder geometry,
mask design, pad finishes and thermal history [18–20].
In this work, a dynamic four point-bend-test was conducted on a
BGA package mounted on a test board. The dynamic four point-bend-
test was chosen primarily due to its simplicity and cost effectiveness
[21], and had been used by other researchers in similar efforts [6].
BGA failures were then analyzed and categorized into bulk solder fail-
ure, IMC failures and pad lift at board side and component side, respec-
tively. A numerical model for use in assembly level was proposed to Fig. 2. Bottom view showing the placement of the BGA package on PCB.
simulate BGA bulk solder and IMC failures to predict the BGA mechani-
cal reliability under dynamic impact. The prediction agrees quite well
with the experimental findings. Table 2
Solder ball properties.

Solder composition 95.5Sn/3.8Ag/0.7Cu (SAC387)

2. Experiment
Fig. 1 illustrates the four-point dynamic impact test setup of the ex-
periment. A steel ball of 136 g is dropped from varying heights as listed
in Table 1. Each drop height was tested five times, each time on a fresh
board with mounted chip. The corresponding initial velocity can be de-
termined using the principle of conservation of energy. The ball impact
upon the relatively stiff top span of 90 g (weight inclusive of bumper
and rollers) then translates to deflection of the test board. The printed
circuit board (PCB) dimensions are 75.0 × 40.0 × 1.08 mm. The BGA
package is mounted at the bottom of the board, with its diagonals
aligned with the sides of the board, such as shown in Fig. 2. A quarter
of the PCB, such as shown in the dashed box, is use for modeling
purposes.
Table 2 gives important BGA solder ball properties, while Fig. 3 is a
schematic of a solder ball and its surrounding geometry. Upon comple-
tion of the impact test, BGA failures were then analyzed using the red
dye test [22,23] with the following procedure. Flux from the board
and package was first removed by soaking the board with BGA package
Solder ball diameter Nominal 0.40 mm
Pad type Solder Mask Defined (SMD)
Pad pitch 0.65 mm
Pad finish OSP
Pad diameter 0.381 mm
Pad thickness 0.135 mm
in flux removal solvent such as Ensolve for at least 1 h, with the help of
ultrasonic agitation. After cleaning, the board was rinsed in water to re-
move the residual cleaner, and the board dried using compressed air.
Red dye (i.e. Dykem Red Layout Fluid) was applied sufficiently under-
neath the package using a pipette, upon which the board was placed
under vacuum (˜25 in. of Hg) for about 30 s to facilitate dye flow
through solder joints. The board was then left in an oven at 100 °C for
at least 30 min to dry the dye. Package was then removed by prying,
and the dye-penetrated sites were failure sites ready for visual inspec-
tion using a stereo microscope. A joint with N80% of dye penetration
was considered to have failed. Observed failures were then categorized
into bulk solder failure, IMC failures and pad lift at board side and com-
ponent side, respectively, such as illustrated in Fig. 4.

3. Simulation

ABAQUS commercial finite element software was used to model the

four-point dynamic impact test to simulate bulk solder ductile failure
and IMC layer crack failure. Due to the symmetry of the board, the

Fig. 1. Four-point dynamic impact test setup.

Table 1
Ball drop height and initial velocity.

Ball drop height (mm) Velocity before impact (mm/ms)

166 1.805
254 2.232
361 2.661
488 3.094
636 3.532
Fig. 3. Solder ball and its surrounding geometry.
186 C.K. Kok et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 65 (2016) 184–191

Fig. 4. Different types of BGA failures. (a) Bulk solder failure; (b) IMC failure; (c) Pad lift.

Fig. 5. Quarter model of the four-point dynamic impact test.

BGA package as well as the rest of the test setup, only a quarter of the full
model needs to be represented. The quarter model finite element mesh
is depicted in Fig. 5.
The impact ball and all the jig pieces were modeled using rigid ele-
ments, as they are significantly stiffer than the PCB and the mounted
BGA package. A quarter of the weight of the ball and the top-span jig
piece was used for the quarter model. The top span (roller to roller) is
35 mm while the bottom span is 60 mm. The PCB was modeled with
eight layers of reduced integration brick elements (i.e. ABAQUS
C3D8R), with an average in-plane mesh size of 0.85 mm. The mesh
size was refined to around 0.15 mm at the BGA locations. The number
of layers and in-plane element size were determined by performing a
correlation study between experiment and simulation of static bending
of the board. A layer of membrane elements was added to the exterior of
the PCB for reporting of in-plane stress and strains. The BGA package
was modeled with second ordered modified tetrahedron element (i.e.
ABAQUS C3D10M). The package is 13 mm × 13 mm × 0.885 mm (thick-
ness excluding the BGA), with 19 × 19 solder joints in rectangular array.
The bumper was modeled as a combination of a non-linear spring
and a dashpot in parallel. The force-displacement curve of the bumper
was determined via a static compression test to model the quartered
nonlinear spring. The bumper damping coefficient cannot be deter-
mined with certainty, and has been assumed to be 100 Ns/m, quartered
to 25 Ns/m. The effect of varying damping coefficient has been verified
to be insignificant to the dynamic amplification of the PCB response.
It is worth pointing out that the simulation did not capture the sub-
sequent impacts of the steel ball after rebound. Although the ball
rebounded in the physical test, the rebound has not been considered
in the current FEA modeling. The impact upon rebound is assumed to
be negligible due to small rebound height.
Mechanical properties of various components were tabulated in
Table 3, with their sources listed. In addition, bulk solder strain rate

Table 3
Material properties of major components.

Young's modulus, Density, ρ

Component E (MPa) Poisson's ratio (kg/m3) Failure criteria Source

SAC387 41,730 0.35 7440 Mises plastic strain of 0.005 [24,26,27]

PCB⁎ 25,000 0.16 2340 Nil
Molding compound⁎ 16,000 [28] 0.3 1970 Nil
Copper pad 120,000 0.34 8900 Nil [25,29]
IMC layer (Cu6Sn5) 86,000 [28] 0.25 [28] 8280 32 MPa (normal) [20]
670 MPa (shear)
⁎ Unpublished data from vendors.
 C.K. Kok et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 65 (2016) 184–191 187

Fig. 6. BGA model. (a) Half and full beam elements (with connector elements at both ends of the beam invisible); (b) a BGA model with connector elements at beam's ends. Dash boxes
highlight beam or connectors.

dependent elastic-plastic mechanical properties [24] were adopted in
the solder beam elements. Copper pad plasticity was modeled using
Johnson-Cook after ref. [25].
In this study, each solder ball was modeled using a first-order, three-
dimensional Timoshenko beam element (i.e. ABAQUS B31) of constant
circular cross-section with both ends being IMC layers represented by
bushing connector elements (i.e. ABAQUS CONN3D2), having three
translational and three rotational degree of freedom. Care was taken
to ensure that the beam and connector elements on the planes of sym-
metry were halved, while the ones sharing two planes of symmetry

Table 4
BGA failure modes and failure sites.

Ba
all Drrop Heeigh
ht E perimentt
Exp
Sim
mulattion
n
mm
(m m) Bestt Casee W rst Casse
Wor

166

254

361

488

636

Board side IMC failure Board side pad lift Bulk Solder Failure

Component side IMCfailure C

Component side pad lift Combined Mode
188 C.K. Kok et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 65 (2016) 184–191
were quartered. Details are in Fig. 6. The modeling of the beam does not
include SMD.
The assumption of constant cross section of each beam had been
justified by Lall et al. [11]. The IMC is assumed to have a constant
thickness of 5 μm. The bulk solder is assumed to fail when its Mises
plastic strain exceeds 0.005. On the other hand, the IMC layer is
assumed to obey the following failure criterion, often used in model-
ing spot weld [30]:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 2
f fx þ fy
F¼ zþ
Fn Fs
where fz is the connector axial force, and fx and fy are two perpendic-
ular forces in the transverse directions. Fn is the IMC layer ultimate ten-
sile force and Fs its ultimate shear force. The connector fails when the
equivalent force, F, exceeds unity. The ultimate tensile and shear
strengths were 32 MPa [31], and 670 MPa [20], respectively. At failure,
the connector elements (i.e. IMC layer) will detach from their neighbor-
ing elements. A joint was assumed to have failed by the first failure
mode it exhibited. When more than one failure mode occurred at a
joint simultaneously, then the joint had a combined failure mode. The
simulation was run for such duration that no further joint failure was
observed. In this case, the duration ranged from 3 ms (lowest impact)
to 9 ms (greatest impact).
It is worth noting in many other studies [11,32,33], each solder
ball was modeled with brick elements consisting of many nodes
and elements. Failure criteria at the bulk solder may involve the
use of Mises stress or strain, and that at the IMC the use of cohesive
element with damage evolution. While this approach may better
represent the behavior of a single solder joint, such approach may
not be practical for modeling assembly level impact. A typical finite
element model of any electronic device may easily consist of millions
of elements, exclusive of the BGA joints. As such, the current ap-
proach of using one beam element and two connector elements to
represent one solder joint is preferable, as it significantly saves
Fig. 7. BGA joint failure propagation for ball impact height of 636 mm. (a) t = 0.38 ms; (b) t = 0.48 ms; (c) t = 0.62 ms; (d) t = 1.89 ms; (e) t = 3.48 ms; (f) t = 5.19 ms.
computational resources and decreases the computational time for
each analysis.
4. Results and discussion
A comparison of the experimental and simulated BGA failure modes
and failure sites is tabulated in Table 4. Only a quarter of the BGA was
presented in the table for comparison although the failures in the ex-
periments were recorded in full. It is noted that in the actual exper-
iment, such perfect symmetry was not obtained, although the
ð1Þ failure sites exhibit a certain degree of symmetry. This imperfection
may most likely be due to the slight offset of the ball impact location,
an inevitable error associated to the ball being dropped at the impact
site with the help of a tube with some clearance. Other sources of dis-
crepancies include material and processing induced joint-to-joint
variations. In the table, the combined mode refers to combined fail-
ures usually consisting of more than one failure type. The best case
(least number of failures) and the worst case out of five test results
for each drop height were reported. For comparison between simula-
tion and experiment, any quarter of the BGA in the experiment was
given equal weightage.
The experimental best and worst cases can deviate significantly, as
can be observed in Table 4. This scatters in experimental findings can
be due to any of the aforementioned reasons, including variations in
material, processing and test parameters. In this respect, simulation of-
fers an advantage over the physical test, in which it gives precisely one
failure result for each drop height.
There is a reasonably good agreement between experiment and the
simulation findings. The primary mode of failures in both the experi-
ment and the simulation is board side IMC failures. The number of
sites exhibiting this failure mode increases with increasing drop height.
This is consistent with many experimental findings on the effect of dy-
namic loading on solder joint, namely high strain rate often leads to
ductile (bulk solder)-to-brittle (IMC) failures [34]. In addition, these
failures seem to concentrate at the chip corner along the board longer
side (i.e. the right corner of the quarter BGA in Table 4). The latter was
 C.K. Kok et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 65 (2016) 184–191
expected, as the stretching and bending of ball joints will be the severest
at the outer corner by analysis [1,35]. The stretching and bending are
due to the fact that the package did not acquire the curvature of the
bent board during the impact.
In addition, the experimental results show significantly fewer
failures at the chip corner along the shorter side (i.e. the bottom
corner of the quarter BGA in Table 4). This is consistent with plate
theory, in which a plate such as PCB will be more difficult to bend
about its shorter side [36]. The simulation also predicted the same
trend, albeit with more failures at the same corner than those
observed in the experiment.
It is clear from the test results that bulk solder failure was not a
major concern (only observed in 6 joints out of 9025 joints in the entire
25 tests). This is also consistent with the simulation findings, in which
the bulk solder failure was not the first failure mode of a failed joint in
all cases. A few bulk solder failures were observed in simulation, but
they all occurred only after connector failures (i.e. IMC layer crack)
due to beam crushing, and therefore considered artefact.
Table 4 clearly demonstrates the fact that BGA failures did not prop-
agate in a linear fashion. In other words, failures did not simply occur at
more locations at greater impact, while the failure types and locations
for a less severe impact were preserved. This is evident in both the
Fig. 8. BGA joint failure from t = 0.300 ms to t = 1.875 ms. (a) t = 0.300 ms; (b) t = 0.375 ms; (c) t = 0.450 ms; (d) t = 0.600 ms; (e) t = 0.675 ms; (f) t = 0.975 ms; (g) t = 1.500 ms; (h)
t = 1.875 ms.
189
experiment and the simulation results. At hindsight, it may be obvious
that as one joint fails, there is a change in the overall constraint, affecting
the mechanics of the neighboring elements. This could be an issue of
concern for the use of sub-modeling approach, which assumes a global
model relatively unaffected by the local changes.
The propagation of different types of BGA failures in the simulation is
essential in understanding the failure mechanics. While test results offer
little insight on failure propagation, simulation provides useful visuali-
zation on how the BGA joint damage propagates. By plotting the failure
types and sites at different time frames for the greatest drop height
(Fig. 7), one can clearly see the types and locations of failures at different
time frame.
In this case, IMC failure starts at the outer corner as expected, and
propagates inwards as time progresses. Significantly fewer failures
were seen at the other corner. Failures also seem to cluster at certain
time frames when the stress waves were the greatest. Fig. 8 provides vi-
sualization of the BGA joint failures between t = 0.300 ms to t =
1.875 ms for the case with the greatest impact. Notice how the PCB
deflected as the time progressed, and how much more the deflection
was relative to that of the package. The difference led to the IMC failures,
upon which bulk solders detached from the component and/or the PCB.
The detached bulk solder then flew off from their original locations.
190 C.K. Kok et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 65 (2016) 184–191
Fig. 9. In-plane maximum strain on PCB from t = 0.300 ms to t = 1.875 ms.
Fig. 9, depicting the in-plane maximum strain on the PCB, may further
assist in the visualization of the failure propagation, when compared
to Fig. 8.
5. Conclusion
The following conclusions are made:
(a) The use of beam elements and connector elements to represent
bulk solder and the IMC layers, respectively, greatly simplifies
the need to model each solder with multiple elements and the
IMC layer with cohesive elements.
(b) The proposed model, despite its simplicity, results in failure pre-
diction that is consistent with experiment findings.
(c) BGA failures do not propagate in a linear fashion. Failure of one
joint will affect the mechanics of its surrounding.
(d) Simulation offers a single prediction against the scatters
in the experimental results, in addition to providing insights
on failure propagation not usually available in the
experiment.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to acknowledge the technical assistance of
Motorola Solutions (M) Sdn. Bhd. Employees, Mr. Ong Choon Gim and
Ms. Cheah Ui Ping, in providing the ground work for this effort. This re-
search did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the
public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
[1] E.H. Wong, R. Rajoo, Y.W. Mai, S.K.W. Seah, K.T. Tsai, L.M. Yap, Drop Impact: Funda-
mentals & Impact Characterisation of Solder Joints, Electronic Components and
Technology Conference 2005, pp. 1202–1209, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ECTC.
2005.1441423.
[2] E.H. Wong, et al., Shear-strain characteristics of tin-based solder alloys at medium
strain rate, Mater. Lett. 62 (2008) 3031–3034.
[3] A.T. Valota, et al., High Speed Pull Test Characterization of BGA Solder Joints, 7th In-
ternational Conference on Thermal, Mechanical and Multiphysics Simulation and
Experiments in Micro-Electronics and Micro-Systems, EuroSimE 2006, pp. 1–6,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ESIME.2006.1644005.
[4] JESD22-B111, JEDEC Standard, “Board Level Drop Test Method of Components for
Handheld Electronic Products”, 2003.
 C.K. Kok et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 65 (2016) 184–191
[5] D. Reiff, E. Bradley, A Novel Mechanical Shock Test Method to Evaluate Lead-Free
BGA Solder Joint Reliability, Proceedings of 55th Electronic Components and Tech-
nology Conference, 2, 2005, pp. 1519–1525, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ECTC.2005.
1441989.
[6] P. Towashiraporn, P. Crosbie, Y.J. Lee, The Effect of PCB Flexural Modes on Dynamic
Reliability of Ball Grid Array Packages, Electronic Components and Technology Con-
ference 2008, pp. 1804–1811, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ECTC.2008.4550226.
[7] A. Yaguchi, N. Tanaka, Y. Naka, Impact Strength Evaluation of Solder Joints in BGA by
Dropping Steel Rod, Electronic Components and Technology Conference 2006,
pp. 55–63, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ECTC.2006.1645626.
[8] M. Date, et al., Impact Reliability of Solder Joints, Proceedings of 54th Electronic
Components and Technology Conference 2004, pp. 668–674, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1109/ECTC.2004.1319410.
[9] R. Pandher, M. Boureghda, Identification of Brittle Solder Joints Using High Strain
Rate Testing of BGA Solder Joints, 45th Annual International Reliability Physics Sym-
posium, Phoenix 2007, pp. 107–112, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/RELPHY.2007.
369877.
[10] D. Carroll, C. Bates, M. Zampino, K. Zones, A Novel Technique for Modeling Solder
Joint Failure during System Level Drop Simulations, Proceedings of ITHERM 2006,
pp. 861–868, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ITHERM.2006.1645437.
[11] P. Lall, S. Gupte, P. Choudhary, J. Suhling, Solder joint reliability in electronics under
shock and vibration using explicit finite-element Submodeling, IEEE Trans. Electron.
Packag. Manuf. 30 (1) (2007) 74–82, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TEPM.2006.890642.
[12] P. Towashiraporn, C. Xie, Cohesive Modeling of Solder Interconnect Failure in Board
Level Drop Test, The Tenth Intersociety Conference on Thermal and
Thermomechanical Phenomena in Electronics Systems (ITHERM), San Diego, CA,
May 30, 2006–June 2, 2006, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ITHERM.2006.1645431.
[13] P. Lall, S. Gupte, P. Choudhary, R. Darveaux, Cohesive-zone explicit submodeling for
shock life-prediction in electronics, IEEE Trans. Compon. Packag. Technol. 32 (2009)
365–377, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ECTC.2007.373846.
[14] C.-L. Yeh, Y.-S. Lai, Strain-Rate and Impact Velocity Effects on Joint Adhesion
Strength, International Conference on Electronic Packaging Technology & High Den-
sity Packaging (ICEPT-HDP 2008) 2008, pp. 1–4, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICEPT.
2008.4607139.
[15] J.-W. Kim, Y.-C. Lee, S.-S. Ha, S.-B. Jung, Failure behaviors of BGA solder joints under
various loading conditions of high-speed shear test, J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Electron. 20
(2009) 17–24, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10854-008-9588-2.
[16] K. Newman, BGA Brittle Fracture – Alternative Solder Joint Integrity Test Methods,
Electronic Components and Technology Conference, 2, 2005, pp. 1194–1201,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ECTC.2005.1441422.
[17] E.H. Wong, et al., Correlation studies for component level ball impact shear test and
board level drop test, Microelectron. Reliab. 48 (2008) 1069–1078, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.microrel.2008.04.008.
[18] R. Darveaux, C. Reichman, N. Islam, Interface Failure in Lead Free Solder Joints, Elec-
tronic Components and Technology Conference, San Diego, 2006, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1109/ECTC.2006.1645763.
[19] F.B. Song, S.W.R. Lee, Investigation of IMC Thickness Effect on the Lead-Free Solder
Ball Attachment Strength: Comparison between Ball Shear Test and Cold Bump
Pull Test Results, Electronic Components and Technology Conference, 2006, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1109/ECTC.2006.1645804.
View publication stats
191
[20] Q. Zhang, Investigations on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of the Cu/Pb-
Free Solder Joint Interfaces, Springer, 2016.
[21] L. Long, Dynamic Bending Test and Simulation of PBGA Packages, 12th International
Conference on Electronic Packaging Technology and High Density Packaging (ICEPT-
HDP), 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICEPT.2011.6066965.
[22] B. Wang, J. Li, A. Gallagher, J. Wrezel, P. Towashirporn, N. Zhao, Drop impact reliabil-
ity of Sn–1.0Ag–0.5Cu BGA interconnects with different mounting methods,
Microelectron. Reliab. 52 (2012) 1475–1482, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.microrel.
2012.02.001.
[23] Y.T. Chin, P.K. Lam, H.K. Yow, T.Y. Tou, Investigation of mechanical shock testing of
lead-free SAC solder joints, Microelectron. Reliab. 48 (2008) 1079–1086, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.microrel.2008.04.003.
[24] J.H. Pang, B.S. Xiong, F.X. Che, Modeling Stress Strain Curves for Lead-Free 95.5 Sn-
3.8 Ag-0.7 Cu Solder, In Thermal and Mechanical Simulation and Experiments in Mi-
croelectronics and Microsystems, (EuroSimE) 2004, pp. 49–453, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1109/ESIME.2004.1304077.
[25] G. Johnson, W. Cook, A Constitutive Model and Data for Metals Subjected to Large
Strains High Strain Rates and High Temperatures, Proceedings of the 7th Interna-
tional Symposium on Ballistics, 54, 1983, p. 1.
[26] Material Measurement Laboratory, Sn-Ag-Cu properties and creep data,”
NIST[Online]. Available: http://www.metallurgy.nist.gov/solder/clech/Sn-Ag-Cu_
Other.htm [Accessed Dec 2015].
[27] H.T. Ma, J.C. Suhling, A review of mechanical properties of lead-free solders for elec-
tronic packaging, J. Mater. Sci. 44 (2009) 1141–1158, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10853-008-3125-9.
[28] F.-X. Che, J.H.L. Pang, L.H. Xu, IMC Consideration in Fea Simulation for Pb-Free Solder
Joint Reliability, The Tenth Intersociety Conference on Thermal and
Thermomechanical Phenomena in Electronics Systems 2006, pp. 1018–1023,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ITHERM.2006.1645456.
[29] T. Shiraiwa, M. Enoki, Strain-controlled fatigue behavior in thin pure copper sheet
for smart stress-memory patch, Mater. Trans. 53 (4) (2012) 690–695, http://dx.
doi.org/10.2320/matertrans.MBW201117.
[30] ABAQUS HTML Documentation, Dassault Systemes, 2009.
[31] A. Lal, E. Bradley, Relationship of Tensile Interfacial Strength to Lead-Free BGA Im-
pact Performance, Electronic Components and Technology Conference 2006,
pp. 1628–1633, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ECTC.2006.1645875.
[32] T.C. Chai, S. Quek, W.Y. Hnin, E.H. Wong, Drop Level Drop Test Reliability of IC Pack-
ages, Proc. Electron. Compon. Technol. Conf. 2005, pp. 630–636, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1109/ECTC.2005.1441335.
[33] F. Liu, G. Meng, M. Zhao, J.F. Zhao, Experimental and numerical analysis of BGA lead-
free solder joint reliability under board-level drop impact, Microelectron. Reliab. 49
(2009) 79–85, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.microrel.2008.10.014.
[34] R. Darveaux, C. Reichman, Ductile-to-Bittle Transition Strain Rate, Electronics
Packagaing Technology Conference 2006, pp. 283–289, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
EPTC.2006.342730.
[35] M.K. Chengalva, N. Jeter, S.C. Baxter, Effect of Circuit Board Flexure on Flip Chips be-
fore Underfill, Electronic Components and Technology Conference 2000,
pp. 657–665, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ECTC.2000.853229.
[36] A. Boresi, R. Schmidt, Advanced Mechanics of Materials, sixth ed. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., 2003.