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

net/publication/249574453

A comprehensive fatigue life predictive model for

electronically conductive adhesive joints under constant-cycle
loading

Article in Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology · January 2006

DOI: 10.1163/156856106775212413

CITATIONS READS
19 7,045

2 authors, including:

Erol Sancaktar
University of Akron
318 PUBLICATIONS 2,686 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

Torrefied Soybean Hulls as Fillers in Polymers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Erol Sancaktar on 10 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

J. Adhesion Sci. Technol., Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 87– 104 (2006)
 VSP 2006.
Also available online - www.vsppub.com

A comprehensive fatigue life predictive model

for electronically conductive adhesive joints
under constant-cycle loading

RAJESH R. GOMATAM 1 and EROL SANCAKTAR 2,∗

1 Materialsand Manufacturing Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, and Mechanics,
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA 18015, USA
2 Department of Polymer Engineering, The University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325-0301, USA

Received in final form 16 October 2005

Abstract—This paper describes a novel fatigue life prediction methodology aimed at providing the
design engineer an easy fatigue life predictive tool using experimental data for thermo-mechanical
load cyclic fatigue under constant maximum load (Pmax ) and load ratio (R = Pmin /Pmax =
σmin /σmax ). This encompasses an integrated approach to joint testing, analysis and modeling.
Utilizing the proposed methodologies, we aim to predict the changes in fatigue life of the adhesive,
based on the whole spectrum of test variables including temperature, humidity and load ratio. For
this purpose, joints were prepared using stainless steel adherend specimens and a commercial silver-
filled electronically conductive adhesive, and tested under monotonic and cyclic fatigue conditions,
at 28◦ C, 20% relative humidity, 50◦ C, 90◦ C and elevated humidity levels. Load–number of cycles
(P –N ) curves were generated using two specimen geometries at two different load ratios (R), at a
cyclic frequency of 150 Hz. Using the experimental data, a life predictive methodology was developed
and validated. Furthermore, the usefulness of the above-mentioned fatigue life predictive capability
was extended to varying stress states.

Keywords: Electronically conductive adhesives; adhesive joints; fatigue damage; cyclic loading; P –N
curves; fatigue life predictive model.

1. INTRODUCTION

One of the major questions that needs to be addressed for electronically conductive
adhesive joints is the estimation and prediction of the real service life. Exposing the
adhesive to the major stresses and determining how these stresses affect its service
life can answer this question. In order to conduct service life evaluations, samples

∗ To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: (1-330) 972-5508. E-mail: erol@uakron.edu

88 R. R. Gomatam and E. Sancaktar

must be prepared, exposed to environmental stresses for extended lengths of time

and then tested.
In order to be able to make accurate durability predictions based on experimental
data, phenomenological description of the interaction of the environmental condi-
tions with the adherend, interphase and the adhesive is needed.
Sancaktar [1] suggested a general test program for the purpose of performing a
good fatigue degradation study. According to this scheme, the test program can
encompass three different categories of specimens. The first category involves
less expensive, simple specimens such as the single-lap specimen and the thin
adherend wedge test specimen, which are used primarily for screening (comparison)
purposes. The second category includes more expensive and difficult-to-machine
specimens such as the independently loaded mixed-mode specimen, or Arcan and
Iosepescu specimens to obtain more accurate quantitative design data. In the third
category are the actual structural prototype components tested in limited numbers
to verify theoretical predictions.
Even though there have been considerable attempts made over the years by various
investigators, there are no concrete methodologies that can be followed for fatigue
life prediction. The following section discusses some of the methodologies that
were developed over the years for the purpose of fatigue life prediction.
Rotem and Nelson [2] first introduced temperature shift factors to predict long-
term fatigue strength from short-term testing at elevated temperatures. Miyano and
McMurray [3] constructed master strength–time curves for a woven carbon/epoxy
composite from the flexural fatigue data obtained at two frequencies over a wide
range of temperatures. These works, however, were concerned with isothermal
conditions, whereas the temperature effect associated with hysteretic heating is
non-isothermal. In the analysis by Rotem and Nelson, the fatigue strength at
a given temperature is determined by considering the cyclic stress field at each
lamina, allowing progressive failure of individual plies until the final fracture of
the laminate.
Sun and Chan [4] developed a model accounting for the effect of load frequency
on fatigue life of notched composite specimens. Their model was similar to a model
proposed by Schapery [5] for creep-crack propagation in viscoelastic media and
also took into consideration the effect of temperature rise during fatigue. It has a
relatively simple form with two experimentally determined parameters. The model
agreed well with experimental results using graphite/epoxy composite [4], which
exhibited moderate temperature rises. For materials with more significant hysteretic
heating, a modified model was developed [6].
Work has been carried out to establish a relationship between the number of
thermal or mechanical cycles to failure and ‘engineering’ parameters such as
average shear stress at the adhesive/adherend interfaces, and the lap shear strength of
the adhesives [7, 8]. According to these models, fatigue failure can occur for shear
stress levels below the lap-shear strength. Such models can be used to identify
 Comprehensive fatigue life predictive model for ECA joints 89

potential sites of fatigue failure by calculating the average induced shear stress
occurring at the interfaces of the adhesive joint.
Several authors have employed fracture mechanics approach to predict
fatigue failure in adhesively bonded microelectronic devices [9]. Abdel Wahab
et al. [10] proposed a model for predicting the life of adhesively bonded joints.
In this study, they used the concept of continuum damage mechanics (CDM) and
fracture mechanics (FM) as tools in predicting the life of the joints, using carbon-
fiber-reinforced composite (CFRP) substrates bonded with an epoxy film adhesive.
Furthermore, a number of research articles have been published in recent years
dealing with fatigue life prediction of engineering structures [11 –25].
For solder bumps, much work has been carried out to establish a relation-
ship between cycling conditions, and the number of cycles to failure. Several
lifetime models, many of them based on the Coffin–Manson fatigue relationship,
have been proposed [26, 27]. Later work extended these models to circuits with
underfill [28].
In this paper, we propose a fatigue life prediction methodology for electronically
conductive adhesive joints cycled under constant maximum load (Pmax ) and load
ratio (R = Pmin /Pmax = σmin /σmax ). For this purpose, first we used a commercially
available electronically conductive adhesive (ECA), and generated load–number
of cycles (P –N ) curves under a wide spectrum of environmental conditions and
stress states. Using the experimental data obtained from the above experiments,
we proposed a fatigue life predictive model for constant-cycle loading conditions.
Furthermore, a comprehensive analysis and model of ECA joints subjected to
variable loading can be found in Ref. [29].

2. EXPERIMENTAL

In this study, stainless steel 304 and Ablebond MA-2 (Ablestik Laboratories,
Rancho Dominguez, CA, USA) ECA were used as the model adherend and
adhesive, respectively. A complete description of the bonding procedure, optical
fracture surface analysis and monotonic and fatigue testing procedures can be
found in Ref. [30]. Furthermore, complete fatigue and failure analyses of ECA
joints fabricated using Ablebond MA-2, and subjected to varying environmental
conditions, namely, ambient, elevated temperature and elevated humidity, can be
found in Refs [30 –32].
For the purpose of incorporating varied stress states in our model, two single-
lap joint configurations with varying stress-states were designed, referred to as
overhanging and non-overhanging joint geometries. Figures 1 and 2 show the
dimensions of the two joint geometries. In the case of the overhanging joint
geometry, the single-lap joint was gripped only partially, as shown in Fig. 1, leaving
a 6.18 mm wide portion of the specimen faces ungripped.
90 R. R. Gomatam and E. Sancaktar

Figure 1. Designed joint configuration (overhanging geometry).

Figure 2. Designed joint configuration (non-overhanging geometry).

 Comprehensive fatigue life predictive model for ECA joints 91

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

First, in order to assess the state of stress in the joints, Non-Linear Elasto-Plastic
finite element analyses (FEA) were performed on both the overhanging and non-
overhanging type joints, using ALGOR© Finite Element Software.
Figures 3 and 4 show the FEA mesh patterns for the non-overhanging and
overhanging joints, respectively. The mesh pattern across the thickness of the joint
is shown in Fig. 5. These patterns involve finer meshing over the overlap region,
followed by a gradual change into a coarser mesh density, away from the overlap
region as shown in Figs 3 and 4. Similarly, Fig. 5 shows much finer meshing near
the adhesive layer with a gradual change to a coarser mesh density away from the
adhesive layer. It should be noted that, in the finite element models generated, the
mesh patterns were refined and optimized to obtain consistent stress values.
The adherend and adhesive material parameters used in the non-linear elasto-
plastic finite element analyses are given below:
Adherend:
Elastic modulus = 179 GPa
Poisson’s ratio = 0.3
Yield stress = 1.4 GPa
Strain hardening modulus = 95.8 GPa.
Adhesive:
Elastic modulus = 33 MPa

Figure 3. FEA model for the non-overhanging joint geometry.

92 R. R. Gomatam and E. Sancaktar

Figure 4. FEA model for the overhanging joint geometry.

Poisson’s ratio = 0.3

Strain hardening modulus = 22.58 MPa.
The stress–strain plot for 304 stainless steel is shown in Fig. 6.
For the purpose of formulating a fatigue life predictive model, a linear relationship
(P –N ) was established between the maximum cyclic load Pmax and the number of
cycles N :
Pmax = C  + m N, (1)
where C  and m are, respectively, the intercept and slope for this linear relation.
Figures 7–9 show, respectively, the P –N curves for the 28◦ C, 20% relative
humidity (RH), 50◦ C and 90◦ C conditions on a linear scale. Utilizing the P –N
curves data for the 28◦ C, 50◦ C and 90◦ C conditions, the slopes and intercepts were
computed, and the values are reported in Table 1.
In order to render the model usable with stress values instead of the maximum
cyclic load values, different stress components (σxx , σyy , σzz , τxy , τyz , τxz ), principal
maximum, principal minimum and von Mises stresses obtained from non-linear
elasto-plastic FEA at 3 kN and 300 kN, and the respective ratios of peak stress
values obtained at 3 kN and 300 kN maximum load levels were compared to the
intercept ratios obtained from the P –N curves at 28◦ C, 20% RH condition. Using
this comparison procedure, the use of maximum principal stress was found to be
appropriate to represent the fatigue behavior (i.e., S–N curves). Figure 10 shows the
pictorial representation of the method for determination of slopes and intercepts for
the P –N and S–N curves based on maximum load and maximum principal stress
 Comprehensive fatigue life predictive model for ECA joints 93

(a)

(b)
Figure 5. Finite element model meshing sequences. (a) Across the thickness of joint and (b) along
the adhesive layer.

values, respectively. The mathematical basis for the maximum principal stress to
replace the maximum cyclic load in equation (1) can be illustrated by considering
the following relations:
C3 C3
 = , (2)
C1 C1
94 R. R. Gomatam and E. Sancaktar

Figure 6. Stress–strain curve for 304 stainless steel.

Figure 7. P –N curves on linear scale for the 28◦ C, 20% RH.

and
C2 C2
 = . (3)
C1 C1
Table 2 shows the values of the intercepts and their ratios computed based on
maximum cyclic load and maximum principal stress values, validating the use
 Comprehensive fatigue life predictive model for ECA joints 95

Figure 8. P –N curves on linear scale for T = 50◦ C.

Figure 9. P –N curves on linear scale for T = 90◦ C.

of maximum principal stress in place of maximum cyclic load values, based on

equations (2) and (3) of our fatigue life predictive model.
Table 3 shows the slope and intercept values computed based on maximum
principal stress for 28◦ C, 20% RH, 50◦ C and 90◦ C environmental conditions.
Similar to the linear relation established between the maximum cyclic load and
the number of cycles (equation (1)), a linear relation can now be established for the
96 R. R. Gomatam and E. Sancaktar

Table 1.
Slope and intercept values calculated from P –N curves based on equation (1) for specimens tested
under different environmental conditions

Joint geometry Environmental condition Load Slope m Intercept C 

ratio R (kN/cycle) (kN)
Overhanging 28◦ C, 0.1 −7.24E-06 3.095
20% RH
Overhanging 28◦ C, 0.3 −6.94E-06 3.175
20% RH
Overhanging 28◦ C, 0.5 −1.94E-07 3.42
20% RH
Non-Overhanging 28◦ C, 0.3 −9.45E-07 3.61
20% RH
Overhanging 50◦ C 0.1 −4.7E-06 2.74
Overhanging 50◦ C 0.3 −3.5E-07 2.78
Overhanging 50◦ C 0.5 −1.01E-07 2.83
Non-Overhanging 50◦ C 0.3 −3.3E-07 2.84
Overhanging 90◦ C 0.1 −1.69E-05 2.23
Overhanging 90◦ C 0.3 −2.01E-06 2.25
Overhanging 90◦ C 0.5 −3.83E-06 2.27
Non-Overhanging 90◦ C 0.3 −1.82E-06 2.26
Overhanging 28◦ C, 0.1 −2.0E-04 2.014
90% RH
Overhanging 28◦ C, 0.5 −3.97E-06 2.11
90% RH
Overhanging 28◦ C, 0.9 −1.23E-02 1.98
90% RH

maximum principal stress (i.e., S–N curve):

σmax = C + mN, (4)
where C and m are, respectively, the intercept and slope values based on the
maximum principal stress.
This methodology for fatigue life prediction works on the principle of shifting
the slopes and the intercepts between different environmental conditions. Figure 11
shows pictorially the shifting mechanism implemented for the purpose of predicting
fatigue life of joints subject to a load ratio (R = Pmin /Pmax = σmin /σmax ) and
maximum cyclic load of Pmax , from one test environment (28◦ C, 50◦ C or 90◦ C) to
another at the same load ratio and maximum cyclic load. For this purpose, design
charts were formulated as shown in Fig. 11. These design charts comprise of two
parts, one for shifting the slope, and the other for shifting the intercept between
different environmental conditions. Figure 11 shows an example of shifting the
slope and the intercept from 28◦ C to 90◦ C. Once the slopes and the intercepts are
determined, equations (1) and (4) would yield the fatigue life of the joint at the
 Comprehensive fatigue life predictive model for ECA joints 97

Figure 10. Pictorial representation of the method for slope and intercept determination based on
maximum load and maximum principal stress.

Table 2.
Computed values of intercepts and their ratios based on maximum cyclic load (C  ) and maximum
principal stress (C)

Environ. C1 C2 C3 C1 C2 C3 C3 /C1 C2 /C1 C3 /C1 C2 /C1
condition (kN) (kN) (kN) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
28◦ C, 3.095 3.175 3.42 108.73 114.09 120.58 1.105 1.03 1.109 1.049
20% RH
50◦ C 2.74 2.78 2.83 61.36 62.05 63.2 1.04 1.018 1.029 1.011
90◦ C 2.23 2.25 2.27 23.79 23.837 24.26 1.02 1.009 1.018 1.009

new environmental condition. Figures 12–15 show the design charts for slopes
and intercepts based on maximum cyclic load or maximum principal stress for the
stainless steel adherends adhesively bonded using Ablebond MA-2 ECA.
To test the efficiency of the methodology proposed, tests were performed at
R = 0.1, Pmax = 2.1 kN, under 28◦ C, 50◦ C and 90◦ C test temperatures. Compari-
son between experimental and predicted values shown in Table 4 for the test cases
indicated above clearly validates the accuracy and efficiency of the life predictive
methodology proposed.
The modeling procedure described above was also extended for application to
varying state of stress. For this purpose, a non-linear elasto-plastic finite element
98 R. R. Gomatam and E. Sancaktar

Table 3.
Slope and intercept values based on maximum principal stress (equation (4)) calculated from S–N
curves for specimens tested under different environmental conditions

Joint geometry Environmental Load Slope m Intercept C 

condition ratio R (MPa/cycle) (MPa)
Overhanging 28◦ C, 0.1 −2.52E-04 108.73
20% RH
Overhanging 28◦ C, 0.3 −2.42E-04 114.09
20% RH
Overhanging 28◦ C, 0.5 −6.75E-06 120.58
20% RH
Non-Overhanging 28◦ C, 0.3 −2.81E-05 125.75
20% RH
Overhanging 50◦ C 0.1 −1.05E-04 61.36
Overhanging 50◦ C 0.3 −7.81E-06 62.05
Overhanging 50◦ C 0.5 −2.25E-06 63.2
Non-Overhanging 50◦ C 0.3 −7.37E-06 63.46
Overhanging 90◦ C 0.1 −1.79E-04 23.79
Overhanging 90◦ C 0.3 −2.13E-05 23.837
Overhanging 90◦ C 0.5 −2.01E-06 24.21
Non-Overhanging 90◦ C 0.3 −1.94E-05 24.1

Table 4.
Results from fatigue predictive model utilizing design charts

Test condition Slope Intercept Predicted life Actual fatigue life

(kN/cycle) (number of cycles) (number of cycles)
R = 0.1,
Pmax = 2.1 kN 2 × 10−6 3.15 525 000 499 872
28◦ C
R = 0.1,
Pmax = 2.1 kN 7 × 10−6 3.77 238 571 229 852
50◦ C
R = 0.1,
Pmax = 2.1 kN 9.5 × 10−6 2.28 18 947 19 526
90◦ C

analysis was performed for ambient condition (28◦ C, 20% RH) and a non-linear
thermo-elasto-plastic finite element analysis was performed for elevated tempera-
ture conditions to represent the overhanging and non-overhanging joints geometries
as two distinct states of stress. Figure 16 shows a pictorial representation of ambient
condition P –N curves for the two different stress states.
Utilizing the results from the finite element analyses, the relation between the
stress components, slopes, and intercepts were established, as shown by the relations
 Comprehensive fatigue life predictive model for ECA joints 99

Figure 11. Pictorial representation of the shifting methodology used in establishing design charts for
predicting fatigue life.

in equations (5) and (6):

CNOH (σmax )OH
= (5)
COH (σmax )NOH
and
mOH (τXZ )OH
= , (6)
mNOH (τXZ )NOH
where, σmax and τxz are, respectively, the maximum principal stress and the
maximum shear stress on the xz plane.
As can be seen from equations (5) and (6), the intercepts are defined to be
inversely proportional to the maximum principal stresses, and the slopes are defined
to be directly proportional to the shear stresses, τxz . We believe that the ratio of
maximum principal stresses is proportional to the ratio of intercepts between the
two stress states, mainly because the maximum principal stresses act in a static
fashion starting from the beginning of the cyclic load application (i.e., N = 0),
100 R. R. Gomatam and E. Sancaktar

Figure 12. Design chart for slope based on maximum load (equation (1)).

Figure 13. Design chart for intercept based on maximum load (equation (1)).

and could be superposed onto the entire P –N curve. On the other hand, the
maximum shear stress, τxz , affects the slope of the P –N curve, which reflects the
time-dependent behavior of crack propagation. This can also be inferred from the
FEA analyses results, which indicate higher τxz stress values in the overhanging
region of the overhanging joint geometry. We believe that this behavior results
in a higher slope for the S–N curve for the overhanging joint geometry, which
 Comprehensive fatigue life predictive model for ECA joints 101

Figure 14. Design chart for slope based on maximum principal stress (equation (4)).

Figure 15. Design chart for intercept based on maximum principal stress (equation (4)).

diminishes for the non-overhanging counterpart. Thus, by using the above relations
along with a knowledge of the states of stress for any two joint configurations, one
of which has already been characterized for P –N behavior, the slope and intercept
for the other joint with unknown P –N behavior can be computed. These values
can subsequently be substituted into equations (5) and (6), to predict the fatigue life
of the joint with unknown fatigue (P –N ) behavior. Tables 5 and 6 show the ratios
of intercepts compared with the ratios of maximum principal and normal stresses
102 R. R. Gomatam and E. Sancaktar

Figure 16. Pictorial representation of P –N curves for two different stress states.

Table 5.
Computed ratios for intercepts, principal stresses and the stress components, σxx ,
σyy and σzz

CNOH (σmax )OH (σxx )OH (σyy )OH (σzz )OH

Temperature
COH (σmax )NOH (σxx )NOH (σyy )NOH (σzz )NOH
28◦ C 1.035 1.022 0.86 0.95 0.87
50◦ C 1.022 1.032 1.693 2.892 1.833
90◦ C 1.004 1.002 3.02 2.06 1.85

The ratios are between the overhanging (OH) and non-overhanging (NOH) joint
geometries.

Table 6.
Computed ratios for slopes and shear stress components, τxy and τyz

MOH (τmax )OH (τxy )OH (τyz )OH

Temperature
MNOH (τmax )NOH (τxy )NOH (τyz )NOH
28◦ C 7.34 6.78 2.23 1.24
50◦ C 1.06 1.098 3.655 2.411
90◦ C 1.1 1.16 9.11 9.52

The ratios are between the overhanging (OH) and non-overhanging (NOH) joint
geometries.
 Comprehensive fatigue life predictive model for ECA joints 103

(Table 5), as well as the ratios of the slopes compared with the ratios of all shear
stress components (Table 6), validating the usage of equations (5) and (6) in our
fatigue life predictive model for different states of stress.

4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A novel life prediction methodology has been proposed in this paper, using slope
and intercept values computed from the P –N curves on a linear scale and under
constant-cycle loading condition. For this purpose, an easy-to-use life predictive
methodology was proposed, which utilizes a set of design charts. The design charts
are comprised of two parts, one for shifting the slopes and the other for shifting the
intercepts between different environmental conditions. Using these design charts,
the slope and intercept values for an unknown condition can be computed, which
would predict the total fatigue life of the joint. Furthermore, the proposed model
was extended to samples with varying stress states. For this purpose, a non-linear
elasto-plastic finite element analysis (FEA) for ambient condition, and a non-linear
thermo-elasto-plastic FEA for elevated temperature conditions were performed
using overhanging and non-overhanging joint geometries to represent two distinct
states of stress. Utilizing the FEA results, relations between the stress components,
slopes, and intercepts were established. The intercepts were found to be inversely
proportional to the maximum stresses, and the slopes directly proportional to the
shear-stress component τxz . Thus, by using these relations along with a knowledge
of the stress states for only two joint configurations, one of which has already been
characterized for the P –N behavior, the slope and intercept for the other joint with
unknown P –N behavior could be computed, from which the fatigue life of the joint
could be predicted.

REFERENCES
1. E. Sancaktar, in: Engineered Materials Handbook Volume 3: Adhesives and Sealants,
H. F. Brinson, Technical Chairman, pp. 349–372. ASM International, Materials Park, OH (1990).
2. A. Rotem and H. G. Nelson, in: Fatigue of Fibrous Composite Materials, ASTM STP. 723,
K. N. Lauraitis (Ed.), p. 152. ASTM, Philadelphia, PA (1981).
3. Y. Miyano and M. K. McMurray, J. Composite Mater. 28, 1250 (1994).
4. C. T. Sun and W. S. Chan, in: Composite Materials, Testing and Design, STP 674, S. W. Tsai
(Ed.), p. 418. ASTM, Philadelphia, PA (1979).
5. R. A. Schapery, Int. J. Fracture 11, 141 (1975).
6. E. Dan-Jumba, S. G. Zhou and C. T. Sun, in: Advances in Thermoplastic Matrix Composite
Materials, ASTM STP 1044, G. M. Newaz (Ed.), p. 113. ASTM Philadelphia, PA (1989).
7. E. Suhir, in: Proceedings of the 37th IEEE Electronic Components Conference, p. 143 (1987).
8. A. Gladkov and A. Bar-Cohen, in: Proc. 3rd Int. Conference on Adhesive Joining and Coating
Technology in Electronic Manufacturing, Binghampton, NY, J. H. Constable (Ed.), p. 116
(1998).
9. T. Hattori, S. Sakata and G. Murakami, J. Electron. Packag. 111, 243 (1989).
 104 R. R. Gomatam and E. Sancaktar

10. M. M. Abdel Wahab, I. A. Ashcroft, A. D. Crocombe and S. J. Shaw, J. Adhesion Sci. Technol.
15, 763 (2001).
11. P. J. Singh, D. R. G. Achar, B. Guha and H. Nordberg, Int. J. Fatigue 25, 1 (2003).
12. N. Himmel, Int. J. Fatigue 24, 349 (2002).
13. J. Schon and A. Blom, Int. J. Fatigue 24, 361 (2002).
14. M. M. Abdel Wahab, I. A. Ashcroft, A. D. Crocombe and P. A. Smith, Int. J. Fatigue 24, 705
(2002).
15. M. D. Halliday, C. Cooper, P. Poole and P. Bowen, Int. J. Fatigue 25, 709 (2003).
16. M. M. K. Lee and D. Bowless, Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 25, 1025 (2002).
17. H. Adib and G. Pluvinage, Int. J. Fatigue 25, 67 (2003).
18. C. S. Lee and W. Hwang, Polym. Composit. 21, 798 (2000).
19. A. Singh, J. Mech. Design, Trans. ASME 125, 540 (2003).
20. S.-B. Lee and J.-K. Kim, Int. J. Fatigue 19, 85 (1997).
21. N. Hong and L. Shabo, Int. J. Fatigue 19, 517 (1997).
22. F. Morel, Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 21, 241 (1998).
23. P. J. Laz and B. M. Hillberry, Int. J. Fatigue 20, 263 (1998).
24. J. S. Huh and W. Hwang, Composit. Struct. 44, 163 (1999).
25. Y. I. Kwon and B. S. Lim, Metals Mater. Intl. 7, 311 (2001).
26. H. Solomon, IEEE Trans. CHMT 9, 423 (1986).
27. W. Engelmaier, IEEE Trans. CHMT 12, 284 (1989).
28. V. Gektin, A. Bar-Cohen and S. Witzman, IEEE Trans. CPMT Part A 21, 577 (1998).
29. R. R. Gomatam, Modeling fatigue behavior of electronically conductive adhesives, PhD
Dissertation, The University of Akron, Akron, OH (2002).
30. R. R. Gomatam and E. Sancaktar, J. Adhesion Sci. Technol. 18, 731 (2004).
31. R. R. Gomatam and E. Sancaktar, J. Adhesion Sci. Technol. 18, 849 (2004).
32. R. R. Gomatam and E. Sancaktar, J. Adhesion Sci. Technol. 18, 1833 (2004).

View publication stats