Evaluation of solder joint strengths under ball impact test

Predicting the Drop Performance of Solder Joints by Evaluating the Elastic Strain Energy from High-Speed Ball Pull Tests

“…[1][2][3][4][5][6] Sn-Ag-Cu solders possess several advantages over conventional Sn-Pb solders. These include higher stiffness and strength, and superior resistance to thermal cycling and fatigue as well as their high microstructural stability.…”

“…1,9 A number of different methodologies (e.g., drop impact, high-speed ball shear or ball pull, and tensile bond tests) to simulate and understand the fracture behavior of a solder joint under high-strain-rate loads have been attempted. 5,10 However, among the various existing test methodologies, only the board-level drop test, proposed by the Joint Electron Device Engineering Council (JEDEC), has been widely acknowledged for providing a common test reference for the industry in assessing the drop performance of microelectronic solder joints. Nevertheless, the JEDECÕs standard board-level drop test method is generally too costly and time consuming to be viable.…”

Board‐Level Reliability of Lead‐Free Solder under Mechanical Shock and Vibration Loads

“…2). The single joint testers are typically component-level tests where individual solder bumps are either sheared [38][39][40][41][42][43][44] or pulled [45][46][47][48][49] from the packages by using striker probes or mechanical jaws and the force required to detach the bump is recorded.…”

“…When the component boards are loaded with a shock impulse, several natural bending modes are excited simultaneously and, as a consequence of their simultaneous vibration, the bending of test assemblies can be highly complex and the mechanical analysis by the Figure 2 Some high-strain-rate methods developed for shock impact testing of surface mount devices and assemblies: (a) split Hopkinson pressure bar [34][35][36][37]; (b) miniature Charpy test [38][39][40]; (c) single bump shear or pull test [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]; (d ) die/package shear [51]; (e) die/package double shear [52]. finite element method (FEM) can become challenging.…”

Nanotribological Characteristics of Cu6Sn5, Cu3Sn, and Ni3Sn4 Intermetallic Compounds

“…[2][3][4][5][6] Binary IMCs, such as Cu 6 Sn 5 , Cu 3 Sn, and Ni 3 Sn 4 , and ternary or multi-element IMCs, such as (Cu 1Àx ,Ni x ) 6 Sn 5 and (Ni 1Ày ,Cu y ) 3 Sn 4 , are typical species present on the interface between the Sn-based solder and the Cu or Au/Ni/Cu pad metallization. 7,8 Because of the irregular shapes and micrometer scales of these IMCs in a solder joint, their mechanical properties are difficult to obtain by conventional test methods for bulk materials.…”