1998 Proceedings. 48th Electronic Components and Technology Conference (Cat. No.98CH36206)
DOI: 10.1109/ectc.1998.678789
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reliability analysis for fine pitch BGA package

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Publication Types

Select...
3
3

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Over the last two decades, many models have been developed to estimate the low-cycle fatigue life of SnPb eutectic solder joints [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]. Among these models, the crack initiation and growth model proposed by Darveaux in 1995 [28], and revised in 2000 [29], is one of the widely accepted models.…”
Section: Fatigue Life Prediction Of Solder Jointmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Over the last two decades, many models have been developed to estimate the low-cycle fatigue life of SnPb eutectic solder joints [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]. Among these models, the crack initiation and growth model proposed by Darveaux in 1995 [28], and revised in 2000 [29], is one of the widely accepted models.…”
Section: Fatigue Life Prediction Of Solder Jointmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The majority of these models use damage accumulation and predict fatigue failure based on a hysteresis-energy term or a volume-weighted average stress-strain history [19][20][21][22][23]. Syed [24] derived, for purely secondary creep, an expression for the accumulated creep damage that related the crack-growth rate to the rate of creep energy density dissipated using the C* parameter based on the NSW model [25].…”
Section: Nomenclaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…If the cycles have sufficient half-cycle dwell times to result in complete stress-relaxation/creep, then ∆D = ∆W. Englemaier has suggested that the fatigue ductility exponent is a function of temperature and time: [172] 0.37 63Sn-37Pb Anderson, et al [97] 0.42 SAC Lee, et al [98] 0.43 Sn-Cu Kariya, et al [173] 0.44 SAC Lee, et al [98] 0.57 Sn-Ag Akay, et al [165] 0.63 SAC Wu, et al [166] 0.68 SAC Lee, et al [98] 0.74 SAC Lee, et al [94] 0.87 Sn-Ag-Bi Pang, et al [174] 0.99 Sn-Cu Kanchanomai, et al [176] 1.14 Sn-Ag-Cu-Bi [91] 0.37 Sn-Pb Anderson, et al [100] 0.42 SAC Kanda, et al [91] 0.49 SAC Lau, et al [100] 0.51 SAC Akay, et al [165] 0.63 SAC Wu, et al [166] 0.68 SAC Shi, et al [70] 0.70 Sn-Pb Pang, et al [101] 0.87 SAC0387 Kim, et al [92] 0.88 SAC405 Ahmer, et al [167] 1.00 SAC Jung, et al [168] 1.00 63Sn37Pb Dudek, et al [169] 1.00 SAC Pang, et al [170] 1.07 SAC at 25C Chi, et al [171] 1.10 SAC Lee, et al [98] 1.17 Sn3.5Ag7.5Bi…”
Section: Fatigue Life Predictionmentioning
confidence: 99%