IPC-D-279 EN.pdf - 第58页
Conclusions: The two components analyzed have large reliability mar- gins for this use environment; a product with 30 chip carri- ers and 100 CC1820s would just reach a cumulative failure probability of 0.5% after 10 yea…
40//60°C) = 1000//2650 cycles, n(LCCC) = 30,
N
f
(0.5%, LCCC, ∆T = 40//60°C) = 127,000//15,400
cycles, β(LCCC) = 2, n(CC1820) = 100, N
f
(0.5%,
CC1820, ∆T = 40//60°C) = 43,000//21,000 cycles,
β(CC1820) = 4;
=>F
∑
(N = 3650) = 0.5%.
Thus, this design would just meet the reliability require-
ment of x ≤0.5% at the end of 10 years of service.
Accelerated Testing:
Test Components:
8 chip carriers (LCCC), 68 I/O 50-mil, α
C
= 6.3 ppm/°C
(measured), internally daisy-chained to allow indepen-
dent monitoring of each LCCC side (
1
⁄
4
of LCCC), with
side-brazed copper alloy compliant leads with a diago-
nal lead stiffness of K
D
= 52 lb/in (calculated), 256 chip
capacitors CC1820, α
C
= 6.8 ppm/°C (measured), with
metallization caps shorted with conductive epoxy on
capacitor top,
Test Substrate:
FR-4 multilayer board, α
S
= 16.0 ppm/°C (measured)
for greater CTE-mismatches and greater test accelera-
tion, test printed board lay-out provides for independent
continuity monitoring of each side of each chip carrier
(LCCC) and for continuity monitoring of groups of 8
chip capacitors (CCs) daisy-chained together. Confor-
mal Coating: Test vehicles are not conformally coated.
Test Parameters:
Temperature cycling from 0°C to 100°C at 24 cycles/
day, t
D
= 15 min, ∆T = 100°C and T
SJ
= 50°C.
Results of Accelerated Reliability Test:
N
f
(50%) = 982 and 6310 accelerated cycles-to-failure for
the individual LCCC sides and the 8 daisy-chained
CC1820s, respectively. Applying the partition correction
from Equation 16 in IPC-SM-785 results in N
f
(50%) =
491 and 10612 accelerated cycles-to-failure for the
actual LCCC and the CC1820 component attachments,
respectively.
Reliability Estimates by Extrapolation of Accelerated Test
Results:
Ceramic Chip Carrier:
The input parameters into Eq. A-4 are for the test: F =
1.0, K
D
= 52 lb/in, L
D
= 0.674 in, ∆(α∆T) = 970.0x10
-6
(α
C
= 6.3 ppm/°C, α
S
= 16.0 ppm/°C, T
C
=T
S
= 100°C,
T
C,0
=T
S,0
= 0°C), A = 900x10
-6
in
2
, h = 0.005 in;
-> ∆D(test) = 3.714x10
-2
.
and for the field use: F = 1.0, K
D
= 52 lb/in, L
D
= 0.674 in,
∆(α∆T) = 117.6x10
-6
//201.6x10
-6
(α
C
= 6.3 ppm/°C, α
S
= 10.5 ppm/°C, T
C
= 93°C, T
S
= 85°C, T
C,0
=T
S,0
=
45//25°C), A = 900x10
-6
in
2
, h = 0.005 in;
-> ∆D(use) = 5.459x10
-4
//1.604x10
-3
at ∆T = 40//60°C,
respectively.
The input parameters into Eq. A-2 are for the test: T
SJ
=
50°C (T
C
=T
S
= 100°C, T
C,0
=T
S,0
= 0°C), t
D
=15
min;
-> c(test) = −0.4160;
and for the field use: T
SJ
= 67//57°C (T
C
= 93°C, T
S
=
85°C, T
C,0
=T
S,0
= 45//25°C), t
D
= 715 min;
-> c(use) = −0.4751//−0.4691 at ∆T = 40//60°C, respec-
tively.
Using these results in Eq. A-12 in IPC-SM-785 with
N
f
(test, 50%) = 491 cycles gives:
=> N
f
(use, 50%) = 1,500,000//183,000 cycles at ∆T = 40//
60°C, respectively.
CC1820 Chip Capacitor:
The input parameters into Eq. A-3 are for the test: F =
0.7, L
D
= 0.080 in, ∆(α∆T) = 920.0x10
-6
(α
C
= 6.8
ppm/°C, α
S
= 16.0 ppm/°C, T
C
=T
S
= 100°C, T
C,0
=
T
S,0
= 0°C), h = 0.005 in;
-> ∆D(test) = 1.030x10
-2
.
and for the field use: F = 0.7, L
D
= 0.080 in, ∆(α∆T) =
148.0x10
-6
//222.0x10
-6
(α
C
= 6.8 ppm/°C, α
S
= 10.5
ppm/°C, T
C
=T
S
= 85°C, T
C,0
=T
S,0
= 45//25°C), h =
0.005 in;
-> ∆D(use) = 1.658x10
-3
//2.486x10
-3
at ∆T = 40//60°C,
respectively.
The input parameters into Eq. A-2 are for the test: T
SJ
=
50°C (T
C
=T
S
= 100°C, T
C,0
=T
S,0
= 0°C), t
D
=15
min;
-> c(test) = −0.4160;
and for the field use: T
SJ
= 65//55°C (T
C
=T
S,0
= 85°C,
T
C,0
=T
S,0
= 45//25°C), t
D
= 715 min;
-> c(use) = −0.4739//−0.4679 at ∆T = 40//60°C, respec-
tively.
Using these results into Eq. A-12 in IPC-SM-785 with
N
f
(test, 50%) = 10,612 cycles gives:
=> N
f
(use, 50%) = 148,000//73,000 cycles at ∆T = 40//
60°C, respectively.
Cycles-To-Failure for Daisy-Chains
Failure
No.
12345678
1
⁄
4
LCCC 146 196 388 418 486 540 568 628
8 CC1820 2718 3463 3826 4161 4397 4631 4738 5022
Failure
No.
9 10111213141516
1
⁄
4
LCCC 676 684 690 820 850 878 902 926
8 CC1820 5206 5372 5489 5598 5823 5978 6073 6223
Failure
No.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1
⁄
4
LCCC 1038 1044 1096 1122 1206 1214 1298 1350
8 CC1820 6397 Test terminated at 6,400 cycles
Failure
No.
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
1
⁄
4
LCCC 1386 1480 1536 1602 1716 1840 2002 2432
8 CC1820 Test terminated at 6,400 cycles
IPC-D-279 July 1996
46
Conclusions:
The two components analyzed have large reliability mar-
gins for this use environment; a product with 30 chip carri-
ers and 100 CC1820s would just reach a cumulative failure
probability of 0.5% after 10 years.
Excellent agreement between the reliability estimates from
analytical reliability model and from extrapolation from the
results of accelerated testing is shown.
A-9.0 REFERENCES
1. Engelmaier, W., ‘‘Surface Mount Solder Joint Reliabil-
ity: Issues, Design, Testing, Prediction’’ Workshop
Notes, Engelmaier Associates, Inc., Mendham, NJ,
1995.
2. Engelmaier, W., ‘‘Effects of Power Cycling on Lead-
less Chip Carrier Mounting Reliability and Technol-
ogy,’’ Proc. Int. Electronics Packaging Conf. (IEPS),
San Diego. CA. November 1982, p. 15.
3. Engelmaier, W., ‘‘Functional Cycles and Surface
Mounting Attachment Reliability,’’ Surface Mount
Technology, ISHM Technical Monograph Series 6984-
002. The International Society for Microelectronics,
Silver Spring, MD, 1984, p. 87.
4. Engelmaier, W., and A. I. Attarwala, ‘‘Surface-Mount
Attachment Reliability of Clip-Leaded Ceramic Chip
Carriers on FR-4 Circuit Boards,’’ IEEE Trans. Com-
ponents, Hybrids, and Manufacturing Technology. Vol.
CHMT-12, No. 2, June 1989, p. 284.
5. Engelmaier, W., ‘‘Performance Considerations:
Thermal-Mechanical Effects,’’ in Section 6: Soldering
and Mounting Technology, Electronic Materials Hand-
book, Volume 1, Packaging, ASM International, Mate-
rials Park, OH, 1989, p. 740.
6. Engelmaier, W., ‘‘Reliability for Surface Mount Solder
Joints: Physics and Statistics of Failure,’’ Volume 1.
San Jose, CA, August 1992, p. 433.
7. Clech, J-P., F. M. Langerman and J. A. Augis, ‘‘Local
CTE Mismatch in SM Leaded Packages: A Potential
Reliability Concern,’’ Component & Technology
Conf.. Las Vegas, NE, May 1990, p. 377.
8. Engelmaier, W., ‘‘The Use Environments of Electronic
Assemblies and Their Impact on Surface Mount Solder
Attachment Reliability,’’ Proc. EIA/IPC Surface
Mounting and Reflow Technology Conf.-SMART VI,
Lake Buena Vista, FL, January 1990.
9. Engelmaier, W., ‘‘Long-Term Reliability Requirements
And Their Assurance For Surface Mount Solder Joints
For U.S. Air Force (AVIP) Avionics,’’ Proc. 18th Ann.
Electronics Manufacturing Sem.. Naval Weapons Cen-
ter, China Lake, CA, February 1994, pp. 151-165.
10. ‘‘Guidelines for Accelerated Reliability Testing of Sur-
face Mount Solder Attachments,’’ IPC Guidelines IPC-
SM-785. The Institute for Interconnecting and Packag-
ing Electronic Circuits, Lincolnwood, IL, November
1992.
11. Dudek, R., and B. Michel, ‘‘Untersuchungen zur Lots-
tellenbeanspruchung mit nichtlinearen Finite-
Elemente-Methoden und 1okalen Deformationsmes-
sungen,’’ in Zuverlassigkeit von Surface Mount-
Lotverbindungen: Einflüsse. Konstruktion. prüfung.
Vorhersage. ZVE der FhE-IZM, Oberpfaffenhofen-
Wessling, Germany, October 1994.
12. Wild, R. N., ‘‘Some Fatigue Properties of Solders and
Solder Joints,’’ IBM Tech. Rep. 73Z000421, January
1973.
13. Solomon, H. D., in Electronic Packaging: Materials
and Processes, J. A. Sartell, ed.. ASM, 1986, pp. 29-47.
14. Manson, S.S., Thermal Stress and Low Cycle Fatigue,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1966.
15. Morrow, J. D., ‘‘Cyclic Plastic Strain Energy and
Fatigue of Metals,’’ ASTM STP 378. ASTM, Philadel-
phia, 1964, pp. 45-87.
16. Engelmaier, W., ‘‘Solder Joint Reliability, Accelerated
Testing and Result Evaluation,’’ chapter in Solder Joint
Reliability: Theory and Applications, John Lau, ed.,
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1990.
17. Hall, P.M., ‘‘Forces, Moments, and Displacements
During Thermal Chamber Cycling of Leadless
Ceramic Chip Carriers Soldered to Printed Boards,’’
IEEE Trans. Components, Hybrids, and Manufacturing
Technology, V91. CHMT-7. No. 4, December 1984, p.
314.
18. Shine, M. C., and L. R. Fox, ‘‘Fatigue of Solder Joints
in Surface Mount Devices,’’ Low Cycle Fatigue.
ASTM STP 942, ASTM, Philadelphia, 1987, p. 588.
19. Wilcox, J. R., R. Subrahmanyan, and C.-Y. Li, ‘‘Ther-
mal Stresses and Inelastic Deformation of Solder
Joints,’’ Proc. 2nd ASM Int. Electronic Materials and
Processine Congress. ASM, 1989, p. 203.
20. Paydar, N., Y. Tong and H. U. Akay, ‘‘A Finite Ele-
ment Study of Fatigue Life Prediction Methods for
Thermally Loaded Solder Joints,’’ EEP-Vol. 4-2.
Advances in Electronic , P. A. Engel and W. T. Chen,
eds., ASME Book No. 10349B-1993, pp. 1063-1070.
July 1996 IPC-D-279
47
21. Engelmaier, W., ‘‘Surface Mount Solder Joint Long-
Term Reliability: Design, Testing, Prediction,’’ Solder-
ing & Surface Mount Technology. Vol. 1. No. 1, Feb-
ruary 1989, pp. 1422; also in IPC Technical Paper IPC-
TP-797. The Institute for Interconnecting and
Packaging Electronic Circuits, Lincolnwood, IL, Janu-
ary 1989.
22. Kotlowitz, R. W., ‘‘Comparative Compliance of Rep-
resentative Lead Designs for Surface Mounted Compo-
nents,’’ Proc. Int. Electronics Packaging Conf. (IEPS),
Dallas, TX, November 1988, p. 908; also in IEEE
Trans. Components, Hybrids, and Manufacturing Tech-
nology, Vol. CHMT-12, No. 4, December 1989, p. 431.
23. Kotlowitz, R. W., ‘‘Compliance of Surface Mount
Component Lead Designs with Rectangular and Circu-
lar Cross-Sections,’’ Proc. Int. Electronics Packaging
Conf. (IEPS). San Diego, CA, September 1989, p.
1071.
24. Kotlowitz, R. W., ‘‘Compliance Metrics for Surface
Mount Component Lead Design, With Application to
Clip-Leads,’’ Proc. Surface Mount Technology Conf.
(SMTCON), Atlantic City, NJ, April 1991, pp. 1-14.
25. Kotlowitz, R. W., and L. R. Taylor, ‘‘Compliance Met-
rics for the Inclined Gull-Wing, Spider J-Bend, and
Spider Gull-Wing Lead Designs for Surface Mount
Components,’’ Proc. 41st Electronic Components &
Technology Conf., Atlanta, GA, May 1991, pp. 299-
312.
26. Hines, L. L., ‘‘SOT-23 Surface Mount Attachment
Reliability Study,’’ Proc. 7th Annual Int, Electronics
Packaging Conf. (IEPS). Boston, MA, November
1987, pp. 613-629.
27. Engelmaier, W., ‘‘Alloy 42—Not a Choice Material for
Surface Mount Leads,’’ 35th Annual IPC Meeting, Bal
Harbour, FL, April 1992.
28. Lau, J. W., S. Golwalkar, S. Erasmus, R. Surratt, and
P. Boysan, ‘‘Experimental and Analytical Studies of
28-Pin Thin Small Outline Package (TSOP) Solder
Joint Reliability,’’ J, Electronic Packaging. Vol. 114,
No. 2, June 1992, pp. 169176.
29. Noctor, D. M., F. E. Bader, A. P. Viera, P. Boysan, S.
Golwalkar, and D. Foehringer, ‘‘Attachment Reliability
Evaluation and Failure Analysis of Thin Small Outline
Packages (TSOPs),’’ Proc. 43rd Electronic Compo-
nents and Technology Conf., Orlando, FL, June 2-4,
1993, pp. 54-61.
30. Noctor, D. M., and J-P. Clech, ‘‘Accelerated Testing
and Predictive Modeling of the Attachment Reliability
of Alloy 42 and Copper Leaded TSOPs,’’ Proc. Nat,
Electronic Packaging and Production Conf. (NEPCON
East), Boston, MA, June 14-17, 1993, pp. 193-206.
31. Engelmaier, W., and B. Fuentes, ‘‘Alloy 42: A Material
to be Avoided for Surface Mount Solder Component
Leads and Lead Frames,’’ Proc. Surface Mount Inter-
national Conf., San Jose, CA, August-September 1994,
pp. 644-655; also in Proc, Int, Electronics Packaging
Conf. (IEPS), Atlanta, September 1994, pp. 503-516.
32. Nicewarner, E., ‘‘Historical Failure Distribution and
Significant Factors Affecting Surface Mount Solder
Joint Fatigue Life,’’ Proc. Int. Electronics Packaging
Conf. (IEPS), San Diego, CA, September 1993, pp.
553-563, also in Soldering & Surface Mount Technol-
ogy. No. 17, May 1994, pp. 22-29.
33. Tsukada, Y., and Y. Mashimoto, ‘‘Low Temperature
Flip Chip Attach Packaging, on Epoxy Base Carrier’’
Proc. Surface Mount International Conf.. San Jose,
CA, August-September 1992, pp. 294-299.
34. Wild, R. N., ‘‘1974 IRAD Study - Fatigue Properties
of Solder Joints,’’ IBM Report No. M45-74-002, Con-
tract No. IBM 4A69, January 5. 1975.
35. Suhir, E., ‘‘Axisymmetric Elastic Deformation of a
Finite Circular Cylinder with Application to Low Tem-
perature Strains and Stresses in Solder Joints,’’ J. Appl.
Mech.. Vol. 56, No. 2, June 1989, pp. 328-333.
36. Engelmaier, W., ‘‘IEEE Compliant Lead Task
Force—A Progress Report,’’ Proc. 8th Annual Int.
Electronics Packaging Conf. (IEPS), Dallas, TX,
November 1988, p. 891.
37. Clech, J-P., D. M. Noctor, J. C. Manock, G. W. Lynott
and F. E. Bader, ‘‘Surface Mount Assembly Failure
Statistics and Failure Free Time,’’ Proc. 44th Elec-
tronic Components and Technology Conf., Washing-
ton, D.C., May 1-4, 1994, pp. 487-497.
38. Engelmaier, W., ‘‘Assuring Long-Term Reliability Of
Surface Mount Solder Joints For Military Avionics
(AVIP) Applications,’’ Proc. Surface Mount Interna-
tional Conf., San Jose, CA, August-September 1993,
pp. 376-384.
39. Engelmaier, W., ‘‘Long-Term Surface Mount Solder
Joint Reliability In Electronic Systems With Multiple
Use Environments And A Multiplicity Of Compo-
nents,’’ Proc. ASME International Electronics Packag-
ing Conf.. Binghamton, NY, September-October 1993.
40. M.A. Miner, ‘‘Cumulative Damage in Fatigue,’’ J.
Applied Mechanics, Vol. 12, 1945.
IPC-D-279 July 1996
48