IPC-TM-650 EN 2022 试验方法.pdf - 第401页

Users of this test method should apply the principles outlined in E-691 to generate the data specific to their laboratory and materials, or between specific laboratories. The principles would then be valid for such data.…

The factors f, Φ and ψ are given in Table 7-1 and Table 7-2

for each geometry. This value of E/(1 - v

) shall be compared

with that obtained from K

2/G

. The former value should

be the larger, but the difference should be <15 %. The cor-

rected compliance, C

, is obtained from the measured com-

pliance in the fracture test, C

, and the compliance from the

indentation test, Ci, in accordance with the following:

-C

[Ref. 5, SENB]

Table 7-2 Calibration Factors Compact Tension

a/W ƒ (x) Φψη

0.450 8.34 0.208 28.9 2.64

0.455 8.45 0.207 29.6 2.63

0.460 8.57 0.207 30.4 2.61

0.465 8.70 0.206 31.1 2.60

0.470 8.83 0.205 31.9 2.58

0.475 8.96 0.204 32.7 2.57

0.480 9.09 0.203 33.5 2.56

0.485 9.23 0.202 34.4 2.54

0.490 9.36 0.201 35.3 2.53

0.495 9.51 0.200 35.3 2.53

0.500 9.65 0.199 37.1 2.51

0.505 9.81 0.198 38.0 2.50

0.510 9.96 0.197 39.0 2.49

0.515 10.12 0.196 40.0 2.48

0.520 10.28 0.194 41.1 2.47

0.525 10.45 0.193 42.1 2.46

0.530 10.62 0.192 43.3 2.45

0.535 10.80 0.190 44.4 2.44

0.540 10.98 0.189 45.6 2.43

0.545 11.17 0.188 46.8 2.42

0.550 11.36 0.186 48.1 2.41

Values calculated using J. A. Knapp, G. S. Leger and B. Gross, Fracture

Mechanics Sixteenth Symposium, ASTM, STP 868, 19, pp. 27 - 44.

7.4 Report List the information required to perform the test

and the results obtained in the form of a table. The form to

use is provided in Table 7-3.

7.4.1 Table 7-4 is based on a round robin conducted in

1988 in accordance with E-691, involving four materials

tested by nine laboratories. For each material, all the samples

were prepared at one source, but the individual specimens

were prepared at the laboratories which tested them. Each

test result was the average of three individual determinations.

Each laboratory obtained one test result for each material. The

following explanations of r and R are only intended to present

a meaningful way of considering the approximate precision of

this test method. The data in Table 7-4 should not be rigor-

ously applied to acceptance or rejection of material, as those

data are specific to the round robin and may not be represen-

tative of other lots, conditions, materials, or laboratories.

Table 7-3 Testing Summary

Fracture Test Parameters

Testing Laboratory

Materials/orientation

Specimen geometry

Test temperature, °C

Loading rate, m/s

Notching method

Specimen number

Width (W), mm

Crack length from 7.2.2, mm

max

loading rate, s

PQ loading time, s

Stable or unstable growth

,MPa-m

1/2

Uncorrected energy, J

Corrected energy, J

, kJ/m

Tensile Test Parameters

σy, MPa

σy loading time, s

Validity Checks

Pmax/PQ

2.5 (KQ/sy)

E/(1 - ν

) via C, MPa

E/(1 - ν

) via K

, MPa

Table 7-4 Precision Statistics from Round-Robin

Study in Accordance with Practice ASTM E691

Material

Average S

A 4.34 0.652 0.235 0.679 0.658 1.90

B 5.70 1.420 0.618 1.510 1.730 4.23

C 3.60 0.692 0.343 0.747 0.960 2.09

D 5.90 1.950 0.944 2.100 2.640 7.39

Material A is values of K

for nylon. Material B is values of G

for nylon.

Material C is values of K

for polycarbonate. Material D is values of G

for

polycarbonate. Units for all columns are as follows: K

[=] MP

Ë m

1/2

[=] kJ/m

IPC-TM-650

Number

2.4.52

Subject

Fracture Toughness of Resin Systems for Base Materials

Date

07/13

Revision

Page7of8

Users of this test method should apply the principles outlined

in E-691 to generate the data specific to their laboratory and

materials, or between specific laboratories. The principles

would then be valid for such data.

7.4.2 Concept of r and R (Reference ASTM D5045, Section

11.2). If Sr and SR have been calculated from a large enough

body of data, and for test results that were averages from

testing three specimens, the following information applies.

7.4.2.1 Repeatability, r (comparing two test results for the

same material, obtained by the same operator using the same

equipment on the same day). The two test results should be

judged not equivalent if they differ by more than the r value for

that material.

7.4.2.2 Reproducibility, R (comparing two test results for the

same material, obtained by different operators using different

equipment on the same day). The two test results should be

judged not equivalent if they differ by more than the R value

for that material.

7.4.2.3 Any judgement in accordance with the above would

have an approximate 95 % (0.95) probability of being correct.

7.4.3 Bias There are no recognized standards by which to

estimate bias of these test methods.

7.4.4 Keywords (Reference ASTM D 5045, Section 12)

• Critical-strain energy release rate

• Energy-to-break

• Fracture toughness

• Plane-strain fracture toughness

References

(1) Brown, W. F., Jr., and Srawley, J. E., “Plane Strain Crack

Toughness Testing of High Strength Metallic Materials,” ASTM

STP 410, ASTM, 1966, p.1.

(2) “Fracture Toughness Testing and Its Applications,” ASTM

STP 381, ASTM, April 1965, p.30.

(3) Srawley, J. E., “Wide Range Stress Intensity Factor

Expressions for ASTM E399 Standard Fracture Toughness

Specimens,” International Journal of Fracture Mechanics, Vol.

12, June 1976, p.475.

(4) Newman, J. C., “Stress Analysis of Compact Specimens

Including the Effects of Pin Loading,” ASTM STP 560, ASTM,

1974, p.105.

(5) Williams, J. G., “Fracture Mechanics of Polymers,” Ellis

Horwood/Wiley, 1985.

(6) Towers, O. L., “Stress Intensity Factors, Compliances and

Elastic η

Factors for Six Test Geometries,” The Welding Insti-

tute, March 1981.

IPC-TM-650

Number

2.4.52

Subject

Fracture Toughness of Resin Systems for Base Materials

Date

07/13

Revision

Page8of8

1 Scope This test method details the dye and pull proce-

dure (formerly known as dye and pry) utilizing dye penetrant

analysis of surface-mount technology (SMT) components to

confirm assembly process parameters and solder joint quality/

integrity.

This Test Method is for observation only, to determine the

existence of dye indications.

2 Applicable Documents

IPC-7095

Design and Assembly Process Implementation for

Ball Grid Arrays (BGAs)

3 Test Specimens The specimen is a SMT part soldered

to a board. Typically, this method is used on ball grid arrays

(BGAs) to evaluate their solder joint quality/integrity; however,

it also can be used on other SMT parts, such as bottom ter-

mination components (BTCs) and connectors.

4 Apparatus or Material

4.1

Recommended dye: Red Steel Dykem® or equivalent

4.1.1 Oil-based dyes are not recommended for this

procedure.

4.2 Vacuum pump and chamber (typically a mechanical

pump and bell jar)

4.2.1 Recommend metallurgical epoxy vacuum chamber

with vacuum gauge

4.3 Stereo microscope with digital camera

4.4 Baking oven capable of 100 °C

4.5 Cutting tool to section-out desired components from the

board without exerting excessive stress on the solder joints

4.5.1 Diamond sectioning saw recommended

4.6 JB Weld or equivalent structural adhesive strong enough

to bond the tee nut to the part package surface and withstand

the pull force

4.7 Tool to separate the component from the board

4.8 Compressed or canned air

4.9 Appropriate solvent (or solvent agreed upon between

the lab and the customer) for removal of flux residues remain-

ing on the board

4.10 General/assorted lab equipment (e.g., tongs, glass

beaker, cut-down plastic beaker, funnel, etc.)

4.11 Recommended safety equipment (e.g., fume hood,

gloves, eye protection, etc.)

4.12 Tee nuts appropriate to the size of the part

4.13 Sand paper (320 grit)

5 Procedure

5.1

Identify components to be dye and pull evaluated (con-

sult test plan).

5.2 Perform an initial visual examination of the selected SMT

part.

5.2.1 The initial visual examination is used to detect signs of

mechanical damage/stress. If flux is present, examine for

fractured/broken-up or disturbed flux around the SMT solder

joints (see Figure 1 and Figure 2).

5.2.2 If the SMT part required the use of corner-applied

adhesive and the adhesive is visible, examine and document

it per customer requirements to determine if dye and pull test-

ing is applicable. See IPC-7095 for additional guidance on the

proper use of corner-applied adhesive.

5.3 If the part has a heatsink, package metal heat spreader

or any other assembly that is attached, proceed as follows to

avoid inducing any mechanical stress into the solder joint.

5.3.1 Remove the heatsink. If there is any concern with the

proper method to remove an attached heatsink, it is highly

recommended that it be left in place until after the dye-drying

step (5.11).

3000 Lakeside Drive, Suite 105N

Bannockburn, IL 60015-1249

IPC-TM-650

TEST METHODS MANUAL

Number

2.4.53

Subject

Dye and Pull Test Method (Formerly Known as Dye

and Pry)

Date

8/2017

Revision

Originating Task Group

Bottom Termination Components (5-22k)

Material in this Test Methods Manual was voluntarily established by Technical Committees of IPC. This material is advisory only

and its use or adaptation is entirely voluntary. IPC disclaims all liability of any kind as to the use, application, or adaptation of this

material. Users are also wholly responsible for protecting themselves against all claims or liabilities for patent infringement.

Equipment referenced is for the convenience of the user and does not imply endorsement by IPC.

Page1of11