Comparing drop impact test method using strain gauge measurements

Abstract In this paper, strain gauges are used to measure the dynamic response during drop impact. A set of high-speed data acquisition system is used to capture the real-time strain response of critical locations. Finite Element Modelling is used to determine where to place the strain gauges. Two board level drop impact test methods, A and B, are compared by the strain gauge measurements. Results show significant differences in strain amplitude, strain rate, frequency, rebound, and damping. Method B produces higher strain amplitude, stronger rebound, and less damping, while method A produces higher frequency and strain rate. Damping and rebound are important factors for both test methods. The differences of two test methods are due to the contributions from test condition and test board. Combination test were conducted to investigate the contribution of test condition and test board. Results show that test board dominates strain amplitude, frequency, mode and damping, while test condition shows influence on strain amplitude and rebound. Test condition A produces higher strain amplitude, while test condition B produces stronger rebound. Test board A produces higher frequency, while test board B produces higher strain amplitude and less damping. Test board contributes more to the strain amplitude than test condition. Strain rate is dependent on both the test condition and test board.

[1]  Joe Varghese,et al.  Test methodology for durability estimation of surface mount interconnects under drop testing conditions , 2007, Microelectron. Reliab..

[2]  P. Lall,et al.  Feature extraction and health monitoring using image correlation for survivability of leadfree packaging under shock and vibration , 2008, EuroSimE 2008 - International Conference on Thermal, Mechanical and Multi-Physics Simulation and Experiments in Microelectronics and Micro-Systems.

[3]  W.D. van Driel,et al.  Verification of drop impact simulations using high-speed camera measurements , 2008, 2008 58th Electronic Components and Technology Conference.

[4]  Yi Li,et al.  Electronics Without Lead , 2005, Science.

[5]  A. Dasgupta,et al.  An experimental approach to characterize rate-dependent failure envelopes and failure site transitions in surface mount assemblies , 2007, Microelectron. Reliab..

[6]  Yi-Shao Lai,et al.  Stress–Strain Characteristics of Tin-Based Solder Alloys for Drop-Impact Modeling , 2008 .

[7]  M. Sillanpaa,et al.  Flip chip on board: assessment of reliability in cellular phone application , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Components and Packaging Technologies.

[8]  Jing-en Luan,et al.  Analysis of PCB subassembly dynamic responses using integrated analytical, numerical and experimental techniques , 2005, 2005 6th International Conference on Electronic Packaging Technology.

[9]  J. Varghese,et al.  Test Methodology for Impact Testing of Portable Electronic Products , 2003 .

[10]  E.H. Wong,et al.  Recent advances in drop-impact reliability , 2008, EuroSimE 2008 - International Conference on Thermal, Mechanical and Multi-Physics Simulation and Experiments in Microelectronics and Micro-Systems.