Drop Test Simulation of a BGA Package: Methods & Experimental Comparison

Similar documents
ScienceDirect. Response Spectrum Analysis of Printed Circuit Boards subjected to Shock Loads

MT06.11 Board level drop testing of PCB s

Modal and Harmonic Response Analysis of PBGA and S-N Curve Creation of Solder Joints

ADVANCED BOARD LEVEL MODELING FOR WAFER LEVEL PACKAGES

SOLDER JOINT RELIABILITY IN ELECTRONICS UNDER SHOCK AND VIBRATION USING EXPLICIT FINITE-ELEMENT SUB-MODELING. Sameep Gupte

Finite Element Static, Vibration and Impact-Contact Analysis of Micromechanical Systems

SHOCK AND VIBRATION RESPONSE SPECTRA COURSE Unit 1B. Damping

Reliability analysis of different structure parameters of PCBA under drop impact

CHAPTER 8 FATIGUE LIFE ESTIMATION OF ELECTRONIC PACKAGES SUBJECTED TO DYNAMIC LOADS

Post Graduate Diploma in Mechanical Engineering Computational mechanics using finite element method

Dynamic behaviour of electronics package and impact reliability of BGA solder joints

A Numerical Approach Towards the Correlation Between Ball Impact Test and Drop Reliability

Reliability Evaluation Method for Electronic Device BGA Package Considering the Interaction Between Design Factors

ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY AEA ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY REPORT. Appendix B8. Finite Element Analysis

The Increasing Importance of the Thermal Management for Modern Electronic Packages B. Psota 1, I. Szendiuch 1

ANALYSIS AND EXPERIMENT OF DYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ELECTRONIC DEVICE CHASSIS

Extending Steinberg s Fatigue Analysis of Electronics Equipment Methodology to a Full Relative Displacement vs. Cycles Curve

Mechanical Analysis Challenges in Micro-Electronic Packaging

Prediction of Encapsulant Performance Toward Fatigue Properties of Flip Chip Ball Grid Array (FC-BGA) using Accelerated Thermal Cycling (ATC)

DROP TEST performance has been one of the key package

Impact of BGA Warpage on Quality. Mike Varnau

Available online at ScienceDirect. XVII International Colloquium on Mechanical Fatigue of Metals (ICMFM17)

Finite Element Analysis of Piezoelectric Cantilever

Further research on the coupled Influence of Temperature and Stress Field to PCB' Modal

RAMS seminar. Vibration by Viggo Pedersen

(Refer Slide Time: 1: 19)

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER TITLE PAGE DECLARATION DEDICATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ABSTRACT ABSTRAK

DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF BOX-TYPE SONAR STRUCTURE. Sameer Abdul Azeez and O.R.Nandagopan

Boundary Condition Dependency

Appendix A Satellite Mechanical Loads

WW25R ±1%, ±5%, 2W Metal plate low ohm power chip resistors Size 2512 (6432)

WW25Q ±1%, ±5%, 1W Metal plate low ohm power chip resistors Size 2512 (6432)

Chapter 5: Ball Grid Array (BGA)

Mechanical Shock Testing for LIGA Materials Characterization

Cyclic Bend Fatigue Reliability Investigation for Sn-Ag-Cu Solder Joints

Modal Analysis: What it is and is not Gerrit Visser

Improving the Accuracy of Dynamic Vibration Fatigue Simulation

Finite Element Analysis Lecture 1. Dr./ Ahmed Nagib

Study of Rupture Directivity in a Foam Rubber Physical Model

Qualification Test Method and Acceptance Criteria

Microelectronics Reliability

Assessment of the SMT assemblies and Improvements through Accelerated testing methods. SMTA Chapter Meeting 18 th Jan 2014, India

Dynamics of structures

Experimental Modal Analysis of a Flat Plate Subjected To Vibration

Dynamic Stress Analysis of a Bus Systems

Transactions on the Built Environment vol 22, 1996 WIT Press, ISSN

Measurement of Structural Intensity Using an Angular Rate Sensor

The Torsion Pendulum (One or two weights)

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

Structural Dynamics. Spring mass system. The spring force is given by and F(t) is the driving force. Start by applying Newton s second law (F=ma).

Response Spectrum Analysis Shock and Seismic. FEMAP & NX Nastran

Chapter 14 Oscillations. Copyright 2009 Pearson Education, Inc.

Chapter 5. Vibration Analysis. Workbench - Mechanical Introduction ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary 2009 ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved.

COMPARISON BETWEEN 2D AND 3D ANALYSES OF SEISMIC STABILITY OF DETACHED BLOCKS IN AN ARCH DAM

Chapter 14 Oscillations

New Functions. Test mode and Specimen failure. Power cycle test system with thermal analysis capability using structure function.

Structural Damage Detection Using Time Windowing Technique from Measured Acceleration during Earthquake

2008 International ANSYS Conference

Structural System, Machines and Load Cases

MECHANICAL FAILURE OF A COMPOSITE HELICOPTER STRUCTURE UNDER STATIC LOADING

CAEFEM v9.5 Information

On the difference between thermal cycling and thermal shock testing for board level reliability of soldered interconnections

Measurement Techniques for Engineers. Motion and Vibration Measurement

Strain and Force San José State University A. Mysore Spring 2009

EQUIVALENT FRACTURE ENERGY CONCEPT FOR DYNAMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS OF PROTOTYPE RC GIRDERS

Prognostics Assessment of Aluminum Support Structure on a Printed Circuit Board

Lecture 19. Measurement of Solid-Mechanical Quantities (Chapter 8) Measuring Strain Measuring Displacement Measuring Linear Velocity

Exam tomorrow on Chapter 15, 16, and 17 (Oscilla;ons and Waves 1 &2)

Shorter Field Life in Power Cycling for Organic Packages

Fatigue Crack Analysis on the Bracket of Sanding Nozzle of CRH5 EMU Bogie

Shape Optimization of Revolute Single Link Flexible Robotic Manipulator for Vibration Suppression

Effect of Angular movement of Lifting Arm on Natural Frequency of Container Lifting Mechanism using Finite Element Modal Analysis

Thermal Characterization of Packaged RFIC, Modeled vs. Measured Junction to Ambient Thermal Resistance

Dynamic analysis of a reinforced concrete shear wall with strain rate effect. Synopsis. Introduction

COURSE OUTLINE. Introduction Signals and Noise Filtering Sensors: Piezoelectric Force Sensors. Sensors, Signals and Noise 1

Numerical modelling of induced tensile stresses in rock in response to impact loading

Propagation of Uncertainty in Stress Estimation in Turbine Engine Blades

an alternative approach to junction-to-case thermal resistance measurements

Dynamic (Vibrational) and Static Structural Analysis of Ladder Frame

T1 T e c h n i c a l S e c t i o n

DYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF A PARTIALLY FLUID- FILLED CYLINDRICAL SHELL

Prognostics implementation of electronics under vibration loading

Statics. Phys101 Lectures 19,20. Key points: The Conditions for static equilibrium Solving statics problems Stress and strain. Ref: 9-1,2,3,4,5.

AN INTRODUCTION TO NUMERICAL METHODS USING MATHCAD. Mathcad Release 14. Khyruddin Akbar Ansari, Ph.D., P.E.

Numerical Modelling of Dynamic Earth Force Transmission to Underground Structures

Microsemi Power Modules. Reliability tests for Automotive application

Shock robustness of Mobile devices with HDD. Jan Ruigrok

DYNAMIC FAILURE ANALYSIS OF LAMINATED COMPOSITE PLATES

SHOCK AND VIBRATION RESPONSE SPECTRA COURSE Unit 29. Shock Response Spectrum Synthesis via Wavelets

Key words Lead-free solder, Microelectronic packaging, RF packaging, RoHS compliant, Solder joint reliability, Weibull failure distribution

Vibro-Impact Dynamics of a Piezoelectric Energy Harvester

EMEA. Liudmila Feoktistova Engineer Atomenergoproekt

D : SOLID MECHANICS. Q. 1 Q. 9 carry one mark each. Q.1 Find the force (in kn) in the member BH of the truss shown.

Noise reduction applied to a decanter centrifuge

Drop Impact Reliability Test and Failure Analysis for Large Size High Density FOWLP Package on Package

Broadband Vibration Response Reduction Using FEA and Optimization Techniques

Arbitrary Normal and Tangential Loading Sequences for Circular Hertzian Contact

Higher-Order Finite-Element Analysis for Fuzes Subjected to High-Frequency Environments

Chapter 4 Analysis of a cantilever

Modal Analysis of Single Rectangular Cantilever Plate by Mathematically, FEA and Experimental

Transcription:

Drop Test Simulation of a BGA Package: Methods & Experimental Comparison Chris Cowan, Ozen Engineering, Inc. Harvey Tran, Intel Corporation Nghia Le, Intel Corporation Metin Ozen, Ozen Engineering, Inc.

SOLID MODEL Generalized BGA Package Substrate / Die / etc. Solder ball PC board

EXPERIMENTAL STANDARD JEDEC* Standard JESD22-B110A Standardized mechanical shock acceleration to reduce experimental variation Half-sine pulse Input-G method Table from JESD22-B110A * Joint Electron Device Engineering Council (JEDEC Solid State Technology Association)

EXPERIMENTAL STANDARD JEDEC Standard JESD22-B111 Standardized Experimental Drop Test Board 15 components compare performance at 6 unique board locations PCB Young s Modulus: 20 GPa +/-2GPa Mount PCB to drop test fixture with screws through 4 holes Horizontal board orientation with components facing down to maximize board flexure (primary failure mode) Figure from JESD22-B111

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS Fixture attachment: Locate fixture attachment point as specified in JESD22- B111. Considered an ideal connection: no friction, no sliding Set X,Y,Z-displacement = 0 (excluding displacement and force method)

TIME STEP Guidelines for Integration Time Step (ITS) 1 Set ITS small enough to resolve highest mode that contributes to the response Using approximately 20 points per cycle of highest frequency of interest results in reasonably accurate solution for the Newmark method ITS = 1 / (20f) Example Mode Frequency (Hz) Critical Time Step (s) Total Time (s) Total # Steps Sample Run Time 1 202.3 2.47E-04 0.008 32 65 min 2 487.6 1.03E-04 0.008 78 100 min 3 893.9 5.59E-05 0.008 143 3 hours 6 3749.0 1.33E-05 0.008 600 14 hours * Run Time: 3 GHz PentiumD, 2 GB RAM, 15,000 elements, 17,000 nodes

PROCEDURE SUMMARY BGA DROP TEST Static Analysis Modal Analysis Dynamic Analysis Force Displacement Acceleration Full Time Integration Mode Superposition Reduced HHT Newmark

LOADING A variety of loading methods Acceleration Static or Time Transient Input-G standard loading vs. Experimental Fixture displacement = 0 Applied as body load on package A(t) = P*sin(πt/d) A(t) = acceleration (m/s 2 ) t = time (s) d = duration (s) P = peak acceleration (m/s 2 )

LOADING Loading continued Displacement D(t) = A(t) Boundary Conditions: @t=0, V o =0 and D o =0 Applied at fixture location Complete package motion Acceleration Velocity Displacement Force Add very large mass element to fixture location Very Large = Package Mass x 1E5 Force = Total Mass x Acceleration Complete package motion 0.0E+00 1.0E-04 2.0E-04 3.0E-04 4.0E-04 5.0E-04 6.0E-04 time (s)

DAMPING Damping coefficients calculated based on % of critical damping Rayleigh damping coefficients (α,β) ξ i = α/2ω i + βω i /2 where: ξ i = critical damping ratio α = Rayleigh mass damping coefficient β = Rayleigh stiffness damping coefficient ω i = natural circular frequency = 2π*f i f i = mode frequency i = mode number ANSYS Inc. Theory Reference

Experimental Comparison Objective: Compare strain & acceleration results from experimental board level measurements to ANSYS simulation 2003 ANSYS, Inc.

GEOMETRY

GEOMETRY

GEOMETRY Bottom side, viewed from top

GEOMETRY

SIMULATION SETUP ¼ symmetry model BGA package approximated with bulk material Material properties determined through modal analysis method 1% damping Strain & acceleration simulation results taken at single node nearest to sensor location ANSYS implicit solver

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ¼ symmetry boundary conditions Fix UX,UY,UZ at exact fixture locations

MODAL ANALYSIS 1 Frequency (Hz) 259.62 Period (s) 0.0039 Cumulative Mass Fraction (z-direction) Mode Mode 1 0.8514 2 578.51 0.0017 0.8515 3 727.89 0.0014 1.0000 Mode 3 Experimental data shows primary oscillating frequency = 259.94 Hz. 0.1% Difference

LOADING CONDITIONS Loads as recorded on testing table Trapezoidal shock profile 50 G, 11ms

ACCELERATION 100 80 60 40 Acceleration vs. Time Acel (G) 20 0 0.000-20 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020-40 -60-80 -100 time (s) ANSYS_Acel1 Acel1_Experimental Acel2_Experimental Table_Input_Experimental Acceleration = Second Derivative UZ + Table Input

STRAIN ROSETTE #1 Principal Strains, Rosette #1 3.0E-04 2.0E-04 1.0E-04 Strain 0.0E+00 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020-1.0E-04-2.0E-04 time (s) Ros1_Emax Ros1_Emin ANSYS Ros1 1P ANSYS Ros1 3P Calculate Principal Strains (Plane Stress)

STRAIN ROSETTE #2 Principal Strains, Rosette #2 3.0E-04 2.0E-04 1.0E-04 Strain 0.0E+00-1.0E-04 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020-2.0E-04-3.0E-04-4.0E-04 time (s) Ros2_Emax Ros2_Emin ANSYS Ros2 1P ANSYS Ros2 3P Calculate Principal Strains (Plane Stress)

STRAIN ROSETTE #3 Principal Strains, Rosette #3 2.0E-04 1.0E-04 Strain 0.0E+00-1.0E-04 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020-2.0E-04-3.0E-04 time (s) Ros2_Emax Ros2_Emin ANSYS Ros3 1P ANSYS Ros3 3P Calculate Principal Strains (Plane Stress)

ERROR, ACCELERATION 11% Acel1 6% Acel2 2% avg First Peak, During Loading 100 80 Acceleration vs. Time Fourth Peak, After Loading 6% Acel1 4% Acel2 3% avg 60 40 Acel (G) 20 0 0.000-20 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020-40 -60-80 -100 time (s) ANSYS_Acel1 Acel1_Experimental Acel2_Experimental Table_Input_Experimental Difference = Experimental Simulation Experimental

ERROR, ROSETTE #1 44% First Peak (+) During Loading 1 st Principal Principal Strains, Rosette #1 3.0E-04 2.0E-04 1.0E-04 Strain 0.0E+00 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 24% First Peak (+) -1.0E-04 During Loading 3 rd Principal -2.0E-04 time (s) Ros1_Emax Ros1_Emin ANSYS Ros1 1P ANSYS Ros1 3P Fourth Peak (-) After Loading 1 st Principal Fourth Peak (-) After Loading 3 rd Principal 6% 34%

ERROR, ROSETTE #2 Principal Strains, Rosette #2 5% Fourth Peak (+) After Loading 1 st Principal 45% First Peak (-) During Loading 1 st Principal Insignificant: within noise range of strain gages Strain 3.0E-04 2.0E-04 1.0E-04 0.0E+00-1.0E-04 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 Insignificant: within noise range of strain gages -2.0E-04-3.0E-04 Fourth Peak (+) After Loading 3 rd Principal 48% -4.0E-04 7% First Peak (-) During Loading 3 rd Principal time (s) Ros2_Emax Ros2_Emin ANSYS Ros2 1P ANSYS Ros2 3P

ERROR, ROSETTE #3 Principal Strains, Rosette #3 13% Fourth Peak (+) After Loading 1 st Principal 72% First Peak (-) During Loading 1 st Principal 2.0E-04 1.0E-04 Insignificant Strain 0.0E+00 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 Insignificant -1.0E-04-2.0E-04 Fourth Peak (+) After Loading 3 rd Principal 65% -3.0E-04 11% First Peak (-) During Loading 3 rd Principal time (s) Ros2_Emax Ros2_Emin ANSYS Ros3 1P ANSYS Ros3 3P

SUMMARY Large strain gradients at rosette locations Rosette #1 is located on opposite side, dimensioned from chip, possible error source Rosette #1 difference (44%) is same magnitude as location difference of 1/8 inch on gradient Accelerometer 1,2 (avg) Rosette #1 Rosette #2 Rosette #3 During Loading 2% 44% 7% 11% After Loading 3% 34% 5% 13% Oscillating Frequency 0.1%