A thermal fatigue life prediction model of J-lead solder joint assembly has been developed. This model is evolved from an empirically derived formula based on modified Manson-Coffin fatigue life Prediction theory. To estimate solder joint fatigue life, nonlinear finite element analysis (FEA) was conducted using the ABAQUS™ computer code. The analysis results show that cracks are initiated and propagated from both the heel and the toe of the solder joint toward the center portion of the joint. This condition results in the solder joint fatigue life degradation and is included in the model development. The fatigue life prediction model is then calibrated to life cycling test results, which were provided by Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL/NASA). The developed life prediction model, combined with the nonelastic strains derived from FEA and Miner’s cumulative damage law, was used to predict the cumulative damage index of the solder joint under NASA’s thermal cycling environment (between −55°C and 100°C). The analysis results indicate that this solder joint has a 50 percent failure probability when the solder joint is exposed up to 5206 thermal cycles. To shorten the test time, a modified thermal cycling profile was proposed. This profile is the same as the NASA thermal cycling environment except using the high end of the dwell temperature at 125°C. The analysis results show that a 50 percent failure probability of the solder joint would occur after the solder joint is exposed to 3500 cycles of the NASA thermal environment and followed by 1063 cycles of the modified thermal profile. In conclusion, the developed life prediction model is recommended to serve as an effective tool to integrate the process of design selection, quality inspection, and qualification testing in a concurrent engineering process. It is also recommended to conduct a micro-section in the solder joint to verify the solder crack paths and further validate the life prediction model. When additional thermal cycles have been added into the test specimens, recalibrating this model by test is also recommended.

Issue Section:
Technical Papers
Topics:
Fatigue life, Solder joints, Cycles, Finite element analysis, NASA, Damage, Failure, Fracture (Materials), Probability, Computers, Concurrent engineering, Design, Inspection, Jet propulsion, Manufacturing, Model development, Prediction theory, Solders, Temperature, Testing
1.
ASM International, Electronic Materials Handbook, Volume 1, Packaging, Materials Park, Ohio.
2.
Ghaffarian, R., 1996, private communication, Jet Propulsion Laboratory/NASA.
3.
Helling, D. E., and Sandkulla, D. C., 1996, “An Applied Sn/Pb Solder Joint Thermal Fatigue Model,” submitted to ASME JOURNAL OF ELECTRONIC PACKAGING.
4.
IFI/Plenum, 1977, Thermal Expansion, Nonmetallic Solids, Thermophysical Properties of Matter, Vol. 13, New York.
5.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL/NASA), 1994, Summary of the Round Robin Solder Joint Life Prediction Modeling Workshop, Pasadena, CA.
6.
Lau, J. H., 1991, Solder Joint Reliability—Theory and Application, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
7.
Rohde
R. W.
, and
Swearengen
J. C.
,
1980
, “
Deformation Modeling Applied to Stress Relaxation of Four Solder Alloys
,”
ASME Journal of Eng. Mater. Tech.
, Vol.
102
, pp.
207
–
214
.
8.
Schmidt
C. G.
,
Simons
J. W.
,
Kanazawa
C. H.
, and
Erlich
D. C.
,
1995
, “
Thermal Fatigue Behavior of J-Lead Solder Joints
,”
IEEE Trans. CPMT-A
, Vol.
18
, pp.
611
–
617
.
9.
Schroeder, S. A., and Mitchell, M. R., 1994, Fatigue of Electronic Materials, ASTM STP 1153.
10.
Shigley, J. E., and Mitchell, L. D., 1983, Mechanical Engineering Design, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, p. 337.
11.
Solomon, H. D., Brzozowski, V., and Thompson, D. G., 1990, “Predictions of Solder Joint Fatigue Life,” 40 ECTC, IEEE, pp. 351–359.
12.
Solomon, H. D., 1988, Low Cycle Fatigue, ASTM STP-942, ASTM, pp. 342–371.
13.
Wong
B.
,
Helling
D. E.
, and
Clark
R. W.
,
1988
, “
A Creep-Rupture Model for Two-Phase Eutectic Solders
,”
IEEE Transactions on Components, Hybrids, and Manufacturing Technology
, Vol.
11
, No.
3
, pp.
284
–
290
.
This content is only available via PDF.
Copyright © 1999
 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
You do not currently have access to this content.