Issue 15

P. F. Fuchs et ication shou CBT were p ernative test imilar ideas t specimens

alii, Frattura ed ld result in a erformed for method. o the high sp were loaded

Integrità Struttu more robus a set of PCB eed cyclic b under thre

rale, 15 (2011) t test metho s. The resul end test (HS e-point bend

64-73; DOI: 10 d, providing ts were comp CBT) [5, 6], ing and sig

.3221/IGF-ESIS.

15.07

Th reli In the Th und def

e simplified able results. this study, co suitability of e test metho er different lection ampli

and accelerat nventional B cyclic bend d applied wa loading con tudes were u D S PECIM different lay was to simpl lyzed specim g the interm ases be adva in the test n the differe 1, M2, M3 a lass fibre rei ass fibre mat d with a. A own in Fig.

ed load appl LDT and BL tests as an alt s based on s ditions. The sed.

faster and m ared to eval but was real nificantly hig

ore uate ized her

M A P

TERIALS AN

ENS

CBs with The aim The ana

er build-ups ify the comp ens were eig ediate epoxy ntageous to plan. Additi nt layers (C nd M4 repr nforced) and used for rein schematic re 1. All copper Design Nr. 1 2 3 4 5 6 verview of the

, expected to arison of the ht layer PC layers which use neat epo onally, differ ore, IL1, IL2 esent differen R stands fo forcement. T presentation layers had a Core

differ signifi testing meth Bs and six d are glass-fib xy resin. Thu ent epoxy r and IL3) o t manufactu r an unreinf he layers m of the layer thickness of IL1 Mater M2 PP1 M2 PP1 M1 PP1 b ials for the sp IL3 (40  m) IL2 (40  m) IL1 (60  m) Core (200  m) M1 PP 1a M1 PP 1a M1 PP 1a

cantly regard ods by cover ifferent laye re reinforced s, variations esin types w f the tested res and epox orced and ne arked with b assignments 18  m. IL2 ial

ing their BLD ing a wide ra r build-ups w in most case in the reinfo ere analyzed PCB design y resin type at epoxy res are the low d in the build

T performa nge of BLDT ere tested. s. Only for t rcement of t . A detailed s is provided s respectively in layer. PP1 ielectric con up, including

nce, were tes performanc These build he surface la he surface la summary of in Tab. 1. , PP indicat and PP2 di stant version the epoxy l

ted. es. ups yers yers the The es a ffer s of ayer

dif it c we ma abb Pre reg the thic

fered regardin an in some c re considered terials used i reviations M preg layer (g arding the gl layers marke knesses, is sh

IL3

M1 a M1 a M1 a

M3 R M1 PP 2a

M1 PP 2a M1 PP 2a M1 PP 2a

M4 R M3 R M2 PP2 M3 R n the six PCB

M2 M2 M1 b chosen mater

M2 PP2 M2 PP2 M1 PP2 b ecified layers i

Table 1 : An o

designs tested .

IL1(60  m) IL2 (40  m) IL3 (40  m)

Figur try was chos eometry is sh onents instea ufactures exp

e 1 : A schemat en following own in Fig. d of 15 were erience, wer

ic representati the JEDEC 2. The dark used to sim e chosen. Th

on of the laye standard, but er squares at plify the test e component

r assignments was adapted the board ce . The two m s were daisy

in the PCB bu according to ntre represe ost failure-pr chained acco

ild-up.

The nts. ard

Th def On to t

e PCB geome ined board g ly two comp he PCB man

customer re nt the moun one compon rding to the

quirements. ted compone ents, with reg standards.

B O B

ARD LEVEL

DROP TEST

ANALYSIS

efore the deforma Except f

developmen tion in a stan or some ada

t of an altern dard BLDT. pted parame

ative test me The drawn c ters, the anal

thod, it was onclusions sh yzed BLDT

analyze the a signing a rea ed according

cting loads an sonable test. to the JEDE

d resulting P C standard.

CB An

necessary to ould help de was perform

65