0
RESEARCH PAPERS

Creep-Fatigue Life Evaluation for Sn-3.5Ag Solder

[+] Author and Article Information
Mineo Nozaki

Product Innovation Department, Hyogo Prefectural Institute of Technology, 3-1-12, Yukihira-cho, Suma-ku, Kobe, Hyogo, 654-0037, Japannozaki@hyogo-kg.go.jp

Masao Sakane

 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Ritsumeikan University, 1-1-1, Nojihigashi, Kusatu-shi, Shiga, 525-8577, Japansakanem@se.ritsumei.ac.jp

Yutaka Tsukada

 KYOCERA SLC Technologies Corporation, 656, Ichimiyake, Yasu-cho, Yasu-gun, Shiga, 520-2362, JapanYuTsukada@aol.com

Hideo Nishimura

 IBM Japan, Ltd. Yasu, 800, Ichimiyake, Yasu-cho, Yasu-gun, Shiga, 520-2392, Japan

J. Eng. Mater. Technol 128(2), 142-150 (May 11, 2005) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2172273 History: Received April 21, 2003; Revised May 11, 2005

This paper studies the creep-fatigue life evaluation of Sn-3.5Ag solder under push-pull loading using fast-fast, fast-slow, slow-fast, slow-slow, and strain-hold strain waves. Extensive creep-fatigue data were generated using these strain waves and the applicability of four conventional creep-fatigue damage rules, the linear damage rule, the frequency modified fatigue life, the ductility exhaustion model, and the strain range partitioning method, was examined. No conventional damage rules evaluated creep-fatigue lives accurately. Only the grain boundary sliding model, developed recently for solders, predicted creep-fatigue lives with a small scatter.

Copyright © 2006 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Shape and dimensions of the specimen used (mm)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Microstructure of the specimen before test

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Five strain waves used in creep-fatigue tests

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Method of decomposing inelastic strain range into plastic and creep strain ranges in pp, cc, pc, cp, and th tests

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Hysteresis loops for pp, cc, pc, cp, and th tests

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Variations of maximum and minimum stresses with cycle in pp, cc, pc, cp, and th tests

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Stress relaxation curves in 10min and 30min hold-times tests

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Correlation of creep-fatigue lives with inelastic strain range

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Variation of failure life ratio with strain rate in pc and cp tests

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Variation of failure life ratio with strain rate in cc tests

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Variation of failure life ratio with hold time in th tests

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Surface cracks at failure observed by scanning electric microscope (Δεt=1.5%). (a) pp test, ε̇A∕ε̇B=0.5∕0.5%∕s; (b) cc test, ε̇A∕ε̇B=0.05∕0.05%∕s; (c) pc test, ε̇A∕ε̇B=0.5∕0.05%∕s; (d) cp test, ε̇A∕ε̇B=0.05∕0.5%∕s; (e) th test, ε̇A∕ε̇B=0.5∕0.5%∕s, tH=10min.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Longitudinal cross sections of the specimens in pp, cc, pc, cp, and th tests (Δεt=1.5%). (a) pp test, ε̇A∕ε̇B=0.5∕0.5%∕s; (b) cc test, ε̇A∕ε̇B=0.05∕0.05%∕s; (c) pc test, ε̇A∕ε̇B=0.5∕0.05%∕s; (d) cp test, ε̇A∕ε̇B=0.05∕0.5%∕s; (e) th test, ε̇A∕ε̇B=0.5∕0.5%∕s, tH=10min.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Relationship between stress and time to rupture in creep test (22)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Relationship between inelastic strain range and frequency modified fatigue life in pp∕cc and pc∕cp tests (keys as for Fig. 8). (a) pp∕cc test, (b) pc∕cp test.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Relationship between partitioned strain ranges and fatigue lives (keys as for Fig. 8)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Creep-fatigue damage diagram by linear damage rule (keys as for Fig. 8)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Comparison between predicted and experiment lives by conventional creep-fatigue damage rules. (a) Linear damage rule, (b) Frequency modified fatigue life, (c) Ductility exhaustion model, (d) Strain range partioning method.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

Comparison between predicted and experiment lives by the grain boundary sliding model

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In