0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

Crack Initiation and Growth in Solder Joints Under Cyclic Shear Deformation Using Piezomechanical Actuation

[+] Author and Article Information
Dong-Jin Shim

 GE Global Research, 1 Research Circle, K1-2C8A, Niskayuna, NY 12309shim@research.ge.com

S. Mark Spearing

School of Engineering Sciences, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK

Qingda Yang

Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering,  University of Miami, P.O. Box 248194,Coral Gables, FL 33124

The exponent for specimens tested at 1Hz is 2.82 (R2=0.90) when the specimen tested at ΔG=18.86Jm2, which shows an inconsistent trend, is excluded.

J. Eng. Mater. Technol 129(1), 19-28 (Dec 06, 2005) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2400257 History: Received December 10, 2004; Revised December 06, 2005

Crack initiation and growth behavior in solder joints under cyclic shear deformation using piezomechanical actuation have been investigated. Experiments were conducted on specimens that consist of piezo–ceramic plates and eutectic Sn–Pb solder bonded in a double-lap shear configuration. Specimens were tested under various frequencies and ranges of applied electric field at room temperature, and a shear-lag model using elastic–perfectly plastic solder properties was developed to characterize the mechanical response of the solder joint. Nominal plastic shear strain ranges from 0.182% to 2.69% were considered. The applied shear strains measured using digital image correlation showed agreement with shear strains from analyses. The Coffin–Manson relationship was used to characterize crack initiation, and a power law was employed for crack growth. This work shows that the fatigue characteristics of solder joints using piezomechanical actuation exhibit reasonable agreement with those using other types of testing methods and provides the framework for a new accelerated testing methodology for solder joint reliability.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2007 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Schematic of the three-layer piezo–ceramic joint showing: (a) the undeformed state; (b) deformed state where the middle piezo–ceramic plate expands and outer piezo–ceramic plates contract; and (c) deformed state where the middle piezo–ceramic plate contracts and the outer piezo–ceramic plates expand (arrows indicate direction of polarity).

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Diagram of piezo–ceramic joint for shear-lag analysis.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Micrographs of a typical specimen with relatively high applied shear strain showing; (top) an edge prior to applied loading; (middle) after crack initiation; and (bottom) after crack initiation and growth (specimen tested at Δγp=2.16%, f=1Hz).

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Diagram of two unsymmetrical crack growth behaviors observed in the experiments.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Crack growth rate versus the applied ΔG.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Typical fracture surfaces showing fracture: (a) at the interface of the solder and piezo–ceramic layers; and (b) in the solder layer (specimen tested at Δγp=2.16%, f=1Hz).

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

SEM micrograph of the solder layer showing the typical microstructure of specimens tested.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

(Top) Schematic of experimental setup for actuation of the piezo–ceramic joint, and (bottom), a photograph of a specimen placed in the test fixture.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Micrographs of a typical specimen with relatively low applied shear strain showing: (left) void in the midsection prior to applied loading and (right) after crack initiation and growth (specimen tested at Δγp=0.181%, f=5Hz).

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Comparison of shear strains obtained from experiments, shear-lag model, and finite element model for two specimens tested at applied voltages of (top), 200VDC±280VAC and (bottom), 200VDC±280VAC(frequency=0.05Hz).

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Number of cycles to crack initiation versus the applied plastic strain range.

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.

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