Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • Home
  • About
    • Contributors
    • About Us
    • Colophon
    • Survey
  • Reliability.fm
  • Articles
    • CRE Preparation Notes
    • NoMTBF
    • on Leadership & Career
      • Advanced Engineering Culture
      • ASQR&R
      • Engineering Leadership
      • Managing in the 2000s
      • Product Development and Process Improvement
    • on Maintenance Reliability
      • Aasan Asset Management
      • AI & Predictive Maintenance
      • Asset Management in the Mining Industry
      • CMMS and Maintenance Management
      • CMMS and Reliability
      • Conscious Asset
      • EAM & CMMS
      • Everyday RCM
      • History of Maintenance Management
      • Life Cycle Asset Management
      • Maintenance and Reliability
      • Maintenance Management
      • Plant Maintenance
      • Process Plant Reliability Engineering
      • RCM Blitz®
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
      • The People Side of Maintenance
      • The Reliability Mindset
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Field Reliability Data Analysis
      • Metals Engineering and Product Reliability
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Product Validation
      • Reliability by Design
      • Reliability Competence
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
      • Reliability Knowledge
    • on Risk & Safety
      • CERM® Risk Insights
      • Equipment Risk and Reliability in Downhole Applications
      • Operational Risk Process Safety
    • on Systems Thinking
      • Communicating with FINESSE
      • The RCA
    • on Tools & Techniques
      • Big Data & Analytics
      • Experimental Design for NPD
      • Innovative Thinking in Reliability and Durability
      • Inside and Beyond HALT
      • Inside FMEA
      • Institute of Quality & Reliability
      • Integral Concepts
      • Learning from Failures
      • Progress in Field Reliability?
      • R for Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Using Python
      • Reliability Reflections
      • Statistical Methods for Failure-Time Data
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Manufacturing Academy
  • eBooks
  • Resources
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Glossary
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinar Sources
    • Podcasts
  • Courses
    • Your Courses
    • Live Courses
      • Introduction to Reliability Engineering & Accelerated Testings Course Landing Page
      • Advanced Accelerated Testing Course Landing Page
    • Integral Concepts Courses
      • Reliability Analysis Methods Course Landing Page
      • Applied Reliability Analysis Course Landing Page
      • Statistics, Hypothesis Testing, & Regression Modeling Course Landing Page
      • Measurement System Assessment Course Landing Page
      • SPC & Process Capability Course Landing Page
      • Design of Experiments Course Landing Page
    • The Manufacturing Academy Courses
      • An Introduction to Reliability Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Statistics
      • An Introduction to Quality Engineering
      • Quality Engineering Statistics
      • FMEA in Practice
      • Process Capability Analysis course
      • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
      • Return on Investment online course
    • Industrial Metallurgist Courses
    • FMEA courses Powered by The Luminous Group
    • Foundations of RCM online course
    • Reliability Engineering for Heavy Industry
    • How to be an Online Student
    • Quondam Courses
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home
  • Barringer Process Reliability Introduction Course Landing Page
  • Upcoming Live Events
You are here: Home / Articles / Lead-Free Solder Accelerated Testing

by Fred Schenkelberg 1 Comment

Lead-Free Solder Accelerated Testing

Lead-Free Solder Accelerated Testing

A common issue with solder, other than its ability to compliantly attach electronic packages to circuit boards, is its ability to fail with normal use.

Over time the normal thermal cycling causes the packages to move relative to the circuit board and the solder moves to accommodate. Each cycle the solder accumulates damage. Over time the number of cycles accumulates as does the damage. Eventually, the solder cracks and create an intermittent connection or disrupts the electron flow completely (open).

Using traditional models

Reliability engineers have long used the Coffin-Manson approach to model solder fatigue and time to failure. Norris-Landzberg refined the approach and accuracy of the C-F model. With approximately 50 years of experience, the approach consistently predicted solder fatigue with each new electronic package development.

Why do we need a new one?

As lead-free (SAC) solder increased in use (though mandated use) the need to refine the acceleration model became urgent. Pan, Clech, Pecht, Engelmeier and others studied and created alliterative models. Studies and models continued to need improvement with longer term studies and field data showing discrepancies.

The paper “An Acceleration Model for Lead-Free (SAC) Solder Joint Reliability under Thermal Cycling”, by Vasu Vasudevan and Xuejun Fan explores 17 sets of testing and field data and fits the modified Norris-Landzberg model. They find a reasonable fit with less than 6% error – and it is easy to use with accelerated testing. I like it.

Updated model

The model is

$$  \displaystyle\large AF=\frac{{{N}_{1}}}{{{N}_{2}}}={{\left( \frac{{{f}_{1}}}{{{f}_{2}}} \right)}^{-m}}{{\left( \frac{\Delta {{T}_{1}}}{\Delta {{T}_{2}}} \right)}^{-n}}\left( {{e}^{\frac{{{E}_{a}}}{k}\left( \frac{1}{{{T}_{\max ,1}}}-\frac{1}{{{T}_{\max ,2}}} \right)}} \right)$$

with m = 0.33, n=1.9, and Ea/k = 1414

The formula and fitted parameters are the same as the Norris-Landzberg equation for Sn-Pb solder. The authors go on to explain why and how useful the fitted formula works. It reads well.

I’ve been using the Pan, et. al. formula and parameters since my days with HP. Now I have a new formula. My prior work was conservative and no major decisions were wrong, which is good. The update and improvement of reliability tools is the primary reason to continue reading, studying, and working to learn every day.

Learning is part of being a professional reliability engineer.

Filed Under: Articles, Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics, on Product Reliability

About Fred Schenkelberg

I am the reliability expert at FMS Reliability, a reliability engineering and management consulting firm I founded in 2004. I left Hewlett Packard (HP)’s Reliability Team, where I helped create a culture of reliability across the corporation, to assist other organizations.

« Fault Isolation
Corrective Action Question »

Comments

  1. Kerry Eubanks says

    July 11, 2018 at 2:07 PM

    Perhaps this is a very old comment give that the referenced Vasudevan & Fan paper was presented/published in 2008. I have several problems with it but will focus on just two.

    1. The text strongly implies that the data presented in the graphic of Figure 1 is based on the paired acceleration studies presented in Tables 1-4. Perhaps it is just sloppy charting but while the highest reported relative acceleration in those studies was 3.7, on the graph 6 points equal or exceed this value given their relationship to the Test AF axis. One point approaches AF = 14 which is absolutely nowhere in the data. This has the effect, visually, of: 1) showing better correlation of the “industry data” to the “new” model at low acceleration values and 2) the strong implication that the model fits well at much higher accelerations which this study did not include.

    2. The acceleration ratios in the 18 sets of trial pairs cover a relatively small range. It’s little wonder that the authors fit a model to this data and then can show a great fit and, conversely, that Pan’s model does not. It really says nothing about this “new” model’s performance at higher test accelerations which are far more typical of solder joint reliability tests performed in many companies and industries.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Article by Fred Schenkelberg
in the Musings series

Join Accendo

Receive information and updates about articles and many other resources offered by Accendo Reliability by becoming a member.

It’s free and only takes a minute.

Join Today

Recent Articles

  • Leadership Values in Maintenance and Operations
  • Today’s Gremlin – It’ll never work here
  • How a Mission Statement Drives Behavioral Change in Organizations
  • Gremlins today
  • The Power of Vision in Leadership and Organizational Success

© 2025 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy