Characterization and Prediction of Pad-Crater Fracture In Lead-Free Compatible PCBs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Epoxy-based printed circuit board (PCB) laminates that are compatible with higher lead-free reflow temperatures can be more brittle than earlier materials. These epoxies can have an increased propensity for pad-cratering in lead-free assemblies. In this study, pad- crater fracture was characterized in terms of the critical strain energy release rate, Jci, measured at various mode ratios, ψ. Specimens were prepared from lead-free CTBGA package-PCB assemblies and fractured at low and high loading rates in various bending configurations to generate a range of mode ratios. The specimens tested at low loading rates all failed by pad cratering, while the ones tested at higher loading rates fractured in the brittle intermetallic layer of the solder. The Jci of pad cratering increased with the mode ratio of loading (or phase angle, ψ), but was independent of surface finish (OSP and ENIG) and reflow profile (time above liquidus 60 s and 120 s). The generality of the J=Jci(ψ) failure criterion to predict pad-cratering fracture was then demonstrated by predicting the fracture loads of single lap-shear specimens made from the same lead-free assemblies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".