L
legg
Guest
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 13:23:19 -0400, Carl <carl.ijamesxx@yyverizon.net>
wrote:
Carl, this is \'cycling\', not static stress.
RL
wrote:
On 7/29/23 12:38 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 12:09:07?PM UTC-4, Carl wrote:
On 7/29/23 9:54 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
They\'re probably just pulling numbers out the the nebulous IPC-2221 charts, that no one seems to understand or know of the origins. Apparently temperature is everything and the starting point for a specification, not an aside you throw into a calculator. The reason being the drastic difference in temperature expansion of Cu, at something like 5ppm, and epoxy resin, at something like 350ppm. The epoxy numbers are for T \"near\" Tg, the glass transition temperature of the material. Based on that bs the IPC publishes a formula I = K * dT^0.44 * (W*H)^0.725 with obvious notation. That particular result gets around anyone having to figure out a safe stress limit on the copper/ substrate bonding induced by expansion. I\'m sure in addition to an outright separation there is the issue of cycling the material interface through repeated expansions. If your numbers for trace width are ridiculously big then there are the options of using heavier CU, the W*H part, and using a high Tg material
PCB, the allowable dT part. There are plenty of high Tg PCB manufacturers out there and you should be consulting with them. \"High TG PCB\"
https://www.us-tech.com/RelId/2687527/ISvars/default/Heavy_Copper_Design_Considerations_Part_1_Traces_and_Temperature.htm
If you are pushing the limits of maximum temperature due to thermal
expansion and/or the number of temperature cycles, I wonder if placing a
number of small round holes in wide traces and planes would help? Not a
hole through the fiberglass, just a hole through the copper much smaller
than the width of a trace. That would allow resin to flow in and fill
the hole during manufacture and should \"pin\" the trace to resist lateral
movement and delamination. Hopefully the loss of electrical performance
could be kept small for a substantial increase in the mechanical strength.
I\'m not seeing how that will help. When the epoxy starts growing, the whole side-to-side footprint under the trace starts growing whereas the copper wants to maintain its original width. If it gets out of hand either the copper will split or the bonding lets go or both. As long as that strain stays under what\'s called the yield limit (temperature dependent), the copper will stay intact and return to its original cold dimensions when the temperature declines. The resin manufacturer will know those details and should be able to recommend a maximum dT to achieve maximum product longevity.
--
Regards,
Carl
I was making the assumption that the yield strength of the copper would
be greater than the bonding strength of the copper to the substrate so
that using the holes to increase the bonding strength of the copper to
the substrate would increase the failure strength of the assembly. If
they stay bound together then localized bending or curling could relieve
some of the stress by spreading it out instead of keeping it localized
to pop the copper off the substrate. May not make enough of a
difference to matter but it seems a simple, cheap modification to at
least try if JL is going to test a few boards to destruction .
Carl, this is \'cycling\', not static stress.
RL