Materials Today: Proceedings 64 (2022) 675–679

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

Drop test analysis of ball grid array package using finite element
methods
Y. Venkata Naga Chandana ⇑, N. Venu Kumar
GITAM School of Technology, Rudraram, Hyderabad 500095, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Hand held devices like laptop, smart phone, tab etc. are likely to be mishandled or dropped during their
Available online 23 May 2022 usage. High performance and multitasking of the electronic devices have driven towards thinner and
sleeker products. Reliability of the devices is a real challenge when they are dropped. Damage caused
Keywords: due to the Drop- impact, is the most predominant modes of failure experienced by the electronic prod-
Drop-test, electronic package ucts. The solder joints tend to fail when they are mishandled or dropped. This paper is intended to study
Ball Grid Array (BGA) the stresses developed in the solder ball joints which are used to connect the Electronic Package with that
Board level reliability
of the Printed Circuit Board. Drop test under Dynamic implicit analysis is carried out to investigate the
Solder joint failure
Abaqus
stresses developed in solder joints at different locations of the package and the most stressed balls are
identified using Abaqus Software.
Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Confer-
ence on Advanced Materials for Innovation and Sustainability.

1. Introduction
Most of the hand held electronic devices like smart phone and
laptop experience failure when they are dropped as they possess
high precision and frangible features. Need for High performance
and multitasking devices has also led to development of three
dimensional IC. When the devices are suddenly dropped they are
susceptible to cracks and also failure of the solder joint intercon-
nection with PCB may occur. So the drop test analysis is very much
needed in order to ensure the reliability of electronic devices effec-
tively. Surface mount Electronic components which are used in the
hand held Electronic gadgets can be validated for their perfor-
mance under an accelerated test environment and the same can
be simulated using Finite Element Methods.
Liu and Meng adopted board –level drop test and Finite Element
method to investigate failure modes and failure mechanism of
lead-free solder joint under drop test. Acceleration response and
strain histories of simulation results are in correlation with exper-
imental measurements [1]. Zhao and Garner modelled a design of
experiments to study the crucial parameters like solder ball height,
Package Stiffness, Package thickness, ball patterns and Package
dimensions which will allow for improved performance by design
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yvnchandana_mct@mgit.ac.in (Y. Venkata Naga Chandana).
[2]. Dynamic response during impact [7,8]. Board-level drop tests
for different fixtures and PBA mounting structures are conducted
and the drop impact life is studied by applying different loading
conditions to BGA packages SAC 305 interconnects for BGA pack-
age failure were modelled to evaluate the drop impact reliability
of hand held devices [4]. Improvement in Board level reliability
of lead free BGA with different solder ball materials as well as sub-
strate finishes and pad designs under drop tests was achieved by
Birzer et at [5]. A non-linear transient dynamic model for board
level drop test modelling using conventional finite element mod-
elling was performed. Input G-method using implicit transient
dynamic analysis is derived and proven both theoretically and
numerically [6,9]. Drop impact shock analysis of a multi-layered
PCB has been studied numerically and the impact of variation of
material properties of for the multi-layered PCB have also been
investigated [8,10].
In the present study, baseline model of a BGA package mounted
on the PCB with help of solder ball interconnects is used to study
the drop impact failure. The package includes the following com-
ponents from top to the bottom, a silicon Die, solder balls, layer
of underfill material, a substrate of thickness 0.3 mm, array of sol-
der joints and a PCB. Different layers of the common Electronic
Package is shown in Fig. 1. The model is then used to investigate
the stress and strain inside the package by conducting a Drop
impact test in Dynamic implicit mode using Abaqus Software.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.05.186
2214-7853/Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Advanced Materials for Innovation and Sustainability.
Y. Venkata Naga Chandana and N. Venu Kumar
Fig. 1. Different layers of common electronic package.
1.1. Drop test simulation
The boundary conditions and the shock pulse acceleration con-
sidered in the analysis are in accordance with drop test standards
published by JEDEC in 2003 [11]. According to the JEDEC standard
the peak acceleration is considered as 1500G and the time period is
set to 2milli seconds.
The acceleration pulse shall follow a half-sine curve with a peak
acceleration of 1500 G during each drop as shown in Fig. 2. The test
can be repeated multiple times by varying the impact surface and
drop height to achieve the required acceleration (1500 G, 184 in./s
or 467 cm/s respectively). The variations of the peak acceleration
and change of velocity needs to be controlled within 10% on each
individual measurement and 5% tolerance on average when 20
repeating measurements. The change of velocity is the total area
enclosed by the acceleration pulse and the time axis. An effective
change of velocity should be counted in which only an acceleration
equal to or higher than 150 G is considered and any rebounces
after the acceleration dropping to below 150 G from the peak shall
be ignored in the calculation. The time duration for defining the
area of effective change of velocity is called effective pulse duration
and shall also be maintained at 0.5 ms within 15% tolerance which
is in accordance with JESD22-B110B (see Figs. 3–6).
The present problem of drop impact test at board level can be
solved using three different methods namely Explicit dynamics
and Implicit Dynamics and modal dynamics. Each possess its
own advantages and disadvantages. Explicit dynamics provides
high level of accuracy where large strains are involved. But the
time taken for computation is compromised. Implicit dynamics
provides a better solution at comparatively less computational
Fig. 2. Calculation of velocity change.
676
Materials Today: Proceedings 64 (2022) 675–679
time. Modal dynamics provides better solutions for linear prob-
lems but fails to provide accurate solutions for non-linear prob-
lems. During the drop test, the mount holes are constrained in
the x-y directions and provided with an acceleration in the z-
direction. The acceleration is defined in terms of Shock G Pulse.
The test board is subjected to a shock pulse of 1500G and the dura-
tion of time is considered to 2 ms.
2. Finite element methods
2.1. Geometric modeling
A BGA consists of pads on the bottom of the package to which
tiny solder balls are stuck with the help of tacky flux. This in turn
is placed on the PCB possessing copper pads in the same pattern
that matches solder balls. 3-Dimensional models of the BGA pack-
age, Solder ball and PCB were created separately and assembled
together using assembly constraints to simulate the drop-impact
test dynamically. The BGA package is modelled with chip, which
is attached to substrate with the help of underfill material. An
overmold is also provided circumferentially around the chip for
better support. Underfills provides stability and ensures the relia-
bility of the solder Joints. They also act as structural reinforcement
for the package components. The present model consists of a die of
10X10mm, Substrate 15X15mm and PCB of 60X60mm (see
Table 1).
The array of solder joints are divided into three different groups
based on their loactaion in the PCB. The stress strains during the
impact is compared in these three different groups and the most
stressed balls are investigated. To minimise computational time
the number of solder balls were kept at a minimum value. Stress
vs Time and Strain Vs Time Graphs are drawn and compared for
each of these three different solder ball groups.
2.2. Material properties
The package, PCB, Copper pads and underfill material are
assumed to be isotropic and possess elastic material properties.
The Young’s Modulus, Density and the Poisons Ratio of the PCB,
Copper Pads and underfill are given in the Table 2.
2.3. Mesh generation
Each of the components were meshed independently using ele-
ment C3D8R element. It is a Linear Brick element with 8 nodes and
each of the node having 3 Degrees of freedom. The model was par-
titioned manually to create a mapped mesh for obtaining better
results.
2.4. Boundary conditions
By defining an acceleration of 1500G and an impulse time per-
iod of 2 milli second, drop test simulation was carried out. Two
steps were created. In the initial step all the screw mount holes
were fully constrained and in the second step the screw mount
holes were constrained in the x-y directions and was given a shock
pulse of 1500G in the z-direction. This acceleration has been varied
over half sine wave. The varied acceleration which is indicated as
half sine wave was given in 37 time steps by approximating 36 var-
ied accelerations. An implicit dynamic analysis was simulated to
replicate the experimental conditions. The acceleration between
0° to 180° were calculated using the relation Sinh*1500G.
Y. Venkata Naga Chandana and N. Venu Kumar Materials Today: Proceedings 64 (2022) 675–679

Fig. 3. a) Isometric view of BGA package, solder joints and PCB assembly b) Enlarged view of the assembly c) Cross sectional view of the assembly d) Solder Joint.

Fig. 4. Solder joints.

Fig. 6. Boundary conditions applied.

Table 1
Package dimensions.

Components Dimensions(mm)
Substrate 15X15X0.3
Silicon 10X 10X0.2
Underfill 10X10X0.005
Overmold 15X15X0.25
PCB 60X60X2
Fig. 5. Meshed model. Copper pad Thickness 0.02

3. Results and discussions
A Finite element analysis using Abaqus Software has been car-
ried out in dynamic implicit mode. Two steps were created. In
the initial step the four screw mount holes of PCB have been con-
strained in x,y,z directions. In the second step, x and y directions
were constrained and an acceleration was given in the z-
direction to simulate the drop impact test. The model was given
1500G acceleration for 2 milli seconds with an incremental time
of 0.05 ms. The results indicate a maximum stress in the Group 1
solder balls and the Group-2 experience the least stress. Numerical
values of the Stress in different solder balls groups are given in

677
Y. Venkata Naga Chandana and N. Venu Kumar Materials Today: Proceedings 64 (2022) 675–679

Table 2 the substrate fail and ensures to check the reliability of the pack-
Material properties. age. The stresses developed in the solder balls using FEM results
Components Young’s Modulus in GPA Density(g/cm3) Positions Ratio are well in accordance with that of experimental values obtained
Substrate 35 1.85 0.3 by Junfeng Zhao et al [2,3].
Silicon 169 2.33 0.3 The maximum stress predicted during shock modelling is
Underfil 20 1.5 0.3 highly mesh size dependent. There has to be a balance in choosing
PCB 35 1.78 0.3 the mesh size such that it yields accurate results and is computa-
Copper Pads 130 8.96 0.34
Solder Balls 20 8.6 0.36
tionally efficient. In this study, mesh size of 20 lm is chosen. This
has resulted in the maximum stress of 636 MPa in the corner sol-
der balls. The stress contour plots shared in Fig. 8 show that the
Table 3
maximum stress in the solder joint happens near the regions closer
Stress in different Group-1,2,3 Solder joints. to the substrate. Mechanical behavior of solder material is highly
strain rate dependent. While its yield stress at low strain rate is
Solder ball Stress in GPa
about 50Mpa, it is over 100Mpa for strain rates over 0.1/s. It
Group-1 636 behaves as a stiff material with little yielding. The weakest link is
Group-2 252
usually the intermetallic layer(IMC) and the solder joint is
Group-3 292
expected to fail at this interface. IMC is a brittle with lot of disloca-
tions and is amorphous in nature. Occasionally pad lift type of fail-
ure can also be seen.
Table 3. Figs. 7 and 8 indicate the strain deformation and the stress Stress and strain variation in the most stressed ball plotted in
in the three groups. Figs. 10 and 12 for 2 ms, indicate a sine wave of diminishing ampli-
The results obtained in this Drop test analysis helps in deter- tude. The Solder balls stresses were observed for 20 steps. Entire
mining the stress at which the interfacing between the PCB and step time of 2 ms is divided into 20 intervals with time increment

Fig. 7. Strain in a) Group-1solder ball b) Group-2 solder ball c) Group-3 solder ball.

Fig. 8. Stress in a) Group-1solder ball b) Group-2 solder ball c) Group-3 solder ball.

Fig. 9. Deformation of the board.

678
Y. Venkata Naga Chandana and N. Venu Kumar
Fig. 10. Stress variation in the most stressed solder ball.
Fig. 11. Stress variation in Group-1,2,3 solder balls.
Fig. 12. Strain variation in the most stressed solder ball.
of 0.05 ms. The results show that the PCB is subjected to bending
and compressive stresses alternately and the corner solder balls
experience maximum tensile stress initially and changes to com-
pressive alternatively for each step whereas the solder balls at
the center experience a compressive stress initially and changes
to tensile in the subsequent intervals. As it is impossible to mea-
sure the solder joint stress experimentally, it can be accurately
simulated using Finite element methods. Solder Joint failure is
directly related to solder joint stress. Board strain may be used as
an indicator to measure solder joint stress.
The Fig. 9 shows the deformation of the board and the package
during the drop test which is subjected to alternate compressive
and tensile stresses. Fig. 11 compares stress variation solder balls
of Group-1, Group-2 and Group-3.
679
Materials Today: Proceedings 64 (2022) 675–679
4. Conclusions
A Dynamic Implicit analysis using Abaqus Software was used to
simulate the drop test of at the board level, and the stress distribu-
tions at different groups of solder balls of test board were obtained.
The following conclusions are summarized.
1. Dynamic implicit analysis was used to effectively simulate the
drop test of Printed circuit board.
2. The test board was simulated with Dynamic implicit analysis
and the stress, strain vs time graphs were plotted.
3. The entire solder joints were classified into three groups based
on the location and the most stressed Group was identified.
Nature of the stresses was analyzed. Deformation of the board
was also obtained.
4. Maximum stresses were obtained on the corners of the package,
so solder joints connected at these locations are more prone to
failure under drop test.
5. Future work
In the future work, influence of sacrificial balls to improve the
reliability of the package can be analyzed. And also a parametric
study of ball height, PCB thickness, Package modulus and impact
of pitch of the Solder ball Joints on the reliability is proposed to
study.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Y. Venkata Naga Chandana: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Software, Validation. N. Venu Kumar: Data curation, Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] F. Liu, G. Meng, M. Zhao, J. Zhao, Experimental and numerical analysis of BGA
lead-free solder joint reliability under board-level drop impact, Microelectron.
Reliab. 49 (2009) 79–85, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microrel.2008.10.014.
[2] Junfeng Zhao, Luke J. Garner, Mechanical Modeling and Analysis of Board Level
Drop Test of Electronic Package, 2006 Electronic Components and Technology
Conference.
[3] M.-K. Yeh, T.-H. Huang, Drop Test and Finite Element Analysis of Test Board,
Procedia Eng. 79 (2014) 238–243.
[4] S. Chung, J.B. Kwak, Comparative Study on Reliability and Advanced Numerical
Analysis of BGA Subjected to Product-Level Drop Impact Test for Portable
Electronics, 9, 1515, doi.org/10.3390/electronics9091515.
[5] Christian Birzer, Bernd Rakow, Rainer Steiner, Juergen Walter, Drop Test
Reliability Improvement of Lead-free Fine Pitch BGA Using Different Solder Bali
Composition, 2005 Electronics Packaging Technology Conference.
[6] Jing-en Luan, Tong Yan Tee, Novel Board Level Drop Test Simulation using
Implicit Transient Analysis with Input-G Method, 2004 Electronics Packaging
Technology Conference.
[7] C. Zhou, T. Yu, S.-W. Lee, Drop/impact tests and analysis of typical portable
electronic devices, Int. J. Mech. Sci. - INT J MECH SCI. 50 (2008) 905–917,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2007.09.012.
[8] Y. Wang, K.H. Low, H.L.J. Pang, K.H. Hoon, F.X. Che, Y.S. Yong, Modeling and
simulation for a drop-impact analysis of multi-layered printed circuit boards,
Microelectron. Reliab. 46 (2-4) (2006) 558–573.
[9] M.-L. Wu, J.-S. Lan, Reliability and failure analysis of SAC 105 and SAC 1205N
lead-free solder alloys during drop test events, Microelectron. Reliab. 80
(2018) 213–222.
[10] T.Y. Tee, H.S. Ng, C.T. Lim, E. Pek, Z. Zhong, Impact life prediction modeling of
TFBGA packages under board level drop test, Microelectron. Reliab. 44 (7)
(2004) 1131–1142.
[11] JEDEC Standard JESD22-B111, Board Level Drop Test Method of Components
for Handheld Electronic Products, JEDEC Solid State Technology Assoc., 2003.