Microelectronics Reliability 50 (2010) 8697

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Microelectronics Reliability
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/microrel

Accuracy of simplied printed circuit board nite element models

Robin Alastair Amy a,*, Guglielmo S. Aglietti a, Guy Richardson b
a
b

Astronautical Research Group, School of Engineering Sciences, University of Southampton, UK

Surrey Satellite Technology Limited, Guildford, Surrey, UK

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 14 October 2008
Received in revised form 23 February 2009
Available online 17 October 2009

a b s t r a c t
Electronic components are prone to failure due to shock or vibration loads. To predict when this failure
may occur it is necessary to calculate the vibration response of the printed circuit board (PCB); this is
most usually achieved through use of simplied nite element (FE) models. The accuracy of these FE
models will be mainly dependant on various sources of error, including: manufacturing variability, which
will cause supposedly identical printed circuit boards to behave differently (including variability in materials and assembly, as well as dimensional tolerances); inaccuracy in the model input parameters, which
is caused by either the modelling assumptions used or poor measurement technique; and errors in the
solution process (e.g. linear solutions in non-linear situations). This paper investigates experimentally
the contribution of these effects, this is achieved by rst looking at measurement of input parameters
and to what accuracy a PCB can reasonably be modelled, and then secondly measuring the extent of manufacturing and assembly induced variability. When these contributions have been dened, it will be possible to assess the condence in any FE PCB model.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Shock and vibration loads imposed on a printed circuit board
may, if severe enough, cause the attached electronic components
to fail. The probability of this failure occurring is strongly inuenced by the local PCB vibration response; therefore, if equipment
vibration reliability is to be predicted then so too must the PCB local vibration response. The most convenient and commonly used
method of predicting the local vibration response is through the
creation of nite element models.
Many good examples of detailed nite element models already
exist in the current literature [18], where the complexity of these
models is justied as the component internal stresses are required;
however, the long time required to build and solve the models cannot be justied when only the PCB response is required. It is possible to greatly simplify the creation of these models by using
lead spring constants in place of detailed lead models [911]. Further simplication can be achieved by removing the detailed 3D
meshes of the component from the FE model altogether: instead
their effects can be included by articially increasing the stiffness
and density of the underlying PCB properties in the FE model
[12,13]. These articial properties can either be included at the exact component location or averaged (sometimes called smearing)
over the entire area of the board. As well as the detailed and
smeared models there are also models that use simple block 3D
elements to recreate component effects [4,1416], these models
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: robinamy@soton.ac.uk (R.A. Amy).
0026-2714/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.microrel.2009.09.001

are especially useful when relatively tall or big components are

present. In addition to all the work on accurately incorporating
component effects into the model, other work has looked the
importance of accurately incorporating boundary conditions into
the model [17,18], or specically considering the effect of boundary condition modication with respect to reducing the vibration
response [1821]. Finally, some previous research has noted the
importance of considering non-linear effects during modelling
[22,23].
It is shown in this work that the rst major difculty in creating
good PCB FE models is in specifying the input parameters, namely:
stiffness, density, damping and boundary conditions. The accuracy
with which each of these parameters is specied will determine
the accuracy of the response predicted by the nal model. Any
inaccuracy in the input parameters will occur due to either poor
initial measurements or, when measurements are not possible,
poor estimation of these factors.
A secondary difculty in creating accurate PCB FE models is due
to variation that may occur in each of the input parameters, where
the variation will cause supposedly identically manufactured and
assembled PCBs to have different responses.
Finally, the model accuracy will be limited by parameters and
sources of variation that cannot be easily specied or modelled.
These may include non-linear effects, limitations of the FE mesh
and other effects too complicated to be easily included in the model (i.e. air or acoustic inuences). Most often these are accounted
for by including appropriate safety factors.
Using an experimental approach and keeping in mind the three
points above, this paper will assess how accurately simplied mod-

R.A. Amy et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 50 (2010) 8697

els can predict a given PCBs response. The approach will involve
two stages: the rst stage will look at the creation of idealised theoretical FE models of PCBs and how accurately these models predict the actual response. The second stage will quantify the
variations that occur due to small differences in manufacturing
and assembly, allowing quantication of the expected variability
and its effect on response. There are three main contributions of
this work: (1) future researchers in this area can follow a similar
process to the one shown here and obtain expected accuracy values specic to their own equipment and manufacturing techniques, (2) the observations presented here allows the modelling
effort spent on future PCB models to be used much more effectively, and (3) the expected accuracies published here can be used
as ball-park starting values for future work.
2. Current practice
The whole FEA process can be broken into three main parts: (1)
modelling (including estimating input parameters, creating a mesh
and incorporating measured parameters in the model), (2) analysis
(type of solution, linear or non-linear, etc), and (3) post-processing
(looking at appropriate response parameters, such as: acceleration,
curvature or deection). Each of these three parts will be considered in turn.
2.1. Creating FE models of PCBs
In creating any FE model of a PCB it is convenient to break the
model down into ve separate areas: PCB properties, Component
effects, chassis, damping and boundary conditions.
2.1.1. PCB properties
The main difculty in creating a model of a PCB is not in creating the mesh but in specifying the properties: stiffness moduli,
poisson ratio, density and thickness. These properties may be provided by the PCB manufacturer but those that are not should be
measured.
The Youngs modulus is most simply calculated using a static
bend test [13]. It is important to note that as most PCBs are laminates their properties may vary depending on the direction of loading, this necessitates that the Youngs modulus be measured in
both the x and y axis of the PCB (where axis are dened as in Fig. 1).
The shear modulus of a PCB may most conveniently be determined through use of a static four point bend test [13] as shown
in Fig. 1, allowing the shear modulus to be calculated using:

Gxy

3K t ab
4t 3

where K t is the slope of the load displacement curve, a and b are the
specimen edge lengths and t is the specimen thickness.

Fig. 1. Diagram of experimental set-up of torsion test. Loads are placed on the four
corners of the specimen and the corner deection is measured. Total load = 2F.

87

The density can easily be found if the PCB mass, width, length
and thickness are known, where there is the implicit assumption
that the thickness is constant over the PCB.
Additionally, removal of the PCBs copper surface during manufacturing will reduce both the mass and stiffness. Because of this
fact it is important that any bend testing should be performed on
the etched PCB, as this reduces possible errors.
2.1.2. Component effects
The following brief discussion on component modelling is only
included to provide the reader with the minimum necessary comprehension of the subject. This subject is too broad to satisfactorily
cover in this work; therefore, whilst reading this work, it should be
remembered that component modelling is not within its scope.
When components are soldered to a PCB they will locally increase the mass and stiffness of the PCB. For good accuracy, especially when large numbers of components are present, the FE
model should include this added mass and stiffness effect. Theoretically, this could be achieved by including each individual component in the model. Several good examples of such detailed models
exist [14], the high level of detail in these models is justied as
these works look at stresses within the component. However, if only
the PCB response is required then detailed models require too much
time and effort then can normally be justied. One solution that
avoids excessively complicated models is to assume that the additional mass and stiffness of the component can be included by articially increasing the PCB Youngs modulus and density [12,13].
This increase may be simplied by averaging (or smearing) the
additional mass and stiffness over the entire area of the board.
The accuracy of the method depends on the level of simplication
used and the mass and stiffness of the components present [24].
As a general rule, small components (discrete resistors and
capacitors) may usually be ignored whilst larger and heavier components (heat-sinks, power transformers, large capacitors, etc)
should always be modelled. The method of including the larger
components depends on the information required, i.e. if only the
PCB response is required then usually either smeared or simple
3D models are sufcient, whilst if component lead stresses are required then detailed 3D models are necessary. However, these are
only very general rules, and ideally the strengths and weaknesses
of each method should be understood and considered each time
they are utilised.
2.1.3. Chassis
A general rule of thumb for the FE modelling of any piece of
equipment is to always model the next level up from the object
of interest [25]. In the case of electronic equipment that means
the chassis (sometimes referred to as enclosure) should also be
modelled. Failure to include the chassis response in the model
may severely affect the accuracy, unless the chassis is extremely rigid relative to the PCB. Generally, modelling a chassis is fairly simple as they are relatively straightforward structures, although it is
always highly recommended to validate the FE model predicted response of the bare chassis with experimentally measured values.
2.1.4. PCB boundary conditions
Once the FE models of the PCB and chassis have been created,
the next step is to combine the two together so that the overall response can be calculated. To achieve this, rigid and/or spring FE
elements are used to connect the two models, where these elements are intended to represent the effect of the PCB-chassis xing
method (e.g. bolts or card-lok systems).
In terms of translational displacement, most xings will be stiff
enough that they will effectively rigidly constrain the PCB translational displacement to that of the chassis (this is proved in Section
4 of this work); this means that simple rigid FE elements are suf-

88

R.A. Amy et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 50 (2010) 8697

cient to constrain the x, y and z displacement of the PCB to the

chassis. However, in terms of rotational displacement all xing
methods will display some exibility, therefore rotational spring
elements are required to tie the two models together. The main difculty in incorporating these rotational spring elements into the FE
model is in specifying the value of the spring stiffness. There are
two possible approaches to this based on whether a prototype of
the PCB exists or not: rst, if a prototype of the PCB and chassis
does not exist then the users options are very limited and the only
way to obtain spring constants is to either estimate the value based
on subjective experience of previous xings or to create a detailed
FE model of the joint (which would probably be too time consuming to be practical). Secondly, if a real example of the PCB and chassis does exist then the accuracy may be improved, as experiments
may be performed on this combined structure to calculate the
rotational stiffness of that xing [17].
This second approach requires an experimental set-up incorporating the xing method of interest attached to a PCB to be created.
It is then possible to use a trial and error (tuning) approach on an
FE model of this structure, where the spring rotational stiffness
tuned until the predicted frequencies match those measured
experimentally. When the two frequencies match, assuming everything else in the model is correct, the stiffness used in the model is
assumed the same as the real stiffness. This method has been illustrated in works by various authors [17,18], and also extended to allow calculation of a non-dimensional parameter for the rotational
stiffness [17]. It is also pertinent to mention that previous studies
have attempted to calculate the boundary rotational stiffness
based on the static deection of an experimental set-up, but the
process was deemed impracticable [17].
The method described in this previous work [17] was originally
intended for use with card-lok style xing mechanisms, which provide clamping force along the entire edge of a PCB, not just in discrete location as happens with bolted PCBs. Thus, the method
should be used with caution if it is applied to bolted-down PCBs,
as it may not be a correct application of the method. If a large number of bolts are present on the edge of the PCB then the situation
may be considered similar to that of a card-lok fastened PCB,
whereas if the PCB is xed in only a few locations such an assumption could prove unrealistic.
Other works relevant to boundary conditions also exist. The effects of very small variations in screw tightness on shock response
have been examined [26], showing that even half an M3 screw pitch
of variation can alter the PCB response. The same work also showed
that the number and location of xings dramatically alters the response, similar results have also been shown in other work [27].
2.1.5. Damping
Although there are several techniques to experimentally measure the damping, in this paper we shall focus on the three most
convenient methods: the logarithmic decrement method, the magnication-factor method and the bandwidth method [28]. The logarithmic decrement method is a time domain approach that
calculates damping based on the free decay of oscillation in a structure. The following Eqs. (2) and (3) are used to calculate the damping (fld logarithmic decrement).

1
r

r ln

xn
xnr

2pfld
q
1  f2ld

1
fld q
1 2p=r2

where r is the logarithmic decrement per unit cycle, x is the amplitude of the structures response and r is the number of cycles apart
in the time history.

The bandwidth method is a frequency domain method that calculates damping from the frequency response of the PCB. Once the
frequency response has been obtained, the response at the half
power points is measured and the damping (fb bandwidth) calculated using Eq. (4).

fb

1 Dx
2 xr

where Dx is the width of the frequency response curve at the half

power level, and xr is the resonant frequency.
The Magnication-factor method is also a frequency domain
method where the damping (fmf magnication factor) is calculated
from the peak transmissibility at resonance.

1
q
2fmf 1  f2mf

or for low damping f < 0:1 this simplies to

1
2fmf

which is simply re-arranged to

fmf

1
2Q

When choosing which of the three methods to use the following

points should be considered [28]. The frequency domain methods
are poor for low damping (<1%) as the curves will be difcult to
measure accurately due to the high rate of change of the frequency
response curve. When such low damping is present then the time
domain methods are preferred. Another point to consider is that
the damping may increase with increasing deection in the structure, necessitating the damping to be measured at more than one
level of input vibration. Finally, all the methods here assume that
only one mode is being excited, if other modes exist close to the
one of interest then more detailed analysis is required outside
the scope of this paper (see [28] for more information).
Analytical methods of nding the damping value of a structure
also exist. Steinberg [29] states that the transmissibility at resonance of an electronic sub-assembly is equal to two times the
square root of the resonant frequency:

p
Q peak a xr

where a is a tting factor based on xr and Q peak is the transmissibility at resonance. The factor a equals 0.5 if xr 6 100, 0.75 if
100 < xr 6 200, 1 if 200 < xr 6 400 and 2 if 400 < xr . Subsequently the damping can be calculated from the transmissibility
by Eq. (7), provided that the level of damping is low f < 0:1.
Unfortunately the data on which Steinbergs method is based is
unavailable and therefore the method is unveriable.
2.2. Analysis stage
Typically, the dynamic response of the board will be calculated
by rst performing a modal analysis and then a frequency response
analysis using a mode superposition method. To avoid large errors
when solving for the dynamic response of a PCB, two points should
be considered [23]: rst, the modal solution of the model should
consider enough modes so that a signicant fraction (roughly at
least 90%) of the total mass of the structure is excited. In addition,
when the board deections are comparable to that of the board
thickness a non-linear analysis is preferred [23]; however, no such
analysis can be found in the current literature, most likely due to
the difculty in specifying the non-linear input parameters (e.g.
non-linear edge rotational stiffness, frequency).

R.A. Amy et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 50 (2010) 8697

In this work, model optimisation in terms of computer resources is not considered as the solutions times are very short,
even on relatively modest hardware (<30 s). It is assumed, therefore, that any optimisation efforts would consume more time than
is saved. However, more computer intensive modelling strategies
(detailed 3D modelling of components for example) might benet
from such optimisation, in this case sub-structuring methods are
most commonly used [12,13].
2.3. Post-processing stage
The nal stage of the FE process is to convert the FEA output to
obtain suitable output parameters; this depends on the purpose of
the analysis. Most users will wish to compare the results with
some pre-dened failure criteria; for example, relating the acceleration experienced by a component to probable time for it to fail.
These failure criteria may take the form of local acceleration experienced by a component [30], local bending moments [31], local
board surface strain [5,6] or board deection [29].
The choice of which failure criteria to use depends on many factors, including: component size, component mass, mounting technology, manufacturing quality and board thickness. The abundance
of these inuencing factors makes it very difcult to recommend
using one failure criteria over another. As general rule, however,
the failure of lightweight components (e.g. QFP or BGA) correlates
most strongly with either board curvature, bending moments or
board deection (the choice between which of these criteria to
use is mainly based on ease of measurement). This is in contrast
to heavy components, these are increasingly likely to fail from high
accelerations as their mass increases, and this can be attributed to
the difference in inertia between light and heavy components. It is
important to remember that the choice of failure criteria requires a
thorough understanding of the previous research and should not
be taken lightly, for the strengths and weaknesses of each criteria
should be fully considered, whilst a criteria that is correct for one
situation may be incorrect for another. The difculty in recommending specic failure criteria in no way discredits the work
here, this is because the models created in this work are able to
create any of these metrics with ease.
2.4. Additional software methods
It is relevant to note that a commercial software package CalcePWA also exists for the calculation of the PCB response [2,32].
This software automates the creation of PCB FE models through a
GUI interface. The modelling approach used in such software is
not known as the software is proprietary, although accurate
boundary condition modelling is assumed to be incorporated.

89

and it is reported here to illustrate and discuss some typical PCBs

response.
3. Properties determination
In the rst part of this section, the material and damping properties of two typical PCB set-ups will be measured, and then the results from these tests are to be used to create FE models of the
PCBs. An analysis of manufacturing and assembly variability will
be made after this comparison.
Throughout all the tests in this work, the frequency response
was measured with a dynamic signal Acquisition Board (NI PCI4472) and several small accelerometers attached to the boards
(Piezotronics 0.6 g or 0.2 g). Where multiple tests were performed
on identical boards the accelerometers exact position was ensured
to be identical between each test.
The two PCBs to be modelled will be hereafter referred to as Setup A and Set-up B, they consist of the following:
Set-up A consists of an unpopulated PCB attached to an aluminium enclosure as shown in Fig. 2. The PCB is made of FR4 laminate and is attached to the enclosure with M2.5 bolts, it
measures 289 mm by 316 mm and weighs 359 g. The enclosure
has cross-members as shown in Fig. 10 (also known as an antivibration frame) to provide extra support for the centre of the
PCB, it was attached to the shaker head expander with 8 M5
bolts and using 30 mm stand-offs to minimise air-pumping
effects. In later tests the PCB and enclosures freefree responses
are measured by hanging each from elastic bands.
Set-up B consists of an unpopulated PCB directly attached to
shaker head expander with 28 M3 bolts evenly spaced around
the perimeter as shown in Fig. 3. The bolts gave the PCB a
20 mm stand-off to minimise air-pumping effects as shown in
Fig. 4. Seven supposedly identical PCBs existed to allow variability tests later, all measured 250 mm by 250 mm and
weighed within 1 g of 190.5 g.

3.1. Determination of PCB properties test

The aforementioned PCB modelling approach was rst applied
to Set-up A (PCB and enclosure as in Fig. 2). The rst step was to
experimentally determine the material properties and compare
these experimental results with the manufacturers provided val-

2.5. Current practice: shortcomings

The primary shortcoming of the current practice is that it is difcult to nd appropriate experimental data in the literature and
detailed calculations of the PCB response. With few exceptions,
most past analyses have been limited to nding the natural frequencies and very few determine the actual frequency response
[20,21]; therefore, it is difcult to estimate the accuracy of the results. The work presented here attempts to overcome this issue by
using the aforementioned techniques to model two typical PCBs,
leading to an analysis between the predicted response curves
and those measured experimentally.
The second issue is that the inuence of manufacturing and
assembly variability has not been assessed. This variability, if severe enough, could have a signicant impact on the results, so a
series of experiments measuring variability has been carried out

Fig. 2. Set-up A, a non-populated PCB integrated into an enclosure attached to the

shaker head expander.

90

R.A. Amy et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 50 (2010) 8697

Fig. 5. Damping of Set-up A measured using different measurement techniques,

plotted against maximum acceleration of centre of PCB.

Fig. 3. Set-up B, a non-populated PCB attached to the shaker head expander, xing
method is shown in greater detail in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4. Detail of xing method for Set-up B.

ues (see Table 1 for a comparison of manufacturers and actual

material properties). The manufacturers provided values were
not justied by giving any expected percentage variation, nor
was it stated whether these values were maximum or minimum
limits. During the experimental tests the following points were
made.
The material exhibited 15% stiffness variation between the x
and y axis, highlighting the signicant amount of anisotropy present in the material. It was observed that during both the Youngs
modulus and shear tests that the FR4 had relatively high level of
hysteresis, and that it was necessary to consider both the loading
and unloading cycles.
Table 1
Material properties of PCB in Set-up A, experimentally measured values and
manufacturers given values.
Property

Measured
10

Manufacturers values
10

Youngs modulus (x axis)

4:02  10

3:50  10

Youngs modulus (y axis)

4:56  1010
2481

3:50  1010
2400
Not given
0.3
1.65

Density
Shear modulus
Poisson ratio
Thickness

1:21  1010
0.3
1.541.66

Units

The thickness of the PCB was measured at multiple points over

the specimen; surprisingly it was found that the thickness varied
over the material by 0.12 mm, if this amount of variation was
not considered throughout the test it would drastically affect the
accuracy of the results.
The density of this particular sample measured to be
2480 kg=m3 which was 3% higher than the value of 2400 kg=m3 given by the manufacturers.
Overall, it was noted that the experimentally measured properties of the PCB in Set-up A were appreciably different from the
manufacturers published values (see Table 1).
Using the damping measurement techniques introduced earlier
(formulas (2)(8)), the damping was measured for the combined
structure. To investigate whether the damping varies with PCB response the measurements were performed over a range of different input accelerations and using different vibration inputs (see
Fig. 5). When using the logarithmic decrement method it was
found that decay over several cycles should be used and multiple
measurements taken and averaged if good results are to be
obtained.
The whole process of properties measurement was repeated for
Set-up B (set-up shown in Fig. 3, as seven identical PCBs existed it
was also possible to measure the variation in the properties. Measured values are given in Table 2 and Fig. 6). The manufacturer could
not give the material properties of its boards, although it did state
the boards were built according to standard IPC-4101B/21. When
measuring the damping properties on this second set-up it was
found that a much higher responses could be obtained, this allowed
damping values to be given up to much higher board accelerations.

4. Finite element modelling

4.1. Set-up B
The rst PCB to be modelled was Set-up B (see Fig. 3), with the
intention of obtaining a plot of the predicted frequency response
that could be compared against the real response. The model was
Table 2
Average material properties of seven PCBs in Set-up B.
Property

N=m

Youngs modulus (x axis)

N=m2

Youngs modulus (y axis)

kg=m3
N=m2

Density
Shear modulus

mm

Poisson ratio
Thickness

r%

Measured

Units

10

2:4  10

N=m

6.4

2:0  1010
1820

N=m2

4.0

kg=m3
N=m2

Neg.
4.35

mm

0.26

4:4  910
0.3
1.69

R.A. Amy et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 50 (2010) 8697

Fig. 6. Damping of PCB in Set-up B measured using different measurement

techniques, plotted against maximum acceleration of centre of PCB (using same
legend as in Fig. 5).

built in the PATRAN modelling environment and solved using NASTRAN. The model of the PCB was simply created using QUAD4 shell
elements. Material properties were created and assigned to these
elements using the experimentally derived material properties, a
2D Isotropic material was used.
The next step after creating the PCB model was to apply the
boundary conditions. The PCB translational boundary conditions
were assumed to be rigidly grounded because the PCB in the experiment was directly attached to a 30 mm thick Aluminium plate,
thus it was assumed that the response of the plate would be negligible compared to that of the PCB. The PCB rotational boundary
conditions were modelled by spring elements (CBUSH) attached
to the mesh at each xing location, and the rotational stiffness of
the elements increased until the model frequencies matched the
experimental frequencies (see Table 3). The tuned model had a
rotational spring constant value of 45 Nm=rad.
The nal step was to apply damping to the model based on the
experimentally derived values (see Fig. 6); unfortunately however,
several different damping measurement techniques were used and
each gave a different value. To overcome this problem all the different predicted values were tried in the model and the correlation
compared to see which gave the best results. The logarithmic decrement method gave a damping of 0.5% (derived using Eqs. (2) and
(3)) and was found to give the best results, which agrees with conventional theory that this damping measurement method is the
most appropriate for such low values of damping [28]. The nal
predicted response correlated well with the actual response (see
Fig. 7 and Table 3).
The previous comparison was based on a very low base excitation (0:01 g2 =Hz at input spectrum), permitting the assumption of
negligible non-linear effects due to the very small board deections. What would happen if the small deection assumption could
not be made? To answer this question the test was repeated at a
much higher vibration level so that the deections were signicantly greater than the board thickness, ensuring that there should
be some non-linear effects [23]. The FE analysis was also repeated
with updated damping values based on the new acceleration input

91

Fig. 7. Comparison of response predicted by FE model (dotted line) and real

response of Set-up B. Low base acceleration input was used.

and damping values from Fig. 6. A comparison of the results (as

shown in Fig. 8) shows that the non-linear effects present at the
higher excitation levels signicantly alter the response near
resonance.
The nal test on this setup examines the effect of components
on model accuracy. The board was populated with 74 g of various
different small components, these components were a mixture of
different SMT and PTH components, none with an edge length
greater than 10 mm. This effect was then incorporated into the
FE model by articially raising the density to simulate the effect
of the components. Any additional stiffening effects of the components were ignored. The effectiveness of this method can be seen in
Fig. 9 and Table 4.
4.2. Set-up A
Set-up A was modelled next (see Fig. 2), again with the intention of examining the difference between the predicted and experimentally measured responses. The PCB FE model was built in a
similar way to the previous model (see Fig. 10), using QUAD4 elements and 2D Isotropic material. The freefree response of this PCB
was calculated and compared to the actual freefree response (see
Table 5 Column A). Additionally, two more predictions of the free
free response were made, one prediction was made using the
material properties provided by the manufacturer (Column C)
and another made using the material properties measured here

Table 3
Comparison of experimental and predicted response of Set-up B. Figures in
parentheses are percentage error values.
Mode

fexp (Hz)

fmodel

Q exp

Q model

1
2
3

146.3
547.1
564.8

146.8 (0.31%)
534.3 (2.34%)
572.2 (1.31%)

164.3
75.4
47.2

149.8 (8.83%)
60.7 (19.49%)
64.09 (35.8%)

Fig. 8. Comparison of response predicted by FE model (dotted line) and real

response of Set-up B. High base acceleration input was used to investigate nonlinear effects.

92

R.A. Amy et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 50 (2010) 8697

Fig. 9. Comparison of response predicted by FE model (dotted line) and real

response of Set-up B when populated with components. Low base acceleration
input was used.

Table 4
Comparison of experimental and predicted response of Set-up B when populated with
components. Figures in parentheses are percentage error values.
Mode

fexp (Hz)

fmodel

Q exp

Q model

1
2
3

129.2
476.2
492.9

129.5 (0.21%)
467.0 (1.97%)
500.1 (1.42%)

170.4
73.9
62.5

171.1 (0.36%)
60.9 (21.2%)
65.0 (3.82%)

Fig. 11. Finite element model of Set-up A enclosure without PCB attached, note
central cross-members to provide additional PCB support (cross-beams and internal
stiffening ribs were modelled as 1D beam elements but for clarity are displayed
here as representative solid elements).

Fig. 10. First torsional mode of nite element model of freefree PCB from Set-up A.
Fig. 12. Finite element model of Set-up A enclosure with PCB attached.
Table 5
Table showing difference in natural frequencies between experimental test on free
free unpopulated PCB and various FE models. Model A uses experimentally derived
material properties and PCB thickness, Model B assumes constant PCB thickness and
model C uses the material properties provided by the PCB manufacturer.
Mode

Experimental frequency (Hz)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

41.3
66.6
93.3
110
119
204
210
243
280

Percentage discrepancy
A

1.19
0.15
0.75
0.20
0.79
3.13
0.82
1.12
0.14

6.94
6.39
13.64
1.11
2.18
9.05
0.17
10.65
8.48

15.66
31.62
37.41
22.36
26.46
33.07
23.67
15.17
2.56

and the material thickness provided by the manufacturer (Column

B). The relatively poor accuracy of these last two models highlights
the risk of using the material property values provided by the
manufacturer.
The chassis was modelled using a combination of QUAD4 shell
elements for the chassis walls and Bar2 beam elements (see
Fig. 11). The only mode shape of any importance to the modelling

of the PCB response was that of the central cross-beams, these

were experimentally measured to have a natural frequency of
210.4 Hz whilst the FE model of the chassis gave frequencies of
209.8 Hz, a difference of less than 0.5%.
To predict the response of the PCB in the enclosure the two
models must be combined (see Fig. 12). As before, this was
achieved using rigid translational elements and tuned rotational
spring elements at the location of each xing. Unlike the previous
model, it was not initially possible to easily tune the spring elements to correlate the frequencies. The initial attempts to model
gave signicant errors in the frequency of second and third modes,
whilst also signicantly underestimating the response of the later
modes.
With some effort it was found that the PCB could be modelled to
a good accuracy in the following way: rst, in addition to tuning
the rotational stiffness it was found that modelling the PCB xings
with a translational spring element allowed good frequency correlation, these additional spring elements also required tuning. This
suggests that the initial assumption of the PCB xings being effectively rigid in translation was incorrect for this set-up. Secondly, it
was found that the amplitude response prediction could be improved by specifying lower damping for higher frequency modes.
This suggests that damping drops off with frequency, as the higher

R.A. Amy et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 50 (2010) 8697

93

Table 6
Comparison of experimental results and FE models using different boundary
conditions. Subscripts ss, ff and tuned refer to simply supported, fully xed and
tuned edge conditions respectively. Italic values in parentheses are the peak
transmissibility for that mode, where these were known.
Mode

1
2
3
4
5
6

Frequency (Hz)
Experiment

Tuned

SS

FF

196
(31.49)
322
357
478
(35.86)
637
1010

195.6
(31.17)
314
365
478
(34.15)
635
884

190
(31.17)
301
349
460
(11.71)
618
942

207
(31.17)
342
381
515
(11.27)
678
1066

Fig. 15. Set-up C attached to the shaker head expander.

for the second mode. Variability in the response magnitude was

as before (see Table 6).
5. Variability experiments
The next set of experiments measure the variation present in
some typical PCBs. In addition to the Set-ups A and B used in the
previous experiments two more set-ups will also be introduced:

Fig. 13. Comparison of response predicted by FE model (dotted line) and real
response of Set-up A.

Set-up C consists of an MS-6323 Micro-ATX motherboard

attached to shaker head expander by six M4 machine screws
as shown in Fig. 15. In this test the board only had a 6 mm
stand-off as this is how the board is usually mounted. Seven
of these boards existed to allow the differenced between each
to be measured, each measures 244 mm by 205 mm and weighs
within 1 g of 465 g. In some tests the motherboards freefree
responses were measured, this was achieved by hanging each
board from elastic bands.
Set-up D consists of a graphics card (Vanta TNT2M64) suspended by elastic bands to measure freefree response (shown
in Fig. 16), ten cards were tested this way, each weighs within
0.5 g of 69 g and measures 150 mm by 83 mm and are
1.6 mm thick.

5.1. Boundary condition variability test

Fig. 14. Comparison of experimental results of Set-up A with two different FE

models, the Simply supported model assumes the PCB to chassis connection has
zero rotational stiffness, whilst the Fully xed model assumes a rigid rotational
connection.

modes have lower displacement this would agree with the results
of the earlier damping tests. The correlation of the nal tuned model can be seen in Table 6 and Fig. 13.
Finally, two additional models were made to investigate two
commonly made assumptions, namely, that the PCB to chassis connection is either rotationally fully rigid or exible. Fig. 14 shows
the comparison of two models, one using rotationally rigid elements and one using elements that do not constrain rotation. A frequency variation of up to 5% was seen for the rst mode and 10%

This rst test illustrates the sensitivity of a PCBs response to

small changes in boundary conditions. This involved removing
and re-installing the same Set-up C (as shown in Fig. 15) several
times and testing the vibration response after each installation.
Any slight variations in the boundary conditions between tests
would be apparent as the vibration response would also change between tests (see Fig. 17 and Table 7). The boards were subjected to
a 0.5 g vibration input swept from 20 to 400 Hz at two Octaves per
minute; this frequency was chosen as it contained the most significant modes, whilst the value of 0.5 g vibration input was a compromise between a good signal to noise ratio and possible
damage to the boards. The rst test involved removing and reinstalling Set-up C three times, the bolts were tightened to the
same torque each time. The second of tests was the same except
that not only was the torque identical but also the tightening pattern. Consequently it was found that only by tightening the screws
in exactly the same order and to exactly the same torque (1.5 N/m)
could any repeatability be achieved (see Table 7), thus all experiments in this work use exactly the same tightening pattern and
torque.

94

R.A. Amy et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 50 (2010) 8697

Fig. 16. Set-up D for measuring freefree response of graphic cards.

Table 8
Statistical parameters of the vibration response of different set-ups after three
successive re-installation attempts.

Fig. 17. Frequency response of Set-up C over successive removal and re-installation
attempts, to show sensitivity of board to small variations in boundary conditions
(see Table 7).

Table 7
Frequencies and peak transmissibilities of rst two modes for Set-up C, between each
attempt the PCB was removed and then re-installed with bolts re-tightened to the
same torque. The rst three attempts used a random bolt tightening pattern; the last
three attempts used exactly the same bolt tightening pattern.
Attempt

1
2
3
4
5
6

Mode 1

Mode

f (Hz)

rf

rf %

rQ

rQ %

Set-up C
(random pattern)

1
2

94.5
130.3

2.57
1.40

2.72
1.08

8.50
14.76

0.64
4.34

7.90
29.40

Set-up C

1
2

97.8
130.7

0.20
0.58

0.20
0.44

8.91
16.75

0.62
1.09

6.98
6.51

Set-up A

1
2
3
4

194.4
333.0
361.9
483.5

1.35
1.17
0.65
1.28

0.70
0.35
0.18
0.26

21.14
4.80
3.67
48.14

0.70
0.15
0.26
2.25

3.30
3.16
7.06
4.68

Set-up B

1
2

145.3
543.5

1.72
6.20

1.19
1.14

147.3
69.78

6.67
9.19

4.53
13.18

5.2. Manufacturing variability test

The second set of tests involved testing and comparing the response of seven supposedly identical motherboards as in Set-up
C, these were tested in a mounted condition similar to the previous
tests. It was immediately apparent that identical manufacture did
not mean identical response (see Fig. 18 and statistics of variation

Mode 2

f (Hz)

f (Hz)

92.6
93.4
97.4
97.6
98.0
97.8

9.20
7.92
8.4
8.40
8.72
9.60

128.8
131.6
130.0
130.0
131.0
131.0

15.25
18.84
10.20
16.0
16.25
18.0

It was suspected that different test set-ups might be more sensitive to slight changes in boundary conditions than others. To
investigate this assumption the tests were repeated for two Setups A and B (the statistics of variation are shown in Table 8). Preliminary testing showed the sensitivity to bolt tightening pattern
was found to be insignicant in both these tests, so this part of
the original test was not repeated.

Fig. 18. Frequency response of seven supposedly identical motherboards (Set-up

C), each board was installed in exactly the same manner, with identical torques and
bolt tightening pattern (see Table 9 table for specic information).

R.A. Amy et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 50 (2010) 8697

95

Table 9
Statistics of variation for seven identical Micro-ATX motherboards in Set-up C, each
with identical installation procedures.
Mode

f (Hz)

rf

rf %

rQ

rQ %

1
2

94.74
129.31

2.94
1.45

3.10
1.12

11.34
14.80

2.54
0.82

22.42
5.56

Fig. 20. Graph to show decrease in rst resonant frequency of a Set-up B due to
damage from intense vibrations. Arrow points in the direction of increasing levels of
vibration.

Fig. 19. Thickness against rst natural frequency for identical Micro-ATX PCBs as in
Set-up C.

in Table 9). Additionally, some correlation was noted between the

motherboard thickness and rst natural frequency (see Fig. 19),
leading to the conclusion that small differences in motherboard
thickness were partly responsible for the variation in the response.
The tests were repeated on Set-ups B and D to investigate
whether this level of variation was typical (set-ups shown in Figs.
15 and 16 but freefree). To remove any possible boundary condition effects this second set of tests was performed using freefree
conditions (results are shown in Table 10).
5.3. Variations in response after high acceleration
A test was carried out to show how the response of a PCB might
be irreversibly altered due to damage from high vibration loading.
Set-up B was attached to a shaker head expander and excited at

Table 10
Statistics of modes of several identical PCBs for freefree conditions. Seven boards
were tested in Set-up B and C, whilst ten were tested in Set-up D.
Set-up
Set-up C

Mode
1
2
3
4
5

f (Hz)

rf

rf %

53.51
76.00
103.10
134.03
157.1

1.50
0.86
1.57
1.68
4.06

2.80
1.13
1.52
1.25
2.58

Set-up B

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

23.5
48.0
62.1
72.0
75.2
133.0
149.2
157.5
179.1
230

0.54
1.41
0.62
1.33
0.75
0.79
0.82
0.70
0.89
1.57

2.31
2.94
1.00
1.84
1.00
0.59
0.55
0.49
0.50
0.68

Set-up D

1
2

202.4
262.1

3.22
3.74

0.79
0.71

several levels of vibration from 0.2 g to 40 g sinusoidal input, the

vibration input was a sinusoidal input at just below the rst resonant frequency of the board, each level lasted ten minutes. A visual
inspection of the PCB after each test did not see signs of obvious
damage. The response of the board was then measured between
each stress test using a low-level sine sweep at 0.2 g. It was apparent that the response of the PCB was affected when more intense
vibrations were applied (see Fig. 20), as the rst resonant frequency of the PCB fell 3.2% and the acceleration response fell
11%. This rst test used a set-up that incorporated nylon washers
that were suspected of being susceptible to yielding, so the test
was repeated with another set-up that had no washers. Over this
second test the frequency dropped by only 1.5% while the response
dropped by a signicant 18.6%. It was observed that the majority of
the reduction for the second test occurred when the board centre
response reached over 160 g peak acceleration, whilst for the rst
test the reduction and therefore damage occurred evenly
throughout the test.
In summary, the response was irreversibly altered due to high
accelerations even though no visible damage occurred. This damage could take many possible forms: delamination of the glass bre
layers within the PCB, failure of the epoxy to bre bond, local yielding of the PCB around the xing that resulted in lower bolt tension.
Although the exact cause of failure can not be determined it is enough to know that at high responses such variations can occur and
should be measured if possible, if measurement is not possible
then appropriate safety factors should be included. Also, it should
be noted that the damage did not affect any of the electrical connections on the PCB in this case study, but for multi-layer PCBs
the possibility of damage to electrical connections could be an
issue.
6. Discussion
Say the response of a piece of equipment is known, to what extent should responses of other identical pieces of equipment expected to be the same?
First, lets consider a worst-case scenario based on the results
reported here. For example, if the assembly of a piece of equipment
is not tightly controlled, resulting in different bolt torques and
tightening patterns, the response magnitude may have a standard
deviation of up to 30% (based on the highest variation seen in Table
8). Low manufacturing tolerances may contribute up to another
22% standard deviation (based on the highest variation seen in Table 9). These percentages are then corrected for the small sample
size by using a Students t-distribution, at a 99% condence level

96

R.A. Amy et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 50 (2010) 8697

this distribution requires that the percentages be multiplied by

3.14 to safely account for any possible variability. Based on these
values, for a worst-case scenario, the actual response may be
184% higher or lower than the measured value. Furthermore, this
does not consider that the frequencies may vary by up to 18% higher or lower than the measured value, possibly placing the resonant
frequencies of the structure into a region of higher input acceleration. Finally, if large accelerations are present damage may occur to
the structure that could alter the response further.
Now lets consider a best-case scenario. For equipment that is
assembled in a very controlled environment, the response magnitude may vary by as little as 3% (based on the lowest variation
seen in Table 8), whilst the lowest deviation observed due to manufacturing variations was 3% (based on the lowest rst mode variation seen in Table 10). At three sigma this amounts to the
response being possibly 18% higher or lower than the measured
response.
Thus, to answer the original question of how similar responses
may be, is not so straightforward, as it can be seen that the variability depends on the specic case at hand. For example, the
motherboards in Set-up C seemed to be more sensitive to small
variations in boundary conditions, possibly due to their relatively
small number of xing points. Therefore, any estimate of variability should be based on set-ups and assembly processes as similar
as possible to the equipment to which they will be applied.
Now lets consider the question that was posed earlier: With
what accuracy can the vibration response reasonably be predicted
by an idealised theoretical PCB FE model? First, if a specimen of
the PCB material is available for bend testing, then the PCB material properties (stiffness, density, and thickness) can be measured
and specied accurately. With this information it is then possible
to get very good correlation between the predicted and actual
PCB freefree response; thus removing one signicant source of error. Next, to overcome the problem of measuring damping, this can
be measured from an already existing piece of equipment. This
technique is only valid if the existing equipment is sufciently similar to the proposed design, i.e. similar board size, xtures and
chassis. Fortunately, most companies only use a few different form
factors, so it is very likely that similar pieces of equipment already
exist.
With these two pieces of information (PCB properties and
damping) a full FE model of the combined PCB/enclosure system
can be created; with this model it is now possible to attempt to
predict the edge rotational stiffness. This can be achieved using
the same technique as was just described for damping: using estimates based upon existing equipment with similar xings. All
these measured values can be saved in a database and then be
re-used for any future modelling situations, without the need to
be measured every time. As it is assumed that most manufacturers
use only a few different types of PCBs, form factors, tting mechanisms and chassis types, it is possible that with a relatively modest
amount of effort, a database of all the different input parameters
could be created, thus allowing future models to be created quickly
and effectively.
In this paper, the FE modelling has been demonstrated for two
different examples of electronic equipment. In one example it was
possible to predict the edge rotational stiffness and the resultant
response prediction was very good. In the second example the
boundary conditions were more complicated and required a more
complicated modelling approach, this approach had to include
both translational spring constants at the PCB boundary conditions
and also frequency dependant damping. Finally, at high levels of
excitation, non-linear effects may become signicant and further
decrease accuracy. Fortunately, the non-linear effects seem to only
reduce the response, so ignoring them is a conservative
assumption.

Again, the answer to the posed question is not straightforward.

If a structure is submitted to extensive preliminary testing and has
relatively simple PCB boundary conditions that permit trial and error calculation, then it is possible to create a relatively accurate
model. However, in a real situation, it is unlikely that such extensive testing will be practical and even if such testing is undertaken,
there remains a possibility that the boundary conditions and
damping are relatively complicated to specify.
In addition, the following points have been noted during the
measurement process: accurate damping measurement is vital if
the FE model is to accurately predict response magnitude. Measurements should be made at different power input levels to reect
how damping varies with increased deections. The Logarithmic
method is the most suitable method for doing this, especially when
the damping is low, although it is recommended to average multiple readings when using this method.
In terms of determining the PCB material properties the following points have been noted. The laminate material is noted to have
strongly anisotropic properties and an accurate model cannot be
created without using the stiffness moduli in both the x and y axis.
The importance of measuring and including shear stiffness in the
model should not be overlooked. Thickness variations can signicantly affect the accuracy of results if not considered.

7. Conclusion
The aim of this work was to assess the accuracy of typical FE
models used to predict the response of PCBs to harsh random
vibration environment. It has been shown that if good data on
the board properties exists, then even simple PCB FE models can
deliver very accurate response prediction. In practice, however,
various input parameters are difcult to obtain: namely, reliable
data concerning boundary conditions, stiffness or damping. It has
been shown that with enough preliminary testing it is possible to
determine the stiffness and damping values, whilst the boundary
conditions may be calculated by a tuning approach. Unfortunately, this does create the requirement that an experimental
set-up similar the one being modelled already exists. Ultimately,
with the approach given here, an estimate of the expected accuracy
of a PCB FE model can be made, from this estimate the condence
in future models can be known. In addition, tests were performed
to show that manufacturing and assembly variability can produce
signicant differences in the response of supposedly identical PCB
assemblies, highlighting the importance in measuring this
variability.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to warmly thank Surrey Satellite Technology Limited (SSTL) for their vital contribution to this research.
Special thanks also go to Ian Black for kindly providing free equipment and technical support.
References
[1] Dehbi A, Ousten Y, Danto Y, Wondrak W. Vibration lifetime modelling of PCB
assemblies using Steinberg model. Microelectron Reliab 2005;45(9
11):165861.
[2] Gu J, Barker D, Pecht M. Prognostics implementation of electronics under
vibration loading. Microelectron Reliab 2007;47(12):184956.
[3] Chen Y, Wang C, Yang Y. Combining vibration test with nite element analysis
for the fatigue life estimation of PBGA components. Microelectron Reliab
2008;48(4):63844.
[4] en Luan J, Tee TY, Pek E, Lim CT, Zhong Z, Zhou J. Advanced numerical and
experimental techniques for analysis of dynamic responses and solder joint
reliability during drop impact. IEEE Trans Compon Packag Technol
2006;29(3):44956.

R.A. Amy et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 50 (2010) 8697

[5] Shetty S, Lehtinen V, Dasgupta A, Halkola V, Reinikainen T. Fatigue of chip scale
package interconnects due to cyclic bending. ASME J Electron Packag
2001;123(3):3028.
[6] Shetty S, Reinikainen T. Three- and four-point bend testing for electronic
packages. ASME J Electron Packag 2003;125(4):55661.
[7] Li R. A methodology for fatigue prediction of electronic components under
random vibration load. ASME J Electron Packag 2001;123(4):394400.
[8] Jih E, Jung W. Vibrational fatigue of surface mount solder joints, ITherm98. In:
Sixth intersociety conference on thermal and thermomechanical phenomena
in electronic systems (Cat. No. 98CH36208); 1998. p. 24650.
[9] Kotlowitz R. Comparative compliance of representative lead designs for
surface-mounted components. IEEE Trans Compon Hybrids Manuf Technol
1989;12(4):43148.
[10] Kotlowitz R. Compliance metrics for surface mount component lead design,
1990. In: Proceedings of 40th electronic components and technology
conference (Cat. No. 90CH2893-6); 1990. p. 105463.
[11] Kotlowitz R. Taylor L. Compliance metrics for the inclined Gull-wing, Spider Jbend, and Spider Gull-wing lead designs for surface mount components. In:
Proceedings of 41st electronic components and technology conference (Cat.
No. 91CH2989-2); 1991 p. 299312.
[12] Pitarresi J, Caletka D, Caldwell R, Smith D. The smeared property technique for
the FE vibration analysis of printed circuit cards. ASME J Electron Packag
1991;113:2507.
[13] Pitarresi J, Primavera A. Comparison of vibration modeling techniques for
printed circuit cards. ASME J Electron Packag 1991;114:37883.
[14] Lall P, Panchagade D, Choudhary P, Gupte S, Suhling J. Failure-envelope
approach to modeling shock and vibration survivability of electronic and
MEMs packaging. IEEE Trans Compon Packag Technol 2008;31(1):10413.
[15] Wu J, Zhang RR, Radons S, Long X, Stevens K. Vibration analysis of medical
devices with calibrated FEA model. Comp Struct 2002;80:10816.
[16] Pitarresi J, Roggeman B, Chaparala S, Geng P. Mechanical shock testing and
modeling of PC motherboards. In: Proceedings of 54th electronic components
and technology conference (IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37546), vol. 1; 2004. p. 1047
54.
[17] Barker DB, Chen Y. Modeling the vibration restraints of wedge-lock card
guides. ASME J Electron Packag 1993;115(2):18994.

97

[18] Lim G, Ong J, Penny J. Effect of edge and internal point support of a printed
circuit board under vibration. ASME J Electron Packag 1999;121(2):1226.
[19] Guo Q, Zhao M. Fatigue of SMT solder joint including torsional curvature and
chip location optimization. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2005;26(78):88795.
[20] Aglietti GS. A lighter enclosure for electronics for space applications. Proc Inst
Mech Eng Part G 2002;216:13142.
[21] Aglietti GS, Schwingshackl C. Analysis of enclosures and anti-vibration devices
for electronic equipment for space applications. In: Proceedings of the 6th
international conference on dynamics and control of systems and structures in
space; 2004. p. 26170.
[22] Yang Q, Wang Z, Lim G, Pang J, Yap F, Lin R. Reliability of PBGA assemblies
under out-of-plane vibration excitations. IEEE Trans Compon Packag Technol
2002;25(2):293300.
[23] Cifuentes AO. Estimating the dynamic behavior of printed circuit boards. IEEE
Trans Compon, Packag, Manuf Technol Part B: Adv Packag 1994;17(1):6975.
[24] Amy RA, Aglietti GS, Richardson G. Sensitivity analysis of simplied PCB FE
models. In: Proceedings of the 1st CEAS European air and space conference
CEAS-2007-466; 2007.
[25] Saran TP. Spacecraft structures and mechanisms: from concept to
launch. Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1995.
[26] en Luan J, Tee TY, Pek E, Lim CT, Zhong Z. Dynamic responses and solder joint
reliability under board level drop test. Microelectron Reliab 2006;47(2
3):45060.
[27] Wang H, Zhao M, Guo Q. Vibration fatigue experiments of SMT solder joint.
Microelectron Reliab 2004;44(7):114356.
[28] de Silva CW. Vibration fundamentals and practice. CRC; 1999.
[29] Steinberg D. Vibration analysis for electronic equipment. John Wiley & Sons;
2000.
[30] Liguore S, Followell D. Vibration fatigue of surface mount technology (SMT)
solder joints. In: Proceedings of the annual reliability and maintainability
symposium (Cat. No. 95CH35743); 1995. p. 1826.
[31] Sidharth K, Barker DB. Vibration induced fatigue life estimation of corner leads
of peripheral leaded components. ASME J Electron Packag 1996;118(4):2449.
[32] Oguibe C, Williams D. Reliability assessment of a digital electronic board
assembly using the physics-of-failure approach: a case study. Proc Inst Mech
Eng, Part B (J Eng Manuf) 1999;213(B8):8339.