Detection of Cracked Multi-Layer Ceramic Capacitors On Printed Circuit Board Assemblies

Detection of Cracked Multi-Layer Ceramic
Capacitors on Printed Circuit Board Assemblies
Michael H. Azarian, Ph. D.
IMAPS Chesapeake Chapter Summer Technical Symposium
July 23, 2014
Center for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering 1 University of Maryland

Copyright 2014 CALCE
Flex Cracks in Multi-Layer Ceramic
Capacitors (MLCCs)
Ceramic dielectric Electrode Flex crack Capacitor
termination
Solder joint
Printed circuit
board Solder pad
Flex crack
250 mm

Background
MLCCs are susceptible to cracking due to board flexure or
thermal stress.
Cracked capacitors can affect circuit performance, and cause
open or short circuits, and even fires.
Cracked MLCCs are difficult to detect non-destructively after
assembly, due to:
their small size,
curved end terminations,
multilayer construction of the MLCC and the board,
interference by electrical and mechanical elements of the PCB circuitry,
minimal change in electrical performance if cracks are small, and
the inability to apply large voltages or mechanical stresses.

Crack Detection in Assembled MLCCs
Conventional detection methods:

acoustic microscopy,
2D and 3D X-Ray imaging,
electrical parameter measurements (e.g., C, IR),
impedance spectroscopy,
methanol testing.
Electrical measurements in the time domain allow
localization of discontinuities within the circuit. Probing
close to the MLCC with high frequency signals reduces
or eliminates interference from other elements of the
circuit.

Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR)
In the reflection mode a short pulse is sent along a conductor. Any
impedance discontinuity (resistive, capacitive, inductive) within
the circuit causes a reflection of the original pulse, which can be
detected at the output/input terminal.
The reflection coefficient is defined as the ratio of the reflected
and the incident voltage:
Vreflected Z L Z0 Z0: Characteristic impedance of the
circuit
Z L Z0
ZL: Impedance of the device under
Vincident test
Based on the reflection coefficient the nature of the impedance can

be determined.
In the time domain, measured discontinuities can be related to
locations in the circuit.

1812 and 0805 MLCC Test Boards
The feasibility of TDR testing on MLCCs was examined.
1812 and 0805 MLCCs on special test boards were tested.
Each capacitor was interconnected to test points and no other
passive components.
The test boards were subjected to 4-point bending, which
resulted in flex cracking of varying numbers of capacitors.
0805 test board 1812 test board

TDR Measurements
TDR probe Test specimen Probe head Signal and ground pin probing
top of MLCC end terminations
The pitch of the TDR pins limits the measurements to MLCCs with a length of
at least 1 mm.
The contact between the pins and the irregular end termination surface is not
optimal and induces additional reflections.
This probe can only be brought into contact with the top of the end terminations
due to the construction of the probe head.
TDR Setup
A frequency domain response is measured by the VNA, which
mathematically calculates a time domain transform of the data.
Low-pass mode was chosen since it provides information regarding
the type of impedance (resistive, capacitive, inductive) and identifies
short and open circuits.
Equipment used for TDR: Agilent E8364A Vector
Network Analyzer
TDR/VNA Settings:
Start-/Stop-frequency: 60 Mhz-6GHz
Transform Mode: Lowpass step mode
Probe: Agilent N1020A TDR probe

Probe pitch: 1.5 to 5.0 mm
Bandwidth: DC to 6 GHz
Reflection Coefficients of Healthy and Cracked
1812 MLCCs on Test Boards
0.2
Healthy 1812 MLCC on test board
0
Reflection Coefficient [U]
-0.2
Cracked 1812 MLCC on test board
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Time [nsec]
Healthy MLCCs present themselves in the same way as a short (negative unity reflection)
Cracked MLCC are clearly distinguishable from healthy MLCCs in shape of the
characteristic reflection coefficient and increased reflection coefficient.

X-Ray Characterization
of Cracks in 1812 MLCCs
Drops of solder
on board
Crack is easy to Clear separation

All 1812 MLCCs identified between ceramic
identify
as cracked using TDR body and end
terminal
All MLCCs were examined with X-ray to confirm the presence of cracks.
Cracks in 1812 MLCCs were easy to identify compared to smaller MLCCs.

Characterization of 1812 Crack Sizes with
Respect to Detectability Using TDR
List of cracked Correct Capacitance [nF] Insulation
1812 MLCCs Identification Resistance [Ohm]
C13 Yes 15.13 Not measurable
C16 Yes 27.23 7.12E+12
Healthy 1812 MLCCs 10010 1E+11
Capacitance for all cracked MLCCs showed a large decrease to about 20 nF.
IR was not measurable in some cases. This suggests that the flex cracking
resulted in separation of all electrodes from the affected end terminal.
All 23 cracked and 4 healthy 1812 MLCCs were correctly identified with TDR,
showing the capability of TDR as a suitable method to identify cracks in
MLCCs.

Cross-Sectional Analysis
Cracks running
through all
electrodes
All cracked 1812 MLCCs were

identified as cracked using TDR
Two cracked 1812 MLCCs were cross-sectioned, of which both were
identified as cracked with TDR.
Both MLCCs identified as cracked showed complete propagation of the crack
through all electrodes in a vertical orientation.

X-Ray Characterization
Hardly Clearly
visible crack visible crack
MLCC identified as cracked MLCC identified as healthy

using TDR using TDR
All MLCCs were examined with X-ray to confirm the presence of cracks.
Based on the X-ray examination it is hard to assess the influence of cracking
on the TDR performance for smaller sized MLCCs.

Characterization of 0805 Crack Sizes with
Respect to Detectability Using TDR
List of cracked Correct Capacitance [nF] Insulation
0805 MLCCs Identification Resistance [Ohm]
C3 No 44.23 1.36E+09
C9 No 76.55 7.00E+08
C13 Yes 28.22 6.67E+08
C14 Yes 0.91 1.25E+09
C15 Yes 12.80 6.17E+08
C16 No 26.42 2.82E+09
C18 Yes 0.51 8.36E+09
C19 Yes 4.89 7.28E+08
C20 No -6.35E9 3.31E+09
Healthy 0805 MLCCs 10010 1E+11

Unidentified cracked MLCCs tended to have larger capacitance values, closer to their
original value of 100 10 nF, while the ones which were identified tended to have very small
capacitance. Capacitance serves as one indicator of crack severity in MLCCs.
Cracked 0805 MLCCs showed smaller insulation resistance on the order of 108 or 109 Ohms,
but no trend with respect to detectability was observable.
Cross-Sectional Analysis
Crack Non-cracked
running section
through all providing
electrodes electrical
contact in case
of partial
cracking of
electrodes
0805 MLCC identified as 0805 MLCC identified as

cracked using TDR healthy using TDR
Four cracked 0805 MLCCs were examined, of which two were identified with
TDR and the other two were not.
Both MLCCs identified as healthy showed only partial penetration of the crack
through electrodes. The non-cracked electrodes provided a low impedance
path for the signal.
Summary of TDR Measurements
on Test Boards
Number Number of Type 1 error Type 2 error
correctly identified (false positive) (false negative)
Healthy 1812 4 4 0 0
Cracked 1812 23 23 0 0
Healthy 0805 15 15 0 0
Cracked 0805 9 5 0 4
Cracked 1812 MLCCs showed no errors in identification, which might be

related to larger crack sizes in bigger MLCCs.
4 out of 9 cracked 0805 MLCCs showed no differences in their response
compared to healthy MLCCs.

PCB Assemblies from Commercial Products
After the initial TDR measurements on the test boards, TDR was
performed on 4 different types of PCB assemblies extracted from
consumer products.
The extracted PCB assemblies contained MLCCs of different
commonly available sizes, which were analyzed using X-ray
imaging prior to the experiments.
Two identical specimens of each PCB assembly were obtained.
One of them served as a reference with healthy MLCCs, whereas
the other one was subjected to flexing and thermal stressing in
order to introduce cracks.

Generation and Verification of Cracks in
MLCCs on PCB Assemblies
Introducing flex cracks is preferable for the experiments, but is
not feasible in every case due to the position, size and
orientation of the MLCCs as well as the population of the PCB
assemblies.
In the cases where flex cracking was not feasible, the MLCCs
were thermally shocked to create cracks.
X-ray imaging was used to verify the presence of cracks in the
capacitors.
Crack in 1812 MLCC on test board

Characterization of MLCCs
PCB Number of Measured Measured Classification
Assembly MLCCs length [mm] width [mm]
0805 Test 24 2.01 1.32 0805
board
1812 Test 24 4.50 3.20 1812
board
Sound card 4 3.07 1.55 1206
Zip drive 4 3.01 1.62 1206
board
Ethernet 4 4.59 1.88 -
card
Mother- 8 3.11 1.58 1206
board
The manufacturer of the MLCCs on the commercial boards was
unknown.
Thus, no datasheets were available for reference regarding their
performance, construction or dielectric composition.
X-Ray Images of Cracks Introduced
Flex crack in 0805 MLCC on test board Solder joint crack in MLCC on sound card
Thermal crack on MLCC on Ethernet card Flex cracks in MLCCs on Zip drive boards
Observations Regarding Crack Types
Introducing flex cracks in

small MLCCs proved to be
difficult and resulted in most
cases in separation of the end
termination from the solder
pad instead of cracking.
Some of the cracks did not
penetrate the electrodes,
Separation of end termination from solder
which might affect their pad of MLCCs on Motherboard
detectability with TDR.

TDR Measurements on PCB Assemblies
On two different PCB assemblies (Zip drive, Ethernet board)
thermal and flex cracks were created with different severities in
four MLCCs of two different sizes.
TDR was the only electrical test used, since the MLCCs were
interconnected to other components, which interferes with
capacitance and insulation resistance measurements.
Flex cracks in Zip drive board Thermal crack in Ethernet board

TDR Measurements on PCB Assemblies
Bending on two other PCB Assemblies (motherboard, sound card)
resulted in separation of the MLCCs from the board without any
cracks penetrating the electrodes.
The capability of TDR to detect these failures was also examined.
Cracks in solder joints on motherboard Cracks in solder joints

on sound card

Reflection Coefficient of 1206 MLCCs
on Zip drive PCB Assembly
0.2
0
Reflection Coefficient [U]
Cracked 1206 MLCC on Zipdrive

-0.2
Healthy 1206 MLCC on Zipboard
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Time [nsec]
This cracked 1206 MLCC showed a clear distinction from the healthy MLCC.
The other pair of healthy and cracked 1206 MLCCs on the same board location, which
are not shown here, showed no difference in the reflection coefficient.
Summary of TDR Measurements
on PCB Assemblies
Crack type Number Number of Type 1 error Type 2 error
of correctly (false (false
cracked identified positive) negative)
MLCCs
Ethernet Thermal 2 2 0 0
adapter shock crack
Zip drive Flex crack 2 1 0 1
Motherboard Solder joint 4 0 0 4

crack
Sound card Solder joint 4 0 0 4
crack
MLCCs where the crack occurred in the solder joints were not correctly
identified, since no discontinuity in the signal path was present.
3 out of 4 MLCCs which showed cracking in the ceramic body showed the
characteristics of cracked MLCCs.
Discussion
Flex cracking resulted in some cases in partial separation of the
electrodes from the end terminations.
Cross-sectional analysis suggests that in cases where cracks penetrated
the electrodes entirely, TDR was able to identify them.
TDR was capable of identifying cracks also on PCB assemblies, where
the cracks penetrated the entire electrodes.
No cracks were identified in the case of solder joint cracks or where
non-cracked electrodes were still present due to partial cracking.
Contrary to flex cracks, which increase the reflection coefficient, the
thermally cracked MLCC showed a decrease. This might be caused by
shorted electrodes due to the cracks and therefore a lower impedance.

Conclusions
The results show that TDR is the first non-destructive, electrical
characterization technique that is able to identify interconnected
cracked MLCCs on PCB assemblies.
Further research is necessary to understand the relationship
between the characteristics of the cracks and the reflection
coefficient response.
The cross-sectional analysis indicates that non-detection of
MLCCs where partial cracking of the electrodes occurred is
primarily due to the available probing capabilities, rather than a
limitation the TDR technique: ability to probe at the base of the
end terminations near the solder joints would increase the
sensitivity to a wider range of MLCC sizes and crack types and
sizes.


Detection of Cracked Multi-Layer Ceramic Capacitors On Printed Circuit Board Assemblies

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Detection of Cracked Multi-Layer Ceramic Capacitors On Printed Circuit Board Assemblies

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Detection of Cracked Multi-Layer Ceramic

Capacitors on Printed Circuit Board Assemblies

Michael H. Azarian, Ph. D.

IMAPS Chesapeake Chapter Summer Technical Symposium

July 23, 2014

Center for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering 1 University of Maryland

Center for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering 2 University of Maryland

Center for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering 3 University of Maryland

Conventional detection methods:

Center for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering 4 University of Maryland

Based on the reflection coefficient the nature of the impedance can

Center for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering 5 University of Maryland

0805 test board 1812 test board

Probe: Agilent N1020A TDR probe

Center for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering 9 University of Maryland

Crack is easy to Clear separation

Center for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering 10 University of Maryland

Healthy 1812 MLCCs 10010 1E+11

Center for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering 11 University of Maryland

All cracked 1812 MLCCs were

Center for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering 12 University of Maryland

MLCC identified as cracked MLCC identified as healthy

Center for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering 13 University of Maryland

Healthy 0805 MLCCs 10010 1E+11

0805 MLCC identified as 0805 MLCC identified as

Cracked 1812 MLCCs showed no errors in identification, which might be

Center for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering 16 University of Maryland

Center for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering 17 University of Maryland

Crack in 1812 MLCC on test board

Introducing flex cracks in

Center for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering 21 University of Maryland

Flex cracks in Zip drive board Thermal crack in Ethernet board

Cracks in solder joints on motherboard Cracks in solder joints

Center for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering 23 University of Maryland

Cracked 1206 MLCC on Zipdrive

Zip drive Flex crack 2 1 0 1

Motherboard Solder joint 4 0 0 4

Center for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering 26 University of Maryland

Center for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering 27 University of Maryland

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen