Reliability Simulation of Solder Joints

Category: Coupled Analysis – Thermal-Structural | Revised 2026-10-01
CAE visualization for solder reliability theory - technical simulation diagram
Solder Joint Reliability Simulation

Theory: expansion mismatch shears the solder

Overview

🙋

On an automotive board only the solder of large chip parts cracked. Why are bigger parts more vulnerable?

🎓

As temperature rises, the board (about 17 ppm/K) expands more than the component (about 6.5 ppm/K for ceramic). Relative to the component centre, the mismatch displacement grows with distance, so the outermost solder is sheared most. Larger parts have longer distances to their corners and larger shear. Solder is a soft metal that creeps even at low temperature, so it absorbs this shear every cycle, fatiguing gradually as cracks grow. Life depends on the strain; doubling strain cuts life to roughly a fifth. Component size, joint height and temperature range therefore govern life.

Engelmaier's model

$$ \Delta\gamma = F\,\frac{L_D\,\Delta\alpha\,\Delta T}{h},\qquad N_f = \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\Delta\gamma}{2\varepsilon_f'}\right)^{1/c},\qquad c = -0.442 - 6\times10^{-4}\,\bar T_{sj} + 1.74\times10^{-2}\ln(1 + f) $$

F is a correction factor (1), L_D distance from component centre to corner, Δα expansion mismatch (10.5 ppm/K), h joint height (0.1 mm), ε_f' fatigue ductility coefficient (0.325), T̄_sj mean joint temperature and f cycles per day.

Coffee Break Trivia

Surface mount and fatigue-life models

As surface mounting spread in the 1980s, soldering parts directly to the board surface exposed joints to expansion mismatch directly, unlike leaded parts, and opens under temperature cycling became a major issue. Engelmaier then built a solder-life model from the Coffin–Manson low-cycle fatigue law, including temperature range, component size and cycle rate. After the move to lead-free solders material constants were revised, and finite-element methods that compute strain energy are now widely used.

Worked examples

Example 1: component size and life (0.1 mm joint)

ComponentL_D−40 to 125 °C: strain−40 to 125 °C: life0 to 100 °C: strain0 to 100 °C: life
0603 (1.6×0.8 mm)0.89 mm1.55%4,3900.94%5,784
1206 (3.2×1.6 mm)1.79 mm3.10%8141.88%1,252
2512 (6.4×3.2 mm)3.58 mm6.20%1513.76%271

−40 to 125 °C is cycled once an hour (24 per day) and 0 to 100 °C twice a day; exponent c is −0.411 and −0.453 respectively.

Example 2: joint height and life (1206, −40 to 125 °C)

Joint heightLife
0.05 mm151
0.10 mm814
0.20 mm4,390
🙋

Doubling component size cuts life to a fifth.

🎓

Strain scales with L_D and doubles; life scales with strain to the power 1/c (c about −0.41), so it falls by 2 to the power 2.4, about a fifth. Likewise halving joint height doubles strain and cuts life to a fifth, so large parts and low-standoff parts (such as bottom-terminated components) need special care. The model estimates strain from simple geometry and omits actual shape, fillet geometry and board warpage. It's handy for early comparisons, but where life requirements are strict, as in automotive, finite-element analysis including solder creep computes strain energy per cycle for test-calibrated life models.

Reliability assessment workflow

  1. Define temperature range, mean temperature and cycles per day in service.
  2. Compare component lives with Engelmaier's model to flag risky parts.
  3. For risky parts, compute strain energy by FE including solder creep.
  4. Estimate failure probability over life with test-calibrated models.
  5. Compare countermeasures: joint height, board material, underfill.
Coffee Break Trivia

“Only the large resistors opened”

In an automotive control unit, partway through temperature-cycle testing only the solder of 2512 current-sense resistors cracked and opened; smaller parts on the same board were fine. Engelmaier's model showed 2512 life about one-thirtieth of 0603's, so failure within the test count was unsurprising. Splitting each resistor into two smaller parts of equivalent value and increasing solder volume for more height let the board pass the full test.

Common mistakes

Mistakes and fixes

MistakeEffectFix
Using small parts as representativeLarge parts failAssess per part
Elastic solder modelWrong strainInclude creep
Confusing test and field conditionsWrong life conversionDerive acceleration factors
Ignoring board warpageStrain underestimatedAnalyse the whole board
Reusing tin–lead constantsWrong lead-free lifeMaterial-specific constants
🙋

I'd like to learn related topics.

Related Simulators

Experience the theory firsthand with interactive simulators in this field

All Simulators

Related Fields

Structural AnalysisElectromagnetic Field AnalysisThermal Analysis
Rate this article
Thank you for your feedback!
Helpful
More details
Report error
Helpful
0
More details
0
Report error
0