26
\$\begingroup\$

I'm looking to design a PCB that can reliably survive constant impact. The board will be rigidly mounted to an enclosure that will protect the board from actually hitting anything. The nature of the impact would be similar to a bowling ball, or a hammer head - not what I would consider vibration, but frequent hits from multiple directions.

As part of the device functionality, I want to measure the acceleration of the board, so dampening the impact in any way is not preferable. I don't have any measured acceleration values (G's) to provide as a baseline, and I don't really have any experience in this area. As such, I have a few closely related generic questions:

  • What is the most force that would be OK on a board with no impact hardening measures taken? (Am I worrying too much about a non-issue?)
  • Are there any design practices that should be followed for the PCB?
  • What are the weak points in a design that lead to mechanical failure?
  • Are there parts that should be avoided for a more robust design?
  • At what force levels should I start worrying about the safety of the parts themselves?
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/5998/… \$\endgroup\$ – Toby Jaffey Mar 14 '11 at 14:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Joby, I saw that before I posted, and it was informative. \$\endgroup\$ – W5VO Mar 14 '11 at 15:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ Can't the accelerometer be split off to a separate board which is rigidly mounted to the chassis, and the main board be mounted on bushings? \$\endgroup\$ – Kaz Mar 12 '13 at 22:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Kaz no, the object would be implanted in a device with no external connections. The accelerometer and all supporting electronics must be in the same enclosure. \$\endgroup\$ – W5VO Mar 13 '13 at 1:00
26
\$\begingroup\$

This is just general stuff, you should really try to put a bound on the expected acceleration forces, the period and duration of those forces, thermal conditions, and expected angles of impact to get the information you need to make the design robust.

What is the most force that would be OK on a board with no impact hardening measures taken? (Am I worrying too much about a non-issue?)

This is very difficult to put a single number on, it depends on the types of components used and the direction/frequency of the hits.

Are there any design practices that should be followed for the PCB?

Lots of attachments to something solid. One of the most likely failure modes is the PCB flexing which can cause the solder joints on the PCB to crack causing intermittent or complete failure of the connection. I would try to keep the PCB as compact as you can while providing as much attachment to something that won't flex (steel enclosure) as you can. The smaller the PCB the smaller the 'overall flex' of the board. Something like 4+ layer design with solder copper power and ground planes should also add to the rigidity of the PCB but can cause additional thermal flex. Depending on what your needs are, there are specialized PCB substrates that are more rigid than your stock off the shelf FR-4, such as substrates which employ carbon fiber composites vs fiberglass.

What are the weak points in a design that lead to mechanical failure?

  • Board Flex as mentioned above can cause solder joint cracking. Stiffening of the PCB can help. You could also not use stock solder, but rather a conductive adhesive such as silver conductive epoxy. You can also use a conformal coating on the PCB which will hold surface mount components in place as well as add some stiffness to the PCB.
  • Large Items: Lite weight surface mount devices are the best parts to use, large heavy items that sit further from the PCB will be the worst parts to use. Things like large aluminium electrolytic caps, tall inductors, transformers, etc will be the worst. They will impart the most force on their leads and solder connections to the PCB. If large devices are needed use additional attachment to the PCB. Use non-conductive, non-corrosive epoxy or something like that to attach them to the PCB or use a part with an additional PCB support. Be sure to account for the added thermal resistance when calculating the devices ability to dissipate power if using epoxy or conformal coatings.
  • Connectors. Any connector going off the board will get beat on, make sure its a solid locking type and rated for the expected G-forces. Make sure the connector's attachment to the PCB is solid. Pure surface mount types without a through-hole attachment to the board it probably a bad idea. These usually require through-holes in the PCB near the edge of the PCB. Make sure your PCB substrate is strong enough to support the forces on these holes as with being so close to the edge the strength of the PCB is around the hole is much less. If you need a connector that leaves the enclosure, use a locking panel mount connector and solder leaders to the PCB, this will put the stress on the connector/enclosure and not on the PCB.

Are there parts that should be avoided for a more robust design?

See the list above but keep all parts as lite and as close to the PCB as possible.

At what force levels should I start worrying about the safety of the parts themselves?

Again this is hard to put a number on. If the device is getting hit 'edge on' to the PCB than your concern is lateral shear forces. What force causes a problem there is dependent on the IC. A large heavy IC with few, small attachments to the PCB is probably the worse case. Maybe a tall pulse transformer or something like that. A lite weight, short IC, with many attachments is probably strongest. Something like a 64pin QFP, even better if it has a large center pad. Some useful reading on this topic: http://www.utacgroup.com/library/EPTC2005_B5.3_P0158_FBGA_Drop-Test.pdf

Some parts may be internally damaged by high G-forces, this would be on a part by part basis but would mostly be limited to devices with movable internal parts. MEMS devices, transformers, mag-jacks, etc, etc.

Comments

Have you considered using 2 boards? One small board with the accelerometer which is actually stiffly attached to the enclosure and a second board with the rest of the electronics on it which can then be mounted with a shock absorption system. The shock system could be as simple as rubber supports or as complex as the systems used in hard drives depending on needs.

Your going to need a pretty fast processor and a pretty fast, wide range accelerometer if you want to get accurate measurements of impact events such as getting hit with a hammer.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Lots of excellent suggetstions - Thanks! Unfortunately I don't have any benchmark for the applied forces - this would be the first attempt to measure it as far as I know. \$\endgroup\$ – W5VO Mar 14 '11 at 19:57
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Another +1 for mounting only the accelerometer rigidly. \$\endgroup\$ – JRobert Apr 4 '13 at 19:00
12
\$\begingroup\$

In the railway industry, the guideline was to support the board at least every 100mm. The best components are those that are light (SMT parts weigh less than TH), close to the PCB (SMT are closer than TH) and have many connections to the PCB (sometimes more pins can be added to divide the weight up over the pins eg custom switched-mode transformers). Larger parts on thin legs with high centers of gravity are going to be the worst eg iron core transformers. Potting will keep everything together but will add weight - so you might end up applying force to the smaller parts from the larger ones. Use all the solder pads you can eg on unused pins of connectors and add local vias to stop the tracks ripping off on SMT connectors. If connectors have additional screw fixing points use them eg 9 pin D sockets.

\$\endgroup\$
11
\$\begingroup\$

Have you considered potting your circuit? I haven't had much experience with this myself, but I've seen it before and I understand that you can encase your entire circuit board and components in a non-conductive resin that sets solid. I think this will brace the components relative to any sudden acceleration of the PCB.

I can't say how effective this would be, but I think it's worth looking into.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ The high vibration stuff I've seen is almost always potted. \$\endgroup\$ – darron Mar 14 '11 at 20:26
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Watch out for different coefficients of thermal expansion (Cte) between PCB, components, and the potting compound. If the assembly sees broad temperature extremes, the a rigid potting compound (epoxy, for example) can literally rip the board apart due to thermally-induced mechanical stress. \$\endgroup\$ – HikeOnPast Jul 29 '12 at 21:34
4
\$\begingroup\$

I didn't work on the design myself, but I know that the electronics used for the instrumentation of crash test dummies use flex circuits exclusively. They do not use rigid PCB materials anywhere, provide for limited movement of the PCA within the enclosure, and allow adequate service loops for any connectors that are attached to the enclosure.

An example of the manufacturing process used.

\$\endgroup\$
2
\$\begingroup\$

One point of consideration is the amount and distribution of connect points with the board and the enclosure.

Using more connect points will better distribute the forces from the enclosure while preventing the board from oscillating.

In general, the physical contact points are the weakest ones, try to use larger points of contact bigger screw's. Try to use as many holes as possible and as "random" distributed as possible. If they are aligned the board can eventually oscillate.

The best is to use some kind of epoxy/acrylic coating, as it increase both board resistance and reduce the vibrating effects on the components over the board.

\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.