Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://dspace2020.uniten.edu.my:8080/handle/123456789/5313Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Eu, P.L. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Ding, M. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Hoh, H.J. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Ahmad, I. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Hazlinda, K. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-11-15T02:57:28Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2017-11-15T02:57:28Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2006 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://dspace.uniten.edu.my:80/jspui/handle/123456789/5313 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | A comparison study was done between Cold Ball Pull (CBP) test vs. the conventional ball shear test to further understand the advantages & challenges of CBP test as a method to assess lead-free solder joint performance. From this study, CBP was found to be a better and preferred tool that is able to identify poor lead free solder joint and hence to differentiate the performance of lead free solder systems. This study also outlined the challenges of implementing CBP test as a standard monitoring tool in production floor which lead to the usage of CBP test merely as an engineering monitoring tool at this point. | |
| dc.title | Advantages & challenges of cold ball pull test vs conventional ball shear test in the assessment of lead-free solder joint performance | |
| item.fulltext | No Fulltext | - |
| item.grantfulltext | none | - |
| Appears in Collections: | COE Scholarly Publication | |
Google ScholarTM
Check
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.