Experiences with peel strength

Abstract

PurposePeel strength numbers are part of a laminate's specifications and should characterize the specific bond performance (copper adhesion) under test conditions. Unfortunately, from both a theoretical and a practical point of view they are not able to do that. This study seeks to address this issue.Design/methodology/approachThis paper has been written to show the main impacts on the measured peel strength numbers in the IPC‐TM‐650 peeling test. From an extensive database regarding peel numbers for diverse foil types, foil thicknesses and treatment roughnesses it is possible to show the influence of prepreg type, foil thickness and roughness on the measure peel strength.FindingsCopper adhesion to laminating resin is insufficiently described by peel strength data because of the impacts of foil thickness, stiffness on bending (physical bending work, stress distribution underneath the peeling line) and the treatment roughness. The latter works reinforcing regarding the (low) resin strength and this influence is measured on resin strength instead of real bond. Fracture due to peeling is cohesive, mostly with a totally intact copper‐resin interface. This is especially true in high performance laminates that show low peel strengths not because of bad copper bonding but because of brittle resins (filled and unfilled).Originality/valueUsers have to understand the limited benefit of the IPC peel test in characterizing copper‐resin bonds. Peel increase on (low bond) high performance resins by increased foil roughness is not a practical way in the field because of no bond improvement (interface) and heavy disadvantages in dielectric thickness (HiPot tests at thin core laminates), respectively.