Numerical Investigation of the Evolving Inelastic Deformation Path of a Solder Ball Joint under Various Loading Conditions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPage 3” The FE simulations were performed on seven different cases, ranging from
single loading scenarios for each type, dual loading scenarios, to complex loading scenarious. The results show that the occurrence of fracture in the solder ball is not solely determined by the magnitude of equivalent plastic strain; rather, it is significantly affected by the evolution of inelastic deformation modes. Moreover, they illustrate that altering the combination of loading conditions can result in substantial changes in inelastic deformation modes. These discoveries help to understand how inelastic deformation modes evolve within solder ball joints and hold promise for future research applications.“
As for my opinion the Authors are speaking about the effect of real structure influence on mechanical properties of ball arrays when they are speaking about formalism they have chosen. May be it will be useful to add several words here about the real structure of balls including such crystal structure defects as dislocations, cells, boundaries of phases and twins and so on.
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate the favorable evaluation and insightful comments from the reviewers. Detailed responses are in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsHere is a list of my comments:
1. What are the assumptions made for the FE model? Please state clearly in section 3.
2. In Figure 2(b), the chip is only meshed with 2 layers. Typically, the minimum mesh layer in the vertical direction is 3 layers. Is it adequate in the FE analysis?
3. What are the tie constraints properties and assumptions on the bonding between the solder ball, the chip, and PCB?
4. It seems the solder ball formed between the chip and PCB is bonded by the IMC and solder bulk material. Why do authors consider the tie constraints between the solder ball, chip, and PCB instead of considering a fully bonded body in the FE model? Please justify and provide support from the previous works.
5. How did the authors ensure the number of elements are optimal without any grid dependency test?
6. The fixed boundary condition is not labelled in Figure 2.
7. Why do the authors present the results (Figure 4) in an average of 75%? Why not consider it 100%?
8. There is no validation or comparison between the simulation results. The reliability of the results is questionable. If possible, please validate the settings of the ABAQUS with the previous studies.
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate the favorable evaluation and insightful comments from the reviewers. Detailed responses are in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The manuscript must be deeply revised for fluidity and to improve the English language usage.
2. The abstract should include significant findings and be structured clearly and easily. It should briefly summarize the paper's main findings to help readers understand the research.
3. The introduction requires more detail to justify the novelty of the work.
4. The authors should consider providing a more thorough literature review to demonstrate how their work builds upon previous studies in the field.
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate the favorable evaluation and insightful comments from the reviewers. Detailed responses are in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is generally very interesting. However, it needs minor revisions before it can be accepted for publication.
Figure 2b: the explanation should be ‘’section view of a …’’
For mechanical loading cases, for a good result, it is necessary that the simulation must be carried out with more numerical values of loading. For example, Case 1(S) will be for: d=0.07 mm; d=0.08 mm; d=0.09 mm.
Figure 5: the values Fshear, Fcomp, Fbend, Rshear, Rcomp, Rbend, Ushear, Ucomp, and Ubend, must be written outside the figure body as a separate table. Also, for Ucomp, and Ubend the right paratheses missing.
Figure 6: the values Eshear, Ecomp, and Ebend must be written outside the figure body as a separate table.
The description of Figure 6 must be moved before the figure itself.
The text before Figure 7 can be split so the figure can fit entirely on one page.
A real validation of the results must be accomplished through experimental testing.
The conclusions must be improved with the new results after adding simulations.
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate the favorable evaluation and insightful comments from the reviewers. Detailed responses are in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo more comments.
