Burn-in Testing with Thermal Limitations

[peucoca]

Hello everyone,

I work at a company focused on PCB reverse engineering. Most of our boards are assembled by JLCPCB, but some critical components are soldered internally, outside the main assembly process, which may introduce additional variability in solder joint quality.

I am currently studying the application of burn-in and thermal cycling tests to detect early-life failures in components and solder interconnections. However, I am facing limitations related to the available thermal equipment.

Available thermal setup​

• Temperature range: –10 °C to +60 °C
• Heating rate: approximately +1.6 °C/min
• Cooling rate: approximately –0.5 °C/min
• Resulting cycle rate: about 0.3 cycles per hour
• No capability to reach temperatures ≥ +85 °C

Standards and references considered​

• JEDEC JESD22-A104C (Temperature Cycling)
  • Typical ramp rate ≤ 15 °C/min, preferred 10–14 °C/min
  • 1–3 cycles/hour for components
  • 1–2 cycles/hour for solder interconnections
• IPC-9701
  • Most severe industrial environmental range: –40 °C to +85 °C
  • Defines dwell time (tD) associated with time-dependent failure mechanisms such as solder joint creep
• Industrial burn-in profile – Power Integrations (gate drivers)
  • Temperature range: –40 °C to +85 °C
  • Reference:
    https://www.power.com/design-support/gate-drivers/reliability-services/burn-in-process

Comparison: standards vs. available equipment​

• The maximum achievable temperature (+60 °C) is below the most severe industrial condition (+85 °C)
• The available ramp rates (~1.6 °C/min) are significantly lower than JEDEC recommendations
• The number of cycles per hour is well below typical normative values

Direct questions​

1. Given these limitations, is it technically correct to classify this test as burn-in, or should it be considered only a functional test under moderate thermal stress?
2. Has anyone applied burn-in testing with slow ramp rates and limited maximum temperature and still obtained meaningful technical value?
3. Are there technical references, papers, or best practices that address burn-in testing under such constraints, especially when part of the soldering process is performed in-house?

Any practical experience or reference material that could help properly frame and justify this type of test would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance.

 

[Delta Prime]

In the United States The procurement of the reverse-engineered product must be through legal means and the person must be the lawful owner of the product.
There are exceptions in academia research, but you on behalf of your company, would not be asking these questions if it was not for profit, I will not help you.

 

[peucoca]

Thank you for your response and for the clarification provided.

I would like to clarify that, in our case, the company performs reverse engineering of products that are no longer in production within the renewable energy sector, with explicit authorization from the original project owners. This activity is carried out exclusively as part of technical support and customer service for clients who continue to operate these legacy products.

In any case, I appreciate your response and the time taken to address this matter.

 

[olivia_49]

Hello everyone,

I work at a company focused on PCB reverse engineering. Most of our boards are assembled by JLCPCB, but some critical components are soldered internally, outside the main assembly process, which may introduce additional variability in solder joint quality.

I am currently studying the application of burn-in and thermal cycling tests to detect early-life failures in components and solder interconnections. However, I am facing limitations related to the available thermal equipment.

Available thermal setup​

• Temperature range: –10 °C to +60 °C
• Heating rate: approximately +1.6 °C/min
• Cooling rate: approximately –0.5 °C/min
• Resulting cycle rate: about 0.3 cycles per hour
• No capability to reach temperatures ≥ +85 °C

Standards and references considered​

• JEDEC JESD22-A104C (Temperature Cycling)
  • Typical ramp rate ≤ 15 °C/min, preferred 10–14 °C/min
  • 1–3 cycles/hour for components
  • 1–2 cycles/hour for solder interconnections
• IPC-9701
  • Most severe industrial environmental range: –40 °C to +85 °C
  • Defines dwell time (tD) associated with time-dependent failure mechanisms such as solder joint creep
• Industrial burn-in profile – Power Integrations (gate drivers)
  • Temperature range: –40 °C to +85 °C
  • Reference:
    https://www.power.com/design-support/gate-drivers/reliability-services/burn-in-process

Comparison: standards vs. available equipment​

• The maximum achievable temperature (+60 °C) is below the most severe industrial condition (+85 °C)
• The available ramp rates (~1.6 °C/min) are significantly lower than JEDEC recommendations
• The number of cycles per hour is well below typical normative values

Direct questions​

1. Given these limitations, is it technically correct to classify this test as burn-in, or should it be considered only a functional test under moderate thermal stress?
2. Has anyone applied burn-in testing with slow ramp rates and limited maximum temperature and still obtained meaningful technical value?
3. Are there technical references, papers, or best practices that address burn-in testing under such constraints, especially when part of the soldering process is performed in-house?

Any practical experience or reference material that could help properly frame and justify this type of test would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance.

Good questions. With those temperature limits and slow ramps, I probably wouldn’t label it as true burn-in per JEDEC, it’s closer to a functional or light thermal stress screen. That said, it can still be useful for catching early workmanship or solder-related issues, especially from the in-house assembly steps. I’ve seen similar setups justified as a screening test rather than a qualification test, as long as the limitations are clearly documented.