Advertisement

What could and should be done differently: failure-oriented-accelerated-testing (FOAT) and its role in making an aerospace electronics device into a product

  • E. SuhirEmail author
Article

Abstract

High operational reliability of an electronic material or a device intended for aerospace applications is critical, and, in the author’s opinion, cannot be assured, if the underlying physics of failure is not well understood and the never-zero probability of failure is not predicted and made adequate for the particular material, device and application. The situation is the same in some other areas of electronics materials engineering, such as military, medical, or long-haul communications, where high level of reliability is required. The situation is different in today’s commercial electronics, where cost and time-to-market are typically more important than high reliability. Failure-oriented-accelerated-testing (FOAT) of aerospace electronics materials and products and its role in making a viable device into a reliable product is addressed and discussed vs. very popular today highly-accelerated-life-testing (HALT). The differences of the two accelerated test procedures and objectives is briefly discussed. FOAT is an essential part of the recently suggested probabilistic design for reliability (PDfR) approach in electronics engineering. It is argued that high (adequate) reliability level of aerospace electronics materials and devices cannot be achieved and assured, if their never-zero probability-of-failure is not quantified for the given (anticipated) combination of the loading conditions (stresses, stimuli) and time in operation. It is the application of the FOAT, the heart of the highly effective and highly flexible PDfR concept, that should be employed and mastered, when high reliability of a material or a device is imperative. The general concepts are illustrated by numerical examples. They are based on an analytical modeling approach, as the FOAT models are.

Abbreviations

AT

Accelerated testing

BGA

Ball grid array

BIT

Burn-in testing

CTE

Coefficient of thermal expansion

DfR

Design for reliability

FOAT

Failure oriented accelerated testing

HALT

Highly accelerated life testing

QT

Qualification testing

MTTF

Mean time to failure

PDfR

Probabilistic DfR

PDT

Product development testing

PHM

Prognostics and health monitoring

PM

Predictive modeling

PoF

Probability of failure

PRA

Probabilistic risk analysis

SA

Sensitivity analysis

SF

Safety factor

References

  1. 1.
    M. Silverman, IEEE CPMT ASTR tutorial, Toronto, 2012, 2013 and private communications (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    JEDEC standard, JESD-47 stress-test-driven qualification of integrated circuits (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Suhir, Probabilistic design for reliability. Chip Scale Rev. 14, 24 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Suhir, Boltzmann–Arrhenius–Zhurkov (BAZ) model in physics-of-materials problems, Mod. Phys. Lett. B 27, 133009 (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Suhir, Applied Probability for Engineers and Scientists. (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. Suhir, B. Poborets, Solder glass attachment in cerdip/cerquad packages: thermally induced stresses and mechanical reliability, in Proceedings of the 40th Electrical Computer and Technical Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, May 1990 (See also: ASME Journal of Electronic Packaging, vol. 112, No. 2 (1990))Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. Suhir, Three-step concept in modeling reliability: Boltzmann–Arrhenius–Zhurkov physics-of-failure-based equation sandwiched between two statistical models. Microelectron. Reliab. 54, 2594–2603 (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departments of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, and Electrical and Computer EngineeringPortland State UniversityPortlandUSA
  2. 2.Vienna Institute of TechnologyViennaAustria
  3. 3.ERS Co.Los AltosUSA

Personalised recommendations