Upload
tiu-ton
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/30/2019 I Reliability
1/23
Reliability
Motivation - 35 Years AgoSection 2: RELIABILITY AND QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
2.2 R&QA REQUIREMENTS FOR PHASED HARDWARE DEVELOPMENT
2.2.2 STUDY/DEFINITION PHASE REQUIREMENTS
b. Development of preliminary mathematical model and reliability predictions.
(NPC 250-1)
c. Establishment of reliability and safety goals and other R&QA requirements in
preliminary specifications. (NMI 5320.1, NMI 5330.1, NPC 500-1).
2.2.3 DESIGN PHASE REQUIREMENTS
e. Development of mathematical models and reliability predictions. (NPC 250-1,
RA006-007-1)
g. Apportionment of reliability goals to equipments and components. (NPC 250-1)
Office of Manned Space Flight - Apollo Program. NHB 5300.1A, July 1966
Apollo Reliability and Quality Assurance Program Plan
7/30/2019 I Reliability
2/23
Reliability - 35 Years Ago
Missions
Contractor Reliability Estimates
Subcontractor and Design Group Estimates
Apollo Program Office - R&QA
Model IntegrationCenter Estimates
SC LV LC GOSS
Apollo Program Office - R&QA Review
Center Review
Contractor Review
Apollo
Mission
Reliability
Estimates
LEVEL RELIABILITY ANALYSIS AND MODELING ACTIVITY HARDWARE
I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mission/LaunchVehicle/Spacecraft/
Ground SupportSystems/Stage/
Module/Subsystem
Launch Vehicle/
Spacecraft/GroundSupport Systems/Stage/Module/
Subsystem/Black Box
Stage/Module/Subsystem/Black Box/Component
Subsystem/Black Box/
Component/Part
Office of Manned Space Flight - Apollo Program. NHB 5300.1A, July 1966
Apollo Reliability and Quality Assurance Program Plan
7/30/2019 I Reliability
3/23
Reliability
7/30/2019 I Reliability
4/23
Reliability
Introduction to Reliability
Historical Perspective Current Devices
Trends
7/30/2019 I Reliability
5/23
The Bathtub Curve
Time
Failure
rate,
Constant
Useful life Wear outInfant
Mortality
7/30/2019 I Reliability
6/23
The Bathtub Curve (2)
What is the "bathtub" curve?
In the 1950s, a group known as AGREE (Advisory Group for the Reliability of Electronic
Equipment) discovered that the failure rate of electronic equipment had a pattern similar to the death
rate of people in a closed system. Specifically, they noted that the failure rate of electronic
components and systems follow the classical bathtub curve. This curve has three distinctive
phases:
1. An infant mortality early life phase characterized by a decreasing failure rate (Phase 1). Failure
occurrence during this period is not random in time but rather the result of substandard components
with gross defects and the lack of adequate controls in the manufacturing process. Parts fail at a high
but decreasing rate.
2. A useful life period where electronics have a relatively constant failure rate caused by randomly
occurring defects and stresses (Phase 2). This corresponds to a normal wear and tear period where
failures are caused by unexpected and sudden over stress conditions. Most reliability analysespertaining to electronic systems are concerned with lowering the failure frequency (i.e., constshown in the Figure) during this period.
3. A wear out period where the failure rate increases due to critical parts wearing out (Phase 3).
As they wear out, it takes less stress to cause failure and the overall system failure rate increases,
accordingly failures do not occur randomly in time.
7/30/2019 I Reliability
7/23
Introduction to Reliability
Failure in time (FIT)
Failures per 109 hours
( ~ 104 hours/year )
Acceleration Factors
Temperature
Voltage
7/30/2019 I Reliability
8/23
Introduction to Reliability (cont'd)
Most failure mechanisms can be modeled using the
Arrhenius equation.
ttf - time to failure (hours)
C - constant (hours)
EA - activation energy (eV)
k - Boltzman's constant (8.616 x 10-5eV/K)
T - temperature (K)
ttf = C eEA/kT
7/30/2019 I Reliability
9/23
Introduction to Reliability (cont'd)
Acceleration Factors
ttfLA.F. = ------
ttfH
A.F. = acceleration factor
ttfL = time to failure, system junction temp (hours)
ttfH = time to failure, test junction temp (hours)
7/30/2019 I Reliability
10/23
Introduction to Reliability (cont'd)
Activation EnergiesFailure Mechanism EA(eV)Oxide/dielectric defects 0.3
Chemical, galvanic, or electrolytic corrosion 0.3
Silicon defects 0.3
Electromigration 0.5 to 0.7
Unknown 0.7
Broken bonds 0.7
Lifted die 0.7
Surface related contamination induced shifts 1.0
Lifted bonds (Au-A1 interface) 1.0
Charge injection 1.3
Note: Different sources have different values -
these values just given for examples.
7/30/2019 I Reliability
11/23
Acceleration Factor - Voltage
Oxides and Dielectrics
Large acceleration factors from increase in
electric field strength
A.F. = 10 / (MV / cm)
k - Boltzman's constant (8.616 x 10-5eV/K)
T - temperature (K)
= 0.4 e0.07/kT
7/30/2019 I Reliability
12/23
Acceleration Factor: Voltage
Median-time-to-fail of unprogrammed antifuse vs. 1/V for
different failure criteria with positive stress voltage on top
electrode and Ta = 25 C.
7/30/2019 I Reliability
13/23
Integrated Circuit Reliability
Historical Perspective
Application Reliability
Apollo Guidance Computer < 10 FITs Commercial (1971) 500 Hours
Military (1971) 2,000 Hours
High Reliability (1971) 10,000 Hours
SSI/MSI/PROM 38510 (1976) 44-344 FITs MSI/LSI CICD Hi-Rel (1987) 43 FITs
7/30/2019 I Reliability
14/23
Device and Computer Reliability
1960's Hi-Rel Application
Apollo Guidance Computer
Failure rate of IC gates:
< 0.001% / 1,000 hours ( < 10 FITS )
Field Mean-Time-To-Failure
~ 13,000 hours
One gate type used with large effort onscreening, failure analysis, and
implementation.
7/30/2019 I Reliability
15/23
Device Reliability:1971
Reliability Level of Representative
Parts and Practices MTBF (hr)
Commercial 500
Military 2,000
High Reliability 10,000 (104 hours)
7/30/2019 I Reliability
16/23
MIL-M-38510 Devices (1976)
Circuit Types Description FITS
5400 Quad, 2-input NAND 60
5482 2-bit, full adder 44
5483 4-bit, full adder 112
5474 Dual, D, edge-triggered flip-flop 72
54S174 Hex, D, edge-triggered flip-flop 152
54163 4-bit synchronous counter 120
4049A Inverting hex buffer 52
4013A Dual, D, edge-triggered flip-flop 104
4020A 14-stage, ripple carry counter 344
10502 Triple NOR (ECL) 80
HYPROM512 512-bit PROM 280
7/30/2019 I Reliability
17/23
Harris CICD Devices (1987)
Circuit Types
HS-6504 - 4k X 1 RAM HS-8155/56 - 256 x 8 RAM
HS-6514 - 1k x 4 RAM HS-82C08RH - Bus Transceiver
HS-3374RH - Level Converter HS-82C12RH - I/O Port
HS-54C138RH - Decoder HS-8355RH - 2k x 8 ROM
HS-80C85RH - 8-bit CPU
Package Types
Flat Packs (hermetic brazed and glass/ceramic seals)
LCC
DIP
FITS @ 55C, Failure Rate @ 60% U.C.L.
43.0
7/30/2019 I Reliability
18/23
Actel FPGAs
Technology FITS # Failures Device-Hours
(m)
2.0/1.2 33 2 9.4 x 107
1.0 9.0 6 6.1 x 108
0.8 10.9 1 1.9 x 108
0.6 4.9 0 1.9 x 108
0.45 12.6 0 7.3 x 107
0.35 19.3 0 4.8 x 107
RTSX 0.6 33.7 0 2.7 x 107
0.25 88.9 0 1.0 x 107
0.22 78.6 0 1.2 x 107
7/30/2019 I Reliability
19/23
Xilinx FPGAs
XC40xxXL
Static: 9 FIT, 60% UCL
Dynamic: 29 FIT, 60% UCL
XCVxxx
Static: 34 FIT, 60% UCL
Dynamic: 443 FIT, 60% UCL
7/30/2019 I Reliability
20/23
UTMC and Quicklogic
FPGA
< 10 FITS (planned)
Quicklogic reports 12 FIT, 60% UCL
UT22VP10UTER Technology, 0 failures, 0.3
Antifuse PROM
64K: 19 FIT, 60% UCL 256K: 76 FIT, 60% UCL
7/30/2019 I Reliability
21/23
RAMTRON FRAMs
Technology FITS # Failures # Devices Hours Device-Hours
1608 (64K) 1281 1 100 103 105
4k & 16K
Serial 37 152
4257 103
4.3 x 106
Note: Applied stress, HTOL, 125C, Dynamic, VCC=5.5V.
1 The one failure occurred in less then 48 hours. The
manufacturer feels that this was an infant mortality
failure.
2 12 failures detected at 168 hours, 3 failures at 500
hours, and no failures detected after that point.
7/30/2019 I Reliability
22/23
Actel FIT Rate Trends
7/30/2019 I Reliability
23/23
Skylab Lessons Learned58. Lesson: New Electronic Components
Avoid the use of new electronic techniques and components in
critical subsystems unless their use is absolutely mandatory.
Background:
New electronic components (resistors, diodes, transistors,
switches, etc.) are developed each year. Most push the state-of-
the-art and contain new fabrication processes. Designers of
systems are eager to use them since they each have advantages
over more conventional components. However, being new, theyare untried and generally have unknown characteristics and
idiosynchracies. Let some other program discover the problems.
Do not use components which have not been previously used in a
similar application if it can be avoided, even at the expense of
size and weight.