Professional Documents
Culture Documents
com
AD-A158 843
RADC-TR-85-91
.Final Technical Report
Mel 196S
EOUIPMENT RELIABILITY
Ir Rtesearch Institute
-M FON P9KIC
U i" M DIRN1U ULMUED
:-:: • SEP 0 4 0
LL.
"""
"
6
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
-7177
This report has been reviewed by the RADC
isa releasable to the National Technical public Affairt 'Office (PA) and
Information Service' (NTIS)-. At NTIS
it will-be releasable to the general public,
including- foreigna nations.
RADC-TR-85-91 has been reviewed and is
apProved for publication.
APPROVED:
~. -
PRESTON R. MACDIARNID
- -: -.
Project Engineer
APPROVED: 400
'7
Plan& Office * -
UNCTASSTVTrn
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE
N/A
I?. COSATI COCES Its. SU JECT TEENS IceatIfnue a^ maa it Neessay and identify by bSleft Number)
FIED GROUP I sun. oR. IRlability Dormancy MIL-HDBK-217
IELD Failure Rate Storage
I nINonoperating
l Power On-Off Cycling
IS. ABSTRACT fCeaUntiu on .weeeleAt mpeoemmr end ideftif, by blork numbrtI
e objective of this study was to develop a procedure to viredict the quantitative effects
of nonoperating periods on electronic equipmnent reliability. A series of nonoperating
failure rate prediction models were developed at the component level. The models are
capable of evaluating component nonoperating failure rate for any anticipated environment
with the exception of a satellite environment.
* The proposed nonoperating failure rate prediction methodology is Intended to provide the
ability to predict the component nonoperating failure rate and reliability as a function
of the characteristics of the devices, technology employed in producing the device, and
I' external factors such as environmental stresses which have a significant effect on device
nonoperating reliability. The prediction methodology is presented ina form compatible
withh J!-L-HDBK-2l7 as an Appendix to the technical report. /
-Ai
~~~~~1
~4 446--2-Li
200 OISTRIE1UTION,A ILAEI BTV OP AESTRA49 6 3 1. ASTRAACT SECURIITY CLASSIFIC-ATION4
/h ~-~&&
fb ~ * 44 C .
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
UNCWiSIFIED
qCUNITY CLASSIPICA1ION OP THIS PACE
Field Group
14 04
UNISSFE
PREFACE
This Final Report was prepared by lIT Research Institute, Rome, New
York, for the Rome Air Development Center, Griffiss AFB, New York, under
Contract F30602-83-C-0056. The RADC laboratory contract manager for this
* program was Mr. Preston MacDiarmid (RBE-2). The study originator and
initial RADC laboratory contract manager was Mr. Lester Gubbins. This
report covers the work performed from February 1983 to September 1984.
i AccesssiOfi vo
NITIS GRA&I
DTIC TAB
Unannounced 03
justificatio
By-
D smt r i bu t i on / __ _ . - -
AvailabilitY CodeS
Av...ii. and/or
Dist Special
Volp
INSPCCTED
I:
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
"* •
iv
--- I
; -- i.--
/ F
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Hybrid Microcir-
27 2082 50050 0 0 0
cubts
106 121 21983 16 23 8422
Transistors
139 57 22181 28 77 25468
Diodes
73 87 49833 0 0 0
Inductive Devices
413 34 113119 21 17 16390
•Resistors
Relays 13 36 1360 0 0 0
"\Switches 16 35 408 0 0 0
Connectors 6 1 82444 0 0 0
Interconnection 3 3 2977 0 0 0
'-:I-:Assemblies
W43
0) d41r
0in
CW to-U~ 39 1
a,- G)ul(
4A .C4J(1,)'0
to "4 0EWa=0 ) .)-- C W ,.,m0 .,,,.
W In>l 0 WO . M=W4-
- 4E
OWLV C.0
O - ,- O"- *1 e-
*4-0
c U..- U (A.0 *.- 0.U W) Uto I.. - to . ,W
In> >IW~ WW U >t~o C*-U4J
n 0. - " - S- .)" ,-sO >w .. fo-- s-
0 to 3 - - W•to
) 4-.
o 1O 'a 41 . 4.-• O WM-.-- . 5 W
S(L) • .S. OJ W"- >jm 0=,
O Cn= r= 4•go ,, =e-W
41
L 1 0.• =-.0
.0. C S S-E~ * L 004CM4 4 6 3 C. S-.CM
4to =-.O
Wo 4-4-' W.--- OWO0 CO
o)L.41 S- U*.= 4J S-.9# . EN
LS..n 4J(DL.0 >
""
M 0-WW5.4MM W- 0 iuC0-C-
C3
L o) faWE j0 0 • 4)"--._0
I--
0 (
" S- 4J 4 w-C
u 41
,, 0 .L. 00 '0 4-" .0 .0 06 (d '0 0
( 41
3)>E4, 3 U4 06L0
- "1r 4""M0 )- %
0.ý
uLJ n
= 4
"k "bW J4 WG-
431
0 40
s-
,0
• 4A VV
0 ZO
0 CR
u I0% kI
CL..uo u L Co
vIn
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
> 4-
03t W 0(
c~ ~ ~ 5
4J055-CA
0. )4) .003
w A0 c3c0 41 (U t
C0 4 If 4.-0 6 4J f" 4A ) fa
Ii I--I=i=hi
.9 W34JU L- = RC W4
$-to 30
CAl M
4EL W W-CU 9- U)>W(
t
W)
Um) ) 0 a 40. 40W.06 S.
3 30w(
Uý C S..f45C *u)
M- C
0-
03 4)
0 4)0 Atoý 9 - to %-S 40)-4
.CO 4- J2 4- . -f C 4 '0
0 W
W~~9 S- 4*4J4J 4
cc 03 0= C
0) 0)0
_ ~
9(
U4
r
W U 0)
, U
C-)
4
) >
0) 0 0 IV 0
Wi 4) 4) 4)
W) 44) 41
4J M 0h -v-
0 4) 4-345-
4) CL C)05
CL. cc
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
r to
S
u- . (
01-
0
0 r' i. 4 ., 0 *0 ,v-. 5•a• '..L_ 0 0"
• , .Wr-01-.
0.1 e- 0
" '-4 ,. 42
,0..-
- m" 0 1-03
4-4-. i wOEE"
W UL>
0
00W5a-ý
,. OW43.'-. 0 3.-
O .- -n
S- W,.
4-3
Qj' 1-1-al
> - 40
e.-4 ... 43,L
(A 0 S- 0 - 4J CL-
W S 01 0)W c(A 0 0"
W
r_ r= c u u0) 410 C1
0 tp
Wto 43 -C o _Q
WL0
w
W - 4J W.
4-b04a
4 ,fd.wf-, 4- 0 • L
S- 5, u 4-
U 0r r-C
LLIX
0 0J u .
%-.4 43 .
w. () med)3
¶g jl
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
0 .4,3
c•
0 w~
P -, ,
43 ) Ul C"." ,
•"1 S-
4W 001.
-1 a
*c.
.
S- 4
4- CW.- CW
00
4-
W - .-
U) 4..0 0 43r- €
C• 4C
0 S- .-.
34) 9.e' ,.- u-W
CEU:OJ# 4..--
tM
c45 - c W * -r-C(0(A
C.UL~E
W'o-a t; 4- 0IU 0 0 M43 E4C)%44
o -" (P
4 - -.- 4 aU
o go,- r 0 =~
u U . d) w4j aw>%
to • 4Jr
W•43I-•SUW-~ .O U>w l0
,.U)(
Ci
)CC
4J W
4.L ( ,
9- w>4
-4.,)
o CA
CU)
u) S
fa C
MI
_i #A
04J 4)a
Ci C
_EU I.... .E Cr'i r
U) C
coJ
uix #A S
CiC
S- %A04J4
to 00 04
ixi
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
" ~~I-,in"
'd
51 cL.1 4- in 4-
S.-.- Q,-
We
l.-" cC .-
'""-- 0 - I 0 W-o• WC3.
00 L.4- 40 0 r-. ,4. . >41 S,- 4- >1s- o
.- 0 -0
::0',- "tM"¢
0 1:0 %- 4M 4-S4-.L= W U)
C.L 3c r-"
CL3.0W uS-
C-" 0 W A -. 4) a) 4- CL. c . WLin
CO'r- 0)W."" d
e'-~~~~~ .u. ' M 4,J Ue a,Mto4).-
3 (A 41. :3
0 M 4J-
IA 4-J C" ()
o (A cmý 4n--) u n)
U >C-10 ; 0 U •- .0 Q,
in S'- 4.._ .- 0 >,r- a 4J MO0 4J tO
"" -I-4J () =EdSO 4. ( -. .) = ) C--4- 4-.
.- r - oO >% u 4-J 0-4- E'-- E (-
i.
n 4- 0 -- (DW t >% uLC• I- ' ,- 4.,) - 4J
. ,. ) 0
u u- 0J S.f.- S-=
,4.3 uJ 4) (DJ (A (M -- f,- ,--
W W)(.
Q ".- C C,...0 "- '-
U (V- , M OS-, W- CD
"0 CO >.04)J 00 D f,.-- t.,.-d,
McU
D 0-- EWM LUi 0 .L
4- 4) 4.2 (M c "4.-: c W >1 0,.- >)0",-
S.W•. VS- - (L 'Wa1) > -, r-. gO
V. 0
~cW3*-E
M Wn4-E
.C0.C
4J-4- > I.-- O t7.,-
co>
D: r to
0o>
ge
0
-41.
o in >v' ,*
._j 4-) 4. i4
S4.).
to oC
%..4n . 4c r- C-
W WL- W
(A WUW 4 0W
S. • -C 0-c
u wc
WW
S0C _r= 0
0 4-34
CM
S- 4) 4
E u- a* #
0...
oj tot
4) 04 C 4J0) 0
tin
Ed IA i
to W 4) inX
xC
u W-
S.. to U - toC jU
Ed- (A3
'CC
3:x
~ ,.
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
to 0 4 01to
1.1.01 CA 4)
+-
a,3 "0 +3 r- 0
(A
0.C~~~ 03Oi - 4
'a 0 -J r-04- 1 3 0 0
ý 4- C~ =~ 4 r
CL
to >0 (A *.4 0 0 A
04-.
U U 0 4-- 0
0 r 4 .1 0
4- ~ 0
CC 0
S- 04J
Mi r54- 01)
o1 #A
4,J 3:0
x n LL. 0. 01 ) C- J
in0 40
400 LA-
4)~0 C 1. 00
04j
0L
CD .4 S- '
'0
0 0 1 0
.4J 4)1
In S 06 4 a)4-
>) ) i.
41-
4)i 41
U- CA-vi
C ~~(>1.4.3 . ~ 4
CLto UV> 4)- 4
E~ LL 4J X
0L U29. ua4)1
Lii 4)01
'V..d 00 ..
)u 41 M.-
0
CL S4> to011
- u 0 4J
4) 03 0(A Ca -
4
uJ1 4-)- - w
4O 1.0
0
4 Or- w U-)
0C-U r=1 -
~,. 054-4-
S-0
4A-
4
0 *1
- 4-)4
4) C IAU.
1.E inC" ..
0 000
xi
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
xii
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Page
5.1.1 Monolithic Microclrcumt Nonoperating Failure. 5-4
Rate Predictior Models
5.1.2 Digital Microcircuit Model Development ....... 5-9
5.1.3 Linear/Interface Microcircuits ............... 5-38
5.1.4 Memory Device Model Development .............. 5-50
5.1.5 Monolithic Microcircuit Model Validation ..... 5-52
5.1.6 Hybrid Microcircuit Nonoperating Failure ..... .5-57
Rate Model,
5.1.7 Hybrid Model Development ....................... 5-58
5.1.8 Proposed, Magnetic Bubble Memory Nonoperating.. 5-74
Failure Rate Prediction Model
5.1.9 Magnetic Bubble Memory Model Development ...... 5-76
5.2 Discrete Semiconductors ................................ 5-79
5.2.1 Discrete Semiconductor Nonoperating Failure... 5-79
Rate Prediction Models
5.2.2 Transistor Model Development .................. 5-86
5.2.3 Diode Model Development ....................... 5-101
5.2.4 Opto-electronic Semiconductor Model .......... 5-116
Development
5.2.5 Model Validation ......................... 5-120
xiii
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
t/
Page
5.5 Inductive Devices ............ .................... 5-176
5.5.1 Proposed Inductor Nonoperating Failure Rate... 5-176
Prediction Model
5.5.2 Inductor Model Development .................... 5-178
5.6 Lasers ................................................. 5-191
5.6.1 Proposed Laser Nonoperating Failure Rate ...... 5-191
Prediction Models
5.6.2 Laser Model Development ....................... 5-194
5.7 Tubes .................................................. 5-199
5.7.1 Proposed Tube Nonoperating Failure Rate ....... 5-196
Prediction Model
5.7.2 Tube Model Development ........................ 5-197
5.8 Mechanical/Electromechanical Devices .................. 5-208
5.8.1 Proposed Mechanical/Electromechanical Device.. 5-208
Nonoperating Failure Rate Prediction Models
5.8.2 Rotating Mechanisms ........................... 5-212
5.8.3 Contact Device Model Development ............... 5-215
5.8.4 Connectors .................................... 5-227
5.9 Interconnection Assemblies ............................. 5-232
5.9.1 Proposed Interconnection Assembly Nonoper-.... 5-232
ating Failure Rate Prediction Model
5.9.2 Interconnection Assembly Model Development .... 5-233
5.10 Connections .... ........................................ 5-240
5.10.1 Proposed Connections Nonoperating Failure ..... 5-240
Rate Prediction Model
5.10.2 Model Development ............................. 5-241
5.11 Miscellaneous Parts .................................... 5-244
5.11.1 Proposed Miscellaneous Parts Nonoperating ..... 5-244
Failure Rates
5.11.2 Model Development ........................ 5-245
xiv
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Page
6.0 APPLICATION OF NONOPERATING RELIABILITY MODELS ............... 6-1
.6.1 Comprehensive Reliability Models ...................... 6-1
6.2 Proposed Comprehensive Reliability Prediction Method.. 6-3
7.0 COMPARISON OF OPERATING AND NONOPERATING FAILURE RATES ........ 7-1
4b8.0 CONCLUSIONS .............................................. 8-1
9.0 RECOMM4ENDATIONS ........................ 9-1
REFERENCES..................................................... R-1
Appendix A: Proposed Nonoperating Failure Rate Prediction Models. A-i
xv
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
FIGURE 3.3-1: CONCEPTUAL FAILURE RATE DISTRIBUTION ................ 3-10
FIGURE 4.1-1: MODEL DEVELOPMENT FLOW CHART ........................ 4-2
FIGURE 4.4-1: LINEAR MICROCIRCUIT STORAGE FAILURE RATE VS ......... 4-19
TEMPERATURE
FIGURE 4.5-1: FAILURE MECHANISM DISTRIBUTION, ACCELERATED BY ...... 4-36
ENVIRONMENTAL STRESS (CASE I)
FIGURE 4.5-2: FAILURE MECHANISM DISTRIBUTION, ACCELERATED BY ...... 4-36
OPERATIONAL STRESS (CASE II)
FIGURE 4.5-3: FAILURE MECHANISM DISTRIBUlION, ACCELERATED BY..... 4-37
COMBINED OPERATIONAL/ENVIRONMENTAL STRESS (CASE III)
FIGURE 4.6-1: CONCEPTUAL SCREENING EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON ....... 4-46
FIGURE 5.1.2-1: FAILURE RATE VS. TEMPERATURE ........................ 5-24
xvi .
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 2.1-1: LITERATURE SEARCH RESOURCES ........................ 2-3
TABLE 2.2-1: NONOPERATING FAILURE RATE DATA SOURCES ............... 2-7
TABLE 2.3-1: SUMMARIZED NONC hERATING FAILURE RATE DATA ............ 2-8
TABLE 3.2-1: EXAMPLE OF QUALITATIVE REGRESSION ANALYSIS ........... 3-5
TABLE 4.5-1: ENVIRONMENT CATEGORIES ............................. 4-25
TABLE 4.5-2: MIL-HDBK-217D ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR CLASSIFICATION .... 4-32
TABLE 4.5-3: ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR ANALYSIS (CASE II) -............ 4-41
SIMULATANEOUS EQUATIONS
TABLE 5.0-1: PART CLASS CATEGORIZATION .......................... 5-1
TABLE 5.0-2: MODEL DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW ................ ....... 5-2
TABLE 5.1.1-1: DIGITAL MICROCIRCUIT NONOPERATING TEMPERATURE ........ 5-6
FACTOR CONSTANTS
TABLE 5.1.1-2: MICROCIRCUIT NONOPERATING QUALITY FACTORS ............ 5-6
* TABLE 5.1.1-3: MICROCIRCUIT NONOPERATING ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ...... 5-7
(wNE)
TABLE 5.1.2-1: DIGITAL MICROCIRCUIT CHARACTERIZATION VARIABLES ...... 5-11
TABLE 5.1.2-2: DIGITAL MICROCIRCUIT NONOPERATING FAILURE RATE DATA.. 5-12
TABLE 5.1.2-3: DIGITAL MICROCIRCUIT TEMPERATURE MATRIX .............. 5416
TABLE 5.1.2-4: DIGITAL MICROCIRCUIT QUALITY VARIABLE MATRIX ......... 5-18
TABLE 5.1.2-5: DIGITAL MICROCIRCUIT REGRESSION RESULTS .............. 5-19
TABLE 5.1.2-6: DIGITAL MICROCIRCUIT NONOPERATING QUALITY FACTOR..... 5-21
TABLE 5.1.2-7: MICROCIRCUIT NONOPERATING TEMPERATURE FACTOR ......... 5-23
"COEFFICIENTS
TABLE 5.1.2-8: MOS DIGITAL SSI/MSI FAILURE MECHANISM DISTRIBUTION... 5-32
TABLE 5.1.2-9: BIPOLAR DIGITAL SSI/MSI FAILURE MECHANISM ............ 5-33
DISTRIBUTION
TABLE 5.1.2-10: RANDOM LOGIC LSI FAILURE MECHANISM DISTRIBUTION ...... 5-34
TABLE 5.1.2-11: K3 and K4 TEMPERATURE FACTOR CONSTANTS FOR ........... 5-37
DIGITAL MICROCIRCUITS
TABLE 5.1.3-1: LINEAR/INTERFACE MICROCIRCUIT CHARACTERIZATION ....... 5-39
"VARIABLES
xvii . .~
-
-
.
.
W1ý VW
~ 4'4
VW~~
N
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 5.1.3-2: LINEAR/INTERFACE MICROCIRCUIT NONOPERATING FAILURE... 5-40
RATE DATA
TABLE 5.1.3-3: LINEAR/INTERFACE INITIAL REGRESSION RESULTS .......... 5-43
TABLE 5.1.3-4: LINEAR/INTERFACE FINAL REGRESSION RESULTS ............ 5-45
TABLE 5.1.4-1: MEMORY DEVICE NONOPERATING FAILURE RATE DATA......... 5-49
TABLE 5.1.5-1: MONOLITHIC MICROCIRCUIT MODEL VALIDATION DATA ........ 5-56
TABLE 5.1.6-1: HYBRID NONOPERATING ENVRIONMENT FACTORS (rNE) ......... 5-59
TABLE 5.1.7-1: HYBRID PART CHARACTERIZATION ....................... 5-60
TABLE 5.1.7-2: SUMMARIZED HYBRID NONOPERATING RELIABILITY DATA ....... 5-62
TABLE 5.1.7-3: HYBRID VARIABLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENT MATRIX ....... 5-64
TABLE 5.1.7-4: HYBRID REGRESSION RESULTS (0)........................ 5-68
TABLE 5.1.7-5: HYBRID REGRESSION RESULTS (II) ...................... 5-68
TABLE 5.1.7-6: HYBRID COEFFICIENT CONFIDENCE INTERVALS .............. 5-71
TABLE 5.1.7-7: HYBRID NONOPERATING QUALITY FACTORS .................. 5-72,
r TABLE 5.2.1-1: DISCRETE SEMICONDUCTOR NONOPERATING TEMPERATURE ...... 5-80
FACTOR PARAMETERS
TABLE 5.2.1-2: TRANSISTOR NONOPERATING ENVRIONMENAL FACTORS (ITNE)... 5-82
TABLE 5.2.1-3: DIODE NONOPERATING ENVRIONMENTAL FACTORS (ONE) ....... 5-84
TABLE 5.2.1-4: OPTO-ELECTRONIC SEMICONDUCTOR NONOPERATING ........... 5-85
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS (wNE)
TABLE 5.2.2-1: TRANSISTOR PART CHARACTERIZATION ..................... 5-87
TABLE 5.2.2-2: TRANSISTOR NONOPERATING FAILURE RATE DATA ............ 5-89
TABLE 5.2.2-3: TRANSISTOR STYLE VARIABLE MATRIX ..................... 5-90
TABLE 5.2.2-4: TRANSISTOR REGRESSION RESULTS II ..................... 5-92
TABLE 5.2.2-5: SIGNAL AND POWER TRANSISTOR FAILURE MECHANISM ...... .. 5-95•
DISTRIBUTION
TABLE 5.2.2-6: FET FAILURE MECHANISM DISTRIBUTION ................... 5-96
TABLE 5.2.2-7: HIGH TEMPERATURE STORAGE LIFE TEST DATA .............. 5-99
TAELE 5.2.3-1: DIODE CHARACTERIZATION VARIABLES ..................... 5-103
TABLE 5.2.3-2: DIODE NONOPERATING FAILURE RATE DATA................ 5-104
TABLE 5.2.3-3: DIODE STYLE VARIABLE MATRIX .......................... 5-106
TABLE 5.2.3-4: DIODE INITIAL REGRESSION RESUI.TS ..................... 5-107
xviiii
V
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 5.2.3-5: DIODE FINAL REGRESSION RESULTS ..................... 5-110
xix
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 5.4.2-6: PAPER AND PLASTIC CAPACITOR FAILURE MECHANISM ....... 5-168
DISTRIBUTION
TABLE 5.4.2-7: CERAMIC CAPACITOR FAILURE MECHANISM DISTRIBUTION .... 5-168
TABLE 5.4.2-8: MICA CAPACITOR FAILURE MECHANISM DISTRIBUTION ....... 5-169
TABLE 5.4.2-9: GLASS CAPACITOR FAILURE MECHANISM DISTRIBUTION ...... 5-169
TABLE 5.4.2-10: WET FOIL CAPACITOR FAILURE MECHANISM DISTRIBUTION... 5-170
TABLE 5.4.2-11: SOLID TANTULUM CAPACITOR FAILURE MECHANISM .......... 5-170
DISTRIBUTION
TABLE 5.4.2-12: ALUMINUM ELECTROLYTIC CAPACITOR FAILURE MECHANISM.. 5-171
jol DISTRIBUTION
TABLE 5.4.2-13: VARIABLE CAPACITOR FAILURE MECHANISM DISTRIBUTION... 5-171
TABLE 5.4.2-14: CAPACITOR NONOPERATING BASE FAILURE RATES ........... 5-172
TABLE 5.4.3-1: CAPACITOR MODEL VALIDATION DATA ..................... 5-174
TABLE 5.5.1-1: INDUCTOR NONOPERATING ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ......... 5-177
TABLE 5.5.2-1: INDUCTOR PART CHARACTERIZATION ...................... 5-179
TABLE 5.5.2-2: INDUCTOR NONOPERATING FAILURE RATE DATA ............. 5-180
TABLE 5.5.2-3: DEVICE QUALITY VARIABLE MATRIX ...................... 5-183
TABLE 5.5.2-4: INDUCTOR INITIAL REGRESSION RESULTS ................. 5-184
TABLE 5.5.2-5: INDUCTOR NONOPERATING QUALITY FACTORS ............... 5-188
TABLE 5.5.2-6: RF COIL FAILURE MECHANISM DISTRIBUTION .............. 5-190
TABLE 5.5.2-7: TRANSFORMER FAILURE MECHANISM DISTRIBUTION .......... 5-190
TABLE 5.6.1-1: LASER NONOPERATING ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ............ 5-193I
TABLE 5.7.1-1: TUBE NONOPERATING ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ............. 5-197
TABLE 5.7.2-1: TUBE PART CLASSIFICATION 5-198
TABLE 5.7.2-2: TUBE NONOPERATING FAILURE RATE DATA .................. 5-201
TABLE 5.7.2-3: DEVICE STYLE VARIABLE MATRIX ........................ 5-202
TABLE 5.7.2-4: TUBE REGRESSION RESULTS ........................... 5-203
TABLE 5.7.2-5: TUBE OPERATING AND NONOPERATING FAILURE RATE ........ 5-207
COMPARISON
TABLE 5.8.1-1: ROTATING DEVICE AVERAGE NONOPERATING FAILURE RATES.. 5-209
TABLE 5.8.1-2: RELAY NONOPERATING ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ............ 5-210
TABLE 5.8.1-3: SWITCH NONOPERATiNG ENVIROIIMENTAL FACTORS ........... 5-211
xx
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 5.8.1-4: CONNECTOR NONOPERATING ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ........ 5-212
TABLE 5.8.2-1: ROTATING MECHANISM NONOPERATING FAILURE RATE DATA... 5-214
TABLE 5.8.3-1: RELAY PART CHARACTERIZATION ......................... 5-217
rro
xxiI
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objective
"i 1 .-i
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
U
nonoperating state for a prolonged period of time. Equipment nonoperating
reliability cannot be determined until power is applied. If no test
schedule has been established, an equipment in a nonoperating state has an
unknown reliability until the point in time when it is required.
Unexpected poor performance can have disastrous results. Therefore, it is
essential that nonoperating reliability assessment techniques are
"I implemented on the same scale as operating reliability assessment.
1-2
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
I.• screening.
approximate method
assume that
In any other circumstances,
operating
at best.
and
Additionally,
nonoperating
the use of a "K" factor is a very
it
failure
is intuitively wrong to
rates are directly
proportional. Many application and design variables would be anticipated
"to have a pronounced effect on operating failure rate, yet negligible
effect on nonoperating failure rate. Derating is one example. It has
been observed that derating results in a significant decrease in operating
failure rate, but a similar decrease would not be expected with no power
applied. Additionally, the stresses on parts are different in the
nonoperating state, and therefore, there is no reason to believe that the
I operating factors for temperature, environment, quality and application
would also be applicable for nonoperating reliability prediction purposes.
"An invalid approach for nonoperating failure rate assessment has been
to extrapolate operating failure rate relationships to zero electrical
stress. All factors in MIL-HDBK-217D, whether for electrical stress,
temperature or another factor, represent empirical relationships (as
opposed to theoretical relationships). An empirical relationship is based
on observed data, and proposed because of the supposedly good fit to the
data. However, empirical relationships may not be valid beyond the range
"of parameters found in the data and this range does not include zero
* electrical stress for MIL-HDBK-217D operating reliability relationships.
Extrapolation of empirical relationships beyond the range found in the
data can be particularly dangerous when the variable is part of an
exponential relationship. A relatively small error in the exponent can
correspond to a large error in the resultant predicted failure rate.
Additionally, there are many intuitive or qualitative reasons why small
amounts of applied power can be preferable to pure storage conditions.
For nonhermetic microcircuits, the effect of humidity is the primary
failure accelerating stress. A small current will result in a temperature
rise, burning off moisture, and probably decreasing device failure rate.
1r-
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
One of the assumptions which dominated these two approaches was also
necessary in this study. No empirical nonoperating failure rate data were
available for other than ground based environments. Nonoperating
environmental factor values were, therefore, determined based on an in-
depth study and comparison of operating and nonoperating failure
mechanisms and failure causing stresses. However, for the most part, the
factors and models presented in this report represent empirical
nonoperating relationships determined from observed nonoperating failure
rate data.
1.3 Definitions
1-4
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
1-5
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
S
It should be noted that definition of dormancy can vary
the
considerably. According to Reference 5, dormancy is equal to any
condition where the electrical activation level is less than or equal to
10% of the normal design level. The dormancy definition adopted for this
study was consistent with information defined in the RADC statement of
work explicitly defining nonoperating.
1-6
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Two major information sources were used. The first source consisted
of libraries and other data resources covering open technical literature.
3 The second source consisted of contacts established in past and present
electronic systems reliability projects. This included contacts whose
work has not yet been published in the open literature. Use of these
diverse sources ensured that a comprehensive review of the field was
achieved. Four technical areas which were extensively researched are:
The information gathered for the first two areas listed was used in
the development of nonoperating environmental factors. The information
gathered for the third area was sought for all equipment environments.
The information was occasionally required for the derivation of the number
of nonoperating hours. This information was necessary to develop a
nonoperating failure rate from data collected on equipments which did not
contain elapsed time meters or where the time numeric recorded was flight
hours. The information in the fourth area was used to aid in the
development of theoretical models and to complement the data analysis
* task.
o Problem/goal definition
In this step, the key concepts of the search were defined and also
any related areas that could potentially yield any information
were identified. Other factors that were considered at this stage
included the time span of the search, and its general scope.
0 Identification of information resources
The main activity in this area consisted of identifying the
relevant abstracts, indexes, reference works and technical
journals for the problems defined in the previous step.
o Search strategy formulation
A search strategy was devised which identified those information
resources which could most effectively yield the information
defined in the first step of the process.
o Literature Survey
Using the search strategy as a roadmap, the information specialist
surveyed the information resources for potentially relevant
information. Both manual and automated search methods were used.
o Evaluation
This was the most important step. The results of the search were
reviewed and search strategy was redefined as required.
2-2
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
o Literature Search
An in-depth search was then conducted. Close contact was
maintained between the project engineer and information specialist
to insure the goals of the search were met.
The literature search task was very successful. The most relevant
documents and technical articles are listed in the References section of
this report.
2-3
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
2-4
!•.
• •2-•.• 5, • F••t•
r'W•%• •?•, • ~ er -• • •¢••¢• •;u: •-v• • ¢.-•--w--t.-- < I
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
2-5
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
up-display (HUD) was selected from the list of RIW contracts to summarize
for nonoperating reliability data. The F-16 HUD met each of five
requirements for an acceptable data source. Additionally, there were a
relatively wide range of component styles included in the design.
Decisions for operating versus nonoperating failures were made using the
on-equipment maintenance action "'when discovered" code.
U
Another organization which contributed data was the French group
Association Francaise pour le Controle Industriel et la Qualite (AFCIQ).
This group produced a document (Reference 8) which includes a sumlary of
the MICOM data, as well as additional data from European sources. This
data were used for model validation for microcircuits, discrete
2-6
I
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
II
semiconductors, resistors and capacitors, and for model development for
the remaining part styles with data.
Many other data sources were identified and evaluated as part of the
data collection approach. Table 2.2-1 presents a list of the
organizations and/or equipments which supplied data in sufficient quality
and quantity for numerical analysis.
2-7
?• 2-7
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
IA
48 41840.6
Inductive Devices 87 49833.0
Tubes 364 794.8 ••
Relays 36 1360.4
Switches 35
j_
408.3 •'i
Connectors 1 82444.0
2-8
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Field experience data are the more desirable type of data. This type
of nonoperating failure rate data represents what actually occurred in the
field, which is what the proposed model attempts to predict. The inherent
difficulties with field experience data are related to the accuracy with
which a failure can be defined, the precision with which the number of
Io
4
3-1
4
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
nonoperating part hours can be measured, and the ability to determine the
environmental stresses applied to a part.
3-2
--
,~-,-,.,.-,.*-. -- -- 4 -- -- -- -- -- -0-
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Y b+
o b1 X1 +b 2 X2 + + biXi
3-3
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
X = A exp(-B/T)
i InX = lnA - TB
3-4
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Quality Level Q1 Q2 Q
Ll 0 0 0
L21 0 0
L0 1 0
L4 0 0 1
3-5
I ROW,-.v*-.-'
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
values by use of the following equations. These equations assume that the
dependent variable was the natural logarithm of nonoperating failure rate.
3-6
-A7.1,CRUW N
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
regression and the mean square due to residual variation. If the F-ratio
value for any independent variable is greater than the critical F value,
then it was considered a significant factor influencing nonoperating
4 failure rate and was included in the regression solution.
bi +tn..2(S.E.)
where
bi regression coefficient
tn-.2 1 -apercentage point of a t -distribution with n-2 degrees
of freedom
n =number of observations
3-7
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
When the assumed failure rate model form is a multiplicative model, the
upper and lower confidence limit values are not exact, but are approximate
due to the transformation. Values for the t - distribution are given in
Reference 10.
Point estimate = r
where
percentile
1-a = confidence (100 x (1-a) is the confidence expressed as a
percentage)
For "zero failure" data records, the standard method of dividing the
number of observed failures by the part hours results in a failure rate
value of zero. This value was considered to be intuitively
3-8
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
3-9
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
for small sample sizes. This was considered to be one reason that zero
failure data could not be ignored.
FREQUENCY
AS FAILURE RATE xt
3-10
4) Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
It was concluded during this study that zero failure data could
* neither be arbitrarily discarded nor arbitrarily used. An intuitive
V approach was developed and subsequently implemented to decide which zero
failure data records had sufficient part hours to estimate a failure rate.
The failure rate models which appear in the current version of MIL-
HDBK-217 may, or may not, include a contribution due to nonoperating
failures. For example; if the failure rate model is based primarily upon
• life test, physics or failure data or verified operating failures, then
3-11
V4
L
OR_ __ _ _
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
The difference between the MIL-HDBK-217D failure rate and the actual
operating failure rate is dependent on,
1 fo + fn
fo fn
fn
+fo Tn
TO oTn
=Xo + Xn
where
3-12
S"
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Xn Tn
X217 To
3-13
Y,~
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
4-1
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MODEL
QCQ
4-2
FIT' .IS
GOOD FI
FAL TRME-
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
4-3
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
4 The next step in the model development process was to apply stepwise
multiple regression analysis. Regression analysis is defined and briefly
described in Section 3.2 of this report. This technique was used to
compute the coefficients of an assumed model form in a least squares fit
to the data. Regression solutions were found for decreasing confidence
limits beginning with 90%. In addition, F-ratios and standard error
statistics were computed for each significant variable to obtain an
indication of the degree of significance and the accuracy of coefficient
estimates. Additionally, upper and lower 90% confidence interval values
were determined for each coefficient. In general, variables were not
* -included in the proposed model if they did not significantly effect
nonoperating failure rate with at least 70% confidence. However, if a
variable such as device screening was known to influence nonoperating
failure rate, then coefficients were computed with less than 70%
confidence and a corresponding factor proposed. In these instances, the
- resultant factor was considered approximate. This was necessary only
i ioccasionally, and no factors were proposed with less than 50% confidence.
- The goodness of fit of the regression solution was then tested using
the R-squared statistic. No absolute acceptable limit was Oefined to
* determine what constituted a "good fit" because of the relative
variability between part classes and because of different sample sizes.
For example, the acceptable R-squared value computed for hybrid
microcircuits would have been unacceptable for monolithic microcircuits.
The inherent variability of hybrid nonoperating failure rate and the large
number of potential variables (vs. a smaller number of data records)
- prevented a highly accurate model for hybrid dvices. Nevertheless, an R-
squared value was computed and the proposed model evaluated for each part
4-4
i:,
•!IN
•,- •
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
The next phase of the general model development process was to perform
an extreme case analysis. Predictions were made using the proposed model
for parameters beyond the ranges found in the data. The intent of the
extreme case analysis was two-fold. The first objective was to identify
any set of conditions which cause the proposed model to numerically "blow
up". The other objective of the extreme case analysis was to identify any
set of conditions which predict a nonoperating failure rate which is
intuitively incorrect. For instance, a model that predicted an unscreened
device with a lower failure rate than a similar screened device, or
predicted a negative failure rate would be examples of an intuitively
incorrect model. Reasons for failing the extreme case analysis primarily
involve an incorrect choice of model form. If the extreme case analysis
indicated that the proposed model was unacceptable, then the entire model
"development process was begun again.
The final phase of the general model development process was a model
"validation task. Data which had been withheld from the model development
process were used to evaluate the accuracy of the proposed models. Data
obtained from the European organization AFCIQ were used for this purpose
for microcircuits, diodes, transistors, resistors and capacitors. In each
*•, case, the AFCIQ data indicated that the proposed models pro ided accurate
predictions. If this had not been the case, then the model development
process would have beer started agairk with the AFCIQ data as part of the
data base. For other pf.'t types, scarcity of data required that all data
were i,:cluded in the mod6l develioment process.
4 -5
o Function
o Technology
- Fabrication Techniques
- Fabrication Process Maturity
- Failure Mode/Mechanism Experience
o Complexity
o Packaging Techniques
o Effectiveness of Process Controls
o Effectiveness of Screening and Test Techniques
o Nonoperating Environment and Temperatk're
o Frequency of Equipment Power Cycles
4-6
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
4-7
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
4-8
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
XSL = (1 + KC/D(NC)) XD
where
4- 9
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Cited in the PRC reports was a ARINC study (Reference 15) concerned
with the effect of equipment power cycling on shipboard electronic
equipment. A summary of the conclusions from this study are as follows.
where
bo = expected number of malfunctions per hour of continuous
operation
N = the number of cycles per hour of continuous operation
4-10
I rdAS"-
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Two major conclusions were made based on the literature review. The
first conclusion was that equipment power cycling must be considered as
part of any effort to investigate or predict nonoperating failure rates.
'~ 'The !'acond conclusion was that the effects of equipment power on-off
cycling can be predicted by a multiplicative model of the following form.
Trcyc 1 + Ki(Nc)
4-11
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
The form of this cycling factor was based on the agreement between the
Martin Marietta and ARINC results. In addition, a factor of this form is
intuitively appealing. At extremely low cycling rates, the predicted
nonoperating failure rate would become independent of cycling rate and
equal to the dormant/storage failure rate. At high cycling rates, a
predicted nonoperating failure rate would be proportional to the cycling
rate.
A cycling rate factor of this form would not be applicable when the
power cycles interfere with one another (i.e. the equipment has not yet
cooled down from the previous cycle when a new one is initiated).
However, this restriction was not believed to limit the utility of the
results of this study.
The units for equipment power cycling rate were chosern to be number of
equipment power on-off cycles per 103 nonoperating hours. This decision
was made for convenience. Storage intervals as long as ten yeari (.011
cycles/lO3 hrs.) and as short as one day (41.67 cycles/10 3 hrs.) could be
expressed easily.
4-12
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
p= XnbVNQ7rNT(1 + KI(Nc))
where
4-13
,..
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
regression analysis can be, applied to quantify each variable. The model
then takes the following form.
= nb 7YIQ '7TAi
where
Ai = K2(1 + lR)
where Ri is the mean cycling rate for each cycling rate category, and K2
is a normalization constant.
4-14
Y'
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
one iteration for resistors and three iterations for capacitors. However,I
six iterations were required for linear/interface microcircuits.
K1 constant values were computed for each generic part category where
it was determined that equipment power on-off cycling was a significant
variable. Ideally, unique K1 values should be determined for every
conceivable combination of part class, quality, temperature and
II
-
was limited, the equipment power cycling factors determined inthis study
represent the best possible values. When additional nonoperating
reliability data becomes available, these factors should be investigated
to determine their validity. The equipment power cycling factors for
specific part classes are presented in the respective model development
se ction of this report.
4-15
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
4-16
SN
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
n
where i•1(-eai/KT)
S~where
P i 1
i Xp = nonoperating failure rate -
4-17
iz
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
various reactions
can be approximated by an Arrhenius model for a
specified temperature range. This relationship was designated as the
"equivalent Arrhenius relationship." Because of the documented accuracy
of this approximation, it was decided to investigate the effects of
temperature using the equivalent Arrhenius relationship. It should be
emphasized that at extreme high and low temperatures, this relationship
will no longer be applicable. Use of the Arrhenius model to predict
failure rate can be a very useful and accurate tool. However, the
limitations of this assumption must be fully understood.
Tt,p = exp(-An(I/T))
where
4-18
_......... .
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
F-6. few
D10
.4
17
!!!i .....
7VS..
iU'
303
RT VS TEMPERATUR
4-1
0C (Linear I/KO Scale)
:: ?,.3,Teiiperature
•. •-,,;4-19
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
wt = exp(-An(4. T-r
where
"1 =X2exp(-An())
=X 2 exp(-An(T - + Tr))
=X 2 exp(-An(Tr))exp(-An(T -r))
4 =A 3 exp(-An( - ))
where
4-20
* .. -- *- .
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
St K3 + K4 exp(-An( 1
where
K3 , K4 constants
4-21
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
High temperature storage life test data was also collected for
discrete semiconductors with temperatures ranging from 1500C to 200 0 C. It
could not be verified whether the equivalent Arrhenius relationship was
linear for the total range of temperature values found in the data; 180C
to 2000C. Therefore, an additional term was added to the general form of
the temperature factor expression to allow for a nonlinear relationship
for the logarithm of failure rate versus the inverse of temperature. The
multiplicative temperature factor expression for discrete semiconductors
was assumed to be the described by following equation.
" ~where
4-22
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
'4-23
N
--
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
4-24
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
>3 4-25
WI
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
4-26
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
4-27
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
One of the primary reasons that nonoperating data were not available
for airborne environments was that aircraft mission profiles include a
composite of environments. Many airborne equipments (i.e. heads-up-
display, radar) are powered up prior to take-off and remain on throughout
4-28
Another major reason that nonoperating data for airborne and other
non-ground environments were not general lack of
available was the
accurate piece part data for any operating or nonoperating application.
The additional requirement that the data include only primary failures,
correspond to a nonoperating state, and correspond to a non-ground
environment further compounds an. already difficult problem. Data from .
large automated data bases like the U.S. Air Force D056, U.S. Navy 3M and
U.S. Army Sample Data Collection Program could not meet the requirements
of this study. Specifically, the D056 and 3M data bases are incomplete at
the piece part level (i.e.. not all depot level repair actions are reported
into the system). In addition, the task of separating primary (or
inherent) part failures from secondary (or induced) failures is very
difficult. These observations are documented for the U.S. Air Force data
collection system in Reference 22. The Sample Data Collection program is
operated by the Cobro Corporation and managed by U.S. Army TSARCOM, St.
Louis, MO. This program offered several distinct advantages in regard to
- separating operating from nonoperating failures, and primary from
secondary failures. However, the Sample Data Collection program was also
inadequate for tracking failures to the piece part level.
4-29
,, .- ,. ,
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
when the equipment was energized are due to the effects of rionoperating
period or'the result of the power on-off cycle. However, this information
is of no use unless depot level part replacements can be accurately traced
back to the on-equipment action. Unfortunately, traceability is usually
poor due to time and location differences between on-equipment and depot
maintenance, and incomplete data recording practices.
I
environmental factors without a separate temperature dependent factor
* (category 1) and factors with a separate temperature dependent factor
(category 2) was very important. If a model does not inriude a separate
temperature dependent factor, then the environmental fact-or accounts for
gall environmental stresses including temperature. If the model does
include a separate temperature dependent factor, then the environmental
factor accounts for all environmental stresses except changes, in
temperature. The temperature factor (or base failure rate as a function
of temperature) predicts the effect of changes in temperature due to both
ambient temperature and internal heat generation. In. effect, the
I
4-31
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
A' third case was identified where the operating failure rate
prediction model included a separate temperature factor and the proposed
nonoperating failure rate prediction model did not. No nonoperating
* temperature factors were determined in this case because of data
deficiencies. For these part types, the increase in temperature due to
the applied power is accounted for by the operating temperature dependent
factor and not the environmental factor. Therefore no large temperature
adjustment was required as in the previous case. A study of environmental
profiles (Reference 4 and 24) revealed that temperature 1'n,7 and
4-33
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Each failure mechanism for the specific part types was categorized as
either (1) primarily accelerated by environmental stresses, (2) primarily,
accelerated by operational stresses, (e.g., applied voltage or current,
mechanical actuations, etc.) or (3) accelerated by simultaneous exposure
4-34
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
6 environmental
nonoperating.
stress is
These conceptual
shown to be the same for operating and
examples assume
differences have been numerically compensated for.
that temperature
4-35
Yy. , ?
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
KEY:
0 Failures due to Operational Stress
E Failures due to Environmental Stress
Failures due to combined Operational/
Environmental Stress
OP.
U.'
NON-OP.
OP. E
0
RON-OP.
E E
0 1
GROUND AIRBORNE
FAILURE MECHANISMS FAILURE MECHANISMS
OP.
S OP. E
- E
" 0 0
"~ 0NON-OP.
NOW-OP
GROUND AIPRORNE
FAILURE MECHANISMS FAILURE MECHANISMS
4-36
V4 N
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
KEY:
0 Failures due to Operational Stress
E Failures due to Environmental Stress
Failures due to combined Operational/
L Environmental Stress
OP.
E
LU
L-J
Lj-
OP.
LU
NON-OP.
- ~ NON-OPE
GROUND AIRBORNE
7AILURE M4ECHANISMS FAILURE MECHANISMS
4-37
y,*..
,7
Pi Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
I! 4-38
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
/"
.,.4
._°
"4-39
• -:" .', -- •'-••-=•-• •z: .• .- : , , ... •-<- ,--•-.- ... ... .4...
; • • :•.- ;' •••
•.'•: ]•.'.•
i-"t]•
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
IrOE R3
*'NE R1 +R 2 R + R2
where
It was noted that the expression only applies when (R1 + R2 ) is greater
than 0.20. Also, it should be noted that R1 + R2 + R3 = 1. Estimates of
R1 , R2 and R3 valves were determined from the available literature. Rj,
R2 and R3 values used for lamps, lasers, and microwave tubes are presented
in the respective model development section.
4-40
Sae
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
OE ef + Xeoi + ko Definition
3 RI )tef Definition
';..Kef + keof +- Xk
• X eof
4 R2 =eof
Xef + Xeof + Xo Definition
5 R3 X Definition
Xef + ef+A
6 R1 + R2 + R3 = 1 Equations 3, 4 and 5
U•4-41
Vo
/; .. ,". :Y
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
INE = ArOE
where
S:"•N
.
ATMOE
=R1 + R2
ITNER+R
R3
R1 + R2 jI
where all variables have been previously defined.
"4-42
S.-- .,.,• . "9- .' . .--- '.'' . ,',"," -,."'"."- . ,,:•., '•:..' Z , .% -.- '''''''...? ' .. ' .•r:
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
WNE = AiwOE + Bi
where
I -4-43
_, /j ~ 1. *"
"4 ' /
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Iy
"methods developed in this study. This approach is preferable to previous
attempts to compare storage failure rates to dormant failure rates
directly. For example, missile electronics storage applications can range
from very benign environment controlled facilities to more stressful
uncontrolled storage. Dormant applications can also vary but generally
are in a ground fixed environment. Therefore, a comparison of storage
•,* - .<.,. •-
S•A..
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
4-45
-- X
S.. . . •. • " , . . ; . (
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
a, I
a JJ
., •. I-,,'. 7 •'I-. ,'" w.'," • • -,+ ,.r,.•.-•• I•-,••- -e-'••• . .--. • ..
• -,
", -•,--v•
4-46
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
06/15/2020 13:17 3153301991 PUBLIC AFFAIRS PAGE 02
4-47
i.
p,.
4-48
•''- ."-".•'-.
.".,',,,a''•,'• ."', .. ' ."-"".-.,".,"j " ".'-> :• ..: . •,..
*. .-..
. ,o.j
A,- • , .~ •_L ,,2 -. .- ..- -"-"-"- -"
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
5-1
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
N
ERADCOM power cycling
# diodes
Bubble
Memories none none # gates
# loops
temperature
environment
logic
Transistors MICOM device style environment
Martin Marietta temperature
F-16 HUD/RIW quality
AFCIQ power cycling
PRC k~
Diodes
ERADCOM
MICOM
Martin Marietta
F-16 HUD/RIW
device style
quality
power cycling
environment
temperature
H
NO
PRC
Opto-elec- none none device style
tronics quality
environment .'
Resistors MICOM device style environment
Martin Marietta quality
F-16 HUD/RIW power cycling
PRC
L_4
r•L.
5-2
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
5-3
'i mp'- , -. ,
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
5.1 Microcircuits
5-4 .. ,,.
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
where
= .014, Ng > 3100 gates
9I
Ng = number of gates
nNT = nonoperating temperature factor
1 1
= K3 + K(4 exp(-An(T 1-8)
where
where
5-5
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Technology K3 K4 An
TTL,HTTL,DTL,ECL .91 .09 4813
LTTL,STTL .90 .10 5261
LSTTL .89 .11 57111
IIL .86 .14 6607
MNOS .61 .39 6607
PMOS- .68 .32 5711
NMOS, CCD .65 .35 6159
CMOS, CMOS/SOS ,58 .42 7059
S 0.53
B 1.0
B-1 1.4
B-2 2.0
C 2.3
C-1 2.4
D 2.5
D-1 8.7 '
5-6
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Hermetic Nonhennetic
Environment Devices Devices
GB11I
GF 2.4 4.0
GM3.5 6.5
MP 3.2 5.9
Notes: (1) Space flight environment was not addressed in this study.
5-7
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
The proposed model for linear and interface devices is the following
equation.
where
V
6
Xnb = nonoperating base failure rate (failures/10 nonoperating
hours)
= O.O0024(Nt)" 87
where
Nt = number of transistors
"wNT = nonoperating temperature factor
= exp(-4748(T - ))
wNQ = nonoperating quality factor (see Table 5.1.1-2)
1!NE = nonoperating environmental factor (See Table 5.1.1-3)
wcyc = equipment power on-off cycling factor
= 1 + .031(Nc)
V
.
where
Memory Devices
5-8
¶;. •,,
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
where VP
where
5-9
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
evaluated and quantified with the available data. Failure rate prediction ,
5-10
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
I. Technology
A. DTL E. ECL I. IIL M. CCD
B. TTL F. LTTL J. MNOS N. CMOS
C. HTTL G. STTL K. PMOS 0. CMOS/SOS
D. DTL H. LSTTL L. NMOS P. HMOS
III. Construction
A. Dip E. Chip Carrier
B. Can F. Quad In-Line (staggered leads)
C. Flatpack G. In-Line
D. Square
IV. Enclosure
A. Hermetic
B. Non-Hermetic
V. Package Material
A. Metal E. Glass I. Metal/Epoxy
B. Ceramic F. Plastic/Ceramic J. Silicon
C. Metal/Ceramic G. Epoxy K. Phenolic
D. Metal/Glass H. Ceramic/Plastic/Window
X. Application Environment
XI. Temperature
A. Rated
73 B. Actual
3
XII. Number of Power On/Off Cycles per 10 Nonoperating Hours
5-11
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Data Part
* No. Equipment/Source Records Hours6
Complexity Tech. Failures (x10 )
1 Hawk/MICOM 6 SSI bipolar 1 768.9
2 Maverick/MICOM 3 SSI bipolar
3 Maverick/MICOM 1 432.4
2 MSI bipolar 1 308.9
4 F-16 HUD/RIW 36 SSI bipolar 10 4'20.7
5 F-16 HUD/RIW 50 MSI bipolar 7
6 F-16 HUD/RIW 3398.2
2 LSI bipolar 0 129.8
7 F-16 HUD/RIW 2 LSI MOS 0
* 8 26.0
Martin Marietta 3 SSI/MSI bipolar 18 9550.8
9 Sandia I LSI MOS 1
10 Sandia 46.7
1 SSI bipolar 0 2432.1
11 PRC 2 SSI/MSI bipolar 0
12 RAC (1) 3.8
120 SSI bipolar 6.9
13 RAC (1) 14 SSI M51 43
14 RAC (1) 130 0.4
MSI bipolar 20 4.3
15 RAC (1) 2 LSI bipolar 0
16 RAC (1) 1 VLSI (2) 0.1
bipolar 1 0.1
17 ERADCOM (3) 17 SSI bipolar 18
18 ERADCOM (3) 7.7
7 SSI MOS 17 3.3
TOTALS 399 155 21441.1
1) High temperature storage life test data.
1 Storage temperatures
range from 150 0 C to 350 0C.
I 2) VLSI parts defined as having greater than 3000 gates.
5-12
-V•.
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
o Number of gates
o Number of transistors
o Number of package pins
o Number of package 1/0 functicnis
o Die area
5-13
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
entries with observed failures. Thc- methods described in Section 3.3 were
used to determine which zero faiiurp ýAt. ,n'ries had sufficient part
hours to estimate a failure rate without failures. Correlation
coefficients were computed for every pair of 4 ndependent variables. In
addition, the available data was evalupted to identify weaknesses in the
data set. Results from these initial analyses are given below.
It had been desired to analyze the effect that both number of pins and
number of gates had on nonoperating failure rate. However,
characteristics of the data base and conclusions from the preliminary data
analysis made it very difficult to properly address the effect of package
pins on failure rate. Proper application of regression analysis required
that all independent variables were uncorrelated (i.e. correlation
coefficient not significantly different from zero) and that there was a
large range of variable values represented in the data.
The observation that gate count and pin count were correlated was
further investigated. A recent study (Reference 30) regarding VLSI device
reliability indicated that there was little or no correlation between gate
count and pin count. After further studying the issue, it was determined
that there is theoretically an intermediate amount of correlation between
5-14
II
4i
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
pin count and gate count for SSI and MSI devices. Then, as device
complexity enters into the LSI and VLSI ranges, the correlation decreases.
Field data was not available for the most current state-of-the-art LSI and
VLSI devices. The long nonoperating times required to observe failures
iD,•.precludes the existence of such data. Nsa
available for analysis were concentrated in the SSI and MSI ranges. This
explains the observed correlation. The implications of the observed
correlation are two-fold. First, regression analysis could not be
correctly applied to quantify the effects of both variables. Second, a
regression analysis for failure rate versus gate count implicitly includes
the effects of pin count for SSI and MSI devices. That is, a regression
analysis for failure rate against either one of the two variables includes
the effects of both because the number of pins and the number of gates
increase together for the lower complexities. Therefore it was decided to
include only gate count as a measure of complexity. The natural logarithm
of the complexity was designated as C1.
lNT exp(-el(1
where
T = temperature (OK)
STr = reference temperature = 298 OK
5-15
- W C , . r. W - rr
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
The addition of the reference temperature term was for convenience. The
temperature factor was defined to be equal to unity when the ambient
temperature is equal to the reference temperature. The value of 298 0 K was
selected to be consistent with the reference temperature term used for
failure rate prediction in MIL-HDBK-217D.
It was assumed that the equivalent activation energy would vary with
logic type. Data was available for DTL, TTL, LSTTL, ECL, CMOS and
CMOS/SOS. Introducing temperature (or inverse of temperature) into a
regression by itself would result in only one temperature coefficient.
Therefore, a temperature matrix with two temperature variables was defined
to derive a temperature factor of the desired form. Introducing the
temperature matrix as independent variables in a regression analysis
allowed for computation of unique activation energies. The logic types
were grouped into the categories of (1) bipolar or (2) MOS technology.
The temperature matrix is presented in Table 5.1.2-3.
bipolar 1/T 0
MOS 0 1/T
5-16
I-I
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
5-17
!Z.M
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Quality Level QI Q2 Q3 Q4
S 1 0 0 0
B 0 0 0 0
C 0 1 0 0
D 0 0 1 0
D-1 0 0 0 1
5-18
7e
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
together valuethethen
R-squared with dominant
would effect
have of
beentemperature resulted
observed if in a much higher
the temperatures were
evenly distributed.
where l
5-19
SLIL,
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
An = tPmperature coefficient
= 4813, bipolar
=7057, MOS
T = temperature (OK)
rNQ = nonoperating quality factor
= exp(-0.637(Qi) + 0.836(Q2) + 0.882(Q3) + 2.158(Q4))
=0.53, S
=1.0, B
- 2.3, C
= 2.4, 0
= 8.7, D-1
The variables TECH, Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 have been previously defined. It
is emphasized that the above equation represents a preliminary model,
which is only applicable to ground based environment.
Conclusions
results.
and observations were made based
These conclusions and observations are given in the following
on the regression
i1
paragraphs.
5-20
wrp" a
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
5-21
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
5-23
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
1nX
I V-".
k7--
5-24
k
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
It was decided to include the gate count variable into an equation for
base failure rate. The base failure rate for digital microcircuits was
therefore given by the following equation:
47 7
.Xnb = Ab(# gates)"
"where
The constant term (Ab) was defined as a function of device technology and
the assumed reference temperature of 298 0 K (or 250C) due to normalization
of the nonoperating temperature factor. The temperature factor was
defined to be equal to a value of one for a temperature of 250C.
Therefore, the Ab constant must also correspond to 250C. In addition, the
technology dummy variable (TECH) coefficient was included in the equation
for base failure rate. Determination of appropriate values for the Ab
constant was computed by the following equation.
where all variables have been previously defined. The 9.368 and 7.524
values were the bo and TECH coefficients previously presented in Table
5-25
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
It was noted that the two base failure rate constant values were the
same up to three significant digits. The fact that these two numbers are
"extremely close must in part be attributed to coincidence because failure
rate estimation techniques are not accsirate to three significant digits.
However, it was concluded from this analysis that the nonoperating failure
rates of bipolar and MOS devices were indistinguishable at 250C, if all
other parameters are equal.
5-26
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
would continue to be accurate for higher gate counts. This option was
rejected, however, based on the information provided in Reference 30. The
results of this recent study (documented in Reference 30) concluded that
"no numerical correlation between operating failure rate and number of
gates could be found for devices in the VLSI range with greater than 3000
gates. A possible reason for this lack of correlation was that the
majority of VLSI failure mechanisms are directly related to particular
fabrication process steps (such as mask registration). These failure
mechanisms effect all similar components on a die uniformally, and not
f random individual die components as would be indicated by a complexity
factor. Another factor confounding the results was the fact that as
"device complexity increases the associated fabrication processes are
improving, thus masking any true effect complexity may have. It was
assumed that this observed pattern would also be true for nonoperating
failure rate.
[1
failure rate was computed with the following expression.
L- 5-27
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
. This value is differeit from the base failure rate presented in Section
.4 5.1.1 because the model had not been normalized for environment at this
stage of the model development process. It is emphasized that this
average value is only approximate. However, the proposed value is
""-'tuitively appealing for two reasons. First, the nonoperating failure
rate is independent of gate count for random logic VLSI devices. Second,
"the predicted nonoperating failure rates provide a smooth transition from
SSI/MSI to the LSI and VLSI ranges of device complexities.
None of the three equipment power cycling variables were significant
at the 60% confidence level. This observation was contrary to the
was then made between the anticipated effects of power cycling for digital
"vs. linear devices.
5-28
'V.
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
failure mode resulting from power cycling is wire bond fatigue and
failure. The rate at which wire bond fatigue occurs is related to the
power dissipation and corresponding thermal/mechanical stresses which
occur during the power on-off cycle. It was hypothesized that, on
average, linear devices exhibit slightly higher levels of power
dissipation than the primarily SSI/MSI digital devices included in the
data base. This would possibly explain the iQpparently higher degree of
dependence on equipment power cycling for linear devices. However, this
can not be generalized for all linear and digital devices. Many linear
, N ~ devices have power dissipation equal to or lower than those typically I
encountered in digital devices.
The (.02) constant term was based on two premises. First, the power
cycling constant term would be less than or
equal to the corresponding i
Ptermfound vinoted availabe mircruthan
data The oserved prelaios hipasforth
power cycl-ng factor would have less effect (over the range of values -ij
5-29 Q
'2N %;
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
that this proposed power cycling factor will assume a value of one for
essentially all missile storage test schedules.
The next phase of the model development process was to investigate the
effects of the environment. The theoretical model developed for digital
microcircuits' included a nonoperating environmental factor. As previously
stated, there were insufficient data to develop a complete series of
nonoperating environmental factors empirically. Nevertheless, the
objective of this study effort was to develop a methodology which can be
employed for nonoperating reliability evaluation for any potential
application. Therefore, it was imperative that appropriate nonoperating
environmental factors were determined.
5-30
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
constants used to compensate for the difference in model forms were based
on average MIL-HDBK-217D microcircuit values. For nonhermetic devices,
the conversion factor constants were based on average factor values
complemented by the results of the Panama nonhermetic microcircuit storage
life testing (data entries 17 and 18 in Table 5.1.2-2). In addition, the
nonoperating environmental factors were normalized to a ground benign
value equal to one. This was done so that the proposed microcircuit
nonoperating environmental factors would be consistent with the other
proposed models, and to provide the proposed model with increased utility.
Conversely, the MIL-HDBK-217D, Notice 1 operating microcircuit
environmental factors are not normalized to any environment (i.e. noI
factor is equal to one), and therefore the numerical values for the base
failure rate constants have no physical meaning by themselves.
The issue of device maturity was also addressed in this study effort.
All digital microcircuits which were represented in the collected data
were mature devices. Thus, the effect of device maturity could not be
evaluated by data analysis. Additionally, it is strongly recommended that
any equipment subjected to prolonged periods of storage be designed with _-_
5-31
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
CL
oco
Cie)
cz
Z- 4
I-I
-4 C
-4
03
CO 0 O~nU CJ Icm
(J
CL 4J 4
cz 0141)..
-Jý
-4 0;T4->
M4 (0 4J4)O oa
0 5- = 0
65. 0 0 0.
to4J )40.
UU
0) 4- 0 C ~ 4-r_ l>
4
-0
0 c
'D4 -M4J t a)-9
01 0) C44)4
E 03 .- C CO
5-32
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
J(%J.4~fl %IC-J
0 4J Il l
O Ll
atlL IAl~l
C3 Aft
co
04)
uiii
U-4
tm C
- ~~4J 10L
tn4~ E
4) a- * C. '-I
C3 (V + 4J
= -.--
03 c s4- +3 3 4 j
030 ~u0 30
O iE
>3 >O 4 V3
0J(A
LUL
0 ) E00
+1.
*-* 5-33
~~V~W'~~'( 0) 4J 4.J
r-;v~v 4JWWW.~ .
u. ~
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
4J~ 00 L Ln
00000- ~o r LinO 004DL
0 -
CO LA OLA
C LA OLn
V) 4J 4-i
(Ln
m
I1
lA
1
~rC'.. II .- 4 lA lA
m ma
L.0 0- CDo.J- )0 n
CLS
L.S
-4J
>-4
m > 00
m- 4-3
< m . .4..)
(c) 0V S-41 441
U) CM= 1c
0 E CC0
U~U
O~- 4.14) 0 00
UM- 0 . - .---
(V r C-ý
4~) * * 4J I
4- r-J0- ft oo
(D 0-L N~
5-4 '
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
, -
The final phase of the model development process was to normalize the
5-35
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
4A.
cases, the "true" operating failure rate will be slightly higher than the
"true" nonoperating failure rate, and given an infinite data supply, this
would have been the result of the operating to nonoperating failure rate
model comparisons. However, both the MIL-HDBK-217D models and the
proposed nonoperating failure rate prediction models were based on data
samples obtainzd from different data sources. The predicted failure rate
is therefore a random variable distributed about an unknown "true" mean LAW
failure rate. As the difference between the "true" operating and
nonoperating failure rates approach zero, the probability of the predicted
nonoperating failure rate exceeding the predicted operating failure rate
approaches 50%. Thus, the small percentage of instances where the
preliminary nonoperating predicted failure rate exceeds the operating
failure rate is a natural phenomenom, and is in no manner indicative of an
incorrect analysis or invalid data. It must always be remembered that
predicted failure rates are average failure rate values computed from a
data sample of parts with similar characteristics. Predicted failure
rates are not an inherent property of the part such as capacitance, device
dimensions or number of gates.
"nNT = K3 + K4 exp(-An(T - 19
where
5-36 . .
L-4-
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
LV'
the average temperature for the ground storage data was 200C, and thus, L.:
both models predict an identical failure rate at 200C. The difference
between the two failure rate models increases with temperature and is .
equal to 1.29 at 250. The previously determined nonoperating base failure
rates then had to be divided by 1.29 to be compatible with the modified
temperature factor. The modified nonoperating base failure rate constant
was equal to .00029 and the VLSI nonoperating base failure rate was equal
to .014 failures/10 6 hours.'
Technology K3 K4
TTL, HTTL, DTL, ECL .91 .09
LTTL, STTL .90 .10 ,
LSTTL .89 .11
IIL .86 .14
MNOS .61 .39
PMOS .68 .32
NMOS, CCD .65 .35
CMOS, CMOS/SOS .58 .42
5-37
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
validation was performed using data from AFCIQ and is described in Section A.
5.1.5.
5-38
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
iear
interface
II. Technology
A. DTL E. ECL I. IIL M. CCD
B. TTL F. LTTL J. MNOS N. CMOS
C. HTTL G. STTL K. PMOS 0. CMOS/SOS
D. DTL H. LSTTL L. NMOS P. HMOS
III. Number of Transistors
IV. Construction
A. Dip E. Chip Carrier
B. Can F. Quad In-Line (staggered leads)
C. Flatpack G. In-Line
D. Square
V. Enclosure
A. Hermetic
B. Non-Hermetic
VI. Package Material
A. Metal E. Glass I. Metal/Epoxy
B. Ceramic F. Plastic/Ceramic 3. Silicon
C. Metal/Ceramic G. Epoxy K. Phenolic
D. Metal/Glass H. Ceramic/Plastic/Window
VII. Number of Pins
VIII. Number of Interconnects
IX. Die Bond
A. Eutectic
B. Epoxy
C. Glass
X. Quality Level
A. S C. B-1 E. C G. D
B. B 0. B-2 F. C-1 H. D-1
XI. Application Environment
XII. Temperature
A. Rated
B. Actual
XIII. Number of Power On/Off Cycles per 103 Nonoperating Hours
5-39
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
2) Unknown
The collected nonoperating failure rate data for linear and. interface
devices was initially subjected to a preliminary analysis. Weaknesses in
the data base were identified, and correlation coefficients were
computed
for each pair of independent variables. Additionally, zero failure data
were analyzed to determire which data entries had sufficient part
hours to
estimate an upper bound on nonoperating failure rate. Results from
these
initial analyses are the following:
5-40
Z.:
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
3) 73% of the high temperature data records and 98% of the high
temperature storage failures were for 0 or D-1 quality level
parts.
4) 100% of the ground field data were for S or B quality level parts
5) The correlation coefficient for number of transistors vs. number
of pins was equal to 0.70.
It had been desired to analyze the effect that both number of pins and
number of transistors had on nonoperating failure rate. However, the
apparent correlation between these two variables prevented evaluation of
the effect of both variables by use of regression analysis. This observed
"correlation between number of transistors and number of pins was hardly
unexpected. As a result of the high degree of correlation, it was
concluded that only one measure of device complexity would be included in
the model. The natural logarithm of number of transistors was chosen to
be included in the regression and was designated C1.
5-41
A.X2-7-
H7
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
transistor count and pin count would be correct physically, but probably t
less accurate. At least one of the factors would have to be based on an
assumption. Assumptions always introduce some degree of error.
Determination of the other factor would be adversely effected by an
inaccurate assumption, and thus, both factors would be incorrect.
Conversely, an empirical relationship versus either one of the inherently
correlated variables represents the actual failure experience of the
device, and would be preferable.
o cycling r3tes less than one power cycle every two years (cycl,
cyc2, cyc3 = 0,0,0). .
o cycling rates between one cycle per year and one cycle every two
years (cycl, cyc2, cyc3 = 1,0,0).
o cycling, rates greater than one cycle per year (cycl, cyc2, cyc3 =
0,1,0).
o unknown cycling rates (cycl, cyc2, cyc3 = 0,0,1).
5-42
'4
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Standard Confidence
Variable Coefficient Error F-Ratio Limit
5-43
I -________________
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
= exp(O.983(cyc2))
= 1.0, cycling rate < .057 cycles/10 3 hour
= 1.0, .057 . cycling rate < .114 cycles/10 3 hour
= 2.67, cycling rate-.- .114 cycles/lO3 hour
C residual
It was hypothesized that the reason that the cycl and cyc3 variables
were not determined to be significant was that storage related failures
(as opposed to failures induced by the power on-off cycle) dominate the
total failure rate for cycling rates less than 0.114 cycles/lO3 hours.
Therefore, the anticipated difference in failure rate would be less than L
the inherent variability in the data and could not be detected. It was
considered encouraging that the unknown cycling frequency data entries
were not significantly different than the data in the two lower cycling
frequency categories.
these data sources, it
Although the cycling frequency was
was known that the equipments were
unknown for
energized
Li
relatively infrequently.
5-44
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
Standard Confidence 4
Variable Coefficient Error F-Ratio Limit
1/T -4748.303 448.970 111.85 0.90
C1 0.887 0.297 9.24 0.90
b 6.065 ......
'TNT = exp(-4748(• -
where
n 0.000576(# transistors) 8 8 7
~nb
where
The next phase of the model development process for linear and
5-46
41
Ix
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
failure rate model exceeded the MIL-HDBK-217D failure rate prediction a ,•••
small percentage of the time. To prevent these occurrances, a ,.:
modification was made to the nonoperating temperature factor. The
modified form of the temperature factor is given by the following •
equ at ion.
5-47 .
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
88 7
= O.00021(Nt)"
where
Nt = number of transistors
INT = nonoperating temperature factor
= 0.50 + 0.50 exp(-4748(l - 1
T 29
INQ = nonoperating quality factor (presented in Table 5.1.1-2
in Section 5.1.1) rn
7NE = nonoperating environmental factor (presented in Table 5.1.1-3
in Section 5.1.1) -
t
'cyc = equipment power on-off cycling factor
= 1 + .031(Nc)
"5-48
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Part
Data Complexity Hours6
No. Equipment/Source Records (# bits) Failures (x10 )
5-49
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
The theoretical model for memory devices was essentially the same as
the models for other microcircuit types. The theoretical model was
assumed to be a function of complexity, technology, hermeticity,
screening, temperature, environment and equipment power on-off cycling.
5-50
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
5-51
- W.,7Pr rnr
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
)
where
X
Xnb
memory device nonoperating failure rate
= nonoperating base failure rate
= .0034, bipolar memory devices
V
= .0%17, MOS memory devices
9NT = nonoperating temperature factor
= exp(-An(T- 298))
where L
T = nonoperating temperature ()K)"
An = temperature coefficient (given in Table 5.1.2-ý in Section
5.1.2)
7TNQ= nonoperating quality factor (given in Table 5.1.1-1 in Section
5.1.1)
"WNE = nonoperating environmental factor (given in Table 5.1.1-2 in
Section 5.1.1)
ffcyc = equipment power on-off cycling frequency
= 1 + .02(Nc)
where
5-52
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
5-53
..............
N..- ' .. . . . . . . ...
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
64--
wy-:4g2
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
After this phase of the model evaluation task, a modification was made
to the nonoperating temperature factor as part cf the model development
task. The modified models have the same equivalent activation energy for
high temperatures. The only difference is that the modified temperature
factor model approaches a constant value as temperature becomes very low.
The second phase of the model validation task was an extreme case
analysis. This analysis did not indicate any deficiencies with the
proposed models. Quantitative factors for temperature, complexity and
equipment power on-off cycling were tested by this method. At extremely
high levels of equipment power cycling, the nonoperating failure rate for
each miicrocircuit model becomes directly proportional to the equipment
power cycling frequency. At low levels of equipment power cycling, the
proposed microcircuit nonoperating failure rates approach a constant
value. These extreme case results confirm intuitive reliability
relationships. At extremely high equipment power cycling rates, the
nonoperating failure rate would be expected to be dominated by failures
induced by the power on-off cycle. Therefore, it would be anticipated
that the relationship would be proportional. At extremely low equipment
power cycling rates, the failure rate would be expected to be equal to the
inherent storage/dormant failure rate, and independent of power cycling
frequency.
5-55
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
assumptions, the model validation with AFCIQ data could only serve to
identify large errors.
Part
Hourý Temp. Equiv.
No. Fail. (x10 0 ) Description (OC) Quality X.0 5 Xo X.95 Xpre
(2) Data entry was from high temperature storage life testing.
(3) Data entry was from temperature cycling test (850C to 1350C)
Environment assumed to be airborne, uninhabited fighter.
The model evaluation process indicated that the proposed models were
accurate. Although no substantial conclusion could be reached because of
the assumptions. The geometric mean of the ratio of observed to predicted
failure rate was equal to 2.1 for those data entries with observed
failures or sufficient part hours to estimate a failure rate without
observed failures (i.e. eati entries 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10). Strict
interpretation would therefore indicate that the proposed model predicted
a failure rate which is lower than actual. However, it should also be
noted that the geometric mean of the ratio of observed to predicted
failure rate is equal to 0.97 for only the field data entries. High
temperature life test data is inherently more variable because it
necessarily reflects only the beginning of the device lifetime.
5-56
°#r
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
~~where
7. where
ND = number of diodes
NT -= number of transistors
NIC = number of integrated circuits
5-57
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
A1 a .0000817
A2 = .013
iNQ = nonoperating quality factor
= 0.53, S
=1.0, B
- 8.6, D
nNE = nonoperating environmental factors (see Table 5.1.6-1)
5-58
- Al
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Environment ITNE
GB 1
GF 2.4
GM 3.5
MP 3.2
NS8 3.4
NS 3.4
NU 4.5
NH 4.6
NUU 4.9
ARW 6.3
AIC 2.4
AIT 2.7
A18 4.0
AIA 3.4
AIF 4.7
AUC 2.7
Aiyr 3.4
AUB 5.7
AUA 4.7
AUF 6.7
SF 1.3
MFF 3.3
MFA 4.3
USL 8.0
ML 9.~3
CL 150
5-59
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
I. Functional Group
A. Digital
B. Linear
II. Number of Components
A. Packaged Resistors
B. Capacitors (packaged/chip)
C. Diodes (packaged/die)
D. Transistors (packaqed/die)
E. Microcircuits (packaged/die)
A. S
B. B Li'
C. 0
VIII. Application Environment
IX. Temperature
A. Rated
B. Actual
X. Number of Equipment Power On/Off Cycles per 103 Nonoperating Hours
5-60
>-
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Ahl = f(ND, NT, NIC, NR1, NR2, Nc, S) INQ "NE Icyc
where
where
K = constant
Nc = equipment power on-off cycling rate (cycles/lO3 nonop. hours)
The second theoretical model was based on the premise that the total
number of interconnections sufficient y characterizes hybrid device
complexity. The number of "nterconnections is typically equal to one for
each diode and external lead, equal to two tor each transistor, capacitor
and chip resistor and equal to the number of chip bonding pads for
integrated circuits. The second theoretical model was the following
equation.
5-61
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
NI = number of interconnects
S = seal perimeter (inches)
Equipment/Source
Maverick/MICOM
Hawk/MICOM
# Data
Records
17
7
# Failures
1,969
109
Part Hours
(X 106)
22,529.73
27,416.36
F ,
Point estimate failure rates were computed for data records with
observed failures. The methods described in Section 3.3 were applied to
determine which zero failure data records had sufficient part hours to be
included in the analysis. All twenty seven data records had either
observed failures or sufficient part hours to estimate a failure rate
without observed failures.
5-62
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Z. .w
One major problem identified in the available data was a high level of
correlation between a large number of the potential model variables. The
following pairs of variables had a correlation coefficient greater than
0.40:
5-63
Yrt
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Variables
IN R C D T IC S CYC
IN 1.0
R .67 1.0
C -.21 -.15 1.0
D .41 .75 -.25 1.0
T -.33 -.33 .45 .04 1.0
IC .69 .33 -.10 -.18 -.64 1.0
S .15 .21 .06 .42 .41 -.17 1.0
CYC .80 .57 -.26 .13 -.75 .78 -.25 1.0
The correlation coefficients for hybrids were much larger than those
for any other part type in this study. Probable reasons for the large
coefficients were the small number of data sources available with hybrid
nonoperating failure rate data, and the small number of hybrids typically
used in an equipment. Also, many of the correlations were expected
because as the hybrid becomes more complex' the size and the number of
components must increase. As a result of the high correlation, multiple
linear regression analysis could not be correctly applied to the data toh
simultaneously investigate the effects of all variables. This observation
was one of the reasons to attempt two different modeling approaches. The
high degree of correlation between interconnects and resistors, diodes,
and ICs prevented a numerical analysis of both the number of interconnects L
5-64
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
5-65
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
For the first model, the dependent variables wera number of resistors
(NR2), number of capacitors (NC), number of diodes (N0 ), number of
transistors (NT),
number of microcircuits (NIC), and package seal
perimeter (S). The results of this regression indicated that nonoperating ,"
failure rate was negatively correlated to NC and S, as well as positively,.
correlated with NT, ND and NIC. These intuitively incorrect results were
mcst likely the result of the scarcity of data, the intercorrelation
between variables, and/or the large variability observed in the data.
Next, the regression was run with these variables omitted. The results of
this regression are presented in Table 5.1.7-4. NT, ND and NIC were
significant at a 70% confidence limit. A properly applied regression
analysis requires that there is no correlation between independent
variables. Therefore, the regression results must be considered
approximate. The R-squared value for this regression was .44. This value
was considered to be relatively low, but not unexpected due to the
variability in the data.
5-66
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
confidence level. The R-squared value for this regression was .31. In
other words, only 31% of the variability in the data could be explained by
the regression solution. This relatively low value can be explained by
the fact that there are many variables effecting hybrid nonoperating
reliability, including design and processing variables which can not be.
quantified. An extremely accurate model was not considered feasible
because of the problems associated with hybrid nonoperating failure
modeling.
5-67
-N
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Standard Confidence
Variable Coefficient Error F-ratio Limit
Standard Confidence
Variable Coefficient Error F-ratio Limit
5-68
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
where
Both preliminary models had merit and were easy to apply. However,
neither preliminary model was particularly accurate. This was not a
result of an incorrect or oversimplified analysis, but was due to the
5-69
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
I
large variability associated with hybrid device failure behavior. Hybrid
devices tend to be manufactured in lower quantities, and the design and
processing controls are less uniform than with monolithic microcircuits.
This observation and ot1`-r factors result in the high variability. The
decision was made to proceed with the first nonoperating failure rate
• prediction model, as a function of number of microcircuits, number of
transistors and number of diodes. This decision was made because of the
coefficients for ND, NT and NIC. The cr~fficient for NIC was considered
to be intuitively correct. Interpretation of the coefficient was that the
number of integrated circuits would have a greater influence on
Snonoperating failure rate than either the number of transistors or
diodes. Conversely, the coefficients for diodes (MD) and transistors (NT)
IA
seemed c3nflicting. Intuitively, the number transistors should have a
greater effect than the number of diodes.
regression solution was erroneous.
Initially, it was felt that the
After further investigation of the
respective coefficients and the confidence intervals (presented in Table
5.1.7-6), it was concluded that the results were not in error but that the
relatively smaller difference between the coefficient values could not be
detected with the available data. However, it wa; strongly believed that
the proposed models should be physically correct. Therefore, an identical
average value was included in the proposed model for both diodes and
transistors.
5-70
. . . . . • • - . . . , ,
V ".
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Lower Upper
Variable 90% Limit Coefficient 90% Limit
ND 0.321 0.617 0.910
NT -0.011 0.284 0.580
NIC 0.349 0.812 1.274
where
The second assumption was that the relative difference between the
I proposed nonoperating quality factors and the operating quality factors
were the same for hybrid microcircuits as monolithic ICs. In effect, the
previously determined factors for monolithic ICs were used as a scaling
5-71
1.
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
B 1.0
D 8.6
5-72
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Finally, the base failure rate constant for hybrids was normalized to
correspond to a ground benign environment. The base failure rates
determined from the data corrcspond to a ground fixed environment. The
observed nonoperating base failure rate was divided by the ground fixed
environment factor (ItNE,GF = 2.4 for hermetic devices). The normalized
hybrid nonoperating base failure rate constant was therefore determined to
be .0000817.
5-73
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
The 12.2 cut-off value was equal to the highest complexity found in
the data. The second base failure rate is intuitively correct for several
reasons. First, it provides continuity with the low complexity base
failure rate. Additionally, it would be anticipated that an increase in
hybrid components for very complex hybrids would have less overall effect
on the hybrid nonoperating failure rate as a similar increase on a simple
device. Additionally, the second base failure rate iquatior still
increases with the number of diodes, number of transistors and number of
integrated circuits.
5-74
/ W
/LM
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
Ng = number of gates
= number of transfer gates plus number of dissipative control
gates plus number of major loops
INT1 = control structure nonoperating temperature factor
exp(-6159( 1
=exp-uJ.J~T 28)
F-
where
where
NL = number of loops
= number of major loops plus number of functional minor loops
where
5-75
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
exp(-6159(i - 1 -
5-76
4...
.A
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
where
An = temperature coefficient
T = ambient nonoperating temperature (OK)
wNE = nonoperating environmental factor
5-77
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
failure rate prediction model. Estimates for Abi and Ab2 are the
following.
V8
5-78
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Transistors
where
where
T temperature (OK) V
5-79 •..
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
5-80
ji V ~ - - . . - - - - -~
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
Diodes
where
5-81
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
NOTES: (1) This study did not address Space Flight environment
5-82
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
T - temperature (OK)
An a temperature coefficient (see Table 5.2.1-1)
Tm,P a shaping parameters (see Table 5.2.1-1)
INQ a nonoperating quality factors
- 0.57, JANTXV
- 1.0, JANTX
- 3.6, JAN
- 13, lower, hermetic
a 23, plastic
RNE a nonoperating environmental factor (see Table 5.2.1-3)
,cyc o equipment power on-off cycling factor
- 1 + .-8 3(Nc)
where
Opto-electronic Devices
where
5-83
.......
...
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
AUB 50 70 60 105 70
AUA 40 40 35 ý80 40
AUF 50 70 65 110 70
SF (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
MFF 12 12 12 36 12
FFA 17 17 17 50 17
USL 36 36 36 110 36
ML 41 41 41 120 41
CL 690 690 690 2000 690
NOTES: (1) This study did not address Space Flight environment
r69 60 20 6
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
NOTES: (1) This study did not address Space Flight environment
"5-85
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
5-86
,..vi
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
I. Device Style
A. Group I
1. SI,NPN
2. Si,PNP
3. Ge,NPN
4. Ge,PNP
B. Group II
1. Si,FET
2. GaAs,FET
C. Group III (Unijunction)
D. Group IX (Microwave)
I1. Application
A. Linear E. Driver
B. Switch F. Pulse Amplifier
C. Low Noise G. Continuous Wave
D. High Frequency H. Oscillator
III. Complexity
* A. Single Device E. Dual Emitter
B. Dual (matched) F. Multiple Emitter
C. Dual (unmatched) G. Complementary Pair
D. Darlington Pair H. Tetrode
V. Quality Level
A. JANTXV
B. JANTX
C. JAN
D. Lower, Hermetic
E. Plastic
VII. Temperature
A. Rated
B. Actual
VIII. Number of Power On/Off Cycles per 103 Nonoperating Hours
5-87
}S
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Matrices of "dummy variables" (0 or 1) were defined for device style ' '
5-88
.ýQ 0,7-.
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Part
Data Hours
Equipment/Source Records Quality Style Failures (X16
Hawk/MICOM 9 JANTX Si,NPN 6 5189.5
Hawk/MICOM 5 JANTX Si,PNP 2 2484.1
Hawk/MICOM 5 JANTX FET 3 2501.2
Hawk/MICOM 1 JANTX Microwave 1 17.0
Maverick/MICOM 6 JANTX Si,NPN 4 1400.1
Maverick/MICOM 3 JANTX Si,PNP 4 1482.5
Maverick/MICOM 1 JANTX FET 0 41.2
Sparrow/MICOM 1 JAN Si,PNP 0 25.5
Sparrow/MICOM 9 JAN Si,NPN 1 408.3
Sparrow/MICOM 3 JAN FET 0 25.5
Sprint/MICOM 8 JANTX Si,PNP 0 489.8
Sprint/MICOM 3 JANTX Si,NPN 2 1446.2
TOW/MICOM 3 JANTX Ge,PNP 0 13.1
TOW/MICOM 4 JANTX Si,NPN 0 107.7
TOW/MICOM 3 JANIX Si,PNP 0 39.4
Lance/MICOM 4 JANTX Si,PNP 0 11.2
Lance/MICOM 4 JANTX Si,NPN 0 15.7
Martin Marietta 3 JANTX Si,PNP 1 1326.4
Martin Marietta. 3 JANTX Si,NPN 6 4076.1
Martin Marietta 1 JANTX Ge,NPN 0 20.8
Martin Marietta 1 JANTX Ge,PNP 0 44.8
Martin Marietta 1 JANTX FET 0 71.7
Martin Marietta 1 ANX Uni junction 0 1.0
F-16 HUD/RIW 8 JANTX S1,NPN 4 350.0
F-16 HUD/RIW 5 JANTX Si,PNP 0 363.3
AFCIQ (1) 4 (2) Si,PNP 3 8.7 ..
L
5-89 .
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Device Style S1 S2 S3
Si,NPN 0 0 0
SI,PNP 1 0 0
FET 0 1 0
o cycling rates less than one power cycle every two years (cycl,
cyc2, cyc3 = 0,0, 0).
o cycling rates between one cycle per year and one cycle every two
years (cycl, cyc2, cyc3 = 1, 0, 0).
o cycling rates greater than one cycle per year (cycl, cyc2, cyc3 -
0, 0, 1).
o unknown cycling frequencies. L
5-90
. • •I
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
Ki1 constant
The data were then merged and regress analysis applied. The data
were merged according to equipment, device style, complexity and quality
level by si,nming the number of failures and part hours. For example, the
number of failures and part hours were summed for all JANTX, FET devices
in the Hawk missile. Initially, two regression analyses were performed.
In each case the dependent variable was equal to the natural logarithm of
nonoperating failure rate. One regression was performed to evaluate the
validity of the diode nonoperating quality factor (described in Section
5.2.3) for transistor nonoperating failure rate prediction. This approach
was taken because of the belief that screening effects transistors and
diodes similarly, and because only one data source was available for JA,
transistors.
The initial regression indicated that the ratio of JAN to JANTX device
nonoperating failure rate was equal to 2.24. This was compared to the
corresponding value of 3.63 for diodes. A 90% confidence interval around
the point estimate ratio for transistors was computed to be 0.83 and 6.03.
This relatively large interval was due in part to the limited amourt of
JAN device data. The data did not disprove that the observed ratio for
diodes could also be apo'ied for transistor nonoperating failure rate r
prediction. Therefore, the ratio of 3.63 determined for diodes was
5-91
- * .. . .
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
S.J.,
Standard Confidence
5-92
L
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
where .
5-93
>-.;" r.T.7"-;,.w•:,:,
•,C••=• ,, ;-:,:
.'w-ei.•'
:-,"T•;"x•.',..,~'v•<.-,• -•-,• •¢•,w'-ww'~-,w:., €, •v 9 i
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
The next phase of the nonoperating failure rate model development was
to estimate appropriate nonoperating environmental factors. The methods
presented in Section 4.5 were applied to determine applicable factors.
This method assumes that a series of nonoperating environmental factors
can be generated from the MIL-HDBK-217 operating environmental factors
based on (1) a comparison of application temperature differences, and (2)
a comparison of operating and nonoperating failure mechanism accelerating A
factors. Operating temperatures are typically higher because of the
internal heat generation. However, the effects of this temperature •N "
difference are predicted by the respective operating and proposed
nonoperating temperature factors. Therefore, no temperature adjustment L
was required for transistors. A comparison was made between operating and
nonoperating failure, mechanisms and failure accelerating factors. A
surrntry of the failure mechanism comparisons are presented in Tables
5.2.2-5 and 5.2.2-6 for bipolar single and power transistors, and FETs . /
respectively. References 42 and 43 included transistor failure V-
mode/mechanism information. Quantitative failure mechanism distributions
were essentially impossible to locate for nonoperating applications, and
often conflicting for operating applications. Nevertheless, it was
determined that the operating transistor environmental factors approximate
the effect of environmental stress for nonoperating failure rate. These
factors were presented in Table 5.2.1-2 in Section 5.2.1.
5-94
.
M... .
T..... .... .. ........
..
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
oCCI
LA CD 0 n L
0 4J
zm C
W ~ 4 +3-4 " -4C' 'J %C3~
"4
V- V-
9-4 L -4 .9-4U n
4d 4
*9-*-)4)1 4)
- a, 4)4) CC * ** 4
be -V SI-- to OE
C (A
OUo0U
4J 4) c V
to 0 4) W V
S- S-) a, L0
C40 C -
0 G3e 40 ,
4-*- 9- V 4V
Ki e-f4 ) 'u4
cc' VC W'
a a4 )LN 0C OC
S..R 4 )J 4U L
a, 0
'a . u C 1.
* LL. 0 V 4)
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
4-) 0
cococ-t OLf
C.O Ln m
LnU 12?
S-41 -4 r4 -4 -4v-4C' (% . I
C..0 -44-O OIn UIn -4ý
o 4.
ccC.
*9-C*9- J(DU
mLn qc OLC)
C>O
C-.)
u~.9
!mNeS
Aj 4jjWf
Im
W
goU
U.
-
00
041
= S-
4)
-
S
C .
-
M..
0 0)
S-
II
Q>
4J .J
*l 4-3 af~lS. E 0.- a0
to 0 (UF >
S.- - 4141 a, 4-3 4
*ý()
- 4-) r_) 7).9 . - Ct
LA C- d) U toE -le- 00
S. . .9 4) 4.). S- 44) 4)
-L. E, S-~ S- E *.
-- .- =0 =a 0 a) V d) >S
.4.
0 0o
0 4-C-00
.- U) 4- E to.
4-a.--o
u , .-&-
0 a) E 0 0
C 4-)U N 0 C
Eu 0
uaIM 00 E~
a, 4)V - *9- CL) 0~ 4- 0
U4-~ a, 04-i
a S- 4a,-) -4 .)* (1)
- a) 0
ao -.- 0
LL- 0 (A) A-
5-96
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
The form of the assumed nonoperating temperature factor was based on the
relationship of operating failure rate versus temperature in MIL-HDBK-
217D. In approximate terms, the Tm shaping parameter is the temperature
(expressed in degrees Kelvin) were the equivalent Arhennius relationship
is no longer applicable, and the P shaping parameter provides an
indication of how fast the assumed relationship deviates from the
equivalent Arhennius relationship.
5-97
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
assumed that the relatively higher failure rates from the high temperature
data were due only to the increased temperatures. The effects of the
other variables were eliminated by using the previously determined factors
for quality, equipment power cycling and environment. Specifically, two
simultaneous equations were solved for each high temperature data entry.
Unknown parameters were the nonoperating base failure rate and the An
temperature coefficient. The nonoperating base failure rate was 'Unknown
The two equations used for the temperature analysis, and solved
simultaneously were the following. The first equation was the regression
solution found earlier for an average field storage temperature of 200C
(or 293 0 K). The second equation was the assumed model for the high to
temperature storage data. In the first equation, the preliminary base
6
failure rate (.00130 f/10 hours) corresponded to JANTX quality, a ground
fixed environment, a temperature of 200C, and no equipment power on-off
cycling. Therefore, the previously determined values for those parameters
were inserted in the first equation given below. In the second equation,
the observed high temperature storage life test failure rate corresponded
to an equivalent quality of lower, hermetic, ground benign environment,
temperatures ranging from 150oC to 2000C and approximately 3 power cycles PAZ
per 103 hours. The corresponding factors for these parameters were
inserted in the second equation.
5-98
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
Unique solutions for An were found for each of the five high
temperature storage life test data entries. These data entries and the
solutions for An are presented in Table 5.2.2-7. The proposed temperature
coefficient of 3356 for Si,NPN transistors was the average An value for
entries I and 2 in Table 5.2.2-7. Similarly, the proposed temperature
coefficient of 3541 for Si,PNP transistors was the average An value for
entries 3, 4 and 5. It was noted that the proposed values were higher
than the corresponding operating temperature coefficients (NT in Table
5.1.3-2, MIL-HDBK-217D). One possible explanation for this observation
was that there are fewer stresses acting on a part during nonoperation,
and therefore. the failure rate is more sensitive to each individual
stress. It was also noted that the absolute difference between the
proposed An values for Si,PNP and Si,NPN was very similar to the
corresponding difference between operating temperature coefficients.
Part
Entry Hour Equivalent Temperature
No. Failures (X1Ob) Xo(1) Style Quality (oC) An(2)
1 3 7.35 0.41 Si,NPN lower 150 4021
2 9 13.41 0.67 Si,NPN lower 200 ?690 .0ý
3 3 0.88 3.41 Si,PNP lower 175 4979
4 0 6.53 <0.15 SI,PNP lower 150 <3159
5 0 1.30 <0.77 Si,PNP lower 200 <2486
NOTES: (1) Observed failure rate. One failure was assumed for data
entries without failures
(2) An transistor temperature coefficient
5-99
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
difference between operating and nonoperating ý.ould be the same for the
other device styles as the observed difference for Si,PNP and Si,NPN. The
MIL-HDBK-217D failure rate prediction model for microwave transistors
assumes the equivalent Arhennius relationship applied for the entire
temperature range found during normal usage. The complete set of
temperature coefficients and shaping parameters is presented in Table
5.2.1-1 of Section 5.2.1.
4 i,
5400 •=.•
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
= .00039, FET
= .0013, Unijunction
.041,Microwave
;rNT nonoperating temperature factor
= K
fNQ = assumed nonoperating quality factor
NNE = nonoperating environmental factor
•cyc = equipment power on-off cycling factor
1 + .069(Nc)
where
5-101
• '.- .- ',,,•, •.•", n " """-, "., ,•: - o.w-, .y '. • ",-, '"" ' :,:.. ... :)
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
5-102
, .S( WI
N%
is
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
I. Device Style .J
A. Group IV Purpose
1. Si, General Purpose
2. Ge, General Purpose
B. Group V (Zener & Avalanche)
C. Group VI (Thyristors)
D. Group VII (Microwave Diodes)'
1. Microwave Detector
2. Microwave Mixer
3. Schottky Detector "/.
E. Group VIli
1. Varactor
2. PIN
3. IMPATT
4. Step recovery
5. Tunnel
6. Gunn
II. Application
A. Analog Circuits
B. Switching
C. Power Rectifier
D. Voltage Regulator
E. Voltrage Reference
III. Rated Power (watts)
VII. Number of Equipment Power On/Off Cycles per 103 Nonoperating Hours
5-103
V•
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
5-104
Z;ý. ~ '.J j
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
"Dummy variable" matrices were defined for device style and quality.
Statistical techniques such as regression analysis and correlation
coefficient analysis require that variables are quantitative. Conversely,
device style and quality level are qualitative variables. Therefore,
definition of the matrices was necessary to accommodate the techniques
required for nonoperating failure rate model development. The matrix for
device style is presented in Table 5.2.3-3. Three variables were required
to represent four distinct diode styles. The three variables were
designated S1, S2, and S3 . The matrix for quality level was simply a "0"11
for JANTX diodes and a "I" for JAN diodes. This variable was designated
"Q10
.- ,. • . . . . . •5 . . . .
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Diode Style S1 S2 S3
Si, General Purpose 0 0 0 •.
Zener 1 0 0
Thyristor 0 1 0
Microwave 0 0 r
o cycling rates less than one power cycle every two years (cycl,
cyc2, cyc3 = 0,0,0).
0 cycling rates between one cycle per year and one Lycle every two
years (cycl, cyc2, cyc3:= 1,0,0).
o cycling rates greater than one cycle per year (cycl, cyc2, cyc3
1,0,0).
o unknown cycl ing, rates (cvcl, cyc2, cyc3 0,0,1).
introduced into the analysis were S1, S2, S3 , Q1, cycl, cyc2 and cyc3.
The S3 variable was significant with 90% confidence, the Q1 variable was
significant with 70% and S1, S2 and cyc2 were significant with 60%
confidence.
"5-107
SdZ Z
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
equation where failure rate (as opposed to log of failure rate) is the
dependent variable results in the following multiplicative model,.
where
Ad
Anb
=
=
predicted diode nonoperating failure rate
The variables S1, $2, $3, Q1 and cyc2 have been previously defined. It
must be emphasized that this equation represents a preliminary model, )
which is only applicable to a ground based environment with an average •!
nonoperating temperature of 20oC. r
where
6
Xnb = preliminary nonoperating base failure rate (failures/10
nonoperating hours)
= 0.000528, Si, general purpose
= 0.00132, Zener
= 0.00196, Thyristor
= 0.0146, Microwave
jNQ = nonoperating quality factor
= 1.0, JANTX
= 3.64, JAN
itcyc = equipment power on-off cycling factor
I,= 1 + .083(Nc)
where
:• ~5-109
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Data were only available for JANTX and JAN diode quality levels.
However, it was essential that a proposed diode nonoperating failure rate
prediction model include applicable nonoperating quality factors for each
quality level presented previously in Table 5.2.3-1. Therefore,
appropriate nonoperating quality factor values were extrapolated by
assuming (1) that the nonoperating values would have a similar numerical
ranking as the corresponding operating values, and (2) that the
nonoperating values follow an increasing geometric progression. Table
5.2.3-6 presents the regression solution quality factor values, the
extrapolated values for JANTXV, lower and plastic, and a 90% confidence
interval computed around the point estimate value for JAN quality. The
proposed values are normalized to a JANTX factor equal to one by
definition. Conversely, the MIL-HDBK-217D diode quality factors do not
appear to be normalized to any quality level.
5-110
j. A
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
•NQ2( 2)
Quality Level irNQ,.05 •NQ1() 7rNQ,.95
NOTES: (1) 1TNQ1 are the observed point estimate nonoperating quality
factors.
The next phase of the model development process was to apply the
methods described in Section 4.5 to dezermine nonoperdting environmental
factors. This method assumed that appropriate nonoperating environmental
factors could be generated from the corresponding MIL-HDBK-217D operating
environmental factors by (1) comparing the difference in temperature, and
(2) comparing the operating and nonoperating failure mechanism
accelerating factors. No temperature adjustment was required for diode
nonoperating environmental factors because the operating base failure rate
(which is a function of temperature) and the proposed nonoperating
temperature factor account for relative failure rate differences caused by
internally generated heat. The comparison of failure mechanisms and
failure mechanism accelerating factors indicated that the effects of
environmental stress on nonoperating failure rate could be predicted by
use of the MIL-HDBK-217D environmental factors. The complete series of
diode nonoperating environmental factors is presented in Table 5.2.1-3 in
Section 5.2.1. Tables 5.2.3-7 and 5.2.3-8 on the following pages present
failure mode/mechanism and failure acceleration factor distributions for
diodes in both the operating and nonoperating state. Accurate
quantitative nonoperating failure mechanism information was extremely
difficult to locate. Therefore, much of the information provided in
Tables 5.2.3-7 and 5.2.3-8 was hypothesized. References 41, 42 and 43
proved to be useful for developing these distributions.
5-111 'Y
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
49- C ~ 0L
L4.)
= 0 I- I4 -4 V-I1
GI.0 Vw.4 -0 . 0
0 - C-C~JC
o 4.)
I-A
M C
CO-44 MI
4-.J4.) I I z-'I 01'C 00u
II I I Ontfl
I I
go. = D-4 - 4L r
9-a
0)-
Cie
cc9
U- 4-3
0 0 0
P- 0.0 00
m*
"9 4)4. 4J 4 4)E
u 00 E L 00 00E
0-
U C-
4) E u~ r--0 .
CV 4) 0
0 4 (A - 4OJ4- #
(D4- 41C 0
0 (D 00 4J t 0) 4-3
C .- 4J' .- 0-
m )4 c
(AU 4- -
UD 0 43' L)O 4J 4)
00 M..
U.. 0 O
5N1-W
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
a-)= n _4-4C a In -4 ii
(A 0. *-;.
Ol 04-1
ZCO0 Otf)
0L ul)) U~LnLn Ln
=~~~ 4)4-4l -4 i
Ms1-
U.S
-. J4
la 0 0 0
CDS 4)
41)14
40 4-3
4.)4
tn . . c0 .0.0 4.0
be.be . E) d Ne- .*9 U9
v- v )4)S_ S_.)u
U 00o1s 1-00 02
co u .0 .- = .C C .C
I fll4)U
W VU u AfA.
-1 41
4o
+3 W, 4-
I.- 0 -' 10
4)3 V MO '04-'
C 4) -
0 m 4J. .4)
2A
S @ L 4-
4) ~ W
~ to.
M=
0.
u )
C'
4. 4)
C
0.
(
C 4- U *'C S_1
u o a)- 4-J 0 (A '4tM 4-
-
v fd 31"0 43 '0~
w to 1-MC 1- 9
V9 d) 0 D5
S 0. &_ 44S. -
iLi_ 0 an' , -
5-113
'7U-7
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
1TT=1 1 T P
'NT :exp(-An(y- 2) + (m) )
where
High temperature storage life test data for transistors were used to
estimate An terms during the transistor nonoperating failure rate model
development. The Tm and P shaping parameter terms were assumed because of
data limitations. Nevertheless, the transistor temperature factor was
based on empirical data, and, therefore, is accurate in the range of 1500C
to 2000C. For other temperatures, accuracy of the proposed transistor
temperature factor is dependent on the accuracy of the assumptions. An
values for transistor styles without data were extrapolated using the MIL-
HDBK-217D relationship for failure rate vs. temperature. It was decided
to extend the extrapolation process to also include diodes as a method to
determine appropriate diode nonoperating temperature factors. This ;--
assumption was justified because of documented similarities (i.e. MIL- -':
HDBK-217D) between the temperature relationships of transistors and
5-114
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
diodes. The extrapolated series of An values and the assumed values for
Tm and P are presented in Table 5.2.1-1 of Section 5.2.1.
5L1
5-115
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
5-116
S.~
74ýý/ / /M
I -/
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
I. Device Style
A. Light Emitting Diode (LED)
B. Isolator
1. Photodiode Detector
2. Phototransistor Detector
3. Light Sensitive Resistor ,
C. Phototransistor
D. Photodiode
E. Alpha-numeric Display
II. Complexity t
A. Single Isolator
B. Dual Isolator
III. Quality Level
A. JANTXV
B. JANTX
C. JAN
D. Lower, Hermetic
E. Plastic
IV. Number of Pins
V. Temperature
VI. Application Environment
VII. Number of Equipment Power On/Off Cycles per 103 Nonoperating Hours
5-117
a\
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
5-118
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
device style. Additional factors would only serve to complicate the •..-.
proposed model without resulting in any significant improvement in model '•"
accuracy. The proposed model is therefore represented by the following• -,i'ii
equati on. •'•..
where •}
=f(device style)
lINQ -- assumned nonoperating quality factor •'
•NE = nonoperating environmental factor .• •
5-119.
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
The extreme case analyses did not indicate any deficiencies with the
proposed models. At extremely high levels of equipment power cyclino,
the
5-120
"WINWN-•'
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
The field experience nonoperating failure rate data from AFCIQ were
not used in the model development process because vital information such
as equipment power cycling frequency and part screen class could not be
precisely determined. However, these parameters were estimated and the
data were used for model validation purposes. Tables 5.2.5-1 and 5.2.5-2
presents the model validation data for transistors and diodes
respectively.
'1
5-121
Z . .- ..
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Part
Hours Temp. Equiv.
No. Failures (xj0 6 ) Style (oC) Quality X.0 5 )-.95 ýpre(1)
5IL
5-122 ""
~ ~ A' / -
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Part
Hours Temp. Equiv.
No. Failures (xj0 6 ) Style (oC) Quality X.05 Xo X.95 Xpre(1)
Totals 77 25468
5-123
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
zK
5-124
-Xi
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
5.3 Resistors
where .
5-125
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
GB 1 1 1 1 11 1
GF 2.9 2.4 2.4 2.1 4.8 2.5 2.5
GM 8.3 8.3 7.8 8.8 23 13 13
Mp 8.5 9.9 8.8 11 17 .18 19
NSB 4 4.7 4.2 5 7.9 7 7
NS 5.2 4.9 4.7 5 14 7 7
NU 12 15 14 15 17 14(3) 17
NH 13 16 14 17 25 29 29
NUU 14 17 15 18 27 31 31 yjý
ARW 19 22 19 24 33 41 41
I
AIC 3 3 2.5 4.3 4.3 5.5 12
AIT 3.5 4.5 3 7.3 7.7 6.6 16
AIB 5 6.8 6.5 12 19 9.5 24
AIA 3.5 5.8 6 9.7 15 8.6 22
AIF 6.5 9.5 9 13 38 14 33
AUC 5 7.5 6 10 4.6 6.5(3) 19
AUT 7 11 6.5 13 8.6 9 (3) 25
AUB 10 18 15 23 21 18 (3) 37
AUA 7 13 15 18 17 13 (3) 32
AUF 15 23 20 28 42 20 (3) 52
SF (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) R •!
NOTES: 1) WW Wirewound
5-126
"'.-MT
ixA.,z, It
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
5-127
'tZ:3V
/
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
I. Device Style
A. Fixed
F
B. Variable
1. Non-wirewound (RV, RJ, RVC, RQ, RJR)
2. Wirewound (RA, RP, RR, RT, RK, RTR)
C. Thermistor (RTH)
1. Bead
2.. Disk
3. Rod
II. Resistance (ohms)
III. Rated Power (watts)V
IV. Quality Level
A. S
B. P
C. R
D.-
E.
F.
M
Mi1-Spec
lower
r
V. Number of Potentiometer Taps
VI. Construction Class
A. Enclosed 3,
B. Unenclosed
VII. Number of Pins (style RZ only)
VIII. Number of Resistors (style RZ only) L
IX. Temperature
A. Rated
B. Actual
X. Application Environment
XI. Number of Power On/Off Cycles per 103 Nonoperating Hours
5-128
F-~:.
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
Initially the data was evaluated with each data record separate (i.e.
no data records were merged). Point estimate failure rates were computed
for data records with observed failures. The methods described in Section
3.3 were applied to determine which zero failure data records had
sufficient part hours to be included in the analysis, and to estimate
failure rate for those records. It was found that 43 data records either
5-129
* %
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Data Parts
Equipment/Source Records Style Fai'lures Hours (x106 )
Sprint/MICOM 3 Wirewound 0 31.0
Sprint/MICOM 4 Composition 0 4300.0
Sprint/MICOM 1 Film 0 147.1
Sparrow/MICOM 116 Composition 2 4478.9 -
5-130
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
5-131 ,'
+\
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
The fact that temperature could not be empirically analyzed was al;o a
problem. However, after careful consideration of many factors, it was
decided not to include temperature in the failure rate prediction model.
This decision was based on three reasons or observations. First., a
temperature relationship could not be determined from the data.
Therefore, any proposed temperature factor would be based on assumptions,
which introduce inaccuracies. The second reason was that no theoretical
relationship for resistor nonoperating failure rate vs. temperature could
be located in the literature. In addition, there was no basis for
assumptions that the nonoperating failure rate behaves similarly to the
operating rate with respect to temperature. The stresses on the part are
necessarily different due to the absence of an applied current. Therefore
an approach of that nature was determined to be invalid. The third reason
was that the temperature dependence of resistor nonoperating failure rate
was believed to be significantly less than the temperature dependence for
microcircuits and discrete semiconductors. The proposed nonoperating
failure rate for these devices (described in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of this
report) does include a temperature factor. Therefore, the absence of a
temperature factor for low failure rate devices, such as resistors, would
rot siMnificantly effect equipment-level failure rate predictions. It also
5-132
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
should be noted that the very high temperatures during operation are not
observed during nonoperating periods because of the absence of internal
heat generation and the associated cooling problems. In conclusion, it is
emphasized that direct numerical analysis of the relationship of resistor
nonoperating failure rate and temperature would have been desirable.
However, it is also emphasized that deletion of ambient temperature from
the model development process was believed to have little effect on the
accuracy of the proposed resistor nonoperating failure rate prediction
model.
The data were then merged according to equipment, device style, and
quality level. The data were merged by summing observed failures and
summing part hours. For example, all data for B screen class, fixed
composition resistors in the Hawk missile were merged. The correlation
coefficient analysis indicated no large correlation between independent
variables for the merged data set. K
5-133
-p ~pp -p~
¶:~-Vpj~.'-~ * p ~*
. **• .j "*'J*
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Device Style S1 S2 S3 S4
Variable 0 0 0 0
Fixed, Wirewound 1 0 0 0
Fixed, Film 0 1 0 0
Fixed, Composition 0 0 i 0
Thermistor 0 0 0 1
o cycling rates less than one power cycle every two years (cyci,
cyc2, cyc3 = 0,0,0),
o cycling rates between one cycle Der year and one cycle every two
years (cycl, cyc2, cyc3 = 1,0,0),
o cycling rates greater than one cycle per year (cycl, cyc2, cyc3
0,1,0), and
5-134
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
The first three categories were designated as (1) low, (2) intermediate,
and (3) high cycling frequencies, respectively.
significant (i.e. the f-ratio for the S4 variable exceeded the critical-f
5-135
j.. ..
A.7
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
standard confidence
variable coefficient error f-ratio limit
S1 -2.386 0.637 14.04 .90
Xr nb"NQ cyc
where
5-136
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
= .00664, thermistors
The variables S1, S2 , S3, Q1 and cyc2 have been previously defined. It is
emphasized that the above equation represents a preliminary model, which
is only applicable to ground based environments.
' 5-137 n
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
The next step in the model development process was to perform the
iterative regression analyses to accommodate the assumed non-linear model
form. It has been documented (Reference 42) that the effect of equipment
power on-off cycling is best represented by an equation of the following
f orm:
where
K2 = normalization constant
= 1/0.977 = 1.023
5-138
44.
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
For resistors, only one iteration was required. The preliminary model
at this stage of the model development process is given by the following
equation:
where
5439 j.
'/'.÷
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
The next task in the model development process was to apply the ..
methods presented in Section 4.5 to determine nonoperating environmental
factors. This method assumes that a series of nonoperating environmental
factors can be derived from the MIL-HDBK-217D operating environmental
factors. A conversion algorithm was determined based on a comparison of
5-140
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
S....
t ••. • ,.-.• . , .> . . . I,--,-,•7
.. - . ...... . . • ..-- ,., . . •. • - . ,.. . .. • ... - • ... .. ,, •- :
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Operating Nonoperating
Failure Failure Accelerating Distribution Distribution
Mode Mechanism Factors (%) (%)
resistance wire im- voltage/ 10-35 1-10
drift perfection current, temp.
wire insula- voltage/ 15-40 1-15
tion flow current, temp.
corrosion temp., humidity 10-35 35-55
open lead defect shock, vibration, 1-20 1-20
voltage/current
wire im- voltage/current 1-20 1-10
perfection
corrosion temp., humidity 1-20 15-40
short intrawinding temp., voltage/ 1-10 1-10
insulation current
breakdown
Operating Nonoperating
Failure Failure Accelerating Distribution Distribution
Mode Mechanism Factor (%) (%)
resistance contamination temp., conta- 15-35 20-45
drift mination
short insulation
breakdown
moisture, temp.,
voltage/current
5-25 5-15 .
contamination contamination, 1-12 5-20
bridging moisture, temp.
open wiper arm mechanical 1-20 0-5
wear actuations
seal defects contamination, 1-20 5-30
moisture, temp.
mechanical jamming, mechanical 7-27 0-5
stripping actuations
5-143
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Operating Nonoperating
Failure Failure Accelerating Distribution Distribution
Mode Mechanism Factors (%) (%)
resistance corrosion temp., humidity 40-60 45-65
drift
Operating Nonoperating
Failure Failure Accelerating Distribution Distribution
Mode Mechanism Factors (%) (%)
body
anomalies
temp., voltage/
current
20-40 14-35
p
open lead termina- vibration, 10-30 5-25 , :
tion defect temp., voltage/
current j
non-uniform temp., voltage 1-20 1-20
resistance
material
short various temp., contamina- 0-15 0-15
tion voltage/
currelt
5-144
-/
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
L
during the failure mechanism analysis and the failure mechanism
comparisons are,
The next step in the model development process was to extrapolate base
failure rate values for resistor styles which had no data. In addition,
the base failure rate values were normalized to correspond to a ground
benign environment and a M quality level. It was considered desirable to
normalize the base failure rate values to be consistent with MIL-HDBK-
217D. The base failure rates determined from the data correspond to a
ground fixed environment and a P screen class. The observed base failure
rates were divided by the ground fixed environmental factor and the P
quality factor (ITNQ3 = 0.52 in Table 5.3.2-5) to obtain the normalized
base failure rates. The nonoperating environmental factor and
nonoperating quality factor had previously been normalized to the desired
levels. The normalization process had no effect whatsoever on the
resultant resistor nonoperating failure rate prediction. In fact, the
base failure rate, nonoperatinq environmental factor, and nonoperating
-AA
IrI
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Table 5.3.2-12 presents the normalized base failure rates, the ' t
extrapolated base failure rate values, and upper and lower confidence
interval values for resistor styles with data. The upper and lower 90%
confidence interval values were also normalized to correspond to a ground
benign environment and M quality level. ri.
5-146
'VW. 1-7(.
-6ýr ~
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
then the variable resistor point estimate base failure rate previously
presented in Table 5.3.2-12, was applied to the respective variable
resistor style. This was the case for non-wirewound trimmer, wirewound
precision, and non-wirewound film variable resistors. For wirewound
trimmer variable resistors, the upper 90% confidence interval value was
less than the predicted failure rate. Therefore, it was concluded that
the nonoperating failure rate of wirewound trimmer variable resistors was
divergent from the remaining variabie resistor styles and required a
unique base failure rate value. A multiplicative base failure rate
adjustment factor for wirewound trimmer variable resistors was derived by
computing the ratio of the observed point estimate failure rate to the
predicted failure rate (Adjustment Factor = .00453/.0237 - .191). The
variable resistor base failure rate was then adjusted accordingly. For
variable resistor styles where no data were available, the operating
failure rate rankings found from MIL-HDBK-217 were inspected to aid in the
analysis. It was found that the operating failure rates for the variable
resistor styles without data (i.e. wirewound semiprecision, wirewound
power, non-wirewound composition, and non-wirewound precision) were ranked
between non-wirewound trimmer and wirewound precision. It was assumed
that the nonoperating failure rates would have a similar ranking and
therefore the regression solution base failure rate would also be
applicable to these resistor styles. It should also be noted that the
operating MIL-HDBK-217D failure rate prediction for wirewound trimmer
variable resistnrs was also substantially lower than other variable
resistor styles.
5-147
K I
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
where
5-148
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
The extreme case analysis did not indicate any deficiencies with the
proposed model. At extremely high levels of equipment power cycling, the
nonoperating failure rate becomes directly proportional to the equipment
power cycling frequency. At low levels of equipment power cycling, the
l) proposed resistor nonoperating failure rate approaches a constant value.
These extreme case results confirm initiative reliability relationships.
At extremely high equipment power cycling rates, the nonoperating failure
"rate would be expected to be dominated by failures induced by the power
on-off cycle. Thus, the proportional relationship between the two
variables was anticipated. At extremely low equipment power cycling
rates, the failure rate would be expected to be equal to the inherent
storage/dormant failure rate, and independent of power cycling frequency.
The resistor nonoperating failure rate data collected from AFCIQ were
not used in the model development process because vital information such
as equipment power cycling frequency and part screen class could not be
precisely determined. However, the AFCIQ data was extremely useful for
model evaluation purposes. Table 5.3.3-1 presents the AFCIQ resistor
nonoperating failure rate data and the corresponding failure rate
prediction from the proposed model. The part types were not screened
according to identical specifications. However, equivalent quality levels
were determined. Additionally, one equipment power cycle per year was
assumed to compute the failure rate prediction. All AFCIQ data records
were for a ground fixed environment except record number 13, which
corresponds to a laboratory environment.
•N-6
.~ %•
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
predicted failure rate was equal to 1.23 for those data entries with
observed failures or sufficient part hours to estimate a failure rate
without observed failures (i.e. record numbers 5, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17 in
Table 5.3.3-1). It is also noted that data records 5, 9 and 17 were for
commercial grade resistors. The proposed nonoperating quality factor for
commercial quality resistors was an extrapolated value. Therefore, it was
considered very encouraging that the geometric mean of the ratio of
observed to predicted failure rate for these three data entries was equal
to 0.91. It should also be noted that the predicted failure rate was not
within the 90% chi-squared confidence interval for two of these three
commercial quality data records. Field failure rates for lower quality
parts always exhibit a higher degree of vdriability, and therefore this A
observation was not surprising.
5-150
4..
/ j
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Ii
TABLE 5.3.3-1: RESISTOR MODEL VALIDATION DATA
Part
Hours Equiv.
No. Failures (X106) Style Quality ).05 Xo(1) X.95 Xpre(2)
Totals 17 16,390
5-151
S•.
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Capacitors S~5.4 L
where
=
=.10,
.23,
S
R
L
= .46, P -
= 1.0, M •
= 1.7, L"•i
= 2.5, MIL-SPEC
5-152.
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
= 5.3, lower
wNE = nonoperating environmental factor (See Table 5.4.1-1)
ncyc = equipment power on-off cycling factor
= 1 + .16(Nc)
whe i
5-153
JI
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Notes: (1) This environment not applicable for vacuum or gas, fixed and I
variable (CG) type capacitors.
(2) Cer. - Ceramic, Tant. Tantalum, Elec. Al. Aluminum
Electrolytic
5-154
*A 6
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
I. Device Style
A. Fixed
1. Paper/Plastic Film (CP,CZ,CA,CPV,CH,CHR,CQ,CQR,CFR,CRH)
2. Mica (CR,CM,CMR)
3. Glass (CY,CYR)
4. Ceramic (CC,CCR,CR,CRR)
5. Electrolytic (CE,CL,CLR,CSR,CU)
6. Fixed Vacuum or Gas (CG)
B. Variable (CV,CTPC,CG)
II. Capacitance (microfarads)
A. Slug
B. Foil
V. Seal
A.
B. Hermetic
Nonhermet i c• P i'
VII. Temperature
A. Rated
B. Actual
VIII. Application Environment
IX. Number of Power On/Off Cycles per 103 Nonoperating Hours.
"-.• -7ý
5-155
%'~
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Sto time. The theoretical model for capacitors is given by the following
f :equation (f denotes a function).
where
5-156
', C
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Data Part
Equipment/Source Records Style Failures Hours (xj06)
Hawk/MICOM 2 Film 0 1271.9
Hawk/MICOM 10 Ceramic 2 7299.3
Hawk/MICOM 3 Mica 0 1071.9
Hawk/MICOM 3 Electrolytic 0 3896.4
Hawk/MICOM 2 Variable 0 85.1
Maverick/MICOM 4 Film 1 453.0
Maverick/MICOM 1 Ceramic 0 1997.2
Maverick/MICOM 2 Mica 0 1235.4
Maverick/MICOM 2 Electrolytic 0 4838.7
Sparrow/MICOM 50 Film 6 1620.6
Sparrow/MICOM 77 Ceramic 0 650.8
Sparrow/MICOM 14 Mica 0 51.0
Sparrow/MICOM 42 Electrolytic 0 663.6
Sparrow/MICOM 34 Glass 0 1225.0
Sprint/MICOM 6 Mica 1 230.4
Sprint/MICOM 1 Glass 0 71.6
Sprint/MICOM 5 Ceramic 0 909.9
Sprint/MICOM 4 Electrolytic 0 104.6
Sprint/MICOM 1 Variable 1 9.7
TOW/MICOM 3 Film 1 63.1
TOW/MICOM 1 Mica 0 65.7
TOW/MICOM 1 Ceramic 0 131.4
TOW/MICOM 2 Electrolytic 0 63.1
Lance/MICOM 6 Film 0 32.4
Lance/MICOM 3 Mica 0 4.4
Lance/MICOM 6 Ceramic 0 11.2
Lance/MICOM 4 Electrolytic 2 17.9
Martin Marietta 7 Film 4 413.3
Martin Marietta 4 Mica 1 660.0
Martin Marietta 2 Glass 0 299.4
Martin Marietta 2 Ceramic 5 3832.4
Martin Marietta 5 Electrolytic 7 2613.2
Martin Marietta 4 Variable 1 133.4
F-16 HUD/RIW 7 Ceramic 14 4748.9 r
F-16 HUD/RIW 2 Electrolytic 2 1012.1
F-16 HUD/RIW 1 Glass 0 25.6 p
PRC 1 Electrolytic 0 27.0 K
Totals 324 48 41,840.6
5-157 :1
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
A qualitative matrix was also defined for quality level. The matrix
was simply a "0" for high-reliability parts and a "1" for mil-spec quality
parts. This variable was designated as QI. The quality matrix was not
defined to accommodate lower quality capacitors because no data of this
type was available.
Device Style S S2
S S3 S4 S5
Paper/plastic film 0 0 0 0 0
Ceramic 1 0 0 0 0
Mica 0 1 0 0 0
Solid tantalum 0 0 1 0 0
Non-solid tantalum 0 0 0 1 0
Variable, air trimmer 0 0 0 0 1
Since the theoretical capacitor model was nonlinear due to the assumed
relationship for equipment power cycling frequency, the approach to
nonlinear regression described in Section 4.3 was implemented to quantify
the nonlinear model. Equipment power cycling frequency was temporarily
treated as a qualitative variable. Constant multiplicative values were
computed by regression for three distinct cycling rate categories. Then a
two-dimensional regression was performed with the cycling rate .
coefficients from the initial regression as the dependent variable, and
the mean cycling rate value for each category as the ihdependent variable.
The result would be an expression for equipment cycling factor of the
desired form (i.e. cycling factor = mx + b). An iterative process was
5-159
• '• .:
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
then required. First, the equipment power cycling factor expression was
assumed exact, and the coefficients for all other variables recalculated.
Then, those coefficients were assumed to be exact and the equipment
cycling factor recalculated. The iterative process would continue until
observed changes were negligible. For capacitors, this process required
three iterations.
o cycling rates less than one power cycle every two years (cycl,
cyc2, cyc3 = 0,0,0).
o cycling rates between one cycle per year and one cycle every two
years (cycl, cyc2, cyc3 = 1,0,0), (3) cycling rates greater than
one cycle per year (cycl, cyc2, cyc3 = 0,1,0).
o cycling rates greater than one cycle per year (cycl, cyc2, cyc3 =
1,0,0).
o unknown cycling rates (cyci, cyc2, cyc3 =0,0,1).
5-160
MA/
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
The fact that temperature could not be empirically analyzed was also a
problem. However, after careful consideration of many factors, it was
decided not to include temperature in the nonoperating failure rate
prediction model. Similar to the discussion for resistor nonoperating
failure rate model development, there were three reasons determined to
support this decision. The first was that no temperature relationship
could be derived from the data due to the limited range of temperatures
available. The second reason was that no theoretical relationship was
identified in the literature which corresponded to nonoperating
conditions. The third reason was that the effect of temperature on
nonoperating failure was believed to be relatively low in comparison to K
microcircuits and discrete semiconductors. Therefore, an ;pproximate
assumed temperature relation for capacitors was not warranted.
At this stage of the model development process, the data were in the 4.
format required for application of regression analysis. Results of the
initial regression analysis are presented in Table 5.4.2-4. The dependent
variable was In(failure rate). The independent variables were SI, S2, S3 , v
S4 , S5 , QI, cycl, cyc2 and cyc3.
5-161 .. ..
%%%
/ \
/
/ Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
S~~Speci
Interpretation of the initial regression solution was that the
failure rate of mil-spec quality resistors is 3.9 times higher
than fi capacitors
cation. screened to the established reliability IL!
5) The cycl, cyc2 and cyc3 equipment power cycling variables were
significant with 80% confidence. This substantiated the
assumption that equipment power cycling is aro important variable
for predicting nonoperating failure rate.
I
bo -6.775 -- -- --
5-162
! ,
.~' ~ /
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
6
Xc = predicted capacitor nonoperating failure rate (failures/10
hours)
Xnb = base failure rate
= exp(-7.089 - 1.306(S1).- 1.879(S 3 ) + 1.120(S4) + 2.650(S 5 ))
= .000834, paper/plastic film
= .000834, mica
= .000226, ceramic
= .000127. solid tantalum
= .00256, nonsolid tantalum
"=.0118, variable
S•NQ = quality factor
= exp(1.361(Q1))
= 1.0, hi-rel
= 3.9, mil-spec
ircyc = equipment power cycling factor
= exp(.970(cycl) + 2.651(cyc2) + 1.446(cyc3))
3
= 1.0, cycling rate <.057 cycles/lO hr.
3
= 2.64, .057 < cycling rate < .114 cycles/10 hr.
3
= 14.17, cycling rate > .114 cycles/10 hr.
= 4.25, unknown cycling rate
= residual
The variables S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, Q1, cycl, cyc2 and cyc3 *have been
previously defined. It is emphasized that the above equation represents a
preliminary model, which is only applicable to ground based environments.
The observation that equipment power cycling variables cycl and cyc2
were identified as significant variables supports the assumption that
The
equipment power on-off cycling effects nonoperating failure rate.
be
cyc3 variable for unknown power cycling was also observed to
significantly different, with 80% confidence, from the low cycling
frequency values. This was attributed to several possible reasons. This
observation may be because the average cycling frequency for the unknown
5-163
.;.•.-•
I •" . "••:5 .".". '" ,-"-" .' "•',t >" , •," .•->•; " •" :;- ,'' :"'".•'.:'-'--'.-:-'-..-% ''• • .•'-.N'•
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
The next step in the model development process was to perform the
iterative regression analyses to accommodate the assumed non-linear model
form. It
has been documented (Reference 5) that the effect of equipment
power on-off cycling is best represented by an equation of the following
form:
5-164
!.
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
K2 = normalization constant
= 1/.60 = 1.66
where
"5-165
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
5-166
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
The next task in the capacitor model development process was to apply
the methods presented in Section 4.5 to determine nonoperating
environme-tal factors. The proposed capacitor nonoperating environmental
5-167
S.... 1V.
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
a~ c I 0)
41 41 10 0 4J4.
4%O I l LALALnL m
0 ý4- c-4NN M =- "-4 -4 LAnU
LAn
Lin. OL 0) kn
04~~ Nn 04D4-.-.- Lc4
L A0O V-4 00 kN
ce-4
(A
4M
0 .- Nn b. Cn
I L AADL
0m
u) C
9.- 4J)
> U.
39 >1 0 0. >1
C 0)
w) 0)4
C 0)
(D I-.o
0~ -0 9 S. 4J CS
0. L fol o ~
> 41 uS 4 > -j4
t. . 4- I) u J.
fo.. -) to ...
au. E.0 0. .0 a) U- O*.
0..00 C
0.M
0. (U E
EM
40
4. 4141). 4J 4J4- 4-) 4J 4J 4- 4-) .. .
LLii
4-) 4-)
a)) C .-
CC cC4 4.)
s 0 NL
C9- c j9 . C L '
0 0o
0) Ca C #0 ;l,
wJ LA; 11" 0 C
*L 00 a0
0 to I" 4j c 0
to OCS- c. cU
9
404) 4J S- Q.C 4. -0.
0)o' E- -- 00
- I" U u L 0)a
(UCA S L. 0- w s.C-) C- >0 d
S- 4 4 4 o4 4.) 0000 1.. '--C
cLuu u r. CA=' a. S
M U(D U W r, a LCU4 CO
. 0-)
ilo
E
4~)4.)4
"a-
0
S-f
S-
C M
u
m
4.)
C
,T
- WU
~ ) C M-W u
1*-
4J
(
.1.&
UC 0)0)00 W 0) (UL (20+) 0
c0 4-
0- w V C- '-~~
IL 000~
S) to ~ CL
o 0L A
T~~am 40%o)-
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
4. I. Ln LA) C) C)4 .- 4 n %
'at 0. 00
o0
I- S 0 0 1-s- n
4) 4J - )43
m 1~~~.4 ). - C m
a CA CL
0 Q
cm.. -
01C Ln
LL. IA3 CL4;L.(
m, 0 0 >0
S- 41 >3 1.1*4.
W -- - U - >-
4)~~- 4J-&J4J4 d
4J4- 41 S-.
= =
-~~0 =~ 0
0 4J. 4 0 l
43 3 ' to
3t r-43 9 D C
LLJ.
X, 4*w- 0 jb 43
Wm a0 u 4- 2L 4-1 4.(
S.- 4- S.. 4-
c. S-0 -)g 0 C c$- 0
LA. to 0o 'Vu 0o 'OAD
'I. -- o) U. - W
S- w 43 %- 4 41 4
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
cik
-l 0I
(M. 0 00 0
C-4-) CD
000 (y) m mv Ln Lc) C 4- L Lc)Ln Ln 0D LAOC
V) C%jCI\ .- 4 -4 r-4 ",4 C%J
i J%
41 411 Ik 41a
04-)
d) 04 004 1-. L
z CD
-S.. 41 4) U
4--
Lii 0
CC
0 V 0J4 0 +
C m4t) 4
-o 0 eo .- 40 )
0) 0
co ~ ~ .w -j
x
(a
to >1
M) > 0 /4
0u -4 to C 4-( S 4 o C
0)Q 04 - V C0
) 00410 U- 0a 4
0)(f . ) C- 4J f0j d) wA fa 4 M
004
U0go 0)LA ~ '4 - IA00
4)X~4 4)4)1)
0_ I- .C .c 4-V
50 7
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
4.) *1*LI n n
m o 0 J4J I f00 cr CD
CM41 In COj I~
CL4L. Ln 0~ ) CL4 CD 0 CD 0
~
t*
C~j
zo
V)
.- c.-C n A
c 1 C d *,D L ) c4
0 L.o
a~ C
UU
to cc to
483 6 4 06 *.- 8
>
1.. 4-3- S. 4 >8
0~~~~ . 00 C .C 0
LL~~
In ~~
0 U 8 L.
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
o Both glass atid mica capacitors are adequate for most military
environments which include exposure to humidity and high levels of
shock and vibration.
o In the nonoperating mode, shorts and opens in ceramic capacitors
can be accelerated by temperature cycling and to a lesser extent,
mechanical stress. Low insulation resistance may occur as a
result of surface conditioning during manufacture or because of
S~moisture
penetration through a defective epoxy encapsulation.
Monolithic ceramics when properly cured and fixed are impervious
to moisture as the chip itself is concerned, but the shunt path
formed by contaminants surface moisture may result in circuit
failure.
The next step in the model development process was to extrapolate base
failure rate values for capacitor styles for which there was no data.- In
addition, the base failure rate values were normalized to a ground benign
environment. The observed data corresponded to a ground fixed
environment. Table 5.4.2-14 presents the normalized base failure rates,
the extrapolated base failure rates, and upper and lower confidence
interval values for capacitor styles for which there were observed data.
A
Fixed Glass -- .000450 --
Fixed Ta, Solid .0000436 .000181 .000750
Fixed Ta, Nonsolid .00143 .00640 .0287
Fixed Al Oxide -- 00640 --
Variable Air, Trimmer .00265 .0152 .0867
Variable Ceramic -- .0122 --
Variable Piston -- .00376 --
Variable Vacuum -- .0456 --
5-172
- -
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Except where otherwise inldicated, all data was from a ground, fixed p.
environment. Generally, the Hi-rel quality level was equivalent to a
level of M.
5-173
%9
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Part
Hours Equiv.
No. Failures (x10 6 ) Style Quality X. 0 5 Xo(1) X*.95 Xpre(2)
(3) Environment was unknown, so prediction with this data entry was
not possible.
(4) Insufficient part hours to estimate a failure rate without
observed failures.
5-174
Vi'. .-, . . -- - , - " - ','" •+ ' J, +, '. ++ w " " ""•w+•+ •"" + " •+'-"v 2•<
" •+."w+° t'• '% •++" +-%+
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
5-175
/ .',
• ','
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
p NQ iNE I1cyc
nb Wb 1.
where F
•'p = predicted inductor nonoperating failure rate
Xnb = nonoperating base failure rate
= .000055, low power pulse and audio transformers
= .00028, high power pulse, power and RF transformers
= .00015, RF coils
fNQ = nonoperating quality factor
= .06, S
.15, R
.38, P ".
=1.0, M
3.1, Mil-spec
lower
11,
wNE = nonoperating environmental factor (see Tabie 5.5.1-1)
•cyc = equipment power on-off cycling factor
= 1 + .75(Nc), transformers
= 1 + . 38(Nc), coils
where
Nc number of equipment power on-off cycles per 10 nonooeratingV
hours
5-176
/
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
GB1 1
GF 5.7 3.6
GM 12 12
MP 11 11
NSB 5.1 5.1
NS 5.7 5.7
NU 14 14
NH 16 16
NUU 18 18
ARW 24 24
AIC 4.5 4
4IT 6 4.5
AIB 6 5.5
AIA 6 4.5
AIF 9 9
AUC 6.5 5
AUT 6.5 6.5
AUB 7.5 7.5
AUA 7.5 6.5
AUF 10 10
SF(1) (1)
MFF 11 11
MFA 15 15
USL 32 32
ML 36 36
CL 310 610
NOTES: (1) Space flight environment was not considered in this study.
5.-177
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
5-178
r.- r. j%.
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
I. Device Style
A. Coils
1. Construction
a. Fixed, RF
b. Variable, RF
c. IF
2. Insulation Class
a. A
b. B
c. C
d. F
B. Transformers
1. Type
a. Audio (MIL-T-27)
b. Power (MIL-T-27)
c. High Power Pulse (MIL-T-27)
d. Low Power Pulse (MIL-T-21038)
e. IF (tIL-T-55631)
f. RF (MIL-T-55631)
g. Discriminator (MIL-T-55631)
II. Device Construction
A. Coils
1. Numbers of Coils per Device
2. Core Material
3. Potting Material
B. Transformers
1. Number of Primary Windings
2. Number of Secondary Windings
3. Core Material
4. Potting Material
III. Inductance (coils only)
IV. Quality Level
A. S D. M
B. R E. MIL-SPEC
C. P F. Lower
V. Temperature
A. Rated
B. Actual
VI. Application Environ~ment
VII. Number of Power On/Off Cycles per 103 Nonoperating Hours
5-179
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
The data was evaluated initially with each data record separate (no
data records merged). Point estimate failure rates were computed for data
records with observed failures. The methods described in Section 3.3 were
applied to determine which zero failure data records had sufficient part
J hours to be included in the analysis, and to estimate failure rates for
those records. Twenty data records in total were found to have either
observed failures or sufficient part hours to estimate a failure rate
without observed failures.
)L
C.T"
5-180
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Sattributes
of the nonoperating inductor data were observed from the
preliminary data analysis:
5-181
4No
~ I%
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
The fact that the effect of temperature could not be emp, ic~lly
analyzed was also a problem. However, after careful consideration, ".was Al
decided not to include temperature in the inductor failure rate predicv n
model. This decision was based on the following observations:
variables. Table 5.5.2-3 illustrates the matrix for device quality level. •. ,
The matrix for device style was simply a "0" for coils and a "1" for •.
transformers. This varialle was designated as S1 . The device style
5-182
TV 11 .1. It~~p
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Device Quality Q1 Q2
Hi-Rel 0 0
MIL-SPEC 1 0
Lower 0 1
Data were then merged according to equipment, device style and quality
level by summing failures and part hours. For example, all data for Hi-
Rel coils from the Hawk missile were merged. The correlation coefficient
analysis indicated no large correlation between independent variables for
the merged data set. Quality levels for inductors in the F-16 data were
not available. was therefore assumed that these parts were Hi-rel
It
because of the requirements of the military application (Air Inhabited).
Regression results later indicated that this assumption was reasonable.
o Cycling rate less than one power cycle every two years (cycl, cyc2
0,o0)
o Cycling rate greater than one cycle per year (cycl, cyc2 = 1, 0)
o Unknown cycling rates (cycl, cyc2 = 0, 1)
5-183
• I
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
frequencies......
Standard Confidence
Variable Coefficient Error F-Ratio Limit '. .
Device style (S1 ) and the lower device quality variable (Q2) were
significant at a 80% confidence limit. The cycling rate variable (cycl)
was significant at a 75% confidence limit. No other variables were
significant with 70% confidence. The available data did not indicate a
significant difference between nonoperating failure rate for Hi-Rel and
MIL-SPEC coils. This was unusual because screening was expected to have a
significant effect. The R-squared value for the regression was .69. That
is, 69% of the variability in the observed data can be explained by the
regression solution. Interpretation of the regression results are:
5-184 ~'
* MT;;
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
6
Xi = predicted inductor nonoperating failure rate (failure/lO
nonoperating hours) L i
Xnb = base failure rate, preliminary
= exp(-7.509 + 1.689(S 1 ))
.000551, Coils
.002982 Transformers
'TNQ = quality factor
= exp(2.477(QI))
1.0, Hi-Rel and MIL-SPEC
: 11.91, Lower
itcyc = equipmeat power c'/,fling factor (preliminary)
= exp(3.414(cycI))
= 1, low cycling rate (= .039 cycles/lO3 hours)
= 30.386, high cycling rate (= 40.12 cycles/.0 3 hours)
C = residual, _
5-185
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
The variables S1 , Q1, and cycl have been previously defined. The
above equation represents a preliminary model, applicable only to ground
based environments.
The data in the first category, low cycling rate, was primarily from
the Hawk missile program, with an average cycling rate of .038 cycles/103
hour. The data in the second category, high equipment cycling, was from
the F-16 HUD RIW data with a cycling rate of 40.12 cycles/lO3 hour. The
following equation for a power cycling factor resulted:
K2 normalization constant
: 1/.972 1.029
Only one iteration was required for changes in the regression solution
to be negligible. The preliminary model at this stage of the development
process is given by:
where1 N
Y/k-
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
= .00328, transformers
"1NQ = nonoperating quality factor
- 1.0, Hi-Rel and Mil-spec
= 11.36, lower
wcyc = inductor equipment power cycling factor
= 1 + .751(cycles/10 3 hour)
5-187
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
/ /
assuming (1) the observed nonoperating quality factors are accurate for M
and lower quality levels, (2) nonoperating quality factors would follow a
similar ranking to the MIL-HUBK-217D coil operating quality factors, and
(3) the nonoperating quality factors are distributed geometrically. Table
5.5.2-5 presents point estimate nonoperating quality factors, upper and
lower 90% confidence interval values, and extrapolated nonoperating
quality factors for S, R, P, and Mil-spec. Transformer data were only for
Mil-spec and lower categories. Therefore, the preliminary transformer
base failure rate was divided by the Mil-spec nonoperating quality factor
of 3.08. In this maner, one nonoperating quality factor can be used for
all inductive devices.
S .... .06
R .. .15
P --- -. 38
N - 1.0 -- 1.00
MIL-SPEC ...... 3.08
Lower 1.37 11.36 94.51 11.36
NOTES: (1) WNQ1 are the observed nonoperating quality factors. wNQ2
are the observed factors supplemented by extrapolated values
for S, R, P and MIL-SPEC qualities.
5-188 ,..
.3 . '.. .%
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
"Tables 5.5.2-6 and 5.5.2-7 show failure mode/mechanism and failure ...
acceleration factor distributions for inductors. Accurate failure
mode/mechanism information was difficult to obtain for operating
applications and essentially impossible for nonoperating applications.
Much of the information in these tables was therefore theorized, although
References 33, 41 and 42 provided important failure mode information.
The final phase of the inductive device model development process was
to normalize the preliminary base failure rates to correspond to a ground
benign environment. The preliminary base failure rates were normalized by
dividing with the respective greund fixed environmental factors. .
"Additionally a unique base failure rate value for RF transformers, power
transformers and high power pulse transformers was extrapolated by
assuming the base failure rate was the average value for all transformer
styles and using the operating failure rate relationships from MIL-HDBK-
217D. The nonoperating base failure rates were therefore determined tn
be:
5-189
\4
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
j Operating Nonoperating
Failure Failure Accelerating Distribution Distribution
Mode Mechanism Factors (%) (%)
open wire over- voltage, current 15 -35 0 -5
stresst
faulty leads vibration, shock 0 - 15 0 - 15
short corroded humidity, temp. 15 - 35 20 - 45
windings
insulation voltage, humidity, 15 - 35 20 - 40
breakdown temp.
insulation humidity, temp. 10 - 30 20 " 40
deter ioration
5-190
/
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
5.6 Lasers
Xp : .1 'NE
"where
6
X p = helium/neon laser nonoperating failure rate (failures/10
nonoperating hours)
INE = nonoperating environmental factor (see Table 5.6.1-1)
•.where
5-191
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
p= .039(Nop) ffNE
where
5-192
-C 9 Ila - W -C
or - - -.. -V W t tSVW t . td r
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
The proposed model for solid state lasers is for either Nd:YAG or ruby
NSB 10 AUB 71
NS 49 AUA 57
V NU 49 AUF 71
'p NH 35 SF (1)
NUU 38 MFF 21
ARW 46 MFA 29
AIC 26 USL 69
"AIT 35 ML 71
AIB 58 CL
"NOTES: (1) Space Flight environment was not addressed in this study.
F. *5-193
--
---
---
-
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
The first step in the process was simple enough. Average operating
failure rates were computed for helium/neon, argon ion, CO2 , and solid
state lasers by using the methods in MIL-HDBK-217D. It was preferable to
proceed with the average failure rate values rather than assuming the
operating factors would also apply during nonoperating periods. Many of A
laser operating factors would clearly not apply during nonoperating
periods. For example, factors for pulse repetition, cooling, tube current
and pulse energy would intuitively not apply to nonoperating periods.
The next phase of the model development process was to assume a series
of nonoperating environmental factors. It was determined that the
operating environmental factor could not accurately be applied for
5-194
~-.-.-...~-..----..--.---V
-------------------.
,-.-.--...~ ..
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
The final step for laser model development was to normalize the
approximate nonoperating failure rates to correspond to a ground benign
environment. This was done to provide consistency with the other proposed
models. The normalization process consisted of dividing the failure rates
lili
by the ground fixed environmental factor of nine.
5-195 '-
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
5.7 Tubes
5.7.1 Proposed Tube Nonoperating Failure Rate Prediction Model
p= Xnb ItNE
where
= .049, vidicon
= .013, CRT
.32, thyratron
= 1.29, crossed field amplifier
ri
= 1.03, pulsed gridded
= .56, transmitting; triode, tetrode or pentode 3!r•
5-196
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
NOTES: (1) Space Flight environment was not addressed in this study.
H
tubes.
development of a theoretical model were used to determine the nonoperating
failure rate prediction model. The proposed model was determined to be a
function of tube style and environment.
I. Type
A. Receiver
1. Triode
2. Tetrode
3. Pentode >*
4. Power Rectifier
B. CRT
C. Vidicon
D. Thyratron
E. Crossed Field Amplifier
F. Pulsed Gridded
G. Transmitting
1. Triode
2. Tetrode
3. Pentode
H. TWT
I. Twystron
J Magnetron
1. Conventional
2. Coaxial
K. Klystron
II. Pulsed vs. CW
III. Temperature
A. Rated
V
B. Actual
IV. Rated Power
V. Frequency
5-198 5-,1
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
where
KI = constant
Nc = equipment power on-off cycling rate (cycles/1O3 nonop. hrs.)
5-199
I",
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
time, but would increase with time. The second observation which led to
the time dependent tube nonoperating failure rate conclusion was the
"shelf life" phenomenon. Even if nothing were known about tube storage
failure mechanisms, the fact that some tube types are believed to have
some inherent "shelf life" was considered as evidence of a time dependent
failure rate. In general cerms, it can be assumed that the nonoperating
failure rate is relatively low until the specified "shelf life" and then
the instantaneous failure rate would be expected to increase dramatically.
It should also be noted that many high quality military tube types
including TWTs and magnetrons are no longer believed to have a "shelf
life" and thus, the nonoperating failure rate could be accurately assumed
to be constant with time. However, this is certainly not true for all
tube styles considered in this study.
5-200
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Part
Data Records Style Failures (X1O6)
47
The number of variables which could
364
be analyzed
794.8
empirically was
F
limited by the nature of the available data. The following attributes of
the collected nonoperating tube data were identified from the preliminary
data analysis.
Device Style 51 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8
Klystron, Pulsed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Twystron 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Klystron, CW 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Magnietron 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
TWT 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 t-
Receiver, Triode 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Vidicon 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Receiver, Pentode 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Pulsed Gridded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
V
5-202
r~~~~"
- *-4i *.
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Standard Confidence
Variable Coefficient Error f-ratio Limit
5-203'
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
The next phase of the model development process for tubes was to
develop appropriate nonoperating environmental factors using the methods
presented in Section 4.5. Tubes presented a unique situation for
determination of nonoperating environmental factors. The anticipated
failure mechanisms in the operating state are dominated by failures which
are accelerated by the internal heat rise due to either the current flow
from one element of the tube to another element, the power used to raise
an electron-emitting cathode to operating temperature, or another source
of internal heat rise. Excessive heat can result in several general
failure mechanisms including deterioration of the seal, wearout of
electron emission surfaces, evolution of gas, and contaminated or damaged
emission surfaces resulting in increased electronic emission. It was
concluded from the failure mechanism comparisons that the MIL-HDBK-217D
operating environmental factors clearly do not represent the effects of
environmental stress in a nonoperating application.
5-204
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
iii
Part types which have operating failure rates which are dominated by
factors unique to the operating state were categorized in Section 4.5.
Tubes, as well as incandescent lamps and laser tubes, fit into this
category. For these part types, the difference between operating and
nonoperating failure rate was believed to be relatively large. However,
the rate of increase for failure rate versus environmental stress would be
greater in the nonoperating state. Failures due to purely environmental
stresses, such as vibration and mechanical shock, would not occur in
greater numbers in the nonoperating state, but these failures would be a
much larger percentage of the total failures. Thus, a similar increase in
the number of failures due to a more stressful environment would have a
much more apparent effect for nonoperating applications. Proper
determination of applicable nonoperating environmental factors was not
possible with the available information. However, an approximate formula
was developed (and described in Section 4.5) to estimate nonoperating
. environmental factors for these part types.
I
normalization was done by dividing the previously presented failure rates.
by the ground fixed nonoperating envi'ronmental factor of three.
5-206
r'1
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Operating Nonoperating
Failure Failure
Rgte Rage Ratio
Tube Type (f/lO hrs.) (f/10 hrs.) (Xop/xnonop)
Receiver
Triode, Tetrode, Pentode 5 .012(2) 417
Power Rectifier 10 ..--
Vidicon 49(1) .146 336
CRT 15 --..
Thyratron 50(2) ....
200(2) -- --
Crossed Field Amplifier
Pulsed Gridded 200(2) 3.10 64.5
Transmitting --
Triode, Tetrode, Pentode 87(2)
250 -- --
Other (3)
Twystron 460(2) 7.81 58.9
Magnetron 435(2) 3.07 141
CW Klystron 68(2) 3.61 18.8
Pulsed Klystron 84(2) 3.44 24.4
160(2) 2.06 77.7
TWTs
k
"i
5-207
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Very little
nonoperating failure rate data were collected for
Smechanical/electromechanical devices. Therefore, model development for
these devices was based on intuitive nonoperating reliability
relationships supplemented by whatever data were available. It was
decided to propose simple models for these part types because of the
general lack of quantitative information. More complex assumed models
would not necessarily be more accurate but would delude the model users''
into thinking that they were.
5-208
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
was determined for rotating mechanisms. The proposed models are presented
in Appendix A in a format compatible with MIL-HDBK-217D.
Rotating Mechanisms ,
Relays
The proposed nonoperating failure rate prediction model for relays is:
where
5-209
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
= 1.0, Mil-spec
= 4.2, lower EA__
7rNE = nonoperating environmental factor (see Table 5.8.1-2)
Swi tches
where
5-210
/N
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
7.2
7.2
MFA
USL
ML
26
63
64
I
AIB 14 CL 1200
NOTES: (1) Space Flight environment was not addressed in this study.
Connectors
5-211
* * ~ ~ l ,
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
NOTES: (1) Space Flight environment was not addressed in this study.
5-212
21
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
5-213
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Part Hours
Equipment/Source Device Style Failures (X10 6 )
The nonoperating failure rate for the merged AC motor data was over 12
r
times as high as the nonoperating failure rate for the merged DC motor
data. This observation was contrary to the earlier hypothesib that
commutator motors (if some of the DC motors were commutators) should have
a higher nonoperating failure rata. It was assumed that there were
insufficient data to accurately distinguish the difference between
coffutator and non-commutator motor types. Therefore, an average
nonoperating failure rate was computed by dividing the sum of the failures
by the sum of the part hours for both AC and DC motor styles. The average
nonoperating failure rate was therefore found to be 0.0447 failures per
106 nonoperating hours.
5-214
x,,
77t
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Similar to the discussion for motors, there were insufficient data for
synchros and resolvers to develop nonoperating failure rate prediction
models analytically. Therefore, an average nonoperating failure rate of
0.14 was determined from the data. It was then assumed that this value
was applicable for all styles of synchros and resolvers.
5-215
1K`;-'z
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
depends on maintaining clean contact surfaces and that long termn. ---
nonoperating conditions may defeat this objective. The alternative
approach to prevent nonoperating contact failures is periodic actuation
when long periods of nonoperation are the rule. The literature contains
no quantitative information in this regard. A survey of leading U-'--
5-2 16
.-. . .- . . . ~ * *. law-
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
I. Application Type
A. SPST E. 4PST
B. DPST F. DPDT
C. SPDT G. 4PDT
D. 3PST H. 6PDT
IV. Contact Rating (Amps)
VII. Temperature
A. Rated
B. Actual
VIII. Application Environment
5-217
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
I. Device Style
A. Toggle
B. Push Bottom
C. Rotary
D. Basic Sensitive
E. Heavy Duty Contactor
F. Inertial
III. Configuration
A. SPST E. 4PST
"B. DPST F. DPDT
C. SPOT G. 4PDT
D. 3PST H. 6PDT
IV. Operating Load Type
A. Resistive
B. Inductive
C. Lamp
,: V. Contact Rating (Amps)
VI. Number of Switch Positions
VII. Actuation Differential
VIII. Temperature
A. Rated
B. Actual
IX. Application Environment
XI. Quality
A. Mil-Spec
B. Lower
5-218
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
5-219
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Part
Hours
Equipment/Source Construction Quality Failures (X106)
"Maverick/MICOM Armature Mil-spec 2 61.7
Maverick/MICOM Other Mil-spec 0 20.6
Sparrow/MICOM Other Mil-spec 2 382.8
"Lance/MICOM Armature Mil-spec 0 4.5
MICOM Other Lower 1 3.6
Hughes Armature Mil-spec 0 22.1
Hughes Other Mil-spec 20 620.0
Martin Marietta Other Mil-spec 0 153.5
Martin Marietta Other Mil-spec 0 12.3
AFCIQ Armature Lower 11 57.0
AFCIQ Other Lower 0 1.5
AFCIQ Other Lower 0 1.8
AFCIQ Other Lower 0 19.0
Totals 36 1360.4
The proposed model form for relays was then hypothesized to be the
following equation.
where
F~,• 5-220
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
The number of normally open contacts was not included in the model
because it could not be determined for the collected data. Therefore the
proposed model corresponds to an average, unknown quantity of normally
open contacts.
A ratio between lower quality relays and mil-spec relays was computed
from the available data to determine a nonoperating quality factor for
commercial grade relays. Both the armature and unknown relay style data
were 'tilized to calculate a commercial grade nonoperating quality factor
equal to 4.2. An average established reliability (ER) quality factor was
5-221
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
The final phase of the nonoperating failure rate model development for
relays was to normalize the base failure rates by dividing by the ground
fixed environmental factor of 2.3. The proposed model is presented in
Section 5.8.1 and in Appendix A in a format compatible with MIL-HDBK-2170.
5-222
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
.0
'vD
-44 I
0.41 0) -4 -4
V4 CLO "-4 .C
04) 0
CL 4-3 -4r4.-4
.O7t 4-4 clt 4- ~ .4 -
CL(-4 - 4r4U)"
LiJ
>%
M r- 4J 03
LLJ CL0-0 0
> U
w .00 a
41 - >.- 41
S-
4C - C C
00 o0(U 0M 0 )% 0
S-4-) $ 4 4-) 41.4- 41 .4
IAU4-)4-J C -E C4-3 41
U;
-J
41
00(
S 41Cr r
.4- C.4- 0 01
C 0 (D0
u 4)1411S- *00
a4 411.
o MU'-0 - 4J 0
UO4J U'0 t41 u- Oil
0- 0( 4-. S..
"ao 410o41 '- 41
uO
04)4
41u -
O 000 .0
o 0 CL0~
C C co 0u
41L41C4 41. 4: 0
V ~ a,0 .- U
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
M~c
4
0C. - en U) r-4 U, (')
LM .- 4 L) O --40 U, -lt
r- 431
(A 4-3 .0 0f
go C"C)O ' UjU,) 4c U,
6-A 0L (A m
~~0 -4-4.-4 .- 4 -4 U C
(CA
'-41
* C
c C
0
4-
V)
-J ~4 4Ji,
(A 0 PA
t
4.3 S- c4
m4 0 0
&-- 4-)
C
a) 1 -432C4J 4
4)S-
4) U- - )- "- 4
co .0 S4-3 S-3 4J
4) u =0
fU 3: C
U4-)E
aU 0
-C
a 4-Cr
-0
o) (V to 4 *-
a003 30cu4-
CC 4- 4J 0 (A
t~.- 4- 4-) C . 4-4 .
R ro aC 40 4-3 M
42u C: cC - -an
S- *00 00CL 600
Euu 4J Ua (A.UU
v 0. .C W
U.. 0 LAn
5-2254
..... .
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
switch data. The average nonoperating base failure rate was determined by
dividing the sum of the failures by the sum of the part hours, and then
dividing by the ground fixed environmental factor. The average
nonoperating base failure rate was determined to be 0.030 failures per 106
nonoperating hours.
4m
TABLE 5.8.3-7: SWITCH NONOPERATING FAILURE RATE DATA
Part Hours
Equipment/Source Device Style Failures (XPO6)
5-226
~i
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
5.8.4 Connectors
Printed wiring board, and rack and panel connectors are the most
simply constructed of all connector types. This does not mean they are
the most reliable since they are not designed to seal against moisture
assimilation or protect the contacts from harmful agents in the
atmosphere. How this effects performance in a nonoperating state requires
an understanding of the nature of the contact and certain chemical effects
on the contact.
5-227
X:K
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Since even the best machined, polished and coated surfaces look rough
and uneven when -, ewed microscopically, the common concept of a flat,
smooth contact is grossly oversimplified. In reality, the connector
interface is basically an insulating barrier with a few widely scattered
points of microscopic contact. The performance of the connector is
dependent upoi the chemical, thermal and mechanical behavior at these
contact points.
5-228
%XW
.%N. W..
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
6 )
No. Equipment/Source Failures Part Hours (X10
Totals 1 82444.0
Analysis of the data revealed large variability. Data entry number
six in Table 5.8.4-1 indicated such a low nonoperating failure rate that
it was considered suspect. There were insufficient data to statistically
5-229
4,
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
test for outliers. However, data entry number six was not further
considered in the analysis because of the belief that the extremely low
failure rate was not indicative of connectors in nonoperating
applications. Of the remaining data, only data entries 2 and 3 had
failures or sufficient part hours to estimate nonoperating failure rate.
As stated before, no part characterization information was available.
However, it was assumed that the two calculated nonoperating failure rates
provided a typical lower and upper bound on connector nonoperating failure
rate, and were set equal to preliminary base failure rates for ;..
circular, coaxial and power connectors and (2) rack and panel, and printeI
wiring board connectors, respectively. These values were preliminary
because a series of nonoperating environmental factors were late.-
determined and the ba.e failure rates were normalized to a ground benign
value equal to one. The preliminary base failure rates are,
The final stage of the model development process was to normalize the
nonoperating base failure rates by dividing by the ground fixed
nonoperating environmental factor of 2.3. The proposed nonoperating base,•
failure rates were presented in Section 5.8.1.
5-230
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
J ,
5-231
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
5-232
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
NOTES: (1) Space Flight environment was not addressed in this study.
5-233
Ir T
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
5-234
Y . .
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
I. Interconnection Technology
A. Printed Wiring
B. Discrete Wiring
A. Wave Solder
B. Hand Solder
C. Reflow Solder
"A. MIL-SPEC
B. Lower
IX. Temperature
A. Rated
B. Actual
X. Application Environment
XI. Number of Equipment Power On/off Cycles per 103 Nonoperating Hours
52.3
•..• 5-235
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
I
available for double sided printed wiring boards and six data entries were
available for multilayer printed wiring boards. Efforts to determine
specific circuit plane quantities for multilayer boards proved to be
futile. Additionally, it was assumed that the average number of plated
through holes per board was equal to 600 to determine the number of
connection hours. The 600 value was based on a sample from the Maverick
missile.
Assembly Connection
Data Hours6 Hours6
Equipment/Source Records Description(I) Failures (X10 ) (X1O )
(2) 600 plated through holes per PWB assumed for these data
records.
(3) Unknown.
5-236
I
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
5-237
Vý?
V
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
The AT factor values ranged from a value of 1.0 for all ground based
environments to a value of 0.72 for all airborne, uninhabited
environments. The temperature adjustment factors were determined based on
the average, documented temperature dependence for other part types. It
was determined that the resultant MNE factors sufficiently characterized
the effects of nonoperating environmental stress on interconnection
assembly nonoperating failure rate. These factors were presented in Table
5.9.1-1 in the previous section.
MIR.-
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
5-239
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
5.10 Connections
Xp = 1NEi 1 (NiXnbi)
where
5-240
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
5-241
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
5-242
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
"5-243 -- . :..
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
.043
V
Dummy Loads .011 A
5-244 ,
1%41
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
The miscellaneous part types considered in this study are the same
- miscellaneous parts which are included in MIL-HDBK-217D. Nonoperating
failure rate data were available for quartz crystals, fuses, neon lamps
"' and incandescent lamps. The operating to nonoperating failure rate ratio
for crystals and incandescent lamps were then applied for the other
miscellaneous parts. There were insufficient data to estimate
nonoperating failure rate for fuses and neon lamps.
5-;•46
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
where
* The (to/(to + tN)) term is simply the operating duty cycle, and the
* (tN/(to + tN)) term is the nonoperating duty cycle. In cases where there
is no definitive service life time interval (T), estimates can often be
* made of the respective duty cycles. Reliability would then be a function
' of one unknown instead of two.
6-1
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
R = exp(-(Xot 0 + XNtN))
However, the fractional time terms represent duty cycle, and is best
viewed as initially presented in many instances.
where
6-2
.9 ~*S'V~'
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Tasks 3 and 4 are well established and will not be further discussed.
Tasks 5 and 6 represent the corresponding reliability assessment tasks for
nonoperating periods. An equipment nonoperating failure rate is
determined based on the use scenario. The product of Tasks 3 through 6 is
6-3
•46ý
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
•L •Oto too
+ tN +•to tN
+ tN)
where
to
to + tN= operating duty cycle
tN
The equation becomes more complex when there are more than two states.
However, the equation would take the same general form with more
Soperationalstates. The service life failure rate can
or nonoperational
be the most informative comprehensive reliability parameter for some
eouipment types. The service life failure rate is constant with time, and
is therefore useful for comparing or evaluating the total reliability for
equipments with an indeterminate mission duration. The service life
parameter is generally a good indication of the reliability for equipments
which are exposed to intermediate amounts of both operating and
nonoperating periods. For equipments with a use scenario dominated by
L. 6-4
N
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
dormancy, the service life failure rate approximates the dormant equipment
failure rate. Note in the equation that as to approaches zero, XSL
approaches XN. Regardless of the relative merit of this parameter, the
service life failure rate should be computed for every electronic
equipment exposed to nonoperating periods. The service life failure rate
can be computed with specific values for to and tN, or with appropriate
duty cycle values.
"where
R = reliability
Xoi = operating failure rate in the ith operating state
toi = time in the ith operating state
XNi = nonoperating failure rate in the ith nonoperating state
tNi = time in the ith nonoperating state
6-5
I' __ _____
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
kN
6-6 L
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
It was noted that in Table 7.0-2 the ratio for microcircuits was
greater for lower quality parts. This was the anticipated result. As
the device screening increases, the operating and nonoperating failure
rate difference decreases. This trend is because inherently weak devices
fail more quickly in the operating state, and was discussed in Section
4.6. Additionally, it was noted that the ratios for nonhermetic
unscreened microcircuits was lower than the ratios for hermetic unscreened
microcircuits. This would mean that package type is a relatively more
significant variable in the nonoperating state than in the operating
state.
7-11
, 2t
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Pw I vaT
O DESCUIPTI0N CMIPIBXIM TEDidaLo6YvW.LIY TYPEU-20C W-40W I-68C -2K AF-4K AUN-C
1001020C FSC GTE 66 ECL 0 N .0040 .0045 .0057 .0112 .0126 .1161
10470 FSC 41 PM 40968 ECL D 0 1.618 3.238 6.441 2.796 4.409 7.633
10470 FSC 4( WI 40968 Ec. D N .0200 .0227 .0287 .0159 .0433 .W003
1103 SISNETICS IK WI 10248 mIGS C 0 .4364 .3502 1.79" AM943 1.316 2.247
1103 SISNETICS IK FM 10240 RINS C N .1017 .0123 .0182 .0243 .0337 .0107
140156 NOT SHIFT REGISTIER 664 0109 0-I 0 .6805 .7911 2.075 2.135. 2.318 3.42
140150 MOT SHIFT REGISTR 4"8 I 0-1 N .0A3N .1399 .5442 .2072 .4544 1.360
1821 RCA IK WI 10243 DIGS S 0 .0132 .0271 .0764 .0370 .0509 .091 -
1821 RCA 15IKI 15248 0W0S S N .0019 10141 .1122 .052 .0114 .0346
2110M INTEL 4KMI 40968 R40S 3-1 0 .16n .3=30 .86W,5 .3777 .5668 1.081
2114A INTEL 4K WI 40968 NOS 8'-1 N .051 .A91 .0213 .0142 .0254 .0595
2513 SIGNETICS RON 2560MID RS D 0 .5349 .8172 1.526 1.582 1.862 2.571
2513 SI]NETICS RON 25608 RIGS 0 N .A093 .0152 .0315 .0253 .0425 .M000
2580 SIS'ETICS SK501 31929 RIGS 0-1 0 2.576 7.5N 25.16 5.392 11.40 27.91
2580 SIGNETICS W RON 81929 RIS D-1 N .0537 M03 .1829 .1745 .2868 .5943
25104 MoI SHIFT RE61STER 2630 LTT". D 0 .6052 .8426 1.359 1.793 2.031 2.547
251.04 MI SHIFT REGISTER 2636 LTTL D N .0245 .03 .0384 .0671 .0739 .1073
251•,9299AI SHIFT RE61"RER 1046 LSt. s 0 .8131 .0161 .0235 .0439 .0468 .01542
251.929 MID SHIFT REGISTER 1346 LSITL S N .0033 .0039 .0059 .0092 .0111 .0164
2901A om MICROPRMESSOR 5426 LSTTL 8-1 N .0191 .0230 .0341 .0532 .0641 .0953
3601 INTEL 1KP"Om 10248 LTTiL. D-I 0 .6812 .8684 1.420 2.199 2.406 2.933
3601 INTEL I1 PRMI 10248 LTTL 0-I N .1147 .1077 .214 .3729 .3499 .69M2
7-2
".A.w
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
mrT I VEN0OR OESCRIPTION COMPLEITY TECHNOLOY ORLITY TYPE OF-20C V-40C 6SF-60C AF-20C AF-40C AUF-61C
"4619 NSC SUFFER 66 OIOS 0-1 0 .5311 .5741 .8784 1.8 1.942 2.246
40094 NSC BUFFER 66 06OS 6-1 N .0263 .0557 .1135 .0659 .1810 .3687
4020A RCA BINARY COWNTER 1326 0109 0 0 .2556 .3290 .6162 .8723 .9458 1.233
4020A RCA BINAY COWNTER 1326 0m08 0 N .0153 .0336 .1005 .0427 .8938 .2964
54C221 NSC FLIP-FLOP 206 090S 9-1 0 .0497 .0551 .0766 .1755 .1909 .2125
54C221 NSC FLIP-FLOP 206 010S 6-2 N .0035 .0077 .0229 .0098 .0214 .U646
34LS197 TI B1INAY. COUWTER 346 LSTTL D 0 .2576 .2853 .3626 .8981 .9258 1.063
541.S197 TI BINARY COWNTER 346 LSTTL D N .0084 .0109 .0163 .0253 .0305 .1454
6116 1108 16K PA 163848 0OS 0 0 1.398 3.337 10.42 3.637 5.576 t2.66
6116 ZILO 16K WI 263849 010 0 N .0088 .0192 .0574 .0244 .0536 .1613
732 FSC DeCOOULATOR 39T BIPOLAR 0-1 0 7.238 17.14 65.88 21.34 31.26 08.01
732 FSC DEM0OULATOR 39T BIPOLAR ý-! N .1664 .2997 .5993 .5407 .9708 1.948
741072 TI JKFLIP-FLOP 8a HTTL D-! 0 .4608 .4801 .5279 1.634 1.653 1.711
741172 TI AJFLIP-FLOP 8a H11rL 0-1 N .0265 .0361 .0382 .0863 .0978 .1246E
74S206 NSC 256 BIT RIA 2568 STTL C-I 0 .3922 .6840 1.339 .9656 1.257 1.913
74S206 NSC 256 BIT RAN 2568 S1T. C-1 N .0190 .0223 .0303 .0530 .0623 .0847
"9"90A DM0 MICROPROCESSOR 11006 R40S 9-2 0 .5324 .7978 1.473 1.582 1.848 2.523
"9080A AND MICROPROCESSOR 11006 was 8-2 N .0349 .0625 .1466 .0975 .1744 .4694
9218 *0 16K ROI 163848 R4OS 9-1 0 .1911 .3853 '.973 .4660 .6•62 1.182
928 16K RO 163848 ,0S 8-1 N .0051 .0091 .0621 .8142 .0254 .M
7-3 --
".:"
," """ "•" " V'r"
x" "" • -" • -" - " -" - •" .' " ,' " ,• -" " -.. .. "... . .. . . . . .. .. . . .
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MR yew9
4''41141414 14414•
DESCRIPTION
41414H41414HI'4
"==-'-''''HHH
COMU1.W1Y TECHNOLOGY
44 41144
H 4
QUALITY TYPE6F-20C GF-40C OF-66C AOF-20C AUF-46C MLF-68C1.
HII HlI 11111H4 4H4111*11HI4 111411 4'414 44
JlIH1141111,, 1111411
HHI tI
9425 FC IIKWIM 10248 TTL C-I 0' .5063 .8882 .686 1.144 1.546 2.344 K
9X25 FEC IK w 10248 T. C-I N .0192 .0218 .0276 .0536 .0608 .077.1
""4 FSC New 40968 111. 0-I 0 3.715 18.42 88.93 6.005 20.71 91.22
93461 FEC MEMORY 4968 IlL 0-I N .1127 .1502 .2M33 .362 .4880 .8915
M415 FSC IK WM12024 LTTL 8 0 .0602 .12, .271 .1026 .1719 .3214
?X415 FSC 2KWIN 10248 LITi. 8 N .0079 .8009 .0126 .0221 .0260 .5353
9402 FSC GENERTOR 1148 111 0- 0 .66M6 1.619 6.175 1.903 2.859 7.415 J
?461 FEC 686FATOR 1146 IlL 0"- N .0920 .1226 .224 .2990 .3M .72•0
"m TI MICROPROCESSOR 31006 IIL 0-1 0 22M1 6300 15871 2297 6307 15878
991A TI MICROPROCESSOR
31006 i11. D-I N .4449 .5929 1.083 1.446 1.927 3.520
M"425iK RCA GATE 36 010 B-I 0 .0309 .0336 .0443 .1096 .1122 .1229
C0482S RCA GTE 36 CHOS 8-I N .0014 .0031 .0092 .0039 .0086 .0258 .
OK74L87 NSC COMPAPTOR 338 LTTL D-I 0 .6179 .6673 .811692.174 2.223 2.362
3I74L8B4 NSC CLOMPARATOR 336 LIIL 0-1 N .0517 .0608 .0827 .1681 .1976 .2W8
'C1355P-2 MOT FRE•UB4Y AMP 221 BIPOLAR 0-I N .1001 .1798 .3607 .3254 .5842 1.172
MC140BL-8 NOT D/A C'4•ERTER 601 BIPOLAR0 0 .6463 .9056 1.963 2.131 2.396 3.453 L
MC140BL-8 MOT D/A CONERTER 60I 8IPOLAR 0 N .0420 .0735 .1514 .1173 .2107 .4227 .
7-4 4..
njo-
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
203636 INTEL. 16KPROM 163841 Tn. a 0 1.014 1.639 2.883 2.457 3.082 4.326
MD3636 INTEL 16KPR3I 16384 Tn. 0 N .0200 .022 .0287 .0559 .0633 .0803
"II205D NMI 2K RUN 20438 ITTI. 0 0 .3318 .4268 64"4 1.059 1.153 1,372
MOD205 191 2KIII 20488 ITTI. D N .01 " .0233 .0464 .0552 .0649 .0882
WA12784 291 16KKIM 163848 LTTL D-I 0 2.568 2.5U6 5.019 4.237 5.255 7.6N
88ý
MUM278 191 16KROW 163848 LTTL. 0-1 N .1147 .1349 .1833 .3729 .4383 .5958
TLC271CP TI op 99 4T LIN M10 0-1 0 1.162 7.209 31.79 2.594 8.187 32.77
TLC271CP TI w i 4T LIN 010 0-1 N .0221 .0396 .0795 .0717 .1288 .2584
7-5
>..,
F -
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
14215 mOT SHIFT REGISTER 668 OIOS D-I NoIP 16 9.53 5.09 36.32 •,..
2580
251.04
25LS2"9
2901A
3601
SI
AVi
iD
Mon
INTEL
R0M
8K(ICS
SHIFT RESISTER
SHIFT RESISTER
ICRIPWROCESSOR
IK PROM
5426
8199
2636
1046
10248
P'S
LTTL
LSTTL
LSTTL
LTTL
0-1
8-1
0-I
NOIP 24
HOIP 21
HOIP 20
HOIP 4d
NOIP 16
47.97
24.70
3.98
7.94
5.93
36.27
."5.73
4.21
8.30
6.87
193.72
82.87
14.17
27.93
20.98
r
4004 INTEL 4 8IT MICROPROCESSOR 7596 IMGS 0-I NOIP 16 3.79 2.79 14.93
4120A RCA BItN1 COiNTER 1329 0105 D HFPK16 16.70 10.08 61.81
54C221 NSC FLIP-FLOP 206 0M05 9-1 HOOP16 14.19 8.45 5.16
732 FSC MODULATOR 39T BIPOLAR 0-1 N0IP 14 43.49 32.20 187.9
9218 WID 1U ROM 163848 NOS B-1 HOIP 24 37.47 25.99 129,44
7-6
•
PART YO CipLEXITY TEC4OL06Y ML.ITY PK6
DESQCRIPTION PIN PF0/GFN AOAIF/M AU 6/iFN
"93425 FSC IK RWI 1024B TTL C-I MIP 16 26.37 25.42 0.51
9401 FSC GBEMTNRT 1146 I1. 0-1 NIP 12 7.21 7.22 31.07
990
MA TI MICROPR•OESSOR 31006 IlL 0-I NSIP 59 5146.1 3273.5 14137.6
C04025
D RCA MTE 36 010S 3-I IUPIC14 22.07 13.67 U.17
0l74LBS2 NSC CD WTODR 336 LTTL 0-1 NSIP 16 11.95 11.24 42.99
L.34741 NBC DUL PFif 23T BIPOLAR 0 NCW 7 35.69 11.60 58.44
14CI335.-2 MOT FREOEICY AV 221 BIPOLAR 0-I SIP 14 17.61 35.53 96.46
" MCIOL-B NOT 0/A CM E 61T IIPOLA D SDIP 16 15.39 11.37 57.65
"MD36 INTEL 11 PROM 136 TTL D SIP 24 6.73 43.69 154.12
1911
MM5265D 2K104 2840 LTTL D SDIP 16 36.07 17.77 53.62
M91
MM19627M 16K RON 36334 L~lL 0-3 SDIP 24 13.67 11.93 45.31
NOTE: The ground fixed failure rates were computed with an ambient
temperature of 200 C. The airborne uninhabited fighter failure
rates were computed with an ambient temperature of 400 C.
7-7
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
8.0 CONCLUSIONS
8-1
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
o The wide scope of the study (i.e. all MIL-HDBK-217 parts) made it
impossible to concentrate efforts on one part type.
8-2
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
o Hybrid Microcircuits
o Bubble Memories
, o Relays
o Switches
0 Rotating Mechanisms
o Connectors
- o Opto-electronic Devices
So Lasers
o Tubes
9-1
-,,w-:
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
9-2
S ," T
I Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
REFERENCES
R-1
*i
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
REFERENCES (CONT'D)
17. Stanbery, R. L., "TOW Failure Rates in Test and Flight," Washington,
D.C. Presentations, March 1983.
R-2
-Mý,
7T
R/
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
REFERENCES (CONT'D)
22. Fiorentino, Eugene, The Use of Air Force Field Maintenance Data for
R&M Assessments of Ground Electronic Systems, RADC-TR-79-103, April
1979.
1981.
CL R-3
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
REFERENCES (CONT'D)
28. Coit, D., et. al., VLSI Device Reliability Models, RADC-TR-84-182, lIT
Research Institute, 1984.
29. Manno, P., Failure Rate Prediction Methodology (Today and Tomorrow),
Rome Air Development Center.
34. Branner, J. B., et. al., IEEE Transactions on Reliability, R-24, 1975 XS
p. 238.
77
U
R-4
-5i'
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
REFERENCES (CONT'D)
38. Ballou, T. A., Digital SSI/MSI Data, RAC Publication MDR-19, Spring
1984.
42. Tyler, D. and J. Wilbur, FMECA R&M Standard, Naval Avionics Center
Standard No. NAC-83-RM-914-OOC-1, May 1984.
44. Arno, R., Nonelectronic Parts Reliability Data, RAC Publication NPRD-
2, Summer 1981.
R-5
? 11
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
APPENDIX A
Proposed Revision Pages
For
MIL-HDBK-217
A-i K
~7
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
5.2.1.1 Applicability
The following factors are common for the majority of the nonoperating
failure rate prediction models.
A-2
S, •,:K
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
where
Rn = nonoperating reliability
XSL = service life failure rate, equal to the number of failures per
ur,it time regardless of operational mode
Doi = duty cycle in the ith operating environment, equal to the time
in the ith operating environment divided by total operating
time plus total nonoperating time
A-3
d. ~ ~ v~
T'~ -. :kV.
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
5.2.1.4 Cautions
A-4
V^I*L" f ^L-VA.
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
MICROELECTRONIC DEVICES
MONOLITHIC
where
-. * A-5
ýW-
No*
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
MICROELECTRONIC DEVICES
i MONOLITHIC
•. where
A-6
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
MICROELECTRONIC DEVICES
MONOLITHIC
where
A-7
*'' - . . Ao
- ,..~k-.'
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
MICROELECTRONIC DEVICES
MONOLITHIC
"nb =, .00029(Ng)' 4 77
where
"Ng = number of gates
A-8
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
MICROELECTRONIC DEVICES
MONOLITHIC
88 7
Xnb = .00021(Nt).
where
Nt = number of transistors
A-9
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
II
MIL-HDBK-217
MICROELECTRONIC DEVICES
MONOLITHIC
TABLE 5.2.2.4-3: MONOLITHIC DEVICE NONOPERATING TEMPERATURE FACTOR
(OtNT)
1
))
T = ambient nonoperating temperature (oC)
221
1
667 72.5
. -
A- 10
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
//
MIL-HDBK-217
MICROELECTRONIC DEVICES
MONOLITHIC
"f"T = K1 + K2 expk 1 1
-n(T + 273 2)
B-1 1.4
B-2 2.0
VC 2..3
C-I 2.4
, •D 2.5
" •-2:D-1 8.7
•ii *Quality level definitions are provided in Table 5.1.2.5-1 in Section
S~5.1.2.5-1
.e N
A-11
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HOBK-217
"MICROELECTRONIC DEVICES
MONOLITHIC
<1 >1000 1
1 1000 1.02
2 500 1.04
3 333 1.06
4 250 1.08
5 200 1.10
10 100 1.20
20 50 1.40
50 20 2.00
Wcyc = 1 + .02(Nc)
A-12
S ..... I 4,1
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
MICROELECTRONIC DEVICES
MONOLITHIC
<1 >1000 1
1 1000 1.03
2 500 1.06
3 333 1.09
4 250 1.12
5 200 1.16
10 100 1.31
20 50 1.62
50 20 2.55
•fcyc = 1 + .031(Nc)
- -
_ Z
-. ~~ . .4
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
MICROELECTRONIC DEVICES
MONOLITHIC
Hermetic Nonhermetic
Environment Devices Devices
GB 1 1
GF 2.4 4.0
GM 3.5 6.5
Mp 3.2 5.9
NSB 3.4 6.2
NS 3.4 6.2
NU 4.5 8.6
"NH 4.6 8.9
"NUU 4.9 9.5
"ARW 6.3 13
AIC 2.4 4.0
AIT 2.7 4.7
AIB 4.0 7.6
AIA 3.4 6.2
AIF 4.7 9.0
AUC 2.7 2.7
AUT 3.4 3.4
AUB 5.7 11
AUA 4.7 9.0
AUF 6.7 13
SF 1.0 1.0
MFF 3.3 6.0
MFA 4.3 8.2
USL 8.0 16
"ML 9.3 19
CL ISO 310 •:;
A-14
; • - :< - -
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
MICROELECTRONIC DEVICES
MONOLITHIC
Example One
Step 3: Refer to Table 5.2.2.4-2 and find the correct nonoperating base
failure rate(),nb) of 0.00454 failures per million hours for the kW
32 transistor device.
Step 4: Refer to Table 5.2.2.4-3 and find the nonoperating temperature
factor rNT of 0.88 for a linear device at 200C ambient
nonoperating temperature.
Step 5: Next refer to Table 5.2.2.4-5 and find correct nonoperating
quality factor (INQ) of 0.53 for a quality level S device.
Step 6: Refer to Table 5.2.2.4-7 and find correct ircyc factor of 1.03 for
a cycling rate of 1 per 1000 hours.
Step 7: Refer to Table 5.2.2.4-8 and find correct nonoperating
environmental factor (nNE) of 2.4 for a hermetically sealed
linear device.
Step 8: Determine the predicted linear monolithic device failure rate as
follows:
A-15
/ -A
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
MI7ROELECTRONIC DEVICES
MONOLITHIC
Example Two
A- 16 "- "':•
?.
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
MICROELECTRONIC DEVICES
MONOLITHIC
Example Three
Step 3: Refer to Table 5.2.2.4-1 and find the correct nonoperating base
failure rate (Xnb) of 0.00160 failures per million hours for the
36 gate device.
Step 6: Refer to Table 5.2.2.4-6 and find correct ncyc factor of 1.04 for
a mean-t 4 me-between power cycles of 500 hours.
Step 7: Refer to Table 5.2.2.4-8 and find correct nonoperating
environmental factor (6NE) of 3.5 for a ground mobile (GM),
hermetically sealed TTL device.
A-17
... '
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
MICROELECTRONIC DEVICES
HYBRID
5.2.2.6 Hybrid Microcircuits
where
A-18
• / Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
MICROELECTRONIC DEVICES
HYBRID
Step 5: Refer to Table 5.2.2.6-3 and select the ground fixed (GF)
nonoperating environmental factor of 2.4 for the hermetically
sealed hybrid.
Step 6: Determined the predicted hybrid nonoperating failure rate as
follows:
XP = Xnb 7TNQ WNE
= .046 x 1.0 x 2.4
!m
-A-I9
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
MICROELECTRONIC DEVICES
HYBRID
where
ND = number of diodes
NT = number of transistors
NIC = number of integrated circuits
Case Complexity A bl b2 b3
I ND + NT + 1.8 NIC < 12.2 .000817 .45 .45 .81
A-20
* ~*..-
~'**. N!
~*~-. .,.T . t7
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
MICROELECTRONIC DEVICES
HYBRID
or 1.0
MIL-STD-883, Methods 5004 and 5005 and
MIL-M-38510
D Commercial Part, hermetically sealed, with 8.6
no screening beyond manufacturer's normal
quality assurance practices.
,-,- -2
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
MICROELECTRONIC DEVICES
HYBRID
TABLE 5.2.2.6-3: HYBRID NONOPERATING ENVIRONMENT FACTORS (WNE)
Environment WNE
GB 1
GF 2.4
GM 3.5
Mp 3.2
NSB 3.4
NS 3.4
NU 4.5
NH 4.6
NUU 4.9
ARW 6.3
AIC 2.4
AIT 2.7
AIB 4.0
AIA 3.4
AIF 4.7
AUC 2.7
AUT 3.4
AUB 5.7
AUA 4.7
AUF 6.7
SF 1.3
MFF 3.3
MFA 4.3
USL 8.0
ML 9.3
CL 150
A-22
XM
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
U
MIL-HDBK-217
MICROELECTRONIC DEVICES
BUBBLE MEMORIES
Xp =nl+ n2
where
where
A-23
14
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
MICROELECTRONIC DEVICES
BUBBLE MEMORIES
S~where
A- 24
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MICROELECTRONIC DEVICES
BUBBLE MEMORIES
Given: A 92K bit magnetic bubble memory with 10 connected pins, 1 major
loop, 3 dissipative control elements (generate, replicate and
detector bridge), 144 transfer gates, 640 bits per major loop,
and 157 memory minor loops with 144 functional is installed in a
ground benign nonoperating environment with a nonoperating
ambient temperature of 250C.
Step 1: From the example statement, N was equal to 148, found by adding
the number of major loops (1) plus the number of dissipative
control elements (3) plus the number of transfer gates (144).
= .0015(148). 477
= .0163
= .0163
Step 6: From the example statement, the number of loops was found to be
145 equal to the number of major loops (1) plus the number of
functional minor loops (144).
A-25
.* .-. '.-'.
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
MICROELECTRONIC DEVICES
BUBBLE MEMORIES
= .0163 + 1.29
JA2
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
DISCRETE SEMICONDUCTORS
where
"A-27
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
DISCRETE SEMICONDUCTORS
Step 2: Refer to Table 5.2.3-1 and find the appropriate Xnb of .00027
failures per 100 hrs for a Group I Silicon, NPN type
transistor.
Step 3: From Table 5.2.3-1 note that transistors, Silicon, NPN fall
into the Group I category of discrete semiconductors.
where
A-28
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
DISCRETE SEMICONDUCTORS
Step 1: The nonoperating failure rate model shown in 5.2.3.2 above for
opto-electronic devices is Xp - Xnb lNE 1INQ
Xp = Xnb wNE NQ L
Xp - 0.00070 x 1 x 23
p= 0.016 failures per million hours
A-29
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
DISCREIE SEMICONDUCTORS
SXnb (F~ilures
Part Class Group Part Type per 100 hrs)
V Zener/Avalanche .00040
VI Thyristors .00063
C. Microwave VII Detectors .0027
Semiconductors Mixers
and Special
Devices VIII Varactors .0027
Step Recovery
IX Microwave .041
Transistors
D. Opto-Electronic X LED .00016
Devices Single Isolator .00070
Dual Isolator .00089
Phototransistor .00038
Photo Diode .00029
Alpha-Numeric .00025
Displays
A-30
. ....
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
DISCRETE SEMI CONDUCTORS
GROUP
I I II III IX
""'T
TGUnijunc- Si Be
Micro-
oc NPN PNP PNP NPN FET tion wave
A-31
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
DISCRETE SEMI CONDUCTORS
GROUP
IV V VI VII VIII
T Gen Purpose Zener/ Varactor,
Av. Thyristor Microwave etc.
oc Si Ge
0 0.26 0.17 0.39 0.27 0.43 0.35
10 0.46 0.36 0.58 0.47 0.62 0.54
20 0.78 0.72 0.84 0.79 0.86 0.82
25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
30 1.28 1.39 1.19 1.30 1.17 1.21
40 2.03 2.60 1.65 2.07 1.56 1.75
50 3.14 4.73 2.24 3.20 2.06 2.46
55 3.87 6.32 2.59 3.95 2.35 2.90
60 4.74 8.45 2.99 4.85 2.68 3.40
65 5.78 11.3 3.44 5.92 3.04 3.97
70 7.00 15.2 3.94 7.21 3.44 4.63
75 8.43 20.5 4.50 8.73 3.89 5.37
80 10.1 28.1 5.13 10.5 4.40 6.22
85 12.1 39.5 5.84 12.7 4.97 7.17
90 14.4 57.1 6.63 15.2 5.61 8.26
95 17.1 7.52 18.2 6.34 9.50
100 20.2 8.52 21.8 7.18 10.9
105 23.9 9.65 26.0 8.16 12.5
110 28.2 10.9 31.0 9.31 14.4
115 33.2 12.4 36.9 10.7 16.5
120 39.1 14.1 43.9 12.4 18.9
125 46.2 16.0 52.2 14.5 21.8
130 54.6 18.2 62.3 17.1 25.2
135 64.8 20.9 74.3 20.6 29.1
140 77.3 24.1 88.8 33.9
145 92.9 27.9 106 39.7
150 113 32.6 128 46.9
155 138 38.4 154 55.8
160 172 45.8 187 67.1
A-32
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
DISCRETE SEMI CONDUCTORS
Temp. Constants
Group Part Type At TM P
Transistors
Si, NPN 3356 448 10.5
Si, PNP 3541 448 14.2
'Ge, PNP 4403 373 20.8
Ge, NPN 4482 373 19
"Diodes
4399 448 17.7
IV Si, Gen. Purpose
Ge, Gen. Purpose 5829 373 22.5
IMPATT, Gunn,
-:j Varactor, PIN, 3423 448 13.8
VIII Step Recovery &
Tunnel
7•NT
=exp(-At(T - M98)+
"where
"T= temperature ( 0K) T(*C) + 273
A*-33
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
DISCRETE SEMICONDUCTORS
TABLE 5.2.3-5: DISCRETE SEMICONDUCTOR NONOPERATING
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR (1NE)
GROUP
Env. I II III IV V Vi VII VIII IX X
Gg 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
GF 5.8 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.9 6.4 3.9 2.0 2.4
GM 18 18 18 18 18 18 31 18 7.8 7.8
Mp 12 12 12 12 12 12 35 12 7.4 7.7
NSB 9.8 6.0 9.3 4.8 5.8 5.8 8.0 5.8 3.6 3.7
A-34
i3
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
DISCRETE SEMICONDUCTORS
TABLE 5.2.3-6: DISCRETE SEMICONDUCTOR NONOPERATING
QUALITY FACTOR (•NQ)
JANTXV 0.57
JANTX 1.0
JAN 3.6
Lower, Hermetic* 13
Plastic** 23
Cycling Rate***(Nc)
(Powqr Cycles/ Mean-Time-Between
10J hrs.) Power Cycles lfcyc
A-35
6 [-
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
DISCRETE SEMICONDUCTORS
Cycling Rate***(Nc)
(Power Cycles/ Mean-Time-Between
103 hrs.) Power Cycles cyc
•cyc = 1 +,.083(Nc) •~
A-36
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
* MIL-HDBK-217
•_jTUBES S...
I
5.2.4 Tubes
Xp = •NE
7nb failures/10 6 nonoperating hours
where
p Xnb iTNE
X' = 0.0040 x 31
'1 A-37
7 73,,ý
t4c
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
TUBES
RECEIVER
Triode, Tetrode, Pentode 0.0040
Power Rectifier 0.0090
CRT 0.013
I
THYRATRON 0.32
VIDICON 0.049
PULSED GRIDDEDa
TRANSMITTING
Triode, Tetrode, Pentode 0.56
Any Style with Peak Pwr. < 200 kW, Freq. 1.61
< 200MHz, or Average Pwr. < 2KW
(All types) 2.60
2 MAGNETRON
(All types), 1.02U
KLYSTRON
Continuous Wave 1.20
Low Power 0.19
Pulsed 1.15
TWT 0.69
A-38
-SLI
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
TUBES
Environment iTfNE
GB 1
GF 3.0
GM 31
Mp
NSB
31
15 F
NU 47
NH 110H
NUU 120
ARW 140
AIC 6.2
AIT 19
AIB 25
AIA 23
AIF 35
AUC 8.2
AUT 23
AUB 33
AUA 27
AUF 43
SF 1
MFF 63
MFA 91
USL 210
ML 220
CL 3600 '
A-39
all.
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
LASERS
5.2.5 Lasers
o 'Helium/Neon
o Argon Ion
o CO2 Sealed
0
o
CO
2 Flowing
Solid State
II °;,
The models and failure rates presented in t.his section apply to the
laser peculiar items only, i.e., those items wherein the lasing action is
generated and controlled. In addition to the laser peculiar items, there
are other assemblies used with lasers that contain electronic parts and
mechanical devices (pumps, valves, hoses, etc.). The failure rates for
these parts should be determined with the same procedures as used for
M
other electronic and mechanical devices in the equipment or system of
which the laser is a part. The electronic device failure rates are in k 4M
other parts of this Handbook and the mechanical device failure rates are
in Bibliography Item 47.
The laser failure rate models have been developed at the "functional,"
rather than "piece part," level because the available data were not
sufficient for "piece part" model development. Nevertheless, the laser
functional models are included in this Handbook in the interest of
completeness. These laser models will be revised to include piece part
models and other laser types when the data become available.
A-40
V -V
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
LASERS
laser functions which are common to most laser families, but may differ in
the hardware implementation of a given function. These functions are the
lasing media, the laser pumping mechanism (or pump), and the coupling
method.
Helium/Neon Lasers
where
The general nonoperating failure rate prediction model for Argon Ion
lasers is as follows: I!
where
'ft A-4 1
tii
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217 *'.
LASERS
where
•0O
2 FLOWING= .039(Nop) 7NE
where
MIL-HDBK-217
LASERS .
The general nonoperating failure rate pr-ediction model for solid state
lasers (either pumped by xenon or Krypton flashlamp) is as follows:
where
18 AIA 44
GF 9.0 AIF 62
GM 44 AUC 35ý
MP 22 AUT 42
NSB 10 AUB '71 2
NS 49 AUA 57
NU 49 AUF 71
NH 35 SF 1
NUU 38 MFF 21
ARW 46 MFA 29
AIC 26 USL 69
AT35 ML 71
A18 58 CL
A-43
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
LASERS
A-44
.~)~-~' ,' Z
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
RESISTORS
5.2.6 Resistors
where
Step 2: Refer to Table 5.2.6-1 and find RCR style and appropriate Xnb of
.00063 failures per million hours and find appropriate resistor
type (Fixed Composition) for the specific resistor RCR style.
A-45
~
.**-*~ .*.-,**
,-. *~-* , *~-~
Y*-
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
RESISTORS
Anb (Fgilures
Specification Style per 10 hrs)
Composition, Fixed
MIL-R-11 Resistors, Fixed, Composition (Insulated) RC .000063
MIL-R-39008 Resistors, Fixed, Composition (Insulated) RCR .000063
Established Reliability
Film, Fixed
MIL-R-l0509 Resistors, Fixed, Film (High Stability) RN .00010
MIL-R-11804 Resistors, Fixed, Film (Power Type) RD .00010
MIL-R-22684 Resistors, Fixed, Film, Insulated RL .00010
MIL-R-39017 Resistors, Fixed, Film, Insulated, RLR .00010
Established Reliability
MIL-R-55182 Resistors, Fixed, Film, Established Reliability RN(R, C or N) .00010
Wirewound, Fixed
MIL-R-26 Resistors, Fixed, Wirewound (Power Type) RW .00057
MIL-R-93 Resistors, Fixed, Wirewound (Accurate) RB .00057
MIL-R-18546 Resistors, Fixed, Wirewound (Power Type, RE .00057
Chassis Mounted
MIL-R-19005 Resistors, Fixed, Wirewound (Accurate), R8R .00057
Established Reliability
MIL-R-39007 Resistors, Fixed, Wirewound (Power Type) RWR .00057
Established Reliability
MIL-R-3900g Resistors, Fixed, Wirewound (Power Type RER .00057
Chassis Mounted) Established Reliability
Thermistor
MIL-T-23648 Thermistor (Thermally Sensitive Resistor) RTH .0027
Insulated
Non-wirewound, Variable
MIL-R-94 Resistors, Variable, Composition RV .0052
MIL-R-22097 Resistors, Variable, Non-wirewound RJ .0052
(Lead Screw Actuated)
MIL-R-23285 Resistors, Variable, Film RVC .0052
MIL-R-39023 Resistors, Variable, Non-wirewound, Precision RQ .0052
MIL-R-39035 Resistors, Variable, Cermet, or Carbon Film RJR .0052
(Lead Screw Actuated) Established Reliability
Wirewound, Variable
MIL-R-19 Resistors, Variable, Wirewound (Low Operating RA .0052
Temperature)
MIL-R-22 Resistors, Variable, Wirewound (Power Type) RP .0052
MIL-R-12934 Resistors, Variable, Wirewound, Precision RR .0052
MIL-R-27208 Resistors, Variable, Wirewound (Lead Screw RT .00099
". Actuated)
MIL-R-39002 Resistors, Variable, Wirewound, Semi-Precision RK .0052
MIL-R-39015 Resistors, Variable, Wirewound (Lead Screw RTR .00099
Actuated), Established Reliability
A-46
- W
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
RESISTORS
A-47
Ira
U
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
RESISTORS
S 0.15
R 0.28
P 0.52
M 1.0
MIL-SPEC 2.4
Lower 4.4
ircyc 1 + .0 6 3(Nc)
*An equipment power on-off cycle is defined as the state during which an
electronic equipment goes from zero electrical activation level to the
normal design activation level plus the state during which it returns to
zero.
I A-48
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
SMIL-HDBK-217
RESISTORS
Step 3: Refer to Table 5.2.6-2 and select appropriate iNE factor of 3.5
for Fixed Composition type resistor and in an AIT environment.
Step 4: Refer to Table 5.2.6-3 and select appropriate INQ factor of 1.0
for a level M quality part.
A-49
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
CAPACITORS
5.2.7 Capacitors
where
A-50
W w
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
CAPACITORS
Specification Style
S'pernb (Fgilures
106 hrs)
Paper/Plastic Film
MIL-C-25 Capacitors, Fixed, Paner CP .0011
MIL-C-11693 Capacitors, Fixed, Paper, Metallized Paper, CZ .0011
Metallized Plastic, RFI Feed-Thru, Established
Reliability and Non-Established Reliability
SMIL-C-12889 Capacitors, Fixed, Paper, RFI Bypass CA .0011
MIL-C-14157 Capacitors, Fixed, Paper-Plastic, Established CPV .0011
• " Reliability
MIL-C-18312 Capacitors, Metallized Paper, Paper-Plastic, CH .0011
Plastic
MIL-C-19978 Capacitors, Fixed, Plastic (or Paper-Plastic), CQ/CQR .0011
AIN Established and Non-Established Reliability
MIL-C-39022 Capacitors, Fixed, Metallized, Paper-Plastic Film CHR .0011
or Plastic Film Dielectric, Established Reliability
MIL-C-55514 Capacitors, Plastic, Metallized Plastic, CFR .0011
* Established Reliability
MIL-C-83421 Capacitors, Super-Metallized Plastic, Established CRH .0011
Mica -Reliability
Mica '
MIL-C-5 Capacitors, Fixed, Mica CM .00075
MIL-C-10950 Capacitors, Fixed, Mica, Button Sytle CB .00075
MIL-C-39001 Capacitors, Fixed, Mica, Established Reliability CMR .00075
Glass
MIL-C-11272 Capacitors, Glass CY .00045
MIL-C-23269 Capacitors, Fixed, Glass, Established Reliability CYR .00045
Ceramic
MIL-C-20 Capacitors, Fixed, Ceramic (Temperature CC/CCR .00039
Compensating)
MJL-C-11015 Capacitors, Fixed, Ceramic (General Purpose) CK .00039
MIL-C-39014 Capacitors, Fixed, Ceramic (General Purpose), CKR .00039
Established Reliability
Electrolytic
MIL-C-62 Capacitors, Fixed, Electrolytic (DC, Aluminum, CE .0064
Dry Electrolyte, Polarized)
MIL-C-3965 Capacitors, Fixed, Electrolytic (Non-solid CL .0064
Electrolyte), Tantalum
MIL-C-39003 Capacitors, Fixed, Electrolytic, Tantalum, Solid CSR .00018
Electrolyte, Established Reliability
MIL-C-39006 Capacitors, Fixed, Electrolytic, Tantalum, Non- CLR .0064
solid Electrolyte, Established Reliability
MIL-C-39018 Capacitors, Fixed, Electrolytic, Aluminum Oxide CU .0064
Variable Capacitors
MIL-C-81 Capacitors, Variable, Ceramic CV .012
"MIL-C-92 Capacitors, Air, Trimmer CT .015
"MIL-C-14409 Capacitors, Variable, Piston Type, Tubular Trimmer PC .0038
MIL-C-23183 Capacitors, Vacuum or Gas, Fixed and Variable CG .046
A-51
MIL-HDBK-217
CAPACITORS
:_-___Electrolytic
Paper/ Mica/ Tant. Tant.
Env. Plas. Film Glass Cer. Solid Non-Solid Al. Var.
GB 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
GF 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.4 1.4 2.0 3.3
GM 8.3 8.8 8.3 7.8 10 12 9.6
Mp 9.9 11 11 9.2 11 12 17
NSB 4.7 5.0 5.0 4.4 5.0 5.8 7.7
NS 6.3 5.9 5.2 4.9 6.7 6.7 8.2
- NU 14 15 15 13 15 13 18
NH 15 16 16 14 16 19 25
NUU 16 17 18 15 17 20 27
ARW 21 23 24 20 23 27 36
AIC 3.2 3.5 2.7 2.5 2.5 9.5 5.0
AIT 4.3 4.0 3.3 2.5 4.0 10 5.3
AIB 7.0 8.0 6.2 7.0 6.5 10 7.8
AIA 4.9 4.0 5.0 3.0 6.0 10 7.7
AIF 9.8 10 8.0 7.5 10 15 13
AUC 7.6 15 6.0 4.5 8.5 28 20
AUT 13 15 12 6.0 15 30 38
AUB 23 35 15 25 20 30 57
AUA 17 15 17 10 20 30 50
AUF 33 40 30 30 40 40 85
SF 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
MFF 9.9 11 11 9.3 11 12 16(1)
MFA 13 15 15 13 15 17 22(1)
USL 23 31 32 27 31 36 47(1)
ML 33 36 36 31 36 41 54(1)
CL 560 610 610 510 610 690 930
NOTES: 1) Vacuum or Gas, fixed and variable (CG) style capacitors '
shall not be used in these environments.
2) Plas.
s = Plastic,
Env ironment. Tant. = Tantalum, Al. Aluminum, Env. ,• '
A-52
i,,.
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
CAPACITORS
T 0.05
S 0.10
R
P
0.23
0.46
SM 1.0
L 1.7
MIL-SPEC 2.5
Lower 5.3
A-53
VJ
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
CAPACITORS
Step 4: Refer to Table 5.2.7-2 and select appropriate TNE factor of 2.4
for Electrolytic-Tantalum Solid type resistor in a GF
environment.
Step 5: Refer to Table 5.2.7-3 and select appropriate 'INQ factor of 0.23
for a level R quality part.
Step_6: Refer to Table 5.2.7-4 and select appropirate ir•yc factor of
1.32 for a cycling rate of 2 per 1000 nonoperating hours.
FNl
A-54
'777~
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
INDUCTIVE DEVICES
5.2.8 Inductive Devices
where
Xp =
predicted transformer or coil nonoperating failure rate
Xnb =
nonoperating base failure rate (See Table 5.2.8-1)
wNQ =
nonoperating quality factor (See Table 5.2.8-2)
ffNE =
nonoperating environmental factor (See Table 5.2.8-3)
7rcyc = equipment power on-off cycling factor (See Table 5.2.8-4 for
transformers and 5.2.8-5 for coils)
A-55
4 .1
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
INDUCTIVE DEVICES
Stp4 Refer to Table 5.2.8-3 and select appropriate XNE of 5.1 for a
ground fixed environment.
Step 5: Refer to Table 5.2.8-4 and select appropriate itc of 8.5 for an
equipment power cycling rate of 10 cycles per 1000 hours.
Step 6: Xpfb~NXYEwy
- (.&OJO28) x (3.1) x (5.7) x (8.5)
- .042 failureif10 6 nonoperating hours
"A
A-56
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
INDUCTIVE DEVICES
Transformers
MIL-T-27 Transformers and Inductors, Audio .000055
MIL-T-27 Transformers and Inductors, Power .00028
MIL-T-27 Transformers and Inductors, High Power Pulse .00028
MIL-T-21038 Transformers, Low Power Pulse .000055
MIL-T-55631 Transformers, IF, RF, and Discriminator .00028
Coils
MIL-C-15305 Coils, Fixed and Variable, RF .00015
MIL-C-39010 Coils, Molded, RF, ER .00015
S .06
R .15
P .38
M 1.0
MIL-SPEC 3.1
Lower 1
A-57
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
INDUCTIVE DEVICES
Environment TrnfresCoils
GB 1 1
GF 5.7 3.6
GM 12 12
MP11 11
NSB 5.1 5.1
NS 5.7 5.7
NU14 14
NH 16 16
NUU 18 18
ARW 24 24
AIC 4.5 4
AIT 6 4.5
AIB 6 5.5
AIA 6 4.5
AIF 99
AUC 6.5 5
AUT 6.5 6.5
AUB 7.5 7.5
AUA 7.5 6.5
AUF 10 10
SF 1 1
MFF 11* 11
MFA 15 15
USL 32 32
ML 36 36
CL 310 610
A-58
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
INDUCTIVE DEVICES
TABLE 5.2.8-4: TRANSFORMER EQUIPMENT POWER ON-OFF
CYCLING FACTOR (wcyc)
Cycling Rate*
(Power Cycles/ Mean-Time-Between
103 hrs.) Power Cycles 7cyc
'cyc - 1 + .75(Nc)
Nc = number of equipment power on-off cycles per 1000 nonoperating hours
-,cyc :1 + .38(Nc)
A-59
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
1'
MIL-HDBK-217
ROTATING DEVICES
/
SI
*, .,
.Ii
A- go60,
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
tkiI MIL-HDBK-217
2 .: RELAYS
5.2.10 Relays
where
A-61
AWI6o.
'" . ',• •/ '/,••I•• • - .J " • • •', ' '-'- ,•x ,-••- •'• •,,.'' o• - -- •-•..... .... . .. .. .•.. . . - . ... .
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
RELAYS
TABLE 5.2.5-1: RELAY NONOPERATING ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR (rNE)
GB 1 AIA 7.5
GF 2.3 AIF 10
GM 8.2 AUC 8.0
Mp 21 AUT 9.0
NSB 8.0 AUB 15
NS 8.0 AUA 10
NU 14 AUF 15
NH 32 SF 1
NUU 34 MFF 21
ARW 46 MFA 29
AIC 5.5 USL 62
IAIT 6 ML 71
AIB 10 CL N/A
A-62
½ v
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK .217
SWITCHES
* 5.2.11 Switches
where
A-63
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
SWITCHES
TABLE 5.2.11-3: SWITCH NONOPERATING ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR (WNE)
GB 1 AIA 14
GF 2.9 AIF 18
GM 13 AUC 9
Mp 21 AUT 9
NSB 7.9 AUB 18
NS 7.9 AUA 18
NU 18 AUF 23
NH 32 SF 1
NUU 34 MFF 19
ARW 41 MFA 26
AIC 7.2 USL 63
AIT 7.2 ML 64
AIB 14 CL 1200
Step 2: Refer to Table 5.2.11-1 and select nonoperating base failure rate
of 0.030 for contact voltage less than 50 millivolts
Step 3: Refer to Table 5.2.11-2 and select appropriate nonoperating
quality factor of 1.0 for MIL-SPEC devices.
Step 4: Refer to Table 5.2.11-3 and select iTNE of 7.2 for airborne,
inhabited environment.
Ste•_9___: nb 1tNQ ITNE
X~p =: X~,'N N K
Step 5:
- (.030) x (1.0) x (7.2)
A-64
-7-ý--11'-'17'Lý
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
CONNECTORS
5.2.12 Connectors
where
A-65w
'.4
!I
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
y
MIL-HDBK-217
CONNECTORS
A-66
/ 'e.<
' !:,
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217__
INTERCONNECTION ASSEMBLIES __
where
A-67
/
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
INTERCONNECTION ASSEMBLIES
TABLE 5.2.13-2: INTERCONNECTION NONOPERATING ENVIRONMENTAL
FACTOR ("NE)
GB 1 AIA 5.0
GF 2.3 AIF 9.0
GM 6.9 AUC 5.4
Mp 6.9 AUT 11
.0000028 x 700 x 25
= .049 failures/10 6 nonoperating hours
A-68
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
CONNECTIONS
5.2.14 Connections
xp =T (Ni Xnbi)
where
A-69
IA
' ~/
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
7 MIL-HDBK-217
CONNECTIONS
i
5.2.14.1 Example Nonoperating Failure Rate Calculation
A-70
44
)~
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
CONNECTIONS
Step 3: Refer to Table 5.2.14-1 and select a )tnbl value of .00000012 for
-V
A-71
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
MIL-HDBK-217
MISCELLANEOUS PARTS
A-72
• i .
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
* v'.-~r.~ z r'Of
Rowx~ir~vel~v~w- ine
hetec~tad acqiqZt:a on n
iastm a Cobt,?ma4 Cd rr
o6cv
Conmwtictic.on6 and int;b (&i
1~zc uies't Tt<-- .
and en@.Ue.cttq~vtt
rgt& ax't&.. ng1.:~tcZ
zcpci1
S iz~Lp'vtided to 621)l P-toq':,- Oý.;'LCC
c (P0,i) a;M atzz7,t EST,
etzmentA. The p'utnc44e. teckŽ&tcaZnt~$c4 -s A~te
i~limfat =..