Results for “reliablity” — Page 10

NASA NTRS2011

Reliability Evaluation of Base-Metal-Electrode (BME) Multilayer Ceramic Capacitors for Space Applications

This paper reports reliability evaluation of BME ceramic capacitors for possible high reliability space-level applications. The study is focused on the construction and microstructure of BME capacitors and their impacts on the capacitor life reliability. First, the examinations of the construction and microstructure of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) BME capacitors show great variance in dielectric layer thickness, even among BME capacitors with the same rated voltage. Compared to PME (precious-metal-electrode) capacitors, BME capacitors exhibit a denser and more uniform microstructure, with an average grain size between 0.3 and approximately 0.5 micrometers, which is much less than that of most PME capacitors. The primary reasons that a BME capacitor can be fabricated with more internal electrode layers and less dielectric layer thickness is that it has a fine-grained microstructure and does not shrink much during ceramic sintering. This results in the BME capacitors a very high volumetric efficiency. The reliability of BME and PME capacitors was investigated using highly accelerated life testing (HALT) and regular life testing as per MIL-PRF-123. Most BME capacitors were found to fail· with an early dielectric wearout, followed by a rapid wearout failure mode during the HALT test. When most of the early wearout failures were removed, BME capacitors exhibited a minimum mean time-to-failure of more than 10(exp 5) years. Dielectric thickness was found to be a critical parameter for the reliability of BME capacitors. The number of stacked grains in a dielectric layer appears to play a significant role in determining BME capacitor reliability. Although dielectric layer thickness varies for a given rated voltage in BME capacitors, the number of stacked grains is relatively consistent, typically between 10 and 20. This may suggest that the number of grains per dielectric layer is more critical than the thickness itself for determining the rated voltage and the life expectancy of the BME capacitor. Since BME capacitors have a much smaller grain size than PME capacitors, it is reasonable to predict that BME capacitors with thinner dielectric layers may have an equivalent life expectancy to that of PME capacitors with thicker dielectric layers.

Liu, David (Donghang)↗

NASA NTRS2018

Achieving Improved Reliability with Failure Analysis

Reliability is the ability of a product to properly function, within specified performance limits, for a specified period of time, under the life cycle application conditions. Failure analysis is a vital tool in the effort to ensure reliability of electronic products and systems throughout their product lifecycle. Today, organizations involved in activities within the electronics supply chain are facing new challenges, not just from complex assembly styles, harsher lifecycle environments, and sophisticated supply chains, but also from customers who are demanding a quicker turn-around. Unfortunately, root cause failure analysis is often performed incompletely, leading to a poor understanding of failure mechanisms and causes and, customer dissatisfaction due to recurring failures. The PDC starts with an introduction to reliability concepts, physics of failure and an overview of failure mechanisms that affect PCBs, PCBAs and components. The PDC then dives into root cause hypothesizing techniques (Pareto, FMEA, fishbone, FTA), non-destructive and destructive analysis and, materials characterization will be discussed. Numerous failure analysis case studies will be used to illustrate the techniques and analysis principles to arrive at the root cause(s) of field failures on printed circuit boards, active components, and assemblies. What Will You Learn: Topics include: Overview of Reliability Concepts Failure mechanisms of electronic products Root cause analysis Failure analysis techniques -Non-destructive techniques (optical, CSAM etc.) -Destructive analysis (DPA, Decap, FIB etc.) -Materials characterization (XRF, EDS, TMA/DSC etc.) Who Will Benefit: Reliability engineers, failure analysis engineers, engineering managers, design engineers, component engineers, quality assurance functions and, personnel involved with reliability activities within their company.

non-destructive techniques↗

NASA NTRS2019

Cost-Effective High Reliability for Space Life Support Requires Using Storage

Cost-effective high reliability can be achieved in future space life support systems through careful systems analysis and design. This paper outlines a comprehensive approach. Potential future human space missions are described. The mission parameter impacts on life support system design and reliability requirements are discussed. Not all human space missions require high reliability life support. The potential reliability and cost of storage and of recycling life support systems are investigated. Simple storage systems can provide cost-effective high reliability life support where it is needed. More complex recycling systems with lower reliability and higher cost can be used when suitable.

Jones, Harry W.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Going Beyond Reliability to Robustness and Resilience in Space Life Support Systems

The words reliability, robustness, and resilience are often used interchangeably to describe tough and dependable systems but the distinctions between them suggest how to design more serviceable space systems. Reliability is simply the quality of consistently performing well. A system that dependably meets its design requirements in the specified environment is reliable. The designers may not consider themselves responsible for failures under unanticipated conditions. Robustness is the capability of performing without failure under a wide range of conditions, which can go beyond the expected range to include possible off-nominal conditions. Resilience is the ability to recover from or adapt to unanticipated damaging events, such as failures, accidents, external disruptions, and repurposing. Such changes can invalidate the usual operating assumptions and cause system failure. Reliability, robustness, and resilience describe dependable performance under increasingly difficult conditions, first the specified environment, then a wider possible environment, and finally unanticipated damaging conditions. These three qualities are increasingly desirable and increasingly difficult to achieve. Engineering for resilience would design systems that can ignore or repair failures, survive accidents, and recover from unanticipated disruptions. Increasing the resilience of space systems would greatly increase space crew safety. Improving reliability and robustness requires dealing with known problems, but improving resilience requires implementing a general approach to reducing the impact of unknown future events. The need for robustness and resilience has been stated for decades but little has been done. Systems designers often assume that they understand everything they need to know. The potential failures caused by changes, failures, accidents, unknown environments, and unknown unknowns can be ignored. Such overconfidence can lead to neglect of reliability, robustness, and resilience.

Harry W. Jones↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Going Beyond Reliability to Robustness and Resilience in Space Life Support Systems

The words reliability, robustness, and resilience are often used interchangeably to describe tough and dependable systems but the distinctions between them suggest how to design more serviceable space systems. Reliability is simply the quality of consistently performing well. A system that dependably meets its design requirements in the specified environment is reliable. The designers may not consider themselves responsible for failures under unanticipated conditions. Robustness is the capability of performing without failure under a wide range of conditions, which can go beyond the expected range to include possible off-nominal conditions. Resilience is the ability to recover from or adapt to unanticipated damaging events, such as failures, accidents, external disruptions, and repurposing. Such changes can invalidate the usual operating assumptions and cause system failure. Reliability, robustness, and resilience describe dependable performance under increasingly difficult conditions, first the specified environment, then a wider possible environment, and finally unanticipated damaging conditions. These three qualities are increasingly desirable and increasingly difficult to achieve. Engineering for resilience would design systems that can ignore or repair failures, survive accidents, and recover from unanticipated disruptions. Increasing the resilience of space systems would greatly increase space crew safety. Improving reliability and robustness requires dealing with known problems, but improving resilience requires implementing a general approach to reducing the impact of unknown future events. The need for robustness and resilience has been stated for decades but little has been done. Systems designers often assume that they understand everything they need to know. The potential failures caused by changes, failures, accidents, unknown environments, and unknown unknowns can be ignored. Such overconfidence can lead to neglect of reliability, robustness, and resilience.

Harry W. Jones↗

NASA NTRS2000

Comparison of IC and MEMS packaging reliability approaches

This paper reviews the current status of IC and MEMS packaging technology with emphasis on reliability, compares the norm for IC packaging reliability evaluation and identifies challenges for development of reliability methodologies for MEMS, and finally, proposes the use of COTS MEMS in order to start generating statistically meaningful reliability data as a vehicle for future standardization of reliability test methodology for MEMS packaging.

microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) chip scale p↗

NASA NTRS2006

Ultra reliability at NASA

Ultra reliable systems are critical to NASA particularly as consideration is being given to extended lunar missions and manned missions to Mars. NASA has formulated a program designed to improve the reliability of NASA systems. The long term goal for the NASA ultra reliability is to ultimately improve NASA systems by an order of magnitude. The approach outlined in this presentation involves the steps used in developing a strategic plan to achieve the long term objective of ultra reliability. Consideration is given to: complex systems, hardware (including aircraft, aerospace craft and launch vehicles), software, human interactions, long life missions, infrastructure development, and cross cutting technologies. Several NASA-wide workshops have been held, identifying issues for reliability improvement and providing mitigation strategies for these issues. In addition to representation from all of the NASA centers, experts from government (NASA and non-NASA), universities and industry participated. Highlights of a strategic plan, which is being developed using the results from these workshops, will be presented.

risk↗

NASA NTRS2007

High-Reliability Pump Module for Non-Planar Ring Oscillator Laser

We propose and have demonstrated a prototype high-reliability pump module for pumping a Non-Planar Ring Oscillator (NPRO) laser suitable for space missions. The pump module consists of multiple fiber-coupled single-mode laser diodes and a fiber array micro-lens array based fiber combiner. The reported Single-Mode laser diode combiner laser pump module (LPM) provides a higher normalized brightness at the combined beam than multimode laser diode based LPMs. A higher brightness from the pump source is essential for efficient NPRO laser pumping and leads to higher reliability because higher efficiency requires a lower operating power for the laser diodes, which in turn increases the reliability and lifetime of the laser diodes. Single-mode laser diodes with Fiber Bragg Grating (FBG) stabilized wavelength permit the pump module to be operated without a thermal electric cooler (TEC) and this further improves the overall reliability of the pump module. The single-mode laser diode LPM is scalable in terms of the number of pump diodes and is capable of combining hundreds of fiber-coupled laser diodes. In the proof-of-concept demonstration, an e-beam written diffractive micro lens array, a custom fiber array, commercial 808nm single mode laser diodes, and a custom NPRO laser head are used. The reliability of the proposed LPM is discussed.

micro lens array↗

NASA NTRS2013

FY12 End of Year Report for NEPP DDR2 Reliability

This document reports the status of the NEPP Double Data Rate 2 (DDR2) Reliability effort for FY2012. The task expanded the focus of evaluating reliability effects targeted for device examination. FY11 work highlighted the need to test many more parts and to examine more operating conditions, in order to provide useful recommendations for NASA users of these devices. In order to develop these approaches, it is necessary to develop test capability that can identify reliability outliers. To do this we must test many devices to ensure outliers are in the sample, and we must develop characterization capability to measure many different parameters. For FY12 we increased capability for reliability characterization and sample size. We increased sample size by moving from loose devices to DIMMs with an approximate reduction of 20 to 50 times in terms of per DUT cost. By increasing sample size we have improved our ability to characterize devices that may be considered reliability outliers. This report provides an update on the effort to improve DDR2 testing capability. Although focused on DDR2, the methods being used can be extended to DDR and DDR3 with relative ease.

temperature stress↗

NASA NTRS2015

Diverse Redundant Systems for Reliable Space Life Support

Reliable life support systems are required for deep space missions. The probability of a fatal life support failure should be less than one in a thousand in a multi-year mission. It is far too expensive to develop a single system with such high reliability. Using three redundant units would require only that each have a failure probability of one in ten over the mission. Since the system development cost is inverse to the failure probability, this would cut cost by a factor of one hundred. Using replaceable subsystems instead of full systems would further cut cost. Using full sets of replaceable components improves reliability more than using complete systems as spares, since a set of components could repair many different failures instead of just one. Replaceable components would require more tools, space, and planning than full systems or replaceable subsystems. However, identical system redundancy cannot be relied on in practice. Common cause failures can disable all the identical redundant systems. Typical levels of common cause failures will defeat redundancy greater than two. Diverse redundant systems are required for reliable space life support. Three, four, or five diverse redundant systems could be needed for sufficient reliability. One system with lower level repair could be substituted for two diverse systems to save cost.

life support↗

NASA NTRS2014

Body of Knowledge (BOK) for Leadless Quad Flat No-Lead/bottom Termination Components (QFN/BTC) Package Trends and Reliability

Bottom terminated components and quad flat no-lead (BTC/QFN) packages have been extensively used by commercial industry for more than a decade. Cost and performance advantages and the closeness of the packages to the boards make them especially unique for radio frequency (RF) applications. A number of high-reliability parts are now available in this style of package configuration. This report presents a summary of literature surveyed and provides a body of knowledge (BOK) gathered on the status of BTC/QFN and their advanced versions of multi-row QFN (MRQFN) packaging technologies. The report provides a comprehensive review of packaging trends and specifications on design, assembly, and reliability. Emphasis is placed on assembly reliability and associated key design and process parameters because they show lower life than standard leaded package assembly under thermal cycling exposures. Inspection of hidden solder joints for assuring quality is challenging and is similar to ball grid arrays (BGAs). Understanding the key BTC/QFN technology trends, applications, processing parameters, workmanship defects, and reliability behavior is important when judicially selecting and narrowing the follow-on packages for evaluation and testing, as well as for the low risk insertion in high-reliability applications.

MLF↗

NASA NTRS2016

Evolving Reliability and Maintainability Allocations for NASA Ground Systems

This paper describes the methodology that was developed to allocate reliability and maintainability requirements for the NASA Ground Systems Development and Operations (GSDO) program's subsystems. As systems progressed through their design life cycle and hardware data became available, it became necessary to reexamine the previously derived allocations. Allocating is an iterative process; as systems moved beyond their conceptual and preliminary design phases this provided an opportunity for the reliability engineering team to reevaluate allocations based on updated designs and maintainability characteristics of the components. Trade-offs in reliability and maintainability were essential to ensuring the integrity of the reliability and maintainability analysis. This paper will discuss the value of modifying reliability and maintainability allocations made for the GSDO subsystems as the program nears the end of its design phase.

allocations↗

NASA NTRS2016

Evolving Reliability and Maintainability Allocations for NASA Ground Systems

This paper describes the methodology and value of modifying allocations to reliability and maintainability requirements for the NASA Ground Systems Development and Operations (GSDO) program’s subsystems. As systems progressed through their design life cycle and hardware data became available, it became necessary to reexamine the previously derived allocations. This iterative process provided an opportunity for the reliability engineering team to reevaluate allocations as systems moved beyond their conceptual and preliminary design phases. These new allocations are based on updated designs and maintainability characteristics of the components. It was found that trade-offs in reliability and maintainability were essential to ensuring the integrity of the reliability and maintainability analysis. This paper discusses the results of reliability and maintainability reallocations made for the GSDO subsystems as the program nears the end of its design phase.

allocations↗

NASA NTRS2016

Evolving Reliability and Maintainability Allocations for NASA Ground Systems

This paper describes the methodology and value of modifying allocations to reliability and maintainability requirements for the NASA Ground Systems Development and Operations (GSDO) programs subsystems. As systems progressed through their design life cycle and hardware data became available, it became necessary to reexamine the previously derived allocations. This iterative process provided an opportunity for the reliability engineering team to reevaluate allocations as systems moved beyond their conceptual and preliminary design phases. These new allocations are based on updated designs and maintainability characteristics of the components. It was found that trade-offs in reliability and maintainability were essential to ensuring the integrity of the reliability and maintainability analysis. This paper discusses the results of reliability and maintainability reallocations made for the GSDO subsystems as the program nears the end of its design phase.

reliability↗

NASA NTRS2017

Heroic Reliability Improvement in Manned Space Systems

System reliability can be significantly improved by a strong continued effort to identify and remove all the causes of actual failures. Newly designed systems often have unexpected high failure rates which can be reduced by successive design improvements until the final operational system has an acceptable failure rate. There are many causes of failures and many ways to remove them. New systems may have poor specifications, design errors, or mistaken operations concepts. Correcting unexpected problems as they occur can produce large early gains in reliability. Improved technology in materials, components, and design approaches can increase reliability. The reliability growth is achieved by repeatedly operating the system until it fails, identifying the failure cause, and fixing the problem. The failure rate reduction that can be obtained depends on the number and the failure rates of the correctable failures. Under the strong assumption that the failure causes can be removed, the decline in overall failure rate can be predicted. If a failure occurs at the rate of lambda per unit time, the expected time before the failure occurs and can be corrected is 1/lambda, the Mean Time Before Failure (MTBF). Finding and fixing a less frequent failure with the rate of lambda/2 per unit time requires twice as long, time of 1/(2 lambda). Cutting the failure rate in half requires doubling the test and redesign time and finding and eliminating the failure causes.Reducing the failure rate significantly requires a heroic reliability improvement effort.

life support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Analysis and Optimization of Test Plans for Advanced Exploration Systems Reliability and Supportability

Future crewed exploration missions beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO) will operate farther from Earth and be logistically isolated for longer than any previous human spaceflight mission. Under these conditions, supportability and reliability willbestronger drivers of mission mass and risk than they have been in the past. Items with high failure rates, or uncertain failure rates, can result in high spares mass requirements and/or high risk on deep space missions. Testing is a critical element of system development which provides the opportunity to identify and resolve design issues, defects, or other failure modes before they cause problems during a mission. Reliability growth programs can reduce failure rates by identifying and remove failure modes via design changes, and long-duration life testing can provide valuable data to reduce failure rate estimate uncertainty and verify (to some level of confidence) that components are as reliable as expected. Testing activities take time and resources, however, and must be incorporated into program plans in order to be fully effective. This paper presents an integrated reliability test plan analysis and optimization methodology, which has been used to inform Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) Life Support Systems (LSS) ground test planning for future missions. The methodology determines the optimal number of test units to purchase and allocation of test time –split between reliability growth and uncertainty reduction testing –across a given set of items in order to minimize spares mass for a given mission under constraints on total test cost and schedule. Model outputs also include expected spares mass after testing and the expected number of modifications or refurbishments during testing, both of which can inform program planning. Discussion of the model, conclusions, and future work are also presented.

Testing↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Analysis and Optimization of Test Plans for Advanced Exploration Systems Reliability and Supportability

Future crewed exploration missions beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO) will operate farther from Earth and be logistically isolated for longer than any previous human spaceflight mission. Under these conditions, supportability and reliability willbestronger drivers of mission mass and risk than they have been in the past. Items with high failure rates, or uncertain failure rates, can result in high spares mass requirements and/or high risk on deep space missions. Testing is a critical element of system development which provides the opportunity to identify and resolve design issues, defects, or other failure modes before they cause problems during a mission. Reliability growth programs can reduce failure rates by identifying and remove failure modes via design changes, and long-duration life testing can provide valuable data to reduce failure rate estimate uncertainty and verify (to some level of confidence) that components are as reliable as expected. Testing activities take time and resources, however, and must be incorporated into program plans in order to be fully effective. This paper presents an integrated reliability test plan analysis and optimization methodology, which has been used to inform Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) Life Support Systems (LSS) ground test planning for future missions. The methodology determines the optimal number of test units to purchase and allocation of test time –split between reliability growth and uncertainty reduction testing –across a given set of items in order to minimize spares mass for a given mission under constraints on total test cost and schedule. Model outputs also include expected spares mass after testing and the expected number of modifications or refurbishments during testing, both of which can inform program planning. Discussion of the model, conclusions, and future work are also presented.

Testing↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Physics of Failure (PoF) for Reliability

An item’s reliability or longevity is dependent not only on its design but also on how it is used, manufactured, tested, and the stresses it has or will experience. Stresses include operational and environmental exposures to thermal, voltage, current, age/exposure, mechanical, and radiation mechanisms. Therefore, in reliability analysis, it is important to consider the contributions of all these factors when predicting the failure rates of components. Historically, there has been a reliance on handbook data (e.g., MIL-HDBK-217), but experience has shown that these values and distributions are not representative of actual performance. Therefore, to make more credible reliability and risk assessments for its missions, NASA must transition to estimating likelihoods of failure based on an item’s reliability or longevity factors (or the physical susceptibilities and strengths impacting the design’s performance) has or will experience, whenever possible. To facilitate this transition, a Handbook on Methodology for Physics of Failure Based Reliability Assessments has been developed by NASA to assist in applying physics experiences or experimental physics for empirical analysis and conceptualized physics exposures or theoretical physics for deterministic analysis, to develop and aggregate realistic likelihoods of failure leading to more credible forecasts of item performance and longevity. In addition, since it is NASA’s intention that this document continues to evolve based on community lessons learned and the introduction of new assessment methodologies, NASA is encouraging and appreciates the contributions of current and future authors to maintain and enhance this handbook and its supporting case studies.

PoF↗