Am216 C5 PDF

Applied Reliability Page 1
APPLIED
RELIABILITY
Techniques for Reliability
Analysis
with
Applied Reliability Tools (ART)
(an EXCEL Add-In)
and
JMP Software
AM216 Class 5 Notes

Santa Clara University
Copyright David C. Trindade, Ph.D.
STAT-TECH
Spring 2010
AM216 Class 5 Notes
Accelerated Testing
(continued from Class 4 Notes)
Accelerated Test Example (Analysis in JMP)
Degradation Modeling
Sample Sizes for Accelerated Testing
System Models
Series System
Parallel System
Analysis of Complex Systems
Standby Redundancy
Defective Subpopulations
Graphical Analysis
Mortals and Immortals
Models
Case Study
Class Project Example
Modeling the Field Reliability
Evolution of Methods
General Reliability Model
AMD Example
System Models
Series System
Consider a system made up with n components in

series. If the i th component has reliability Ri (t),
the system reliability is the product of the individual
reliabilities, that is,
Rs ( t ) R1 t R2 t ... Rn t
which we denote with the capital pi symbol for
multiplication
n
Rs t Ri t
i 1
The system CDF, in terms of the individual CDFs, is
Fs t 1 1 Fi t
n
i 1
The system failure rate is the sum of the individual

component failure rates. The system failure rate
is higher than the highest individual failure rate.
System Models
Parallel System
Consider a system made up with n components in

parallel. The system CDF is the product of the
individual CDFs, that is,
n
Fs t Fi t
i 1
The system reliability is
Rs t 1 1 Ri t
n
i 1
System failure rates are no longer additive (in

fact, the system failure rate is smaller than the
smallest individual failure rate), but must be
calculated using basic definitions.
System Failure Rate

Two Parallel Components
A component has CDF F(t) and a failure rate h(t).
Two components are used in parallel in a system.
Determine the failure rate of the system.
SOLUTION
The CDF for the two components in parallel is F2(t)
and the PDF, by differentiation, is 2F(t)f(t). The
failure rate of the system is
hs t s
f t
1 Fs t
2 F t f t

1 F 2 t
2 F t f t

1 F t 1 F t
2 F t
h t
1 F t
The result shows that the system failure rate is a

factor 2F/(1+F) times the component failure rate. The
smaller the component CDF, the bigger the
improvement. Redundancy makes a larger difference
in early life, and much less difference later on.
Class Project
System Models
A) A component has reliability R(t) = 0.99.

Twenty-five components in series form a
system. Calculate the system reliability.
B) A component has reliability R(t) = 0.95

Three components in parallel form a system.
Calculate the system reliability.
Reliability Block Diagrams
For components in series:
A B
For components in parallel:
B
Example of Series-Parallel
System: Big Rig
G C A
H D
Trailer Cab
I E
J F B
I G E C
B A
J H F D
Reliability Block Diagram (RBD)

Class Project
Complex Systems
A system consists of seven units: A, B, C, D, E, G, H.

For the system to function unit A and either unit B or C
and either D and E together or G and H together must
be working. Draw the reliability block diagram for this
setup.
Write the equation for the CDF of the system in terms

of the individual component reliabilities, that is, the Ri,
where i = A, B, C, ..., G, H. Hint: Consider the three
subsystems:A alone; B with C; and D,E,G,H.
Standby Versus Active

Redundancy
In contrast to active parallel redundancy, there is
standby redundancy in which the second
component is idle until needed. Assuming perfect
switching and no degradation of the idle
component, standby redundancy results in higher
reliability and less maintenance costs than active
parallel redundancy. An illustration, assuming
exponentially distributed failure times, is shown
below.
System Failure Rates (2 Components)
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
Single
Parallel
0.004
Standby
0.002
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Series, Parallel Reliability in

ART
In ART, select System Reliability... Enter necessary
information. Click OK.
Reliability Experiment
Consider . . .
We test 100 units for 1,000 hours. There are 30

failures by 500 hours, but no more by the end of
test.
Question : Are we dealing with two

populations or just censored data ?
Question : If we continue the test, will we see

only a few more failures, or will the other 70 fail
with the same life distribution ?
Defect Models
Mortals versus Immortals
The usual assumption in reliability analysis is that

all units can fail for a specific mechanism. If a
defective subpopulation exists, only a fraction of
the units containing the defect may be susceptible
to failure. These are called mortals.
Units without the fatal flaw do not fail. These are

called immortals.
The model for the total population of mortals and

immortals becomes :
CDF = (fraction mortals) x CDF(mortals)
Reliability analysis focuses on the life distribution of

the defective subpopulation and the mortal fraction.
Example of a Defective
Subpopulation
A Processing Problem
Suppose we have 25 wafers in a lot, but only two

wafers are contaminated with mobile ions due to a
processing error.
If components are assembled from the 25 wafers,

assuming equal yield per wafer, only 2/25= 8% of
the components can have the fatal defect that
makes failure possible.
The components from the non-contaminated

wafers will not fail for this mechanism since they
are defect free; that is, we have a defective
subpopulation.
Spotting a Defective
Subpopulation
Graphical Analysis
Assume that a specified failure mode follows a
lognormal distribution.
Plot the data on lognormal graph paper. If instead of

following a straight line, the points seem to curve
away from the cumulative percent axis, its a signal
that a defective subpopulation may be present.
If test is run long enough, expect plot to bend over

asymptotic to cumulative percent line that represents
proportion of defectives in the sample.
Graphical Analysis
Plot based on total sample (mortals and immortals).
Plot based only on mortal subpopulation.

Defect Model
Mortals and Immortals
The observed CDF Fobs(t) is
Fobs(t) = p Fm(t)
where Fm(t) is the CDF of the mortals and p is the
fraction of mortals (units with the fatal defect) in the
total sample size.
For example, if there are 25 % mortals in the

population, and the mortal CDF at time t is 40%, then
we would expect to observe about
0.25x0.40 = 0.10
or 10% failures in the total random sample at time t.
Major Computer
Manufacturer Reliability Data
Gate Oxide Fails
Time (hours) 24 48 168 500 1000

Rejects 201 23 1 1 1
Sample Size 58,000 57,392 10,000 2,000 1,999
Censored 407 47,369 7,999 0 1,998
Analysis by Company Using Lognormal Distribution

T50: 1.149E32 hours Sigma: 26.175
What Do These
Numbers Mean?
Analysis by Company Using Lognormal Distribution

T50 : 1.149E32 hours Sigma : 26.175
Plus and minus 3 sigma range of time to failure

distribution extends from 33 seconds to 1.66E62
years !
It takes seconds to get to 0.1% cumulative failures,

but over 412,000 hours (that is, 47 years) to get to
1.00% !
Assuming everything can fail is misleading and

unnecessary.
Modeling with
The same data, assuming 99% of the failures have

occurred by 48 hours, can be modeled by a fraction
defective subpopulation of 227/58,000 = 0.39% and
a lognormal distribution of failure times for the
mortals T50 =10.6 hours and sigma = 0.68.
Practically 100% of failures occur by 168 hours. Any

failures thereafter are probably not related to the
defective subpopulation. For example, handling
induced failures are a possibility.
Defective Subpopulation
Models
If we dont consider mortals vs. immortals, we will
incorrectly assume that all units can fail.
Projections of field reliability will be biased

unless we identify the limited defective units.
Statistical Reliability
Analysis and Modeling:
A Case Study
Analysis of Reliability Data

with Failures from a
Defective Subpopulation
Reliability Study
Background
One lot of a device type with initial burn-in results

at 168 hours, 125oC :
Over 50% fallout due to bake recoverable

failures
Since other lots, with similar manufacturing, might

have escaped to a few customers, we needed to
assess the field impact.
We were able to impound this lot, containing about

300 devices not burned-in.
Reliability Study
Design
Two static stresses:

179 Units : 125oC ambient
90 Units : 150oC ambient
30 Units: Control
Frequent readouts at 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 48, 68, 92,

116 hours
Purpose of Study
Reliability Modeling
Determine if fraction defective (mortals) model

applies
Determine failure distribution (lognormal,

parameters)
Determine if true acceleration is present
Determine activation energy for acceleration

factors
Determine recovery kinetics with and without

bake
- Is 24 hours at 150oC necessary?
- Do devices recover at room temperature?
Modeling Procedure
Statistical Analysis Plan
Analyze cumulative percent failures plot versus

time, both linear and probability plots.
Estimate fraction mortals for stress cells. Test

for significant difference.
Plot fallout of mortals (reduced sample size) on

lognormal probability graph. Check for linearity
and equality of slopes.
Run maximum likelihood analysis. Test for

equality of shape factors (sigmas). Estimate
single sigma. Estimate median life T50 for both
cells.
Check model fit against original data.

Reliability Study
Bake Recoverable Failures
L i n e a r P l o t o f C u m u l a ti v e F a i l ur e s V e r su s T i m e
80%
70%
60%
Cum ula tive P e r c e nt
50%
40%
30%
20%
1 50oC 1 25oC
10%
0%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
S tre s s Ti m e (P ow e r on H our s )
S am ple S iz e s : 1 5 0 oC = 9 0 ; 1 2 5o C = 1 7 9
Reliability Study
P r o b a b i li t y Pl o t s ( N o A d ju s tm e n t fo r M o r t a ls)
0 .5
0 1 2 3 4 5
S ta ndar d Norm a l V a ri a te : Z
- 0 .5
-1
- 1 .5
150oC 125oC
-2
- 2 .5
Ln (Tim e t o Fa il ure )
S a m pl e S iz e s : 1 5 0 o C = 9 0 ; 1 2 5 o C = 1 7 9
Reliability Study
P robability P lot (Adjusted for Mortals)
2.5
1.5
1
S ta n d a rd N o rm a l V a ria te : Z
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
-0.5
150oC 125oC
-1
-1.5
-2
L n (T im e to F a ilu re )
M o rta l S a m p le S iz e s: 150o C = 64; 125o C = 113

APL PROGRAM FOR MLE
GE NLNEST
ENTER NUMBE R OF CEL LS: 2

CHO OSE CONF. LIMIT FOR BOUND IN PERCENT: 9 0
ENTER ANY EXACT TIME S O F FAILURE FOR CELL 1
ENTER START AND ENDPOINT OF ALL RE ADO UT INTERVALS (INCLUDE ZEROS)

SPREAD 2 4 8 16 32 48 68 92 11 6
ENTER CORRE SPONDING NUMBERS OF FAILS PER INTERVAL (INCLUDE ZEROS)
34 6 21 2 0 0 0 1 0
ENTER TIMES AL L FAILED UNITS WERE REMO VED FROM TEST (INCLUDING END OF TES T)
116
ENTER CORRE SPONDING NUMBERS REMOVED
0
ENTER ANY EXACT TIME S O F FAILURE FOR CELL 2
ENTER START AND ENDPOINT OF ALL RE ADO UT INTERVALS (INCLUDE ZEROS)

SPREAD 2 4 8 16 32 48 68 92 11 6
ENTER CORRE SPONDING NUMBERS OF FAILS PER INTERVAL (INCLUDE ZEROS)
5 0 36 8 42 7 3 4 3
ENTER TIMES AL L FAILED UNITS WERE REMO VED FROM TEST (INCLUDING END OF TES T)
16 116
ENTER CORRE SPONDING NUMBERS REMOVED
23
MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES
VARIANCE VARIANCE COVARIANCE

CELL T50 SIGMA MU SIGMA MU MU SIGMA
1 1.90 1.208 .444 .0322 .0 373e-1 .643e-2

2 15 .08 1.060 2.714 .0059 .0 104e-3 .266e-5
ESTIMATE BO UNDS (90 PERCE NT CO NFIDENCE)
NUM. NUM.
CELL ON TEST FA IL T50 LOW T50 UP SIGMA LOW SIGMA UP
1 64 64 1.38 2.63 .909 1.508

2 11 3 108 12.74 17.86 .933 1.187
WANT EQ UAL T50S OR SIGMAS OR B OTH IN SOME CELLS (Y/N)?

Y
CELLS: 1 2
TYPE 1 FO R EQ UAL SIGMAS , 2 FO R EQ UAL MUS, 3 FOR B OTH THE SAME: 1
THE AS SUMPTION O F QUAL SIGMAS CAN NOT BE REJECTED AT THE 95 PERCE NT LEVEL.
UNDER THIS A SSUMP TION, RESULTS LIK E O BSERVED OCCUR AB OUT 41.9 PERCE NT OF THE TIME.
(THE S MA LLER THIS PE RCENT, THE LESS LIKEL Y THE ASSUMPTION.)
MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES
VARIANCE VARIANCE COVARIANCE

CELL T50 SIGMA MU SIGMA MU MU SIGMA
1 2.02 1.090 .704 .0051 .0 247e-2 .538e-3

2 15 .08 1.090 1.713 .0051 .0 110e-2 .250e-5
ESTIMATE BO UNDS (90 PERCE NT CO NFIDENCE)
NUM. NUM.
CELL ON TEST FA IL T50 LOW T50 UP SIGMA LOW SIGMA UP
1 64 64 1.56 2.63 .972 1.207

2 11 3 108 12.68 17.54 .972 1.207
WANT EQ UAL T50S OR SIGMAS OR B OTH IN SOME CELLS (Y/N)?

N
Reliability Study
M od el Fit to Ac tua l
80%
70%
60%
C um um ative Pe r ce nt Fa ilur e s
50%
40%
30%
1 50oC
1 25oC
20%
M LE F it: 1 50oC
M LE F it: 1 25oC
10%
0%
0 20 40 60 80 1 00 1 20 1 40
Tim e (P o w er o n Ho ur s)
Projection to Field Conditions

Acceleration Statistics
Estimate acceleration factor between two

stress cells : AF = 15.08 / 2.02 = 7.465
Estimate activation energy, based on Tjs,

35oC above ambient: EA = 1.375 eV
Estimate field T50 based on Tj at 55oC ambient

: field T50 = 18,288 hours
Using field T50, sigma = 1.090, lognormal

distribution:
-project fallout and failure rates for
various mortal fractions
-use customer field data to determine
which mortal fraction applies
Projection to Field Use

Bake Recoverable Fails
P r o je ct e d F ie ld F a llo u t w it h V a rio u s M o rt a l
P e r c en t a g es
2 0%
1 8%
5%
1 6%
1 0%
1 4% 2 0%
C u m u lat iv e P e r ce n t
3 0%
1 2%
4 0%
1 0% 5 0%
6 6%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
0 2 4 6 8 10
T im e i n F ie ld ( K H o u r s )
A Note of Caution
Analysis When Mortals Are Present
Since the analysis which took into account the

presence of a defective subpopulation, parameter
estimates were accurate. The two customers,
notified of the affected lots, used analysis for
decisions on how to treat remaining product in field.
If assessment is not done correctly and there is a

low incidence of mortals, the T50s and sigmas for a
lognormal distribution may become very large and
inaccurate.
A Side Benefit
Screening a Wearout Mechanism
Note that it may be possible to screen a wearout

failure mechanism if only a subpopulation of the
units are mortal for that mechanism and sufficient
acceleration is obtainable.
See Trindade paper Can Burn-in Screen Wearout

Mechanism? Reliability Models of Defective
Subpopulations - A Case Study in 29th Annual
Proceedings of Reliability Physics Symposium (1991)
Class Project
Defect Models
50 components are put on stress. Readouts are at
10, 25, 50, 100, 200, 500, and 1,000 hours. The
failure counts at the respective readouts are 2, 2,
4, 5, 4, 3, and 0.
1. Estimate the CDF for all units using the table

below with n = 50.
CDF Est
Cum # All Units
Time Fails (%)
10 2
25 4
50 8
100 13
200 17
500 20
1000 20
2. Plot the data on Weibull probability paper on

the next page.
Does the data appear distributed according to a

Weibull distribution or does a defect model seem
possible?
Weibull Probability Paper

Note: Percent Failure scale on Weibull Probability paper is faint. Values are 99.9, 98.0, 90.0,
70.0, 50.0, 30.0, 20.0, 10.0, 5.0, 2.0, 1.0, 0.5, 0.2, 0.1, etc.
Class Project
Defect Model Estimates
Weibull Parameter Estimates for Mortal Population:
Characteristic Life (c) __________

Shape Parameter (m) __________
t / cm
F (t ) 1 e
How could we confirm that the Weibull model for
the mortal population fits the data? We estimate
the CDF at three times and compare to
observations.
Mortal
CDF Model Empirical
(Weibull Mortal CDF for CDF All
Time Model) Fraction All Units Units
25 0.221 0.4
100 0.632 0.4
1000 1.000 0.4
Defective Subpopulations in
ART
Enter failure information (readout times, cumulative
failures) into columns. Under ART, select Defective
Subpopulations Enter required information. Click OK.
System Models
A General Model for the

Field Reliability of
Integrated Circuits
An Evolution in the Projection

of Field Failure Rates
Failure Rate Calculations

Primitive Method
Assumptions
Constant failure rate
Single overall activation
energy
Ambient temperatures
No separation of failure modes
Primitive Method
Problems with Calculations
Example
100 units are stressed for 1,000 hours at 125oC.

Assume no self heating. One unit fails at 10 hours for
mechanism with EA of 1.0 eV. Second unit fails at 500
hours for failure mechanism with EA of 0.5 eV.
Primitive Method Calculation
Overall average activation energy : 0.75 eV

Acceleration Factor (125oC to 55oC): AF = 106
IFR (constant) at 55oC :
[1E9x2/(10+500+98x1000)]/AF = 192 FITS

Primitive Method
Comparative Calculation
Individual Analysis by Failure Mechanism
Mechanism 1: EA = 1.0 eV, AF = 501

IFR (constant) at 55oC:
[1E9/(10+500+98x1000)]/AF = 20 FITS
Mechanism 2: EA = 0.5 eV, AF = 22,

IFR (constant) at 55oC:
[1E9/(10+500+98x1000)]/AF = 461 FITS
Total IFR = 481 FITS

Failure Rate Calculations

Later Improved Method
Early failures (infant mortality) reported separately
Long-term life modeled with activation energy

specific to failure mechanisms
Constant failure rate for long term life
Temperature acceleration calculated with junction

temperatures
Later Method
Problems
Defective subpopulations not adequately

modeled
Competing failure modes not adequately

modeled with constant failure rate
Zero rejects and unidentified mechanisms

often not treated
Bathtub curve approximated in flat region only

because of constant failure rate
An Alternative Model
Three categories of possible failures:

Test Escapes
Competing Failure Mechanisms
The three Ds:
Dead
Defective
Deficient
Non-Functional Test Escapes
Dead on arrival (DOA)
Quality issue
Inadequate testing at manufacturer

or damaged after testing prior to
customer receipt
Rejects discovered at customer;

called mistakenly reliability failures
Assume zero in model

There are proportions of the total population at risk

of failure. Defective units are called mortals. The
ones without the defect are called immortals.
Defective subpopulations are generally associated

with processing problems.
There are physical reasons why defective

subpopulations should exist.
Always question the assumption (common in the

traditional approach) that any observed failure type
will eventually affect all other devices.
Competing Risks
There are failure mechanisms that can affect all

units.
We call these mechanisms competing risks

because several different types may exist and any
one can cause the unit to fail.
These mechanisms are typically associated with

design, processing, or material problems.
We model the failures using Weibull or Lognormal

distributions
General Reliability Model
FT Fe Fd 1 FN
where
FN = 1 - R1R2. . . RN
Activation energies are specific to failure

mechanisms.
Zero rejects and unidentified

mechanisms are included.
Generates complete bathtub curve!

General Reliability Model In

Use at AMD
AMD Reliability Brochure 1994 Data
AMD Reliability Brochure 1994 Data

Appendix
Class Project
System Models
A) A component has reliability R(t) = 0.99.

Twenty-five components in series form a
system. Calculate the system reliability.
Rs(t) = (0.99)25 = 0.778 or 77.8%
B) A component has reliability R(t) = 0.95

Three components in parallel form a system.
Calculate the system reliability.
Rs(t) = 1- (1- 0.95)3 = 0.9999 or 99.99%

Class Project
Complex Systems
A system consists of seven units: A, B, C, D, E, G, H.

For the system to function unit A and either unit B or C
and either D and E together or G and H together must
be working. Draw the reliability block diagram for this
setup.
D E
B
C
G H
Write the equation for the CDF of the system in

terms of the individual component reliabilities, that is,
the Ri, where i = A, B, C, ..., G, H. Hint: Consider the
three subsystems:A alone; B with C; and D,E,G,H.
1) RA
2) RBC=1- (1- RB )(1- RC )
3) RDEGH = 1- (1- RDE )(1- RGH )
= 1- (1- RDRE )(1- RGRH )
The system CDF is
FS = 1 - RS = 1 - RA RBC RDEGH
Class Project
Defect Models
1. Estimate the proportion defective p and the
number of mortals in the sample. Fill in the mortal
CDF column in the table below.
Cum # CDF Est All CDF Est
Time Fails Units (%) Mortals (%)
10 2 2/50 = 4%
25 4 4/50 = 8%
50 8 8/50 = 16%
100 13 13/50 = 26%
200 17 17/50 = 34%
500 20 20/50 = 40%
1000 20 20/50 = 40%
2. Plot the data for the mortal subpopulation on

the same sheet of paper. Does the fit look
reasonable?
4. Estimate the characteristic life c = T63, the 63rd

percentile.
5. Estimate the shape parameter m by drawing a

line perpendicular to the best fit by eye line
through the estimation point on the Weibull paper
and reading the beta estimation scale.
Class Project
Defect Model Example
n = 50
Cum # CDF Est All CDF Est
Time Fails Units (%) Mortals (%)
10 2 2/50 = 4% 2/20 = 10%
25 4 4/50 = 8% 4/20 = 20%
50 8 8/50 = 16% 8/20 = 40%
100 13 13/50 = 26% 13/20 = 65%
200 17 17/50 = 34% 17/20 = 85%
500 20 20/50 = 40% 20/20 = 100%
1000 20 20/50 = 40% 20/20 = 100%
Estimated mortal fraction, p : 0.40 or 40%

CDF estimate for mortals is based on
sample size of defective subpopulation.
Weibull Probability Plot

Class Project
Model Check
Weibull Parameter Estimates for Mortal Population :
Characteristic Life (c) ___ 100 ______

Shape Parameter (m) ___ 1.0 ______
t / cm
F (t ) 1 e
Mortal
CDF Model Empirical
(Weibull Mortal CDF for CDF All
Time Model) Fraction All Units Units
25 0.221 0.4 0.088 0.08
100 0.632 0.4 0.253 0.26
1000 1.000 0.4 0.400 0.40
Class Project
Defect Model
p x Weibull CDF Plot
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
CDF
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Times (Hrs)

Am216 C5 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Am216 C5 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applied Reliability Page 1

AM216 Class 5 Notes

Copyright David C. Trindade, Ph.D.

AM216 Class 5 Notes

Consider a system made up with n components in

The system CDF, in terms of the individual CDFs, is

The system failure rate is the sum of the individual

Consider a system made up with n components in

The system reliability is

System failure rates are no longer additive (in

System Failure Rate

The result shows that the system failure rate is a

A) A component has reliability R(t) = 0.99.

B) A component has reliability R(t) = 0.95

Reliability Block Diagrams

For components in series:

For components in parallel:

Reliability Block Diagram (RBD)

A system consists of seven units: A, B, C, D, E, G, H.

Write the equation for the CDF of the system in terms

Standby Versus Active

Series, Parallel Reliability in

We test 100 units for 1,000 hours. There are 30

Question : Are we dealing with two

Question : If we continue the test, will we see

The usual assumption in reliability analysis is that

Units without the fatal flaw do not fail. These are

The model for the total population of mortals and

CDF = (fraction mortals) x CDF(mortals)

Reliability analysis focuses on the life distribution of

Suppose we have 25 wafers in a lot, but only two

If components are assembled from the 25 wafers,

The components from the non-contaminated

Plot the data on lognormal graph paper. If instead of

If test is run long enough, expect plot to bend over

Plot based only on mortal subpopulation.

The observed CDF Fobs(t) is

For example, if there are 25 % mortals in the

Time (hours) 24 48 168 500 1000

Censored 407 47,369 7,999 0 1,998

Analysis by Company Using Lognormal Distribution

Analysis by Company Using Lognormal Distribution

Plus and minus 3 sigma range of time to failure

It takes seconds to get to 0.1% cumulative failures,

Assuming everything can fail is misleading and

The same data, assuming 99% of the failures have

Practically 100% of failures occur by 168 hours. Any

Projections of field reliability will be biased

Analysis of Reliability Data

One lot of a device type with initial burn-in results

Over 50% fallout due to bake recoverable

Since other lots, with similar manufacturing, might

We were able to impound this lot, containing about

Two static stresses:

Frequent readouts at 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 48, 68, 92,

Determine if fraction defective (mortals) model

Determine failure distribution (lognormal,

Determine if true acceleration is present

Determine activation energy for acceleration

Determine recovery kinetics with and without

Analyze cumulative percent failures plot versus

Estimate fraction mortals for stress cells. Test

Plot fallout of mortals (reduced sample size) on