Forum: Reliability & Maintainability Questions and Answers
Posted by: Ken Burgess (burgessfk@gvl.esys.com ) Organization:Raytheon Acft Integration Systems Date posted: Wed May 31 10:21:22 US/Eastern 2000 Subject: Cosmic Radiation Effects on Components Message: Have there been any studies or analyses on the effects of cosmic radiation on electronic components being flown at altitude? I have a system that will be flown between 45K & 50K feet comprising COTS/NDI equipment. I am particularly interested in processor and memory devices. However, any information with respect to cosmic radiation exposure and the effects on life expectancy or reliability would be appreciated.
Posted by: Juan Moreno (jhermo@inf.upv.es ) Organization:University of Valencia Date posted: Wed May 24 10:10:19 US/Eastern 2000 Subject: Hybrid Microcircuits Message: If devices comprising a Hybrid Microcircuit are burned-in on a device level, how can I make the reliability calculations for Bellcore Issue 6? Thanks.
Posted by: Clay Davis Date posted: Wed May 24 0:35:57 US/Eastern 2000 Subject: L1 to MTBF Conversion Message: Is there a conversion factor between a L1 number and a MTBF number? Or a generic L# and MTBF? L1 is when 1% of the population will fail. Also, is it correct to say MTBF is equivalent to L50? Thanks. --Clay
Posted by: Kang Date posted: Thu May 18 12:17:50 US/Eastern 2000 Subject: Failure rate of pressure sensor Message: Is there any reference or material to estimate the failure rate of pressure sensor? Thanks. Kang
Posted by: Sheila Prather (sheila_s_prather@mail.northgrum.com ) Organization:Northrop Grumman Corporation Date posted: Thu May 18 10:35:54 US/Eastern 2000 Subject: PiQ Factors for Mil-Hdbk-217 Message: This issue we're currently faced with is the appropriate use of the piQ values defined in 217F-Notice2 (for non-mil quality parts). We currently have in house the PRISM S/W and will transition to it's use as soon as possible. But, in the interim, some prediction efforts are underway on various programs which are utilizing industrial/commercial grade product. For these efforts, one must still try and define the piQ factor to use that is appropriate and justifable yet not conservative in nature (to the degree which one is penalized). I've reviewed the PRISM manual in hopes that some assumptions/correlations could be made to support modification of the cookbook method published in 217, but it appears that the quality factor is not factored into PRISM evaluations (or at least not to the degree as 217). And, in reading one of your previous messages (authored by Bruce Dudley), thermal cycling/upscreening is not as important as sound manufacturing processes and procedures. You also note that 217 does not accurately reflect the improved IC manufacturing techniques/processes of today (due to it's obsolecence). I understand and agree with both these notes. I also read in one of the most recent responses that a piQ = 0.25 should be used for space class V devices. Given all of this, what is your opinion regarding the appropriate piQ factor to use for a vendor who does not screen to full 883; but, has sound processes/procedures/monitoring in place, QML house, and has provided ample HAST/test data to support use of part. Is it sound to still consider this piQ = 2? Or something better? Thanks for your response.
|
Copyright
• Privacy Policy
• Accessibility Statement
• Legal Notice
• Get Adobe® Reader® 
System Reliability Center • 201 Mill Street • Rome, NY 13440 • Phone (888) 722-8737 • Fax (315) 337-9932