Forum: Reliability & Maintainability Questions and Answers
Posted by: Lee Mathiesen (firstname.lastname@example.org )
Organization:Lansdale Semiconductor inc.
Date posted: Thu Jan 9 12:48:51 US/Eastern 2003
Subject: Technology difference vs. system reliability
I was wondering if anyone has done long term reliability studies of "gem" emulated microcircuits. what is the mtbf for a 1.5 micron BiCmos designed IC vs. a 4-7 micron bipolar IC. What other problems ie. ESDS, Radiation Tolerance, Metal migration etc,
Posted by: L.W.Kim (email@example.com )
Date posted: Wed Jan 8 20:30:38 US/Eastern 2003
Subject: Duane Law
Hi. How can I get a document about "Duane Law"? Thanks
Posted by: Ed
Date posted: Mon Jan 6 13:17:18 US/Eastern 2003
Subject: Wearout or random failure
The failure criteria of a device is 10% change in one parameter. Is it a wearout or random failure? Thanks.
Posted by: HENSENS (firstname.lastname@example.org )
Date posted: Thu Dec 12 8:07:21 US/Eastern 2002
Subject: ASIC FMECA - Main failure modes
I am searching information for doing an internal FMECA analysis of a digital ASIC in CMOS 0.6Ám technology.
What about the common approach for analysing the contribution of internal functions of an integrated circuit in failure rate ? Does anybody know if they are existing publications or research results highlighting the main internal failure modes observed in ASIC or integrated circuits during operation (as stuck-at-0 or stuck-at-1, supply short circuit, buffer output short cicuit,...) ? Is the main failure mode of the CMOS transistor predictable (open drain, short circuit or leakage drain-source,...) or random ? Is the short-circuit between positive/negative supply tracks (through interlayer oxide breakdown) a significant / predominant failure mode in current integrated circuits ? I thank you in advance for any help you could give in this way.
Posted by: Kenneth
Date posted: Sat Dec 7 21:56:04 US/Eastern 2002
Subject: MTBF useless??
Since there're so many doubts pertaining to MTBF. Can i say that MTBF is useless when describing mechanical parts since wearout predominates after certain amount of time. Just like someone point out the example of a motor having wear life of 5 yrs and MTBF of 150,000hrs. In this case there's no need to specify MTBF because it serves no purpose at all right? Even in our spares provisioning, we should not use MTBF of 150,000hrs since in real life it's not going to survive close to that value. Can i suggest that using wear life in our reliabiliy or spares provisioning analysis is more appropriate when comes to mechanical parts?