Assuring Electronics Reliability: What Could and Should Be Done Differently

Abstract

The following “ten commandments” for the predicted and quantified reliability of aerospace electronic, and photonic products are addressed and discussed: 1) The best product is the best compromise between the needs for reliability, cost effectiveness and time-to-market; 2) Reliability cannot be low, need not be higher than necessary, but has to be adequate for a particular product; 3) When reliability is imperative, ability to quantify it is a must, especially if optimization is considered; 4) One cannot design a product with quantified, optimized and assured reliability by limiting the effort to the highly accelerated life testing (HALT) that does not quantify reliability; 5) Reliability is conceived at the design stage and should be taken care of, first of all, at this stage, when a “genetically healthy” product should be created; reliability evaluations and assurances cannot be delayed until the product is fabricated and shipped to the customer, i.e., cannot be left to the prognostics-and-health-monitoring/managing (PHM) stage; it is too late at this stage to change the design or the materials for improved reliability; that is why, when reliability is imperative, users re-qualify parts to assess their lifetime and use redundancy to build a highly reliable system out of insufficiently reliable components; 6) Design, fabrication, qualification and PHM efforts should consider and be specific for particular products and their most likely actual or at least anticipated application(s); 7) Probabilistic design for reliability (PDfR) is an effective means for improving the state-of-the-art in the field: nothing is perfect, and the difference between an unreliable product and a robust one is “merely” the probability of failure (PoF); 8) Highly cost-effective and highly focused failure oriented accelerated testing (FOAT) geared to a particular pre-determined reliability model and aimed at understanding the physics of failure anticipated by this model is an important constituent part of the PDfR effort; 9) Predictive modeling (PM) is another important constituent of the PDfR approach; in combination with FOAT, it is a powerful means to carry out sensitivity analyses (SA), to quantify and nearly eliminate failures (“principle of practical confidence”); 10) Consistent, comprehensive and physically meaningful PDfR can effectively contribute to the most feasible and the most effective qualification test (QT) methodologies, practices and specifications. The general concepts addressed in the paper are illustrated by numerical examples. It is concluded that although the suggested concept is promising and fruitful, further research, refinement, and validations are needed before this concept becomes widely accepted by the engineering community and implemented into practice. It is important that this novel approach is introduced gradually, whenever feasible and appropriate, in addition to, and in some situations even instead of, the currently employed various types and modifications of the forty year old HALT.