Abstract

Reliability of a product or system is the probability that the product performs adequately its intended function for the stated period of time under stated operating conditions. It is function of time. The most widely used nano ceramic capacitor C0G and X7R is used in this reliability study to generate the Time-to failure (TTF) data. The time to failure data are identified by Accelerated Life Test (ALT) and Highly Accelerated Life Testing (HALT). The test is conducted at high stress level to generate more failure rate within the short interval of time. The reliability method used to convert accelerated to actual condition is Parametric method and Non-Parametric method. In this paper, comparative study has been done for Parametric and Non-Parametric methods to identify the failure data. The Weibull distribution is identified for parametric method; Kaplan–Meier and Simple Actuarial Method are identified for non-parametric method. The time taken to identify the mean time to failure (MTTF) in accelerating condition is the same for parametric and non-parametric method with relative deviation.

Keywords

Highly Accelerated Life Testing (HALT) ; Mean time to failure (MTTF) ; Nano ceramic capacitors ; Non-parametric method ; Parametric method ; Reliability ; Time to failure (TTF)

1. Introduction

Reliability of the electronic component or engineering system can be determined from the failure rate using many techniques. These techniques are broadly classified as parametric method and non-parametric method. Non-Parametric methods are generally used for estimating the reliability characteristics. This method is very easy to use. The limitation of this method is that the results cannot be accurately extrapolated beyond the last reported failure rate. Parametric method is desirable to fit the failure rate to any statistical distribution, such as the exponential, normal, Weibull, or lognormal. This will result in a better understanding of the failure mechanisms, and the resulting model can be used for analytical evaluation of reliability parameters for the whole lifespan of the system.

Ceramic capacitor is one of the important electronic components that are used in many complicated devices and systems. Multilayer Ceramic capacitors (MLCC) are the most widely produced and used nano ceramic capacitors in electronic equipment that produces approximately one trillion pieces (1000 billion pieces) per year [1] . It is used in electronic industry for automotive applications, telecommunication applications, data processing, and other applications. As the reliability of a system or a device is mainly dependent on the reliability of its components, the evaluation of the reliability of the capacitors is very important to understand the reliable life of the overall systems and devices. In this study, reliability techniques are compared to evaluate the life of the ceramic capacitor using accelerated life testing [2] . Fig. 1 represents the nano ceramic capacitor.


Nano ceramic capacitor.


Fig. 1.

Nano ceramic capacitor.

This study examines C0G and X7R nano dielectric systems of two leading edge Base Metal electrode. The temperature coefficient of capacitor (TCC) should be within the range of ±15% for a temperature range of −55 °C to 125 °C for the X7R Multilayer Ceramic Capacitor (MLCCs) type. The Accelerated Life Testing (ALT) is used to identify the time to failure (TTF) of the nano ceramic capacitor under accelerated condition [3]  and [4] . The highly accelerated reliability test conditions to actual reliability conditions are correlated using Prokopowicz and Vaskas (P-V) empirical equation. For nano ceramic capacitor reliability experiments and studies, the most extensively used model is the P-V model [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] , [11]  and [12] . Because there are a lot of variations in activation energies and voltage coefficients, a range of case sizes and dielectric thickness coating values to be characterized for the dielectric system is given by Eq. (1) .

( 1)

Eq. (1) represents the P-V formula.where

  • t1  = Actual time to failure
  • t2  = Accelerated time to failure
  • V1  = Voltage under Actual condition
  • V2  = Voltage under Accelerated condition
  • n  = Voltage stress exponential
  • Ea  = Activation energy for dielectric wear out = 0.5 eV
  • k  = Boltzmanns constant (8.62 E-5 eV/K)
  • T1  = Absolute temperature
  • T2  = Accelerated Temperature

This study examines the case sizes of 0603 and 1206 with the commonly used voltage ratings in the electronics industry such as 25 V and 50 V. Table 1 shows the summary of nano capacitors values studied.

Table 1. Capacitance and voltage rating of nano ceramic capacitors.
Case size Voltage rating Capacitance
X7R 603 50 V 100 nF
C0G 1206 25 V 100 nF

2. Experimental methodology

The experimental methodology is shown in Fig. 2 and explained below.


Experimental methodology.


Fig. 2.

Experimental methodology.

Step 1: Designing the Accelerated life test (ALT)

  • Determining the failure mode and mechanism.
  • Determining the stress types.
  • Define the characteristics to be measured.
  • Design the ALT.

Step 2: Conducting the Accelerated Life Test (ALT)

  • Perform ALT as per the plan.
  • Collect time to failure data.

Step 3: Evaluate the mean time to failure (MTTF) under Actual Working Conditions

  • Finding the mean time to failure (MTTF) under accelerated conditions.
  • Finding the mean time to failure (MTTF) under normal working conditions using suitable acceleration models.
  • Estimating the reliability using Non-Parametric methods and comparing with parametric methods [13] .

3. Experimental details

3.1. Accelerated life testing in test chamber (combined accelerated voltage and temperature)

The nano ceramic capacitor is placed in the test chamber, and capacitance variations are monitored in the visual display unit of the Test chamber. The test chamber reliability system was based on measuring the current leakages in the electrical device, which consist of a ripple of source and the measuring part. The current circuit in test chamber measuring the leakage current of ceramic capacitor, and the resistor, which was connected in series, changed the comparable voltage from the passing current, which was noted in real time scenario. The capacitors were tested under accelerated testing condition with combined temperature and voltage stresses [14] . A total of 50 nano ceramic capacitors were tested and the time to failure data were obtained based on the failure mode observed in the capacitors.

The details of the capacitors are given below:

  • Type of capacitor: Ceramic capacitor
  • Rated temperature: −55 °C to +100 °C
  • Rated voltage: 25 V to 50 V

The device used to test the nano ceramic capacitor is Test Chamber and Voltmeter. Fig. 3 shows the capacitor test chamber and voltmeter. The nano ceramic capacitor is connected to the voltmeter and placed in the temperature oven. The capacitor is tested twice the rated voltage and temperature conditions. Drop in capacitance value is considered as the failure for nano ceramic capacitor. Table A1 (Appendix ) shows the time to failure data of capacitor.


Test chamber.


Fig. 3.

Test chamber.

4. Results and discussions

4.1. Reliability evaluation by non-parametric methods

4.1.1. Time to failure data of capacitors

The time to failure data obtained in the accelerated testing of capacitors are shown in Table A1 (Appendix ) in ascending order. In Non-parametric methods the failure data are analysed without assuming any particular distribution. Non-parametric methods are much simpler and easier to apply. The several methods for conducting a non-parametric analysis are Kaplan–Meier, simple actuarial and standard actuarial methods.

In this study the reliability analysis is done using the following methods:

  • Kaplan–Meier estimator
  • Simple actuarial method.

4.2. Kaplan–Meier estimator

The Kaplan–Meier estimator is for estimating the survival function from lifetime data. A plot of the Kaplan–Meier estimate of the survival function is a series of steps of declining magnitude, which, when a large enough sample is taken, approaches the true survival function for that population [15] . The value of the survival function between successive distinct sampled observations is assumed to be constant.

The equation of the estimator of reliability and failure rate are respectively given by the following expressions:

( 2)
( 3)

where,

  • m  = the total number of data points
  • n  = the total number of units
  • Δtj  = time taken for rj failures

The variable nj is defined by

( 4)

where rj is the number of failures in the interval j , and nj is the operating units in the interval j .

Table A2 (Appendix ) gives the calculated reliability values based on Kaplan–Meier method. Based on the calculated reliability and failure rate values the graphs are drawn as shown in Fig. 4 .


Failure rate graph based on Kaplan–Meier method.


Fig. 4.

Failure rate graph based on Kaplan–Meier method.

The calculated values of failure rate and reliability are used to draw the corresponding graphs as shown in Fig. 4  and Fig. 5 respectively. Fig. 4 shows the failure rate vs time graph based on Kaplan–Meier method. It shows that the failure rate increases as time increases. The graphs are compared with the corresponding graphs calculated using parametric methods, and they are found to be similar.


Reliability vs time graph.


Fig. 5.

Reliability vs time graph.

The reliability vs time graph is shown in Fig. 5 . It shows that the reliability value decreases as time increases.

4.3. Simple actuarial method

The simple actuarial method is to calculate the number of failures in a time interval rj versus the number of operating units in that time period, nj . This method is very easy to apply in actual failure data analysis.

The following equation is used to estimate the reliability:

( 5)
( 6)

where

  • m  = the total number of intervals
  • n  = the total number of units

The variable nj is defined by

( 7)

where rj is the number of failures in the interval j , nj is the operating units in the interval j .

Table A3 (Appendix ) shows the calculation of reliability estimates using simple actuarial method.

Fig. 6  and Fig. 7 show the graphs drawn between Failure rate vs time and Reliability vs time respectively.


Failure rate graph based on simple actuarial method.


Fig. 6.

Failure rate graph based on simple actuarial method.


Reliability graph based on simple actuarial method.


Fig. 7.

Reliability graph based on simple actuarial method.

The failure rate is increasing with respect to time, which is similar to the failure rate graph drawn for the parametric method using Weibull graph, which has a beta value of 5.23 [15] . This shows that the failure rate obtained in simple actuarial method is accurate. The reliability graph shown in Fig. 7 is also similar to the reliability graph obtained in parametric method using Weibull. The failure rate increases with respect to time, and the reliability decreases with respect to time as expected. The shape of the failure rate graph and reliability graph is similar to the one obtained in Weibull for the obtained parameters.

Table 2 gives the comparison of the reliability values calculated using the two non-parametric methods. From the comparison it is found that the estimated reliability values are closer to each other. Hence it can be concluded that the life estimation of capacitors using the various reliability evaluation methods are accurate. The comparison shows that the evaluated values between the Kaplan–Meier method and the simple actuarial method are similar. The comparison between the parametric method and non-parametric methods shows that the deviation in reliability values is less.

Table 2. Comparison of two non-parametric methods.
R(t) Time (hours)
Non-parametric
Kaplan–Meier Simple Actuarial
0.99 800 750
0.9 870 850
0.8 950 950
0.7 1020 1050
0.6 1130 1050
0.5 1250 1150
0.4 1370 1250
0.3 1470 1350
0.2 1600 1450
0.1 1670 1550
0.01 1740 1650

4.4. Comparison between Kaplan–Meier and simple actuarian methods

Table 2 gives the comparison of Kaplan–Meier and Simple Actuarial methods.

The mean time to failure under accelerating condition for Kaplan–Meier and Simple Actuarial method is 1261 hours and 1187 hours. Fig. 8 shows the graphical comparison of two non-parametric methods in evaluating reliability, and it is evident from the graph that the deviation in results is less.


Comparison of Kaplan–Meier and Simple Actuarial non-parametric methods.


Fig. 8.

Comparison of Kaplan–Meier and Simple Actuarial non-parametric methods.

4.5. Reliability evaluation by parametric methods

Reliability evaluation by parametric method is desirable to fit the failure rate to any statistical distribution, such as the exponential, normal, Weibull, or lognormal. This will result in a better understanding of the failure mechanisms, and the resulting model can be used for analytical evaluation of reliability parameters for the whole lifespan of the system.

These values shown in Table A4 (Appendix ) are used to draw the Weibull plot to calculate the reliability values. From the corresponding calculated values shown in Table A4 , the various graphs that were required to calculate reliability and failure rate were drawn. The Reliasoft Weibull ++ software has been used to plot the graphs. From the Weibull graph it is found that the slope parameter β is 5.3 and the size factor η is 1378.15 hours. The size factor eta is said to be the characteristic life in hours. In this test, it is concluded that it took 1378.15 hours for the 63.2 percent of the capacitors to fail under accelerated conditions. The values of the size and shape factors are used to find the reliability and failure rate for the tested ceramic capacitors.

Since the beta value is less than 6, it is justified that a two parameter Weibull could be the better option than a three parameter Weibull graph. The linear form of the cumulative distribution function for the Weibull graph is given by Eq. (8)[13] :

( 8)

where 

  • F(t) = cumulative distribution function
  • β = shape parameter
  • η = size parameter

4.6. Two parameter Weibull graph

Fig. 9 shows the two parameter Weibull graphs for the reliability test data of the capacitor when subjected to accelerated combined temperature and voltage.


Two-parameter Weibull graph.


Fig. 9.

Two-parameter Weibull graph.

4.7. Failure rate graph for Weibull distribution

Fig. 10 shows the graph between failure rate and time. The shape parameter value is more than two, which is evident from the graph as the failure rate is increasing with respect to time. The failure shown in Fig. 5 is similar to the failure rate observed in the bathtub curve during the wear out stage. The failure rate for the Weibull distribution is calculated from Eq. (9) shown below [15] .

( 9)

where


Failure rate graph.


Fig. 10.

Failure rate graph.

  • λ (t) = failure rate at time t
  • t = time
  • β = shape parameter
  • η = size parameter

4.8. Reliability graph for Weibull distribution

Fig. 11 shows the graph between reliability and time. The reliability graph shown in the figure is similar to the standard reliability graph for the Weibull in which the shape parameter value is greater than 3. The reliability function for the Weibull is calculated as shown in Eq. (10) given below [15] :

( 10)

where

  • R(t) = reliability at time t
  • t = time
  • β = shape parameter
  • η = size parameter


Reliability graph.


Fig. 11.

Reliability graph.

For the two-parameter Weibull distribution, it is given as shown below in Eq. (11) .

( 11)

where

  • t = time
  • β = shape parameter
  • η = size parameter

4.9. Calculation of shape parameters, size parameters and MTTF of capacitor under accelerated conditions

From the two Weibull analyses, the following parameters are determined

  • Shape parameter β = 5.22
  • Size parameter η = 1378.15

The mean time to failure (MTTF) of the two parameter Weibull is calculated using Eq. (12) given below [14] .

( 12)

where

  • T = mean time to failure
  •  η = size parameter
  •  β = shape parameter
  •  Г (+1) = gamma function evaluated at the value of (+1)

The MTTF of capacitors calculated using Eq. (12) under accelerated conditions is found to be 1275 hours.

The comparison between the parametric method and non-parametric method shows that the deviation in reliability values is less.

4.10. Calculation of MTTF under actual conditions using acceleration model

From the parametric and non-parametric method, the MTTF of capacitors under accelerated conditions is found to be 1275 hours. The PV model is used to find the life of capacitors at normal conditions for stresses relating to voltage and temperature given in Eq. (1) . Now, substituting the following values in Eq. (1) , the time t1 is found to be 97,116.12 hours, which corresponds to 11.08 years.

  • t1  = Actual time to failure
  • t2  = Accelerated time to failure =1275 hours
  • V1  = Voltage under actual condition =50 V
  • V2  = Voltage under accelerated condition = 100 V
  • n  = Voltage stress exponential = 2
  • Ea  = Activation energy for dielectric wear out = 0.5 eV
  • k  = Boltzmanns constant (8.62 E-5 eV/K)
  • T1  = Absolute temperature = 348.2 K
  • T2  = Accelerated Temperature = 423.2 K

5. Conclusions

In this study, the nano ceramic capacitors have been tested under accelerated temperature and voltage stresses condition to generate more failure date within a short period of time. Comparative study has been done for Parametric and Non-Parametric method to identify the mean time to failure. The time taken to identify the mean time to failure (MTTF) under accelerating condition is the same for parametric and non-parametric method with relative deviation. The time to failure data generated from the life test converts accelerated condition data into normal use condition data using Prokopowicz and Vaskas (P-V) empirical equation.

Appendix

Table A1. Time to failure data of capacitor.
S. No Rank(i) Hours
1 1 800
2 2 810
3 3 830
4 4 840
5 5 870
6 6 900
7 7 910
8 8 930
9 9 940
10 10 950
11 11 970
12 12 990
13 13 1000
14 14 1010
15 15 1020
16 16 1030
17 17 1070
18 18 1100
19 19 1110
20 20 1130
21 21 1170
22 22 1200
23 23 1220
24 24 1230
25 25 1250
26 26 1270
27 27 1290
28 28 1320
29 29 1340
30 30 1370
31 31 1400
32 32 1420
33 33 1430
34 34 1450
35 35 1470
36 36 1510
37 37 1530
38 38 1550
39 39 1580
40 40 1600
41 41 1620
42 42 1640
43 43 1650
44 44 1660
45 45 1670
46 46 1690
47 47 1700
48 48 1720
49 49 1740
50 50 1770

Table A2. Calculated values of reliability using Kaplan–Meier method.
I Time to failure (tj ) No. of failures (rj ) No. of units at the beginning of the observed time (nj ) Failure rate, (nj  − rj ) / nj Reliability, П ((nj  − rj ) / nj )
1 0 0 50 0 1 1
2 800 1 50 0.000025 0.98 0.98
3 810 1 49 0.0000252 0.979592 0.96
4 830 1 48 0.0000251 0.979167 0.94
5 840 1 47 0.0000253 0.978723 0.92
6 870 1 46 0.000025 0.978261 0.9
7 900 1 45 0.0000247 0.977778 0.88
8 910 1 44 0.000025 0.977273 0.86
9 930 1 43 0.000025 0.976744 0.84
10 940 1 42 0.0000253 0.97619 0.82
11 950 1 41 0.0000257 0.97561 0.8
12 970 1 40 0.0000258 0.975 0.78
13 990 1 39 0.0000259 0.974359 0.76
14 1000 1 38 0.0000263 0.973684 0.74
15 1010 1 37 0.0000268 0.972973 0.72
16 1020 1 36 0.0000272 0.972222 0.7
17 1030 1 35 0.0000277 0.971429 0.68
18 1070 1 34 0.0000275 0.970588 0.66
19 1100 1 33 0.0000275 0.969697 0.64
20 1110 1 32 0.0000282 0.96875 0.62
21 1130 1 31 0.0000285 0.967742 0.6
22 1170 1 30 0.0000285 0.966667 0.58
23 1200 1 29 0.0000287 0.965517 0.56
24 1220 1 28 0.0000293 0.964286 0.54
25 1230 1 27 0.0000301 0.962963 0.52
26 1250 1 26 0.0000308 0.961538 0.5
27 1270 1 25 0.0000315 0.96 0.48
28 1290 1 24 0.0000323 0.958333 0.46
29 1320 1 23 0.0000329 0.956522 0.44
30 1340 1 22 0.0000339 0.954545 0.42
31 1370 1 21 0.0000348 0.952381 0.4
32 1400 1 20 0.0000357 0.95 0.38
33 1420 1 19 0.0000371 0.947368 0.36
34 1430 1 18 0.0000389 0.944444 0.34
35 1450 1 17 0.0000406 0.941176 0.32
36 1470 1 16 0.0000425 0.9375 0.3
37 1510 1 15 0.0000442 0.933333 0.28
38 1530 1 14 0.0000467 0.928571 0.26
39 1550 1 13 0.0000496 0.923077 0.24
40 1580 1 12 0.0000527 0.916667 0.22
41 1600 1 11 0.0000568 0.909091 0.2
42 1620 1 10 0.0000617 0.9 0.18
43 1640 1 9 0.0000678 0.888889 0.16
44 1650 1 8 0.0000758 0.875 0.14
45 1660 1 7 0.0000861 0.857143 0.12
46 1670 1 6 0.0000998 0.833333 0.1
47 1690 1 5 0.000118 0.8 0.08
48 1700 1 4 0.000147 0.75 0.06
49 1720 1 3 0.000194 0.666667 0.04
50 1740 1 2 0.000287 0.5 0.02
51 1770 1 1 0.000565 0 0

Table A3. Reliability estimates based on simple actuarial method.
S. No Start time End time Midpoint of TI No. of units failed No. of units survived Failure rate 1-(rj / nj ) П (1-(rj / nj ))
1 0 100 50 0 50 0 1 1
2 100 200 150 0 50 0 1 1
3 200 300 250 0 50 0 1 1
4 300 400 350 0 50 0 1 1
5 400 500 450 0 50 0 1 1
6 500 600 550 0 50 0 1 1
7 600 700 650 0 50 0 1 1
8 700 800 750 1 50 0.0004 0.98 0.98
9 800 900 850 4 49 0.0016 0.9184 0.9
10 900 1000 950 6 45 0.0027 0.8667 0.78
11 1000 1100 1050 3 39 0.0015 0.9231 0.72
12 1100 1200 1150 7 36 0.0039 0.8056 0.58
13 1200 1300 1250 6 29 0.0041 0.7931 0.46
14 1300 1400 1350 8 23 0.007 0.6522 0.3
15 1400 1500 1450 3 15 0.004 0.8 0.24
16 1500 1600 1550 5 12 0.0083 0.5833 0.14
17 1600 1700 1650 7 7 0.02 0 0

Table A4. Median ranks and log normal failure hours.
Sample Hour Rank Median rank 1/(1-Median rank) Ln[ln(1/(1-Median rank))] Ln (failure hours)
1 800 1 0.013888889 1.01408451 −4.269681149 6.684612
2 810 2 0.033730159 1.0349076 −3.372255906 6.697034
3 830 3 0.053571429 1.05660377 −2.899335826 6.721426
4 840 4 0.073412698 1.07922912 −2.573777072 6.733402
5 870 5 0.093253968 1.10284464 −2.323881488 6.768493
6 900 6 0.113095238 1.12751678 −2.120116268 6.802395
7 910 7 0.132936508 1.15331808 −1.947409762 6.813445
8 930 8 0.152777778 1.18032787 −1.797019751 6.835185
9 940 9 0.172619048 1.20863309 −1.663418782 6.84588
10 950 10 0.192460317 1.23832924 −1.542886968 6.856462
11 970 11 0.212301587 1.26952141 −1.432799192 6.877296
12 990 12 0.232142857 1.30232558 −1.331232193 6.897705
13 1000 13 0.251984127 1.33687003 −1.23673335 6.907755
14 1010 14 0.271825397 1.373297 −1.14817733 6.917706
15 1020 15 0.291666667 1.41176471 −1.064673327 6.927558
16 1030 16 0.311507937 1.45244957 −0.985502856 6.937314
17 1070 17 0.331349206 1.49554896 −0.910076735 6.975414
18 1100 18 0.351190476 1.5412844 −0.837904556 7.003065
19 1110 19 0.371031746 1.58990536 −0.768572494 7.012115
20 1130 20 0.390873016 1.64169381 −0.70172684 7.029973
21 1170 21 0.410714286 1.6969697 −0.637061542 7.064759
22 1200 22 0.430555556 1.75609756 −0.574308609 7.090077
23 1220 23 0.450396825 1.81949459 −0.513230577 7.106606
24 1230 24 0.470238095 1.88764045 −0.453614492 7.114769
25 1250 25 0.490079365 1.96108949 −0.395267011 7.130899
26 1270 26 0.509920635 2.04048583 −0.338010315 7.146772
27 1290 27 0.529761905 2.12658228 −0.281678627 7.162397
28 1320 28 0.549603175 2.22026432 −0.226115149 7.185387
29 1340 29 0.569444444 2.32258065 −0.171169278 7.200425
30 1370 30 0.589285714 2.43478261 −0.11669397 7.222566
31 1400 31 0.609126984 2.55837564 −0.062543138 7.244228
32 1420 32 0.628968254 2.69518717 −0.008568958 7.258412
33 1430 33 0.648809524 2.84745763 0.04538106 7.26543
34 1450 34 0.668650794 3.01796407 0.099467395 7.279319
35 1470 35 0.688492063 3.21019108 0.153862463 7.293018
36 1510 36 0.708333333 3.42857143 0.208755483 7.319865
37 1530 37 0.728174603 3.67883212 0.264358691 7.333023
38 1550 38 0.748015873 3.96850394 0.320915558 7.34601
39 1580 39 0.767857143 4.30769231 0.378711968 7.36518
40 1600 40 0.787698413 4.71028037 0.438091972 7.377759
41 1620 41 0.807539683 5.19587629 0.499480686 7.390181
42 1640 42 0.827380952 5.79310345 0.563418918 7.402452
43 1650 43 0.847222222 6.54545455 0.630617758 7.408531
44 1660 44 0.867063492 7.52238806 0.702049264 7.414573
45 1670 45 0.886904762 8.84210526 0.779106963 7.420579
46 1690 46 0.906746032 10.7234043 0.863914184 7.432484
47 1700 47 0.926587302 13.6216216 0.959985405 7.438384
48 1720 48 0.946428571 18.6666667 1.073888971 7.45008
49 1740 49 0.966269841 29.6470588 1.220641976 7.46164
50 1770 50 0.986111111 72 1.453173762 7.478735

References

  1. [1] L.J. Paulsen, E.K. Reed; Highly accelerated life testing of base-metal-electrode ceramic chip capacitors; Microelectron. Reliab, 42 (2002), pp. 815–820
  2. [2] S. Woo, J. Park, M. Pecht; Reliability design and case study of refrigerator parts subjected to repetitive loads under consumer usage conditions; Eng. Fail. Anal, 18 (2011), pp. 1818–1830
  3. [3] S. Charruau, F. Guerin, J. Hernández Dominguez, J. Berthon; Reliability estimation of aeronautic component by accelerated tests; Microelectron. Reliab, 46 (2006), pp. 1451–1457
  4. [4] S. Woo, M. Pecht; Failure analysis and redesign of a helix upper dispenser; Eng. Fail. Anal, 15 (2008), pp. 642–653
  5. [5] S.-J. Park, S.-D. Park, K.-S. Kim, J.-H. Cho; Reliability evaluation for the pump assembly using an accelerated test; Int. J. Press. Vessels Piping, 83 (2006), pp. 283–286
  6. [6] C. Kalaiselvan, R. Arun Prakash; Accelerated life testing of ceramic capacitors and integration of its reliability test data with PLM solutions; Int. J. Eng. Adv. Technol, 2 (2013), pp. 305–309
  7. [7] S. Zaharia, I. Martinescu; Estimation the reliability of mechanical system using the accelerated life testing; Proceedings of 19th International DAAM Symposium on Reliability  (2008)
  8. [8] M. McMahon, J. Jones; A methodology for accelerated testing by mechanical actuation of MEMS devices; Microelectron. Reliab, 52 (2012), pp. 1382–1388
  9. [9] J. Virkki, T. Seppälä, L. Frisk, P. Heino; Accelerated testing for failures of tantalum capacitors; Microelectron. Reliab, 50 (2010), pp. 217–219
  10. [10] A. Dehbi, W. Wondrak, Y. Ouston, Y. Danto; High temperature reliability testing of aluminium and tantalum electrolytic capacitors; Microelectron. Reliab, 42 (2002), pp. 835–840
  11. [11] J. Virkki, S. Tuukkanen; Testing the effects of temperature cycling on tantalum capacitors; Microelectron. Reliab, 50 (2010), pp. 1121–1124
  12. [12] M. Bâzu, L. Gălăţeanu, V.E. Ilian, J. Loicq, S. Habraken, J.-P. Collette; Quantitative life testing of MEMS accelerometers; J. Sens, 7 (2007), pp. 584–589
  13. [13] W. Nelson; Applied Life Data Analysis; Wiley Series in Probability and StatisticWiley, New York (1982)
  14. [14] D. Crowe, A. Feinberg; Design for Reliability; Taylor & Francis Group, The Netherlands (2001)
  15. [15] V.N.A. Naikan; Reliability Engineering and Life Testing; Phi Learning Pvt. Ltd., Delhi (2008)
Back to Top

Document information

Published on 10/04/17

Licence: Other

Document Score

0

Views 52
Recommendations 0

Share this document

claim authorship

Are you one of the authors of this document?