This document provides an overview of a presentation on Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA). The presenter has over 15 years of experience in electronics manufacturing. The presentation covers the basics of FMEA, including the process, common mistakes, and examples. It emphasizes that FMEAs should focus on failure prevention and reducing risk. Teams are important for effective FMEAs. The document outlines the typical sections of an FMEA worksheet.

1. © 2004 – 2010
FMEA: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly April ASQ Spokane Section Meeting
Cheryl Tulkoff
Senior Member of the Technical Staff
ctulkoff@dfrsolutions.com
www.dfrsolutions.com
April 28, 2011

2. © 2004 - 2007
2010
Instructor Biography
oCheryl Tulkoff has over 15 years of experience in electronics manufacturing with an emphasis on failure analysis and reliability. She has worked throughout the electronics manufacturing life cycle beginning with semiconductor fabrication processes, into printed circuit board fabrication and assembly, through functional and reliability testing, and culminating in the analysis and evaluation of field returns. She has also managed no clean and RoHS-compliant conversion programs and has developed and managed comprehensive reliability programs.
oCheryl earned her Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering degree from Georgia Tech. She is a published author, experienced public speaker and trainer and a Senior member of both ASQ and IEEE. She holds leadership positions in the IEEE Central Texas Chapter, IEEE WIE (Women In Engineering), and IEEE ASTR (Accelerated Stress Testing and Reliability) sections. She chaired the annual IEEE ASTR workshop for four years and is also an ASQ Certified Reliability Engineer.
oShe has a strong passion for pre-college STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) outreach and volunteers with several organizations that specialize in encouraging pre-college students to pursue careers in these fields.

3. © 2004 - 2007
2010
FMEA: Failure Modes and Effects Analysis
1) Introductions & Webinar Instructions
2) “Common Sense” Reliability Engineering
3) Introduction to FMEAs
4) FMEA Process
Roles & Responsibilities
5) Common Mistakes & Traps
6) Examples

4. © 2004 - 2007
2010
Introduction

5. © 2004 - 2007
2010
Common Sense Reliability Engineering
o"Unfortunately, reliability engineering has been afflicted with more nonsense than any other branch of engineering." - Pat O'Connor (Author Practical Reliability Engineering).
oReliability engineering as a discipline often fails because:
oIncorrect activities, incorrect people and incorrect timing.
oPerforming tasks just to do them but not really fulfill them.
oReliability activities focused excessively on maintenance or logistics issues instead of product optimization, problem/defect prevention & risk reduction.
oPrediction based on fundamentally flawed methods & assumptions
oObscure or Excessive Statistical / Probabilistic Methods.
oPlaying “Number Games” to “Look Good” of “Justify Good Enough”
oTo avoid extra effort, to meet schedule, to meet budget.

6. © 2004 - 2007
2010
Common Sense Reliability Engineering
oCommon sense dictates that:
oReliability should be defined as the absence of failures during the intended usage life of product & services.
oReliability Efforts Should Focus On Ensuring The Absence Of Failure.
oFocus Product Development on FINDING & PREVENTING ALL FAILURES THAT MIGHT AFFECT THE END CUSTOMER
oFollow by Prevention of defects in production, assembly and fabrication
oUp front efforts for problem prevention / doing it right the first time
oReduces the need / cost of correcting problems found in test or problems reported by customers in the field.
oFailure prevention can achieved by
oUnderstand why failures happen
oAnalysis to identify risks followed by risk elimination/mitigation
oOptimizing activities designed to identify and eliminate both design and process deficiencies.

7. © 2004 - 2007
2010
Introduction to FMEA:
Failure Modes & Effects Analysis

8. © 2004 - 2007
2010
oFMEA is just one of many tools in your tool box.
oIt is not the only tool or best tool for every problem or every situation.
oIt can be used across a wide range of fields and disciplines
oNot limited to “hardware”
oManufacturing
oSoftware
oBusiness Processes
oHealthcare
oService Industries
oRegulated industries – automotive, medical devices, NASA..
oAny place where you need to reduce risk and prevent failure!
What FMEA IS NOT…

9. © 2004 - 2007
2010
What FMEA is….
oFMEA
oA systematic group of activities designed to:
oRecognize and evaluate potential failures of systems, products, or processes
oIdentify the effects and outcomes of the failures
oIdentify actions that could eliminate or mitigate the failures
oProvide a historical written record of the work performed

10. © 2004 - 2007
2010
FMEA in the News
Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant
Industry watchers contend a manufacturing error was likely the culprit. "It means the assembly was wrong, it means the wrong tools were used, it means they were careless in drilling the holes, and maybe the drill was dull,"
Tear in Boeing Jet
A study has found that fatal medication errors spiked by 10 percent in July, the month that graduates fresh out of medical school report to residencies, in counties with a high number of teaching hospitals, but stayed the same in areas without teaching hospitals
Medication Errors

11. © 2004 - 2007
2010
oJapan Quake & Tsunami points out both strengths and limitations of FMEA
oKey issues were detailed and identified
oThe plants were built to withstand an earthquake of 7.0.
oThere was a seawall around the facility in case of a tsunami.
oIn an earthquake, the plants had a SCRAM procedure, which executed an emergency shutdown of the nuclear reactors.
oElectrical pumps were designed to pump cool water to the container to keep the rods submerged (the rods are hotter AFTER the shut down than during regular operation of the plant).
oThere were back-up batteries for running the pumps in an emergency that were designed to last about an hour or so.
oThere were diesel fuel pumps that were available to take over the pumping when the batteries ran out of juice.
oThere are vents built into the system to release steam from the reactors if the pressure inside got too high
oBut many were considered low probability and/or excessively expensive to consider or the risk was underestimated
FMEA in the News……

12. © 2004 - 2007
2010
oBoeing engineers underestimated the risk of cracks in the aluminum, they assumed it would be fine for 60,000 flights (pressure cycles) but have now reduced the expected life to 30,000 with inspections recommended every 500 flights after reaching 30,000….
ohttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703806304576244782850491122.html
oFMEA: The Cure for Medical Errors
ohttp://www.medicalhealthcarefmea.com/guides/qp0803reiling.pdf
ohttp://asq.org/sixsigma/green/pdf/preventing_medication_ errors.pdf
FMEA in the News

13. © 2004 - 2007
2010
Why perform an FMEA?
oPurpose of an FMEA Study is to analyze:
oWhat might go wrong?
oHow bad might the effect be?
oHow might it be prevented, mitigated or detected at the earliest possible moment?
oWith lowest cost, impact, safety risk….
oDevelop a Design FMEA process for use in future programs.

14. © 2004 - 2007
2010
Typical FMEA Uses
oFMEA are often stored and kept to prove due engineering diligence in case of a product liability law suit or government safety investigation.
oWorst use is when a “FMEA Specialist” generates the analysis alone or to simply fulfill a contract requirement, and the report is not even read by the product team.
oFMEA are extremely powerful QRD (Quality, Reliability, Durability) analysis techniques
oBest for total new products, new technologies and challenging design Issues.
oBut the high degree of detail and repetition in a FMEA can be grueling, costly and time intensive to create especially for complex designs.
oFMEA’ing everything can lead to
oOverwork
oNon Value Added work
oFMEA fatigue!
oTry to re-use FMEA “building blocks” or use as a check list on new versions of similar products.

15. © 2004 - 2007
2010
oFMEA is a widely used and powerful analysis/design review technique.
oAn extremely comprehensive element by element review of:
oWhat can go wrong
oWhat that will happen
oHow the situation can be improved
oFor improving a design or process
oFor each component, element or process step:
oList how failures can occur (Failure Mode, what can go wrong, how the failure manifests itself)
oList what could happen (Failure Effect, consequences of the mode).
oList how processes or the system itself can detect & prevent the problem
oGenerate Recommendations for Improvements.
FMEA Basics - Failure Mode And Effect Analysis

16. © 2004 - 2007
2010
oCalculate a Risk Priority Number (RPN) for Each Line Item using 3 Criteria,
oSeverity of the Failure Effect “S” (Scale of 1 (Low) - 10 (High)).
oFrequency of Failure Occurrence “O” (Scale of 1(Infrequent) - 10 (Frequent)).
oDetectability/Preventability/Warning “D” (Scale or 1(Very Detectable) - 10 (Not Detectable)).
oRPN = S x O x D, range (1 (good) to 1000 High Risk).
oAn unacceptable range is defined.
oExample: RPN‟s > 150 are unacceptable and require a corrective action redesign.
oOften a Pareto Ranking of the RPN is performed and used to prioritize corrective action efforts.
FMEA Basics - Failure Mode And Effect Analysis

17. © 2004 - 2007
2010
FMEA - Failure Mode And Effect Analysis
oMany FMEA Versions.
oDesign and Process Version - DFMEA & PFMEA.
oCan be Performed at that Component, Subsystem, System and Software level
oFMECA - Failure Mode, Effect and Criticality Analysis a version that further emphasizes & highlights “Safety Critical” issues
oInitially, the FMECA was called FMEA (Failure modes and effects analysis). The C in FMECA indicates that the criticality (or severity) of the various failure effects are considered and ranked.
oToday, FMEA is often used as a synonym for FMECA. The distinction between the two terms has become blurred.

18. © 2004 - 2007
2010
oFailure: The loss of expected or intended function under stated conditions
oFailure mode: The way in which a failure is observed; generally describes the way the failure occurs.
oFailure effect: The immediate consequences of a failure on operation, function or functionality
oFailure cause: Defects in design, system, process, quality, or part application, the underlying cause of the failure or things which initiate a process which leads to failure.
oSeverity: The consequences of a failure mode. Severity considers the worst case outcome of a failure as determined by the degree of injury, property damage, or harm that could ultimately occur."
Some Key FMEA Terms

19. © 2004 - 200107
FMEA – Use a Team Approach!
Core-team
Support-team

20. © 2004 - 2007
2010
Product FMEA – Typical Team Example
Core- team
Representatives from:
•Development
•Production
•Supplier Quality
•Purchasing
•Validation.
•...
Support team
Quality or Reliability Facilitator
Systems Enrg HW Design SW Design
Production/ process-engineer

21. © 2004 - 2007
2010
The FMEA Process in Detail….
4) Divide the system for analysis & Create Teams -
7) Performing the FMEA to Identify potential failure modes, & Their Severity, Probability of Occurrence, Detectability & Calculate RPNs for the sub-system
3) Choose the type of FMEA approach for the study
8) Complete the Initial Evaluation Phase Identify Excessive Risks, Develop Corrective Action Proposals & Assign Resolution Lead
2) Define the problems of interest for the analysis.
10) Mitigation Phase Example Follow Up Evaluate C.A. Effectiveness & Implementation Plans Update FMEA with Finding & Revise RPN‟s
1) Define the system of interest
11) If new RPN are Satisfactory, Implement C.A.s IF Unsatisfactory Dev & Evaluate New C.A.s or Escalate to Mgnt
5) Create block diagrams that illustrate all subsystem elements, interfaces and interactions - Select Ranking System
6) Create FMEA Outlines based on the block diagrams. Subsystem elements, interfaces and interactions become the FMEA subsections
9) Team Reports To Example Management

22. © 2004 - 2007
2010
Product Definition:
Key Product Characteristics, DFMEA
Process Definition:
Process Flow Diagram (PFD),
Failure Mode Analysis:
PFMEA
Control Strategy:
Control Plan,
Error proofing
Customer Requirements:
Manufacturing:
Work Instructions & Process Monitoring
Information Flow
Functions with Req’s/Tech Specs
System Technical Specs
Product and Process Characteristics

23. © 2004 - 2007
2010
Design FMEA
Process Flow Diagram
Process FMEA
Process Control Plan
Operator Instructions
Design Specifications
Validation Plan
Process Specifications
FMEAs are “continuous steps” in the development process (mind set)
DFMEA & PFMEA are related, but separate tasks
Whenever changes are made for: FTQ or other issues, ALL the process documentation should be reviewed & updated as required.
Key Quality Tools – General Workflow

24. © 2004 - 2007
2010
FMEA – Teamleaders & Facilitators
oTeam Leaders are often from a Product/Systems Group and facilitators are from a Quality/Reliability Organization but no hard and fast rules!
oTeam Leader Preparation for the FMEA session:
oFocuses on the project/product and accessing, distributing, & displaying important product information:
oDefines and assign tasks of the team-members:
oAccesses support personnel when needed
oGathers technical solutions, subject matter expertise

25. © 2004 - 2007
2010
FMEA – Facilitator Tasks
oFacilitator Preparation of the FMEA session
oWorks/prepares together with the team-leader
oHelps define agenda for each meeting
oProduct-FMEA : creates block diagram
oProcess-FMEA: creates flows diagram
oCreates the FMEA starter outline from the diagram
oHelps select participants with team leader (4-6 persons ideal).
oEnsures the FMEA-worksheet is completely & accurately filled-in (actions, responsible person, date)
oFunctions are correctly written down (verb/noun)
oAll known failure modes are listed
oFailure modes effects are correct (no confusion between causes and effects).
oKeeps the process moving don‟t loose time with long discussions about severity and probability.
oIn case of doubt, take the „worst case‟ and move on.

26. © 2004 - 2007
2010

27. © 2004 - 2007
2010
FMEA Worksheet Sections
1.FMEA #: - Enter the FMEA document number, used for tracking.
2.FMEA Type & Name: - System, Subsystem or Component, - Item Name and Number.
3.Design Responsibility Department or Group
4.Prepared By: - The name, phone, e-mail & company of the person who led or prepared the FMEA.
5.Program/Model - List the program/project of system the item is used in and the introductory model year of the item.
6.Key (Due) Date - Target FMEA completion date.
7.FMEA (Revision) Date - Revision Date of this version of the FMEA worksheet

28. © 2004 - 2007
2010
FMEA Worksheet Sections
8.Core Team: - List the names, contact info & departments of the FMEA team members
9.Item/Function - Concisely list the name and pertinent info of the line item/section being analyzed. Correlate the FMEA item/function number to the number on FMEA block diagram/ engineering drawing.
10.Potential Failure Mode - Sequentially and concisely list the manner in which the item (component, subsystem or system) could potentially fail to perform the intended function described in the item/function column. The potential failure mode could cause a potential failure in a higher level item, or be the effect of lower level item. List each potential failure mode associated with the particular item or function.
11.Potential Effect(s) of Failure - Sequentially and concisely list the potential effects of the each failure mode on the function, as perceived by the customer. Document if the failure could impact safety or result in noncompliance to regulation.

29. © 2004 - 200107
FMEA Worksheet Sections
12. Severity Ranking:
- List the teams assessment of the Severity rank associated with the most serious
potential effect of each identified failure mode. Severity is a relative ranking
based on the predefined severity evaluation criteria and ranking system
Sample
Process
Severity
Ranking
Table
To be
adapted
for Design
FMEA

30. © 2004 - 2007
2010
FMEA Worksheet Sections
13.Classification - An non standardized adhoc column that can be used to classify special product characteristics (i.e. critical, key, major, significant). May also be used to highlight high-priority failure modes or specific company policy issues.
14.Potential Cause(s) / Mechanism(s) of Failure - Sequentially and concisely list all potential causes and/or failure mechanisms that might trigger or result in each failure mode. So that preventative or mitigation efforts can be identified.

31. © 2004 - 2007
2010
FMEA Worksheet Sections
15.Probability or Potential Frequency of Occurrence. - Rank the likelihood that a specific failure cause/mechanism will occur during the intent design life or usage situation. The likelihood of occurrence ranking number is a relative meaning rather than an absolute value. Preventing or controlling the causes/mechanisms of the failure mode through a design or process change (i.e. design checklist, design review, design guide) is the only way a reduction in the occurrence ranking can be effected. Estimate the likelihood of occurrence of potential failure cause/mechanisms on a 1 to 10 scale. Sample Process Occurrence Ranking Scale
To be adapted for Design FMEA

32. © 2004 - 2007
2010
FMEA Worksheet Sections
16.Current Design Controls - List the prevention, design validation/verification, quality controls, self diagnostics, fail safe features or other activities that have incorporated into the product or process to assure the design adequacy for the failure mode and/or cause/ mechanism being considered. The team should always be focused on improving or optimizing design controls; for example, creating better tests or creating new system algorithms. There are two types of design controls to consider: - Prevention: Prevent the cause/mechanism of failure or the failure mode from occurring, or reduce their rate of occurrence. - Detection: Detect the cause/mechanism of failure or the failure mode, either by analytical or physical methods, before the item is released to production of by self diagnostics with fail safe features in the field. The FMEA form has separate columns for Prevention Controls and Detection Controls) to assist in distinguishing between the two types of design controls. This allows for a quick visual determination that both types of design controls are being used.

33. © 2004 - 200107
FMEA Worksheet Sections
17. Detection is a relative ranking of the intended design controls.
Sample Process Detection Scale
To be adapted
for the Design
FMEA

34. © 2004 - 2007
2010
FMEA Worksheet Sections
18.RPN - Risk Priority Number - The RPN is the product of the severity (S), occurrence (O), and detection (D) rankings: (S) x (O) x (D) =RPN. The RPN is used to prioritize the risk related to each failure mode and mechanism.
19.Recommended Corrective Action. - Engineering efforts for preventive/corrective action should be first directed at high severity, high RPN, items identified by the team. The objective is to recommended action that reduce severity, occurrence and detection risks rankings. 9 or 10 severity issues require special attention to ensure that the risk is addressed through design controls or preventive/corrective action(s) regardless of the RPN value. After special attention has been given to severity rankings of 9 or 10, other failure modes can then be addressed The primary objective of recommended actions is to reduce risks AND increase customer satisfaction by improving the design.
20.Responsibility & Target Completion Date - Enter the name of the organization and the individual responsible for evaluating and implementing each recommended corrective action and the target completion date.

35. © 2004 - 2007
2010
FMEA Worksheet Sections
21.Action Taken - After the recommended corrective action has been evaluated and implemented briefly description the final outcome and effective date.
22.Corrective Action Results. - After the preventive/corrective action has been identified, estimate and record the revised resulting severity, occurrence, and detection rankings. Calculate and record the resulting RPN. If no actions are taken, leave these columns blank. All revised ratings should be reviewed. lf further action is considered necessary, repeat the analysis. The focus should always be on continuous improvement.
The design-responsible engineer is responsible for ensuring that all recommended actions have been adequately addressed and implemented. The FMEA is a living document throughout the product development process and should always reflect the latest design level and latest relevant .

36. © 2004 - 2007
2010
o“Fill in the blanks” only.
oDon’t understand the scope and objective of FMEA
oDay dreaming
oDidn’t go through the self-challenge process of design control
oCouldn’t separate Failure Mode, Cause, Effect
oMixed everything together. Argument for the sake of argument.
Common Mistakes and Traps

37. © 2004 - 2007
2010
oRepeated itself
oDog chases its own tail.
oMitigation is not truly challenged
oRanking criteria too loose
oOnly identifying the problems but not the solutions. Or, couldn’t control it, even if there is a solution. Control plan not in place.
oDo once, then keep in file
oLeaving Document rather than Living Document
oLack of consistency
Common Mistakes and Traps

38. © 2004 - 200107
AUTOMOTIVE EXAMPLE SEVERITY EVALUATION CRITERIA
Hazardous-with
warning
Very High
High
Very high severity ranking when a potential failure mode affects safe vehicle
operation and/or involves noncompliance with government regulation without
warning
Low
Very Low
Minor
Very Minor
None
Very high severity ranking when a potential failure mode affects safe vehicle
operation and/or involves noncompliance with government regulation with warning
Vehicle/item inoperable (loss of primary function).
Vehicle/item operable but at a reduced level of performance. Customer very
dissatisfied.
Vehicle/item operable but Comfort/Convenience item(s) inoperable. Customer
dissatisfied.
Vehicle/item operable but Comfort/Convenience item(s) operable at a reduced
level of performance. Customer somewhat dissatisfied.
Fit & Finish/Squeak & Rattle item does not conform. Defect noticed by most
customers (greater than 75%).
Fit & Finish/Squeak & Rattle item does not conform. Defect noticed by 50% of
customers.
Fit & Finish/Squeak & Rattle item does not conform. Defect noticed by
discriminating customers (less than 25%).
No discernable effect.
10
8
7
6
3
2
1
Hazardous-without
warning
Moderate
4
5
EFFECT CRITERIA: Severity of Effect RNK.
SEVERITY EVALUATION CRITERIA
9

39. © 2004 - 2007
2010
Occurrence Evaluation Criteria
*Note: Zero (0) rankings for Severity, Occurrence or Detection are not allowed
Probability of Likely Failure Rates Over Design Life Ranking
Failure
SUGGESTED OCCURRENCE EVALUATION CRITERIA
Very High: Persistent failures
High: Frequent failures
Moderate: Occasional failures
Low: Relatively few failures
Remote: Failure is unlikely
 100 per thousand vehicles/items
50 per thousand vehicles/items
20 per thousand vehicles/items
10 per thousand vehicles/items
5 per thousand vehicles/items
2 per thousand vehicles/items
1 per thousand vehicles/items
0.5 per thousand vehicles/items
0.1 per thousand vehicles/items
 0.01 per thousand vehicles/items
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

40. © 2004 - 2007
2010
Detection Rating
Absolute Uncertainty
Very Remote
Remote
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Moderately
High
High
Very High
Almost
Certain
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Design Control will not and/or cannot detect a potential cause/ mechanism and subsequent failure mode; or there is no
Design Control.
Very Remote chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode.
Remote chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause/ mechanism and subsequent failure mode.
Very Low chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode.
Low chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode.
Moderate chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause/ mechanism and subsequent failure mode.
Moderately High chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode.
Very High chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause/ mechanism and subsequent failure mode.
High chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause/ mechanism and subsequent failure mode.
Design Controls will almost certainly detect a potential cause/ mechanism and subsequent failure mode.
DETECTION
SUGGESTED DETECTION EVALATION CRITERIA
CRITERIA
RNK.

41. © 2004 - 2007
2010
Questions & Discussion Please feel free to contact me anytime for questions! ctulkoff@dfrsolutions.com www.dfrsolutions.com

42. © 2004 – 2010
Your Partner Throughout the Product Life Cycle
DfR lends a guiding hand on quality, reliability and durability (QRD) issues through our expertise in the emerging science of Reliability Physics, providing crucial insights and solutions early in product design, development and test throughout manufacturing, and even into the field.

43. © 2004 - 2007
2010
Your Needs…
o…faster time to market
o…find, incorporate new technologies
o…extend warranty period
o…reduce warranty costs
o…technically manage suppliers
o…improve employee skills
o…out perform your competition

44. © 2004 - 2007
2010
…Our Capabilities
oDfR uses Physics-of-Failure (PoF) and Best Practices expertise to provide knowledge- based strategic quality and reliability solutions to the electronics industry
oTechnology Insertion
oDesign
oManufacturing and Supplier Selection
oProduct Validation and Accelerated Testing
oRoot-Cause Failure Analysis & Forensics Engineering
oUnique combination of expert consultants and state-of-the-art laboratory facilities
oCapabilities at package, board, product, and system- level

45. © 2004 - 2007
2010
How Do Companies Use DfR?
oWork overflow
oMaximize the efficiency of your current staff
oIndependent party on critical design reviews
oSupplier benchmarking (commodity / custom)
oTest plan development and execution
oReliability predictions
oRoot-Cause Analysis
oContinuing education

46. © 2004 - 2007
2010
Who Uses DfR?
Military / Avionics / Space
Enterprise / Telecom / ATE
Consumer / Appliance
Industrial / Power
Lockheed Martin
Cisco Systems
Dell Computers
General Electric
Northrop Grumman
Huawei
Hewlett Packard
Siemens
Boeing
Sun Microsystems
Apple
Emerson Electric
General Dynamics
Motorola
Fujitsu
Schlumberger
BAE Systems
Alcatel-Lucent
Samsung
Ingersoll Rand
Honeywell
Juniper Networks
LG Electronics
Danaher Motion
Hamilton Sundstrand
KLA-Tencor
Microsoft
Olympus
Rockwell Collins
Xerox
Tyco Electronics
Auto / Transportation
Government
General Motors
Portables
Medical
NAVAIR
Caterpillar
LG Electronics
Philips Medical
NASA
Panasonic Automotive
Kyocera
Medtronic
Air Force
TRW
Boston Scientific
Magna
Components
Cardinal Health
Contract Manufacturers
Takata
Samsung
Beckman Coulter
Flextronics
Fairchild Semiconductor
Biotronik
Benchmark Electronics
Materials
International Rectifier
Cameron Health
Jabil
Graftech
Nvidia
Cardiac Science
Gold Circuit Electronics
Nihon Superior
Amphenol
Zoll Medical
Viasystems
NIC

47. © 2004 - 2007
2010
DfR Solutions – Senior Experts
oDr. Craig Hillman, CEO and Managing Partner
oExpertise: Design for Reliability (DfR), Pb-free Transition, Supplier Benchmarking, Passive Components, Printed Circuit Board
oPhD, Material Science (UCSB)
oDr. Nathan Blattau, Vice President
oExpertise: Power Devices, DfR, Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis (FEA), Solder Joint Reliability, Fracture, Fatigue Mechanics.
oPhD, Mechanical Eng. (University of Maryland)
oCheryl Tulkoff, CRE
oExpertise: Pb-Free Transition, PCB and PCBA Fabrication, IC Fabrication, RCA (8D and Red X)
oB.S., Mechanical Engineering (Georgia Tech)
oDr. Ron Wunderlich
oExpertise: Design for EMI/EMC, Power Supply Design, Analog Circuit Design, Spice Model Development, Monte Carlo Circuit Simulation
oPhD, Electrical Engineering (SUNY – Binghamton)
oGreg Caswell
oExpertise: Nanotechnology CMOS, CMOS/SOS, Input Protection Networks / ESD, SMT, Pb-free
oB.S., Electrical Engineering (Rutgers)
oDr. Randy Schueller
oExpertise: IC Fabrication, IC Packaging, Pb-Free Transition Activities, Supplier Benchmarking, Corrosion Mechanisms
oPhD, Material Science (University of Virginia)
oDr. Gregg Kittlesen
oExpertise: Semiconductor Lasers, Microprocessors, Memory Components, Photonic and RF Technologies, Supply Chain Management
oPhD, Inorganic Chemistry (MIT)
oJames McLeish, CRE
oExpertise: FMEA, Root-Cause Analysis, Warranty Analysis, Automotive Electronics, Physics of Failure, Battery Technology
oM.S., Electrical Eng. (Wayne State University)
oNorm Anderson
oExpertise: Avionics, Product Qualification, Safety Criticality Assessment, FTA, FMEA, Component Uprating, Obsolescence
oB.S., Electrical Engineering (Iowa State University)
oAnne Marie Neufelder
oExpertise: Software Reliability Prediction, Best Practices in Software Risk Management
oB.S., Systems Engineering (Georgia Tech)
oWalt Tomczykowski, Vice President, CRE
oExpertise: Systems Eng., Life Cycle Management (including obsolescence), Spares Analysis, Counterfeit Mitigation, Failure Analysis
oM.S., Reliability Eng. (University of Maryland)

48. © 2004 - 2007
2010
DfR Locations (North America)
Austin, TX 512-913-8624
Rochester Hills, MI 248-726-7600
Binghamton, NY 607-754-0347
Minneapolis, MN 320-433-4075
Corporate Headquarters College Park, MD 301-474-0607

49. © 2004 - 2007
2010
DfR Resources and Equipment
Electrical
oOscilloscopes (Digital and Analog)
oCurve Tracers (Digital and Analog)
oCapacitance Meters
oLow/High Resistance Meters
oHigh Voltage Power Supplies (Hi-Pot)
oNetwork Analyzer (up to 3 GHz)
Testing
oHALT / HASS
oTemperature Cycling
oThermal Shock
oTemperature/Humidity
oVibration
oMechanical Shock / Drop Tower
oMixed Flowing Gas
oSalt Spray
oCapacitor Testing (Ripple Current, Step Stress, Partial Discharge)
oBend Testing (Cyclic and Overstress)
oMechanical Testing
Material Analysis
oX-ray
oAcoustic Microscopy
oInfrared Camera
oMetallographic Preparation
oStereoscope
oOptical Microscope
oScanning Electron Microscope
oEnergy Dispersive Spectroscopy
oIon Chromatography
oFTIR (Solid / Film / Liquid)
oThermomechanical Analyzer
oMechanical Testing (Tension, Compression, Shear, etc.)
oSQUID Microscopy
Other
oCircuit Simulation
oFinite Element Analysis (FEA)
oComputational Fluid Dynamics
oReliability Prediction (Physics of Failure)

50. © 2004 - 2007
2010
DfR – Software Solutions
oDfR has developed a revolutionary tool that allows for an early-stage assessment of hardware design
oEasy-to-use + Comprehensive
oIdentification of high risk design elements
oTradeoff analysis
oFaster time-to-market through guarantee of test success
oPhysics-based reliability prediction
oWarranty reduction

51. © 2004 - 2007
2010
DfX – A Software Solution

52. © 2004 - 2007
2010
Tech Insertion: Integrated Circuit Wearout
oWorking with companies across the electronic supply chain to develop an online solution
”The notion that a transistor ages is a new concept for circuit designers,” … aging has traditionally been the bailiwick of engineers who guarantee the transistor will operate for 10 years or so…But as transistors are scaled down further and operated with thinner voltage margins, it’s becoming harder to make those guarantees… transistor aging is emerging as a circuit designer’s problem.
IEEE Spectrum, June 2009
1995
2005
2015
0.1
1.0
10
100
1000
Service life, yrs.
Computer, cell phone requirements
Hi-Rel requirements
500
250
130
65
35
Semiconductor lifetimes
Semiconductor Feature Size, nm

53. © 2004 - 2007
2010
IC Wearout – Value Proposition
oTradeoff studies
oReliability predictions
oSystem prognostics and self-healing
oSupplier engagement

54. © 2004 - 2007
2010
DfR Design Assessment Tool
oMeets current market needs, including
oAccelerates time-to-market through earlier and more robust analysis
oMitigates risk in move to environmentally friendly materials
oEffectively manages the original design manufacturer (ODM) supply chain
oMeets new requirements from end-users and regulators for knowledge based assessment

55. © 2004 - 2007
2010
Tech Insertion: 2nd Gen Solder Testing
oMajor solder manufacturer needed to demonstrate reliability of 2nd generation Pb-free alloy
oDfR provided a turn-key solution
oTest plan development
oTest coupon design
oTest execution
oFailure analysis
oSolder reliability model
oResults
oDeveloped new test technology to meet schedule and cost constraints
oOnline calculators now available for customers world-wide

56. © 2004 - 2007
2010
Design: Component Packaging
oDfR has assisted numerous component manufacturers and OEMs in ensuring robustness of existing and future packaging solutions
oExpertise
o1st Level Interconnects (Solder Bumps / Wire Bonds)
oUnderfill Selection and Validation
oSubstrate / RDL
oDesign for Manufacturability (Package Level)
oPhysics of Failure (PoF) Reliability Prediction
oFinite Element Analysis (FEA)
oFocus
oFlip Chip / Ball Grid Array
oBottom Terminated Components
oStacked Die / System in Package (SiP)

57. © 2004 - 200107
Design:
Circuit Board
Level
o DfR uses industry-leading design for excellence (DfX)
practices to optimize design and ensure success early in new
product development (NPD)
o Expertise
o Circuit Analysis
o Power Supply Design
o Design for Reliability
o Design for Manufacturability
o Design for Testability
o Design for Environment
o Physics of Failure (PoF) Reliability Prediction
o Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
o Focus
o Semiconductor Packaging
o Printed Circuit Board
o Circuit Card Assemblies
o Product and System-Level

58. © 2004 - 2007
2010
Supplier Assessment (Approach)
oDfR offers multiple solution paths for ensuring a quality supply chain.
oEach solution is specifically tailored to each company’s production volume, design complexity, and cost requirements
oApproaches include
oComponent-Level Testing
oDevelopment of Supplier Qualification Documents
oSupplier Evaluations (Component, Board, Assembly)
oConstruction Analysis
oStatistical Process Control Evaluations

59. © 2004 - 2007
2010
Supply Chain: Component Qualification
oWorking with major electronic OEMs on benchmarking suppliers of critical components
oActions include
oDeveloping test plans
oCharacterizing time to failure behavior
oDeveloping qualification criteria based on test results

60. © 2004 - 200107
Testing: Test
Plan
Development
o Product test plans are critical to the success of a new product or technology
o Stressful enough to identify defects
o Show correlation to a realistic environment
o DfR Solutions approach
o Industry Standards + Physics of Failure
o Results in an optimized test plan that is acceptable
to management and customers
o Experience in product test plans include
o Industrial controls
o Process monitoring
o Consumer appliances
o Telecom (Class I, II, and III environments)
o Personal computers
o Mobile phones and other mobile products
o Avionics (engine controls, fuselage)
o Automotive (under-hood, passenger
compartment, chassis, and trunk)
o Down-hole oil-drilling
Month Cycles/Year Ramp Dwell
Max
Temp
(ºC)
Min
Temp
(ºC)
T
Cycles
per Day
AF
Jan+Feb+Dec 90 6 hrs 6 hrs 30 5 25 1 12.654
Mar+Nov 60 6 hrs 6 hrs 35 10 25 1 11.799
Apr+Oct 60 6 hrs 6 hrs 40 15 25 1 10.944
May+Sep 60 6 hrs 6 hrs 45 20 25 1 10.26
Jun+Jul+Aug 90 6 hrs 6 hrs 50 25 25 1 9.576
Operational 16.6 5 min 3 hrs 25 -40 65 1 2.223
ALT Plan Approval
Start
Manufacture
Qualification and
RGT Units
Pass Qual?
N
Y
Finish
Perform Qual
Failure Analysis /
Repairs
Perform SRT Perform RGT Order SRT Units
Perform Updates
on SRT Units
Submit Final
Report
Update SRT
Units?
N
Y
Update RGT
units?
Perform Updates
on RGT Units
Y
N
Limited Re-qualification?
N
Order Limited Re-qual
units and
Perform Limited
Re-qualification
Pass Limited
Re-qual?
Failure Analysis /
Repairs
ALT Objective
Met?
Y
N
Y Y
Request Guidance
from GD
N

61. © 2004 - 2007
2010
Root Cause Analysis (RCA) -- Personnel
oThe number one requirement in failure analysis
oDfR has all the necessary elements
oElectrical engineers, mechanical engineers, materials scientists, inorganic chemists, etc.
oExtensive in-house expertise
oPhD, MS, BS + industry experience
oThe right background
oOver 800 failure analyses combined

62. © 2004 - 2007
2010
Failure Analysis: Desktop Computer
oFailures during HALT
oExposure to vibration
oElectrical testing indicated electrical open
oUnder BGA socket
oValidity of failure mechanism?
oShearing of electrolytic capacitor leads
oDependent upon orientation of capacitors
oOnly those along the board length
oVibration test may not have applied random loads
oPotential issues with vibration table or fixturing

63. © 2004 - 2007
2010
On-Die RCA
oWireless and telecom component manufacturer
oIssues with new silicon nitride technology in MIMCAP structure
oHalted multi-million dollar product launch
oIdentified potential root causes based on
oKnowledge of semiconductor process technology
oFundamental behavior of the material
oRecommended experimental design and analytical techniques to confirm failure mechanism
oGuided modification in process parameters for fundamentally more robust technology
Metal 2 Bridge
Nitride 2
Nitride 1
Standard dual nitride layer MIMCAP

64. © 2004 - 2007
2010
Knowledge and Education (Website)
oLet your staff learn all day / every day
E-LEARNING
oScholarly articles
oTechnical white papers
oCase studies
oReliability calculators
oOnline presentations

65. © 2004 - 2007
2010
Interested?
oCould your next product benefit from DfR’s extensive expertise and PoF knowledge base?
oBring us in as an independent party during critical design reviews
oAre your concerned with new technologies?
oDfR’s scientists and engineers can provide comprehensive analysis to ensure risk-minimization during these difficult transitions
oTake advantage of our unique Open-Door policy!
oSee how much we already know about your current issues
oChances are we have already solved your problem at least once before
oWe work around the clock and around the world
oContact us by phone (301-474-0607) or email (askdfr@dfrsolutions.com)