In the early stages of product development, effective design‐for‐reliability (DFR) approaches can have critical impact to the final product integrity. DFR’s goal is to assure adequate product strength against lifecycle stresses proactively. At the component level, identifying and controlling critical reliability factors can take place in schematics and prototype stage (as well as later) and component derating is one popular DFR approach for assuring that individual component will be able to operate robustly against major stress elements.
Component derating is the practice of reducing stresses on electronic components to improve the end product reliability. There have been a number of derating standards established by government and industry bodies. Examples include Air Force AFSC Pamphlet 800‐27, MIL‐HDBK‐1547, NAVSEA SD‐18, NASA Johnson Space Center SSP 30312, NASA Goddard MSFC‐3012, NASA Jet Propulsion Lab JPL‐D‐8545, Boeing MF0004‐400 and RIAC Quanterion. These derating approaches will mostly improve product robustness when properly implemented. However, there are improvement and upgrading opportunities as discussed below.
First of all, the starting point for component derating is often based on the manufacturer’s datasheets or specifications. However, the typical specifications provided by manufacturers are mostly functionality focused and often do not include the critical reliability and durability parameters. As a consequence, most of the derating parameters are limited to voltage, current, power, and temperature. In our view, stress evaluation in component derating can include additional considerations such as:
Take a laser‐trimmed precision resistor as an example (Figure 1), its resistance values can be adjusted finely with laser trimming. When operated under constant high temperature stress within specified limits, there is usually minimal variation of the resistance over, e.g., 30 years. However, actual power‐on conditions when running these resistors often result in transient pulses that induce hot spots with much higher temporary temperature (Red area in Figure 1). These hot spots will cause gradual increase in resistance values exceeding the “precision” requirements corresponding to reliability failures. In this case, “derating” can be implemented by obtaining stress‐strength relationship under peak pulsing conditions, taking into account the “trimming” variations of the given resistor population.
As another “lifecycle‐stress” consideration example, when a high resistance chip resistor is mounted onto a printed circuit board, its resistance value can be “interfered” by the board surface cleanliness, such as when no‐clean flux is used. The surface insulation resistance (SIR) of the board can “short‐ change” the actual resistor. In this case, the “derating” process should understand the process related chemical stress/effect and either restrict the maximum values of the resistors that can be mounted on such surfaces or require guard banding or cutouts to minimize the board surface SIR effects. Similar “derating” need to be considered for fine pitch components, e.g., the large area, multi‐I/O and low standoff quad flat no‐lead (QFN) package, where potential electric field across adjacent leads is a strong driver for dendritic growth.
The impact of derating should be evaluated scientifically when feasible, such as based on the physics‐of‐ failure (PoF) knowledge. As an example, certain temperature‐related derating rules implicitly assume that failure is always driven by elevated temperature and can be modeled by Arrhenius equation. This is the case when derating the junction temperature for semiconductor devices. Reducing the junction temperature mostly helps the device operation reliability, but there are questions worth asking when implementing the junction temperature derating rule, e.g.:
Derating rules are not set in stone, and they should evolve with the advances in component technologies in addition to any application specific requirements and vendor capability assessments. For example, older MnO2 based Tantalum capacitor technology can be susceptible to ignition and requires aggressive derating, while newer, polymeric based Tantalum capacitors have little risk of ignition thus less derating is needed. In the real world, derating is not always feasible either because of poor understanding of the relevant failure mechanisms (e.g., tin whisker) or demanding applications (e.g., military and aerospace). In the later cases, uprating rather than derating is sometimes pursued.
It is DfR’s belief that there are opportunities for more proactive, quantitative, and comprehensive “derating” approaches. Derating should be treated as a continuous process of assuring component strength against ALL stresses in the system and lifecycle context. While the rules‐of‐thumb for derating are useful, their impacts cannot be ascertained without the corresponding failure physics understanding. In certain cases, rather than a simplistic percent reduction derating rule, a more cost‐ effective approach can come from understanding the precise functional shape of stress‐strength dependency. Finally, derating effectiveness should be examined and verified with simulation, tests, and even field data where feasible.
As a summary, we propose the following four step process for an upgraded derating approach:
Properly manage temperature for maximum PCB reliability - Derating your PCB components to the maximum manufacturer rating isn’t necessarily the most effective way to ensure reliability. In fact, it could be counter-productive. This Best Practices in Thermal Derating webinar delves into the hows and whys of derating, and explores the many factors that impact reliability outcomes like: Thermal stresses, Excessive derating, Consistent derating parameters over component life, Steady state temperature assumptions, and Different thermal profiles over an entire PCB. Plus, you’ll learn how Sherlock Automated Design Analysis™ software solves these dilemmas and more!
Power supply engineers have access to more powerful thermal simulation tools than ever before. Finite element analysis and computational fluid dynamics can provide highly accurate predictions for even very complex thermal management solutions. However, these new capabilities fail to answer the most critical question: How hot is too hot?