Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Comparison of reliability prediction methods using life cycle cost analysis
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Operation, Maintenance and Acoustics.
Stord/Haugesund University.
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Operation, Maintenance and Acoustics.
2013 (English)In: Proceedings on the 59th Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symopsium (RAMS 2013), 2013Conference paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

In this paper, it was discussed on the several reliability prediction models for electronic components and comparison of these methods was also illustrated. A combined methodology for comparing the cost incurring for prediction was designed and implemented with an instrumentation amplifier and a BJT transistor. By using the physics of failure approach, the dominant stress parameters were selected on basis of research study and were subjected to both instrumentation amplifier and BJT transistor. The procedure was implemented using the methodology specified in this paper and modeled the performance parameters accordingly. From the prescribed failure criteria, mean time to failure was calculated for both the components. Similarly, using 217 plus reliability prediction book, MTTF was also calculated and compared with the prediction using physics of failure. Then, the costing implications of both the components were discussed and compared them. From the results, it was concluded that for critical components like instrumentation amplifier though the initial cost of physics of failure prediction is too high, the total cost incurred including the penalty costs were lower than that of traditional reliability prediction method. But for non-critical components like BJT transistor, the total cost of physics of failure approach was too higher than traditional approach and hence traditional approach was much efficient. Several other factors were also compared for both reliability prediction methods.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
, Reliability and Maintainability Symposium. Proceedings, ISSN 0149-144X
Research subject
Operation and Maintenance
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-39752DOI: 10.1109/RAMS.2013.6517747Local ID: e9cfec4a-abac-4b0d-91cc-06a74682e9ceISBN: 978-1-4673-4709-9ISBN: 978-1-4673-4710-5 (PDF)OAI: diva2:1013269
Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium : 28/01/2013 - 31/01/2013
Validerad; 2013; Bibliografisk uppgift: CD-ROM Article number 6517747; 20130319 (ysko)Available from: 2016-10-03 Created: 2016-10-03Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(510 kB)0 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 510 kBChecksum SHA-512
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Thaduri, AdithyaKumar, Uday
By organisation
Operation, Maintenance and Acoustics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Altmetric score

ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link