See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308952943

Problems of Reliability Prediction of Electronic Equipment

Conference Paper · September 2014

CITATION READS

1 269

1 author:

Slavko Pokorni
Information Technology School
44 PUBLICATIONS   23 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Slavko Pokorni on 23 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PROBLEMS OF RELIABILITY PREDICTION OF ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
SLAVKO POKORNI
Information Technology School, Belgrade, slavko.pokorni@its.edu.rs

Abstract: Military handbook for the reliability prediction of electronic equipment MIL-HDBK-217 is still used by more
than 80% of engineers. But, in spite of that MIL-HDBK-217 was updated several times to keep pace with technology
advancement as well as the changes in prediction procedure, it has limitations. Beside that, problems in setting
requirements for reliability were encountered in practice. The both lead to differences between the calculated reliability
and actual reliability in use. The limitations of MIL-HDBK-217 and efforts to revise it are presented in this paper. The
problems to establish good reliability requirements in connection with the statistics of causes of failures, which shows
that big percentage of failures are non-hardvare failures and a way how to establish a good contractual reliability
requirements, are also presented.
Keywords: reliability, reliability calculation, MIL-HDBK-217, hardware, software, human, reliability requirements

1. INTRODUCTION
Reliability as a theory and practice began to develop in
the 50s of the last century. In the mid 60s the military
manual for calculating reliability of MIL-HDBK-217
appeared. Even though the commercial manuals appeared
later, the MIL-HDBK-217 is still used by more than 80%
of engineers in calculating reliability. By the time it has
been shown that this manual, which is essentially based
on an exponential distribution of failure, has a number of
limitations, and that other approaches are needed, such as
for example, so-called physics of failure.
First, we briefly analyzed in this paper the limitations of
the MIL-HDBK-217, as well as efforts on its
revitalization. The analysis shows that the problem is not
only in the models underlying the failure intensity of
electronic components in MIL-HDBK-217, but also the
problem is establishing good requirements. This is
because the statistics of the causes of failure shows that
nearly 70% of the failures belong to the so-called non-
hardware failures, so we addressed this problem and also
the way to solve it.
Beside that, the problem is in the inadequate cooperation
of engineers who design the equipment and engineers
who calculate the equipment reliability, especially in
inadequate estimate of the input data in the calculation of
reliability.
2. LIMITATIONS AND REVITALIZATION OF
MIL-HDBK-217
MIL-HDBK-217 is a military manual for the calculation
of the reliability of electronic devices. It was developed in
1961 [1], and the first version was published in 1965 [2].
The aim was to establish a consistent and uniform
methods for assessing the inherent reliability of the
military electronic equipment and systems. MIL-HDBK-
217 provides the basis for forecasting the reliability of the
military electronic equipment and systems during design
and contracting. It is extensively used for military and
non-military programs. It also provides a basis for
comparison and evaluation of the prognostic reliability of
certain variants of the project. It is designed to be a tool
for increasing the reliability of the equipment that is
designed. It is periodically updated to folow the change of
technology and innovations in design procedures. There
are versions A, B, C, D, E and F, as well as the addition
of two variants for version F (Notice Notice 1 and 2). It
has not been modified since 1995 [2].
MIL-HDBK-217 contains two calculation methods of the
reliability: Parts Count and Parts Stress. The methods
differ in the amount of information required as input data
for models of failure rate of elements. The Parts Count
calculation of reliability is performed in the early stages
of the system design (when the electrical diagram is not
yet known) and based on the mean values of the failure
rate of the elements and environmental conditions in
which the system or its parts is used. Generally, serial
configuration of the elements according to the reliability
(reliability block diagram) is assumed. The Parts Stress
reliability calculation requires a large amount of
information. It is done in the later stages of design when
the electrical and other components that will be installed
are known, it means that the real failure rate of elements
based on the actual load (electrical, temperature, etc) and
the actual surrounding conditions must be known and the
actual configuration of elements with respect to reliability

835
mus be determined [3, 4, 5].
Although other industrial and commercial standards
appeared, MIL-HDBK-217 is still used by more than 80%
of engineers doing the calculation of reliability (on the
second place are PRISM and Telcordia) [2].
During the last 20 years of the last century, when
updating of the MIL-HDBK-217E was done, it was
concluded that the model of constant failure rate (it means
the exponential distribution of failures) on which it is
mainly based, is not reasonably applied to each type of
the element and the system, if it is not really justified [2].
This has led to the fact that the Department of Defense,
since 1994, began to stimulate the use of the industry
standards such as the ISO 9000 series of standards for the
quality assurance.
It is believed that the MIL-HDBK-217, as the basis of
almost all the conventional approaches to the calculation
of the reliability, has the following limitations [2]:
− It has not been updated since 1995 and data for most
integrated circuits have not been updated since in 1991,
so the most recent technologies are not included or
defined;
− In practice, significant deviations between the values of
reliability which were obtained by calculations based on
MIL-HDBK-217 and values really achieving in the use,
appeared [2, 6];
− Models have never been subjected to an independent
review by an association of engineers or technical
journals;
− Price of calculation is largely compared with the value
of the results and sometimes can direct on the wrong
path in the design of reliable electronic equipment;
− Multiple failure mechanisms can appear in
semiconductor circuits with the same load factor:
electrical voltage or temperature. The exponential
distribution with only one parameter is good for
individual failure mechanism of an element, but not for
the whole equipment.
Efforts to update and revitalize the MIL-HDBK-217F
began in 2004. Version G was planned to be finished by
the end of 2009 [1]. The goal was to determine which
tools are used in industry to gather data for MTBF (Mean
Time Between Failure). A group of representatives of the
U.S. Government, Department of Defense and industry is
formed, and researches in the field of space equipment are
sponsored. The IEEE Reliability Society (IEEE, The
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) also
participated. It is not known that the version G appeared,
but the Handbook of 217Plus Reliability Prediction
Models appeared in 2006. This handbook is no longer
free, and can be found on the website of RIAC
(Reliability Information Analysis Center)
http://www.theriac.org/riacapps/search/?category=all%20
products&keyword=217plus (accessed 17/04/2014),
where so called physics of failure should be implemented
[7, 8].
In addition, it is recommended that not only MIL-HDBK-
217 is to be used in the calculation and serious
836
engineering evaluation of the input data in the calculation
must be performed. This requires additional knowledge of
the engineers involved in the design of devices and
reliability calculations, and close cooperation of the
engineers, which in practice is not adequate, so an
adequate education of engineers in the field of reliability
is necessary.
3. PROBLEMS OF ESTABLISHING
REQUIREMENTS FOR RELIABILITY
The practice of reliability calculations showed that the
problem is not only calculation of prognostic reliability,
but also establishing the good requirements for reliability.
Studies have shown that the distribution of causes of
failures in electronic systems is as in Table 1 [9]. In the
practice of contracting requirements for reliability only
part of this causes of failures are assumed, generally only
those relating to the failures of the elements (parts,
hardware). In fact, the eight categories of causes of
failures, in the first column of the Table 1, can be grouped
into two categories, as in the second column of the Table
1: the inherent failures of hardware and non-hardware
failures. The inherent hardware failures are those that
occur because of failure of parts before its expected „end-
of-life“ (or wearout) is reached, or due to variations in the
quality (random failures, typicaly based on part quality
variability issues). In non-hardware failures "everything
else" is counted. From the Table 1, it can be also seen
that, in practice, there are 20% failures whose causes of
failures are not identified („No Defect“), and 9% whose
causes of failures are software bugs.
If we start from the assumption that the system original
specified MTBF (initial MTBF required by the user) is
1000 hours, then such a request was made assuming that
in the reliability calculation all of these causes were taken
into account. However, the calculation of reliability takes
only the reliability of the hardware in account, and
everything else is not taken into account, so the actual
MTBF will be 310 hours in use, as shown in the next to
the last column of the Table 1 (Corresponding Original
Operational MTBF). Based on the system original
specified MTBF and failure statistics in Table 1, such a
result (really MTBF of the system or equipment), based
on [9], can be obtained by the relation
MTBFs = 1 (1)
λRe q + λNon − HW
where
λRe q = 1 (2)
MTBFRe q
and
u Non − HW
λNon − HW = λ (3)
u Inh. HW Re q
where:
λNon − HW - failure rate contribution of all Non-
Hardware failure categories (in failures per hour, h-1),
u Non − HW - percent contribution (decimal) of Non- requirements for the reliability of software is often not
Hardware failure categories to overall system failure rate, adequately specified and the requirement for human
reliability almost not specified at all. Reliability of the
u Inh. HW - percent contribution (decimal) of Inherent system, considering hardware reliability, software
Hardware failure categories to overall system failure rate, reliability and human reliability, supposing that failures
are mutually independent, can be obtained by the next
λRe q - operational failure rate required by the end user (in
relation
1/hour)
RS ( t ) = RHW ( t ) RSF ( t ) RH ( t )
MTBFRe q - operational MTBF required by the end user
(in hours).
where RHW , RSF and RH hardware reliability,
So if we need MTBF during use of the system of 1000
software reliability and human reliability, respectively [1,
hours, MTBF, which should be specified (required) for
the inherent hardware reliability in the application, can be 2, 10].
obtained by relation Author's experience has also shown that the calculated
prognostic MTBF should be at least or about twice of the
MTBFInh. HW Req = 1 (4)
uInh. HW ⋅ λReq required MTBF in order to have the operational (actual,
correct) MTBF equal to the required (original) MTBF [11
] and that was applied as a rool when Parts Count
MTBFInh. HW Req = 1 = 3226 h reliability calculation has been made [12, 13, 14].
0,31⋅ 0,001
Calculation of the hardware reliability is also faced with a
and MTBF that would apply to non-hardware failures can number of problems. In [15] it is stated that there is no
be obtained by relation standard method for creating hardware reliability
prediction, so predictions vary widely in terms of
MTBFNon−HW. Req = 1 (5) methodological rigor, data quality, extent of analisys, and
uNon−HW ⋅ λReq uncertainty, and documentation of the prediction process
employed is often not presented. Because of that IEEE
MTBFNon−HW. Req = 1 = 1449 h has created a standard IEEE Std.1413 (Standard
0,69 ⋅ 0,001 Framework for the Reliability Prediction of Hardware) in
2009. The IEEE 1413 Standard focuses not on selecting
Table 1 shows that 9% of the failures is caused by the or using any specific prediction methodology, but on rigor
software, and the 20% failures is with undetermined of what methodology is selected. This standard provides a
causes (No Defect), in which, possibly, there are those clear set of the guidelines that, when followed, will
which causes are human errors. Although there are many provide the user of the prediction a better undestanding of
models of software reliability and human reliability, the the true value of the prediction.
Table 1: Original and Correct System MTBF
Corresponding
Original Correct Contribution to Corresponding
Original
Failure Category Specified Specified Operational Correct
Operational
MTBF MTBF Reliability Operational MTBF
MTBF
Parts Inherent 22% 3226 hours
1000 hours 1000 hours
Wearout Hardware, 31% 9%
System
4%
Management
Design 1000 hours 9%
Non-Hardware,
Software N/A 9% 450 hours 1449 hours
69%
Manufacturing 15%
Induced 12%
No Defect 20%
TOTAL System 100% 310 hours 1000 hours

4. SOME PROBLEMS WITH SOFTWARE in different nature of software compared to hardware.

RELIABILITY
Software reliability is an important attribute determining
the quality of the software as a product. As we said, there
are many models of the software reliability, but the
requirements for the reliability of the software are often
not adequately specified if specified at all. The problem is
Although defined as probabilistic function software
reliability is not a direct function of time [16]. Another
problem is that techniques for software reliability
prediction are rarely used as routine software engineering
practices and it is the case for the army programs. It calls
for collaboration between software and reliability subject
matter experts to take appropriate steps to include
software into the reliability case for the system [17].

837
 The real issue with reliable software is that the critical
function fails safe. Failing safe is often misunderstood
and is often misinterpreted as never failing. Software
safety and software reliability are allies in the realization
of their mutual goal of developing safe and reliable
software. And again there is a need for cooperation
between software and reliability engineers. But, a few
educational institutions or industry professionals teach the
basics of software reliability and its dependence upon
software safety to be effective [18].
5. CONCLUSION
Although the military manual for the calculation of the
reliability of electronic devices MIL-HDBK-217, updated
six times up to now (latest version is F), is used for almost
50 years, and is still used by more than 80% of engineers,
it has a number of limitations and the use of exponential
distribution on which MIL-HDBK-217 is mainly based, is
not always justified. MIL-HDBK-217 has not been
updated since 1995 and the efforts to revitalize it
indicated that other approaches must be combined, such
as the so-called physics of failure, although physics of
failure is not applicable for all the periods of failure rate
curve or equipment life time, but is applicable for wearout
region of the failure rate curve.
The cause of the discrepancy between the calculated and
actual reliability during use is not only MIL-HDBK-217,
but also inadequate requirements for reliability, where it
is not taken into account that a significant percentage of
the total number of failures, so called non-hardware
failures (which includes not only failures due to defects in
the software that is an integral part of the device). In
practice, the reliability calculation is based only on
hardware failures (only hardware failures are taken into
account). Using an example, it has been shown how this
could be taken into account in this paper.
In setting the requirements for reliability to adequately
take the reliability of the software into account is
necessary (the software is becoming more prevalent and
performs important functions), and also reliability of
human and access software and human reliability.
A serious engineering evaluation of the input data in the
calculation is also important, and this requires close
cooperation of engineers involved in the design of the
equipment and engineers who deal with the reliability
calculations, and this requires certain education from the
reliability for design engineers.
REFERENCES
[1] Gullo L., “The Revitalization of MIL-HDBK-217”,
IEEE Reliability Society 2008 Annual Technology
Report (part of), IEEE, 2008.
[2] White M., Bernstein J. B., Microelectronics
Reliability: Physics-of-Failure Based Modeling and
Lifetime Evaluation, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Jet Propulsion Laboratory California
Institute of Technology, 2008.
838
View publication stats
[3] Pokorni S., Reliability and Maintainability of
technical systems, Military Academy, Belgrade,
2002. (in Serbian)
[4] Pokorni S., Reliability of information systems,
textbook, Information Technology School, Belgrade,
2014. (in Serbian)
[5] Pokorni S., Approach to determining the reliability of
electronic devices in the operating conditions of the
aircraft, magister thesis, Faculty of electrical
engineering, Sarajevo, 1985. (in Serbian)
[6] Pokorni S., “Reliability and Maintainability of
technical systems: theory and practice“, ICDQM
2009, proceedings, pp. 44-57, Belgrade, 25-26. june
2009. (in Serbian)
[7] Pokorni S., Ramović R., “The role of physics of
failure in assessment of reliability of up to date
technical systems”, OTEH 2005, Belgrade 06-07
December 2005. (in Serbian)
[8] Pokorni S., Ramović R., “Assessment of high
reliability of military equipment by physics of
failure”, OTEH 2007, Belgrade, 03-05 October 2007.
(in Serbian)
[9] Nicholls D., Lein P., “When Good Requirements
Turn Bad”, Reliability and Maintainability
Symposium, RAMS 2013.
[10] [10] Pokorni S., “Reliability human-technical
systems”, Novi Glasnik 6/1999, pp. 11-17 (in
Serbian)
[11] Pokorni S., Pavlović S., Study of checking the
reliability of the device for improving the stability
and controllability of aircraft, VZ "ORAO",
Rajlovac, Sarajevo, 1990. (in Serbian)
[12] Pokorni S., Parts count reliability calculation of
controllable camera mount (project), Energoinvest,
Sarajevo, 1990. (in Serbian)
[13] Pokorni S., Milanović V., Reliability calculation of
electronic switch for car headlights AUTO LIGHTS
12-24 for Elektrometal - Niš, Faculty of electrical
engineering, Belgrade, 2008. (in Serbian)
[14] Pokorni S., Reliability calculation of microwave low-
noise amplifier, MTT INFIZ, Belgrade, 2014. (in
Serbian)
[15] Elerath G. J., Pecht M., “IEEE 1413: A Standard for
Reliability Predictions”, IEEE Transactions on
Reliability, Vol. 61, No. 1, March 2012, pp. 125-129
[16] Kapur P. K., „Measuring Software Quality (State od
the Art)“, 5th DQM International Conference Life
Cycle Engineering and Management ICDQM 2014,
proceedings, pp 3-45 27-28, Belgrade, 27-28 June
2014
[17] Payne S. R., “A practical Approach to Software
Reliability for Army Systems”, Reliability and
Maintainability Symposium, RAMS 2014.
[18] Naylor W., Joyner B., “A Discourse on Software
Safety and Software Reliabiliy”, Reliability and
Maintainability Symposium, RAMS 2014.