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

net/publication/322807782

Environmental Contamination and Corrosion in Electronics: The Need for an

Industrial Standard and Related Accelerated Test Method That Makes Sense

Conference Paper · January 2018

DOI: 10.1109/RAM.2018.8463133

CITATIONS READS

2 4,673

3 authors:

Garron Morris R.A. Lukaszewski

Rockwell Automation Rockwell Automation
24 PUBLICATIONS   198 CITATIONS    51 PUBLICATIONS   998 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Christopher Genthe
Rockwell Automation
2 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Liquid Jet Impingement Cooling View project

Predictive life models for power electronics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Garron Morris on 30 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Environmental Contamination and Corrosion in Electronics: The Need
for an Industrial Standard and Related Accelerated Test Method
That Makes Sense
Garron K. Morris, CRE, Rockwell Automation
Richard A. Lukaszewski, Rockwell Automation
Christopher Genthe, Rockwell Automation

Key Words: corrosion, electronics, corrosion standards, mixed flow gas testing, verifying of corrosion

SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS specification in terms of a long-term average and maximum ppb
value, where the maximum value is the peak value over time
Two specifications, ISA 71.04-1985 and IEC 60721-3-3,
(30 minutes per day) [2].
that are used to specify corrosive environments for electronics
A prevalent method for accelerating corrosion is Mixed
have created confusion for manufacturers that create products
Flow Gas (MFG) testing. Mixed Flow Gas testing was
for use in these environments due to inconsistencies and
developed in the early 1980’s at Battelle Memorial Institute to
incomplete information. These standards also do not specify
replicate the rates of corrosion measured via copper and silver
how the products should be tested to show compliance with
test coupons in various industrial environments. Several levels
each standard. Lack of consistent verification methods leads to
of MFG tests are defined (Class II to Class IV), where higher
inconsistent practices in the industry and even within product
class levels indicate higher rates of corrosion [3]. In the MFG
development groups in the same company. Accelerated testing
test, the temperature and humidity levels are elevated as well to
using single- and mixed gas are often used in industry to
give an acceleration factor of 180 [4]. A typical Battelle MFG
demonstrate compliance with these requirements, but even the
test lasts 20 to 30 days which would equate to 10 to 15 years of
accelerated testing standards have issues. This paper explores
field life. Other MFG test standards have been developed by
the inconsistencies in the standards and verification methods
Electronic Industries Association (EIA) and International
used for corrosion of industrial electronics and makes
Electrotechnical Committee (IEC) [5, 6].
recommendations for improvements.
The MFG test can generate corrosion in the electronics
used in VFDs; however, the main disadvantage is that there is
1 INTRODUCTION little correlation between accelerated test methods and the ISA
and IEC environmental standards. This is further complicated
Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) systems are commonly
by inconsistencies between the ISA and IEC and standards.
used for process automation and motion control in industrial
This paper details the authors’ experiences with the difficultly
and commercial applications such as cooling fans, pumps, belt
of verifying compliance with the IEC and ISA corrosion
conveyors, rotary kilns, and elevators. Failure of the motor
standards using MFG testing for critical electronic components
drive can lead to unplanned downtime and substantial revenue
used in VFDs. It is the authors’ opinion that the present
loss for customers. VFDs are increasingly used in applications
corrosion standards and lack of verification methods that trace
like rubber processing, paper making, and waste-water handling
to these standards is a problem that needs to be addressed by
where the environments have high concentrations of corrosive
professional societies and standards committees.
gasses like hydrogen sulfide, chlorine, or nitrogen oxides. The
presence of these gases, coupled with the sales growth of 2 STANDARDS FOR CORROSIVE ATMOSPHERES
regions characterized by high relative humidity, have created an
Two popular standards that define operational corrosive
environment where there is the potential for failure due to
atmospheres for electronic equipment are ISA 71.04-2013 and
corrosion of the electronics in the VFD.
IEC 60721-3-3. Each standard is described below and followed
Two standards that are widely used in industry to define
by a comparison of the two standards.
industrial corrosive atmospheres are ANSI/ISA 71.04-2013 and
IEC 60721-3-3 [1, 2]. Both standards define the maximum 2.1 ISA 71.04-2013 Standard
levels of various corrosive gasses in terms of parts per billion
(ppb). The ISA specification provides fours levels of the The ISA 71.04-2013 specification provides four severity
corrosive gasses for atmospheres defined as Mild (G1), levels for contamination effects: Mild (G1), Moderate (G2),
Moderate (G2), Harsh (G3), and Severe (GX). The levels in the Harsh (G3), and Severe (GX) with the following definitions [1]:
ISA specification are also correlated with ranges of copper and • Mild (G1): Well-controlled environment where the life of
silver reactivity measured as film growth in angstroms of the product is not dictated by corrosion.
growth in 30 days [1]. The IEC specification also lists four • Moderate (G2): Product reliability may be affected by
corrosive gas ranges in increasing concentration levels ranging corrosion, which is measurable.
from 3C1 to 3C4. Each chemical level is defined in the IEC • Harsh (G3): There is a high probability that product life will
 be limited by corrosion. Will likely require specially design Table 1. Severity levels for ISA 71.04-2013 in terms of the reactivity
products or environmental controls are required. rate of copper and silver [1].
• Severe (GX): Only specially designed equipment would be Coupon
G1 G2 G3 GX
expected to work for an extended period of time. Mild Moderate Harsh Severe
Copper
The ISA specification uses reactivity monitoring of copper <300 <1000 <2000 >2000
Å/30 days
and silver coupons to characterize the environment in place of Silver
<200 <1000 <2000 >2000
Å/30 days
direct measurements of the gaseous contaminant Copper
concentrations. The four levels in the ISA specification are µg/cm2/ <2.50 <8.33 <16.67 >16.67
correlated with ranges of copper and silver reactivity measured 30 day
in angstroms of film growth over 30 days as shown in Table 1.
The equivalent weight gain is also listed in Table 1 for copper Table 2. Concentration levels for ISA 71.04-2013 in ppb [1].
G1 G2 G3 GX
using the conversion 1 µg/cm2 = 120 Å, which assumes equal Contaminant
Mild Moderate Harsh Severe
amounts of copper sulfide (Cu2S) and copper oxide (Cu2O) as GROUP A (synergetic effects are important)
the primary corrosion products in the film growth. The standard H2S <3 <10 <50 ≥50
recommends that both copper and silver reactivity rates should SO2, SO3 <10 <100 <300 ≥300
be obtained and the higher of the two reactivity rates ultimately Cl2 <1 <2 <10 ≥10
determines the ISA severity level (G1 to GX). NOX <50 <125 <1,250 ≥1,250
The ISA specification also lists four classes of gaseous
GROUP B (synergetic effects are unknown)
compounds that together accelerate corrosion in electronic
HF <1 <2 <10 ≥10
equipment through their synergistic effects: inorganic chlorine
NH3 <500 <10,000 <25,000 ≥25,000
compounds, active sulfur compounds, sulfur oxides, and
O3 <2 <25 <100 ≥100
nitrogen oxides. The approximate concentration levels are
shown in Table 2 (Group A) for four gases that frequently occur
Table 3. Severity levels for IEC 60721-3-3 and associated average
together and can lead to the copper and silver reactivity levels and maximum gas concentration levels in ppb [2].
in Table 1 if the relative humidity is less than 50%. Above 50% 3C1 3C2 3C3 3C4
relative humidity, for each 10% increase in relative humidity Parameter
Average Average Average Average
[Maximum] [Maximum] [Maximum] [Maximum]
results in an increase in ISA Severity Level. An increase in ----- <71 <2,100 <9,900
H2S
severity level also applies if the humidity rate change per hour [<7.1] [<360] [<7,100] [<49,700]
is greater than 6%. Finally, concentration levels for additional ----- <110 <1,850 <4,800
SO2
[<37] [<370] [<3,700] [<14,800]
contaminants are listed in Table 2 (Group B), but the synergistic ----- <34 <100 <200
Cl2
effects were unknown at the time the specification was [<34] [<100] [<340] [<1,000]
published. ----- <260 <1,560 <5,200
NOX
[<52] [<520] [<4,680] [<10,400]
----- <12 <120 <120
2.2 IEC 60721-3-3 Standard HF
[<3.6] [<36] [<2,400] [<2,400]
----- <1,400 <14,000 <49,000
NH3
The IEC 60721-3-3 specification broadly covers climatic [<42] [<4,200] [<49,000] [<247,000]
----- <25 <50 <100
conditions, biological conditions, chemical active substances, O3
[<5] [<50] [<150] [<1,000]
mechanically active substances, and environmental conditions HCl
----- <66 <660 <660
[<66] [<330] [<3,300] [<3,300]
for equipment operation in stationary, weather-protected Sea Salts No Salt mist Salt mist Salt mist
location such as factories. The IEC specification lists four levels
with increasing severity levels ranging from 3C1 to 3C4 as
follows [2]: 2.3 Comparison
• 3C1: locations in rural and some urban areas with low
industrial activities Unlike the ISA specification, there is no correlation to
• 3C2: locations with normal levels of corrosion in urban copper or silver reactivity in the IEC specification. This makes
areas with industrial activities scattered over the area.
• 3C3: locations in areas next to industrial sources with
assessment of the end-user site nearly impossible and violates
chemical emissions. almost 20 years of research in corrosion of electronics that
• 3C4: locations within industrial processing plants. supports reactivity monitoring as the preferred method for
Table 3 shows the chemical level that is defined in the IEC assessing industrial environments [7]. The lack of correlation
specification in terms of a long-term average and maximum to copper and silver reactivity rates in the IEC specification also
concentration, where the maximum value is the peak value over prevents correlation to accelerated testing.
time (up to 30 minutes per day). There are also inconsistencies in the contaminant levels
specified between the two standards. For example, the mean
hydrogen sulfide (H2S) specified in the IEC standard 3C2 is 71
ppb for a “normal level” of corrosion in an urban environment
while the ISA standard specifies 50 ppb for H2S at the worst-
case GX (Severe) environment. This inconsistency also applies
to chlorine gas (Cl2) where the mean value for IEC 3C2 is 34
ppb and ISA GX specifies 10 ppb. These inconsistencies are
further extended by a note in the IEC standard that states for
3C3 and 3C4 environments, the synergistic effects of the gases
do not need to be considered whereas the ISA standard
acknowledges the importance of the combined interactions of
H2S, SO2/SO3, Cl2, and NOx on copper and silver reactivity
rates.
The acceleration effects of humidity on corrosion in the
presence of chemically active gases is only briefly
acknowledged in the IEC standard as a note in the introduction.
The ISA standard explicitly defines relative humidity at 50% or
below for the given G1 to GX concentration levels. The
acceleration effects of increasing humidity on copper reactivity
is explicitly stated in the ISA standard as well, which aligns
with studies in the literature [7, 8].
The major shortcoming of the ISA standard is that the
worst-case corrosive atmosphere (GX) has copper and silver
reactivity levels defined as only lower specification limits. This
creates an open-ended specification that is of no practical value
to product manufacturers. Claiming that a product can
withstand a GX environment will ultimately lead to unplanned
downtime and unhappy customers since the product could
potentially be installed in atmospheres with copper and silver
reactivity levels two to five times higher than the lower
specification limit of 2000 Å/30 days. Another major
shortcoming is that the gas concentrations listed are one of
many possible combinations that can result in the copper and
silver reactivity levels in the four severity levels (G1 to GX).
For example, Annex B in the ISA standard states that active
sulfur compounds concentrations listed in the different severity
levels include hydrogen sulfide, elemental sulfur, and
mercaptans. This contradicts the authors’ experiences, where
some electronic components like power semiconductors will
react differently to 50 ppb of elemental sulfur versus 50 ppb of
hydrogen sulfide, and not in an equivalent manor as implied in
the standard.
3 VERIFICATION TESTING
Verifying compliance with standards is a critical part of the
product development process and is even more critical for
standards related to corrosive atmospheres that may ultimately
dictate product reliability and customer happiness. The IEC and
ISA specifications are intended to define the possible corrosive
gas concentrations that may occur at product installation and
give comparisons as to the severity of different classes of
applications. Both ISA 74.01-2013 and IEC 60721-3-3
standards do not provide any guidance on how to verify
compliance with the standards and the authors have been unable
to find references to directly correlate verification test methods
to the IEC and ISA standards. Only IEC 60068-2-60 offers
some guidance on selecting tests in Appendix C, but it is not
specific to either the ISA or IEC standard.
In addition to specifying the gas concentrations, any
verification test would need to specify the duration of the
exposure. Ideally the duration of the test should correlate to the
expected reliability of the product. Hence, test acceleration is
needed to complete verification within a reasonable amount of
time. After such verification testing, the unit under test would
need to run through functional testing to prove if the unit has
passed. This section discusses a single-gas approach, mixed
flow gas testing, and other methods that have been used to
demonstrate compliance with the IEC and ISA corrosive
atmosphere standards.
3.1 Single-Gas Verification Testing
A single-gas verification test approach has been used in the
past by several groups at Rockwell Automation as well as other
manufacturers. One competitor chose to demonstrate
compliance with IEC 3C4 standard using single gas testing. In
their approach, the products were exposed to each gas at the
mean concentration specified in Table 3 for 21 days at a relative
humidity of <75%. It was unknown if a new unit was used for
each gas or the same unit was used for all gases. The likely
justification for testing gases separately is the note in the IEC
standard that implies synergistic effects of the gases can be
ignored for 3C3 and 3C4 levels. The test duration of 21 days is
not traceable to any known standard or acceleration factor.
Another single-gas test that accelerate silver and copper
corrosion in electronics is the Humid Sulfur Vapor or “Flowers
of Sulfur” (FoS) test. The Flowers of Sulfur test setup is
defined by ASTM B809 and is also designed to accelerate
corrosion using powdered elemental sulfur, potassium nitrate
salt solution for humidity, and higher temperatures (50°C) to
produce sulfur vapor (S8) [9]. Higher levels of sulfur vapor can
be achieved by elevating the test temperature. The ASTM
standard for FoS testing is 24 hours, but the test duration can
vary depending on the corrosion levels needed to be achieved.
Unfortunately, there is no formal standard for relating FoS test
duration or test temperatures with rates of copper corrosion or
field experience.
3.2 Multiple-Gas Verification Testing
Multiple-gas verification testing is preferred over single-
gas testing as synergistic effects of multiple gases represent real
world applications. One multiple-gas verification approach that
the authors have observed in both internal product development
and with competitors is that products are tested at the conditions
specified in the IEC or ISA specifications for a fixed number of
days. For example, 21 days at IEC 3C2 conditions. Since the
IEC (and ISA) specification define end-use conditions, the
development group has only succeeded in proving that the
product can survive 21 days at IEC 3C2 conditions.
Accelerated multiple-gas verification testing is more
compatible with the intended purpose of demonstrating
compliance with one or more standards for corrosive
atmospheres. Mixed Flow Gas (MFG) testing was developed
in the 1980s at Battelle Labs with participation from a number
of telecommunication, computer, and industrial product
manufacturers as a way accelerate copper and silver corrosion
[3,4] Several methods/standards define mixed flow gas test
conditions: Battelle Labs, EIA-364-TP65A, and IEC 60068-2-
60 [3-6] are frequently referenced. There are ASTM standards standards ISA 71.04 and IEC 60721-3-3, and accelerated
for MFG testing; however, they generally repeat the contents of verification test methods like mixed flowing gases ultimately
the aforementioned methods/standards. All tests specify needs to be resolved by the professional societies and standards
concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and nitrogen dioxide with committees; however, the authors describe characteristics of a
the addition of chlorine and/or sulfur dioxide gases at various new standard and provide justifications for the proposals in this
temperature and relative humidity levels. section. Finally, recommendations for verification test of a new
The test definitions for Battelle Labs Class II to IV listed standard are discussed at the end of this section.
in Table 4. Class I is not defined since there are low levels of
corrosion and limited acceleration. The copper reactivity rates 4.1 Proposed Modifications to Standard
are also listed and show that higher class levels have higher
rates of copper corrosion. Comparing the Battelle Labs Although the IEC standard is internationally recognized
concentrations levels in Table 4 with the ISA and IEC and widely used, in the authors’ opinion, it has failed to
specifications in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively, show there accomplish the intent of characterizing an environment that can
is no correlation, which is expected since the Battelle Labs be easily verified by the product’s end-user and correlated with
MFG is an accelerated test and the ISA and IEC standards are accelerated test methods. The following is a list of proposed
specifications for the operating environment. As expected, the modification to ISA 71.04 that would improve the standard:
copper weight gain rates for the Battelle MFG test is higher than • Specify maximum copper and silver reactivity rates as
either standard, confirming it is an accelerated test. weight gain in µg/cm2 per 30 days.
Table 5 lists the EIA-364-TP65A MFG test conditions. • Reactivity rates should either be inclusive of humidity
EIA Classes IIA and IIIA are just Battelle Class II and III test effects or redefine the limits at a higher relative humidity
but with the addition of sulfur dioxide. EIA Class IV is above 50% that are more typical of industrial products.
identical to Battelle Class IV. Finally, the IEC mixed flow gas • Define additional severity levels above 2000 Å per 30 days.
tests are listed in Table 6. As with the Battelle Labs MFG tests, The change from a film thickness-based measurement of
there is little correlation between the EIA and IEC MFG tests reactivity in Angstroms per period (30 days) to a weight-based
and the two standards. Both MFG tests do indicate higher measurement in µg/cm2 per period is recommended to eliminate
copper reactivity rates than the standards. the confusion and uncertainty about converting weight to film
thickness. Calculating the film thickness from weight requires
Table 4. Battelle Labs Mixed Flow Gas test conditions. [3, 4] assumptions of percentage of the corrosion product as well as
Temp.
Relative
H2S SO2 Cl2 NO2
Cu Weight uniformity across the coupon surface. Potential approaches to
Class Humidity Gain
[°C] [ppb] [ppb] [ppb] [ppb] eliminate these assumptions could be defining multiple
[%] [µg/cm2/day]
30 70 10 10 200 mixtures of gases that could effectively generate the specified
II ----- 2 to 3.5
±2 ±2 +0/-4 +0/-2 ±25 weight gains or even eliminate concentrations levels and just
30 70 100 20 200
III
±2 ±2 ±10
-----
±5 ±50
4 to 20 specify weight gains. One challenge in moving to a weight-
IV 50 75 200 ----- 50 200 > 25 based classification system is that sample weight should be
measured before and after exposure.
Table 5. EIA-364-65B-2009 Mixed Flow Gas test conditions. [5] Even though the effect of relative humidity on the
Relative Cu Weight reactivity of copper and silver is generally well-understood, the
Temp. H2S SO2 Cl2 NO2
Class Humidity Gain
[°C]
[%]
[ppb] [ppb] [ppb] [ppb]
[µg/cm2/day] standards should either be inclusive of relative humidity effects
IIA
30 70 10 100 10 200
12 to 16
or be stated at a higher relative humidity level or rate of change
±1 ±2 ±5 ±20 ±3 ±50
[8]. In the author’s experience, customers will take a product
30 70 100 100 20 200
IIIA 36 to 46 rated for ISA 71.04 G1 environment (50% relative humidity)
±1 ±2 ±20 ±50 ±5 ±50
IV
40 75 100
-----
30 200
----- and put it in an environment where humidity routinely exceeds
±1 ±2 ±20 ±5 ±50
75% which equates to a near GX environment from a copper-
reactivity point of view. More sophisticated customers already
Table 6. IEC 60068-2-60:2015 Mixed Flow Gas test conditions. [6]
Relative Cu Weight
perform copper and silver reactivity measurements in the actual
Temp. H2S SO2 Cl2 NO2
Meth
[°C]
Humidity
[ppb] [ppb] [ppb] [ppb]
Gain use environments, so comparison with a product specification
[%] [µg/cm2/day] that traces to environmental standard that is inclusive of
25 75 100 500
1
±1 ±3 ±20 ±100
----- ----- 10 to 20 humidity effects and stated as a maximum allowable copper and
2
30 70 10
-----
10 200
3 to 13
silver reactivity rates would eliminate the need to account for
±1 ±3 ±5 ±5 ±50
relative humidity and the risk of misinterpretation of the
30 75 100 20 200
3 ----- 12 to 22 product requirement or standard.
±1 ±3 ±20 ±5 ±50
4
25 75 10 200 10 200
12 to 24 Finally, there is a strong need for additional severity levels
±1 ±3 ±5 ±20 ±5 ±20
above the ISA G3. As previously mentioned, the ISA GX limit
stated as only a lower specification limit has absolutely no
4 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS practical value for products like VFDs that are routinely placed
in environments copper reactivity rates well above 2000 Å/30
The disconnect between the operational atmospheric days and silver reactivity rates that exceed 10,000 Å/30 days. In
fact, there are several Rockwell Automation customers that
have over 50% of the product use locations at GX severity level.
After the release of ISA specification in 1985,
recommendations were made to add at least one more severity
levels; however, the number of levels was not increased in the
2013 update. [7].
4.2 Proposed Verification Approaches
Assuming the proposed environmental standard lists both
copper and silver reactivity rates for given severity levels
similar to ISA 71.04, a MFG verification test can be used to
demonstrate compliance with the standard. The only addition
required to the MFG test methods would be an inclusion of
expected silver reactivity rates for the test conditions to the
already specified copper reactivity rates. The biggest unknown
for verification testing is the test duration. It is the authors’
belief that the methods should not specify a duration or sample
size, but should provide guidance as to how to demonstrate a
product life with a given confidence level.
A simple approach would be to estimate the test time using
the equation given in Annex C of ISA 71.04 to calculate the 30-
day normalized copper or silver film thickness if the coupon
exposure time is longer or shorter than 30 days:
x1 = x ⋅ (t1 / t )
A
where x1 is the equivalent film thickness after 30 days, x is the
film thickness after time t in days, and t1 is the reference
condition (30 days). In Equation (1), the exponent A is 1.0 for
silver corrosion and 0.3 for G1, 0.5 for G2 and 1.0 for G3 and
GX severity levels of copper corrosion.
If a product has a corrosion failure mode dominate by
copper corrosion, the expected copper film thickness after 10
years (t=3650 days) of exposure at G2 level is:
t
0 .5 0 .5
x = x1 ⋅   &⋅  3650 days 
= 1000 A &
= 11,030 A
 30 day 
 t1   
For verification of the G2 severity level, an EIA-364-65B Class
IIIA mixed flow gas test is used with a film thickness of 4,800
Å/day (derived from an average weight gain of 40 µg/cm2/day
and the conversion 1µg/cm2 = 120Å). The exponent A is set to
one since the 30-day weight gain for class IIIA (1200
µg/cm2/day) exceeds the weight gain at GX level severity
(>16.67 µg/cm2/day). Using Eq. (1), the effective 30-day film
thickness x1 in a class EIA IIIA accelerated test is:
1 .0
&⋅  30 day 
x1 = 4800 A &
= 144,000 A
 1 day 
 
The test time required to demonstrate 10 year exposure under
EIA IIIA accelerated test conditions is 13.1.days, as shown
below:
1 .0
& 1.0
 x  11,030 A
t = t1 ⋅   = 30 ⋅  
& = 13 .1 days
 x1   144,000 A 
Verification may be better linked to requirements by using
reliability goals instead of statistically ambiguous terms like
“exposure” and treating a mixed flow gas verification test as a
reliability demonstration test. First, the acceleration factor AF
needs to be computed. Assuming a product failure is dominated
by copper corrosion and the product environment is also ISA
G2 with a film thickness of 1000Å/30 day, the acceleration
factor can be derived from Eq. (1) as a ratio of the film thickness
at test (x1) and use-case film thickness (x) conditions. For
verification, an EIA-364-65B Class IIIA mixed flow gas test is
also used with the previously calculated film growth rate of
144,000Å/30 days, the acceleration factor is calculated to be:
t1  x1 
1 .0
&/ 30 day 1.0
 144,000 A
AF = =  =   = 144 (5)
t  x &
 1000 A/ 30 day 
Given a product Mean Time To Failure (MTTF) goal of 50,000
hours in the ISA G2 environment and a confidence level of
90%, the required test time (ttest) can be calculated from a zero-
failure modification of the cumulative binomial distribution:
t=−
MTTF
Γ (1 + 1 / β )
[
⋅ ln (1 − CL ) ]
1/ N 1/ β (6)
where CL is confidence level, N is the number of samples, β is
the Weibull shape factor, and Γ is the gamma function. The
test time (ttest) required is then evaluated from Eq. (6) and
scaled to account for the acceleration factor (AF):
(7)
t test = t / AF
(1)
For the example here, the required test time to demonstrate
MTTF goal is shown in Table 7 using an assumed Weibull
distribution with shape factor of 1.0.
Table 7. Test time required to demonstrate 90% confidence in MTTF
goal of 50,000 hours.
Sample Size Test Time
1 33.3 days
2 16.7 days
Either verification approach allows the test time to be
(2)
traceable back to the product exposure time or reliability goal
in the corrosive environment and provides flexibility in the
demonstration approach. In addition, either approach
eliminates the uncertainty about the test duration. Finally, for
verification approaches like this to be effective, the mixed flow
gas standards and test methods also need to publish expected
silver weight gains.
5 CONCLUSIONS
The inconsistencies in the ISA 71.04-1985 and IEC 60721-
(3) 3-3 standards were described and several recommendations for
improvement to the ISA standard were described. Issues with
single-gas testing and the case for using mixed-flow gas testing
to verify compliance was made. Two potential approaches for
relating accelerated mixed flow gas testing to the ISA standard
were described. It is the authors’ belief that professional
(4)
societies and individuals on standards committees should work
to eliminate inconsistencies and potentially incorporate the
feedback listed in this paper into future standards.
 6 FUTURE WORK
Rockwell Automation purchased and installed a state-of-
the-art mixed flow gas chamber in 2017, as shown in Figure 1.
This chamber will enable the authors to easily perform
standardized verification test on our products. Additionally, the
chamber allows Rockwell Automation to develop custom
mixed flow gas test mixtures that are tailored to the needs of
our customers based on temperature, humidity, and
copper/silver reactivity levels obtained at the product use
locations.
Figure 1. Mixed Flow Gas chamber at Rockwell Automation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to thank Robert Veale (retired) of
Rockwell Automation whose observations about standards in
many internal corrosion reports provided our motivation.
REFERENCES
1. Instruments Society of America (ISA), “ISA-74.01-2013 –
Environmental Conditions for Process Measurement and
Control Systems: Airborne Contaminants,” 2013.
2. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), “IEC
60721-3-3 Edition 2.2 – Classification of environmental
conditions. Part 3-3: Classification of groups of
environmental parameters and their severities – stationary
use at weather protected locations,” 2002.
3. Abbott, W. A., “The Development of Performance
Characteristics of Mixed Flowing Gas Test Environment,”
IEEE Trans. On Components, Hybrids, and Manufacturing
Technology, 11(1), March 1988, pp.22-35.
4. Hindin, B. S., “Mixed Flow Gas Test Procedures for Creep
Corrosion and How to Minimize Its Occurrence,” SMTA
International Conference, 2010.
5. Electronic Components Association (EIA), “EIA-364-
65B-2009 – TP-65B Mixed Flowing Gas Test Procedure
for Electrical Connectors Contacts and Sockets,” 2009.
6. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), “IEC
60068-2-60 Edition 3.0 – Environmental testing -0 Part 2-
60: Test Ke: Flowing mixed gas corrosion test,” 2015.
7. Muller, C. and Crosley, G., “ISA Standard 71.04: Changes
Required for Protection of Today’s Process Control
View publication stats
Equipment,” Proceedings of TAPPI PEERS Conference,
Portland, Oregon, October 2-5, 2011.
8. Rice, D.W., P. Peterson, et al., “Atmospheric Corrosion of
Copper and Silver,” Journal of the Electrochemical
Society, 128(2), 1981, pp. 275-284.
9. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM),
“ASTM B809-95: Standard Test Method for Porosity in
Metallic Coatings by Humid Sulfur Vapor (“Flowers-of-
Sulfur”),” 2013.
BIOGRAPHIES
Garron K. Morris
Rockwell Automation
6400 West Enterprise Drive, Mequon, WI 53092, USA
e-mail: gkmorris@ra.rockwell.com
Garron Morris has over 17 years of experience in reliability of power
electronics and over 20 years of experience the design of advanced
thermal management systems for power electronics. He has a BS and
MS in Mechanical Engineering from University of Wisconsin—
Milwaukee. Garron is an IEEE and ASQ member and is currently
working for Rockwell Automation as principal engineer in the motor
drives research and development group. As a Design for Six Sigma
Master Black belt, he has taught over 1500 student worldwide. He has
authored 25 conference and seven journal publications, and has 13 US
patents. Garron is also an ASQ Certified Reliability Engineer.
Richard A. Lukaszewski
Rockwell Automation
(same as above)
e-mail: ralukaszewski@ra.rockwell.com
Richard Lukaszewski (IEEE-Life SM) graduated from Milwaukee
School of Engineering with a BSETE. He received an MS in
Engineering Management from the University of Wisconsin –
Milwaukee. He also obtained an MSEE in Power Electronics from the
University of Wisconsin – Madison. He is a Registered Professional
Engineer in the State of Wisconsin and is also a registered Project
Management Professional. Since 1992 he has been employed by
Rockwell Automation where he is the manager of new product
development for power electronics. He is also the author and co-author
of over thirty technical papers including three committee prize papers.
He also has over thirty patents. In 2009, Rich was awarded the
Rockwell Automation Odo J Struger Award that was established to
honor engineers for outstanding technical achievement.
Christopher Genthe
Rockwell Automation
1201 South 2nd Street, Milwaukee, WI 53204, USA
e-mail: cgenthe@ra.rockwell.com
Chris Genthe is a Principal Engineer in Rockwell Automation’s
Chemistry & Materials Engineering Department. He has over 25 years
of experience in the area of materials, including corrosion
identification and control, failure analysis, processing, and accelerated
testing. He has a BS and MS in Materials Engineering from the
University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, and is an adjunct professor
teaching Environmental Degradation of Materials at the same
institution. In addition to other job responsibilities, Chris is developing
variations of the standard MFG environments to accelerate specific
corrosion mechanisms found in various application environments.