Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 66–73 | Cite as

Identification of Failure Mechanisms to Enhance Prognostic Outcomes

  • Sony Mathew
  • Mohammed Alam
  • Michael Pecht
Technical Article---Peer-Reviewed


Predicting the reliability of a system in its actual life cycle conditions and estimating its time to failure is helpful in decision making to mitigate system risks. There are three approaches to prognostics: the physics-of-failure approach, the data-driven approach, and the fusion approach. A key requirement in all these approaches is the identification of the appropriate parameter(s) to monitor the collection of the data that can be employed to assess impending failure. This article presents the physics-of-failure approach, which uses failure modes, mechanisms, and effects analysis (FMMEA) to enhance prognostics planning and implementation. This article also presents the fusion approach to prognostics and the applicability of FMMEA to this approach. As an example, a case of generating FMMEA information, and using that to identify appropriate parameters to monitor, is presented.


Failure mechanisms Precursor parameters Physics-of-failure Remaining life Fusion prognostics 



The authors would like to thank the Center for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering (CALCE) at the University of Maryland, and the more than 100 companies and organizations that support its research annually. The authors thank the members of the Prognostics and Health Management Consortium (PHMC) at CALCE for providing their support for this study. The authors thank Mr. Carl Carlson (Reliasoft Corp.) for his comments and suggestions. The authors thank Mr. Mark Zimmerman (CALCE) for editing this article.


  1. 1.
    Pecht, M.: Prognostics and Health Management of Electronics. Wiley-Interscience, New York, NY (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    DoD 5000.2 Policy Document: Defense Acquisition Guidebook, Chapter 5.3—Performance Based Logistics (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vichare, N., Pecht, M.: Prognostics and health management of electronics. IEEE Trans. Compon. Packag. Technol. 29(1), 222–229 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pecht, M., Dasgupta, A.: Physics-of-failure: an approach to reliable product development. J. Inst. Environ. Sci. 38, 30–34 (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ganesan, S., Eveloy, V., Das, D., Pecht, M.: Identification and utilization of failure mechanisms to enhance FMEA and FMECA. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Accelerated Stress Testing & Reliability (ASTR), Austin, Texas, October 2–5, 2005Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    IEEE Standard 1413.1-2002: IEEE Guide for Selecting and Using Reliability Predictions Based on IEEE 1413. IEEE Standard (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    JESD659-A: Failure-Mechanism-Driven Reliability Monitoring. EIA/JEDEC Standard (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    JEP143A: Solid-State Reliability Assessment and Qualification Methodologies. JEDEC Publication (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    JEP150: Stress-Test-Driven Qualification of and Failure Mechanisms Associated with Assembled Solid State Surface-Mount Components. JEDEC Publication (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    JESD74: Early Life Failure Rate Calculation Procedure for Electronic Components. JEDEC Standard (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    JESD94: Application Specific Qualification Using Knowledge Based Test Methodology. JEDEC Standard (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    JESD91A: Method for Developing Acceleration Models for Electronic Component Failure Mechanisms. JEDEC Standard (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    SEMATECH, #00053955A-XFR: Semiconductor Device Reliability Failure Models. SEMATECH Publication (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    SEMATECH, #00053958A-XFR: Knowledge-Based Reliability Qualification Testing of Silicon Devices. SEMATECH Publication (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    SEMATECH, #04034510A-TR: Comparing the Effectiveness of Stress-Based Reliability Qualification Stress Conditions. SEMATECH Publication (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    SEMATECH, #99083810A-XFR: Use Condition Based Reliability Evaluation of New Semiconductor Technologies. SEMATECH Publication (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gu, J., Pecht, M.: Prognostics and Health Management Using Physics of Failure. In: 54th Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS), Las Vegas, Nevada, January 2008Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cheng, S., Pecht, M.: A Fusion Prognostics Method for Remaining Useful Life Prediction of Electronic Products. In: 5th Annual IEEE Conference on Automation Science and Engineering, Bangalore, India, August 22–25, 2009Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brown, G.: How PC power supplies work [Online]. Accessed 24 Jan 2011
  20. 20.
    Chen, Y., Chou, M., Wu, H.: Electrolytic capacitor failure prediction of LC filter for switching-mode power convertors. In: Industry Applications Conference, pp. 1464–1469 (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Orsagh, R., Brown, D., Roemer, M., Dabney, T., Hess, A.: Prognostic health management for avionics system power supplies. In: IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, pp. 3585–3592 (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goodman, D., Vermeire, B., Spuhler, P., Venkatramani, H.: Practical application of PHM/prognostics to COTS power convertors. In IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, pp. 3573–3578 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering (CALCE)University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.Prognostics and Systems Health Management CentreCity University of Hong KongHong KongHong Kong

Personalised recommendations