RIAC 217Plus Reliability Prediction Model
in Photovoltaic Systems
G. Graditi, G. Adinolfi, A. Pontecorvo
ENEA - Italian National agency for new technologies, Energy and sustainable economic development
Research Center, Portici (NA), Italy
corresponding author - email: giorgio.graditi@enea.it - phone: +390817723400
Abstract – Systems reliability evaluation is an important
task in industry. In fact, reliability indices suggest
information about equipments quality level, maintenance
and investments. Reliability performances can be estimated
in different ways. Most used methods are reliability
prediction models. In spite of their diffusion, their
applications and results are often discussed, since each of
them provides a different reliability evaluation for the same
system under investigation. In addition, these models
evaluates a system behaviour in a specific working
condition. This aspect introduces supplementary problems
in case of photovoltaic systems characterized by continuous
changing operating conditions. The aim of this paper is to
use the RIAC 217Plus model to a qualitative comparison
between different Distributed Maximum Power Point
Tracking converters to identify the most reliable one. A new
index to characterize the reliability behaviour of systems
used in continuous changing environmental conditions is
proposed.
Index Terms - Mean Time Between Failure, failure rate,
reliability performance, photovoltaic system
I. NOMENCLATURE
ȜOB base failure rate, Operating
ȜEB base failure rate, Environmental
ȜTCB base failure rate, Temperature Cycling
ȜSJB base failure rate, Solder Joint
ȜEOS failure rate, Electrical OverStress
ʌG reliability growth failure rate factor
ʌDCO failure rate factor for Duty Cycle, operating
ʌTO failure rate factor for Temperature,
operating
ʌS failure rate factor for Stress
ʌDCN failure rate factor for Duty Cycle, non-
operating
ʌTE failure rate factor for Temperature
environmental
ʌCR failure rate factor, Cycling Rate
ʌDT failure rate factor, delta Temperature
ʌSJDT failure rate factor, Solder Joint Delta
Temperature
MTBF Mean Time Between Failure
II. INTRODUCTION
The number of grid-connected PhotoVoltaic (PV)
systems has increased enormously in the last years. In
978-1-4673-4430-2/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE
fact, Italy was the top market for the 2011, with 9.3 GW
connected, followed by Germany with 7.5 GW. In fact,
considering the globally installed capacity, PV represents,
after hydro and wind power, the third most used
renewable energy source. PV modules are characterized
from a highly reliable components in the range of 15-20
years, with good performance and efficiency in the early
years. After several years of operation, their performance
decrease can affect reliability. A PV plant is a complex
system constituted by many electronic and mechanical
devices, such as PV modules, converters, tracker systems,
optics and so on. It works in continuous changing
operating conditions depending on meteorological
phenomena (irradiance, ambient temperature) and
installation site position (shadow, dust, etc). The majority
of PV systems failures are attributed to inverter failures.
In fact, DC-AC converters are characterized by Mean
Time to First Failure (MTFF) of about five years.
Designers’ aim is to improve these systems
performances increasing efficiency and reliability and
reducing costs. In fact, a high efficiency PV plant allows
to make shorter the energy payback time, while a reliable
PV plant permits to make lower the maintenance service
number. In this scenario, the reliability evaluation of PV
plants devices becomes a high importance matter to be
considered from the project start. The method to Mean
Time Between Failure or Failure Rate calculations for
these devices is not a direct and unique issue, since many
reliability prediction models, methods and tests are
available. In addition, considering a specific system, the
application of different methods provide different
reliability performances evaluations. Many literature
works discuss reliability prediction models problematic
aspects and limitations [1-2] underlining these models
effectiveness for qualitative analysis and systems
behaviour comparative studies. The fitness of these
models to correctly express the reliability behaviours of
PV plants subsystems in continuous changing operating
conditions is another nodal point to the choice of the most
suitable one to use. In detail, in section 2 the most used
reliability prediction models are analyzed. In section 3
Distributed Maximum Power Point Tracking (DMPPT)
boost converters design are considered and their
reliability performances are evaluated by means of the
RIAC Handbook 217Plus. In addition, a new weighted
Mean Time Between Failure formula is proposed to best
343
characterize continuous changing operating conditions
systems. An analysis is carried out to compare reliability
performances of Synchronous Rectification and Diode
Rectification power optimizers.
III. RELIABILITY PREDICTION MODELS
Reliability R(t) is defined in Eq.1, it is the probability
than an item will perform a required function without
failure under stated conditions for a stated period of time.
R (t ) Pr^T ! t` (1)
where:
Pr = probability
T = random variable = lifetime of the unit
t = mission time
The reliability value R is a number in the range (0,1)
and its graph is shown in Fig.1.
Fig. 1. Reliability function R(t) graph.
In detail, at the beginning the probability of a device
proper functioning is high, it decreases with t and, for
high mission time, the probability of device proper
functioning is low. Indices used to express devices
reliability performances are :
ƒ the Failure Rate (FR) or hazard function represents
the frequency with which a component or a system fails
ƒ the Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) is a
measure of how reliable a product is. It is usually given in
units of hours. High MTBF values characterize high
reliability products.
These indices can be calculated by means of many
different reliability prediction models. Some of them -
Military Handbook 217, PRISM® and 217Plus – were
developed for military applications, while others-Fides,
Telcordia,etc- for avionics and telecommunication
sectors. The most used ones are:
ƒ MIL-HDBK-217: this reliability model, published
by the United States Navy in 1965, was the only
reliability prediction method available at the time,
therefore the reliability communities adopted this tool for
their own use. It is probably the most internationally
recognized empirical prediction method. As a result,
MIL-HDBK-217 [3] became and still is one of the most
widely known and used reliability prediction method. It
includes models for a broad range of part types and
supports the five most commonly used environments in
the telecom industry (Ground Fixed Controlled, Ground
344
Fixed Uncontrolled, Ground Mobile, Airborne
Commercial, and Space) plus additional alternatives
useful in the military environment. It is based on
pessimistic failure rate assumptions. This model does not
consider other factors that can contribute to failure rate
such as burn-in data, lab testing data, field test data,
designer experience, wear-out, etc.
ƒ The Telcordia prediction model - Reliability
Prediction Procedure for Electronic Equipment SR-332
[4]- was developed by AT&T Bell Labs in 1997 and it is
focused only on electronic equipments. This model
(previously known as Bellcore) modified the MIL-
HDBK-217 Prediction Model to better represent the
equipment of the telecommunication industry by adding
the ability to consider burn-in, field, and laboratory test
data. Although the Telcordia standard was developed
specifically for the telecom field, it is used to model
products in a number of other industries. A disadvantage
is that the predictions are limited to environment that
work with temperature between 30 ºC and 65 ºC.
ƒ The RIAC Handbook 217Plus model [5], published
in 2006, has been developed by the Reliability
Information Analysis Center (RIAC) and pointed out by
United States Department of Defence as the successor of
the MIL-HDBK-217 and the PRISM® methodology. The
form of this model is quite different from MIL-HDBK-
217 and Telcordia SR-332. In fact, 217Plus considers
different base failure rates for each generic class of
failure mechanism. These process factors are determined
by a qualitative assessment of process criteria with
weighting factors applied.
ƒ Fides: the reliability methodology FIDES Guide
2004 [6] has been created by FIDES Group, a consortium
of French industrialists from the fields of aeronautics and
Defence (Airbus France, Eurocopter, GIAT Industries,
MBDA and THALES). The FIDES methodology is based
on the Prediction Model physics of failures supported by
the analysis of test data, so it is different from traditional
prediction methods which are exclusively based on the
statistical analysis of historical failure data collected in
the field, in-house or from manufacturers.
IV. RELIABILITY EVALUATION: CASE STUDY
In spite of the number of applicable reliability
prediction models, the identification of the “best” one is
not easy. In fact, many of them permit to calculate
systems MTBF in a specific working condition [7-11].
These methods are suitable for a great number of
application fields characterized by a nominal or worst
case operating point. In PV applications is not possible to
identify a nominal or worst condition. In fact, PV systems
and subsystems work in continuous changing conditions
in terms of irradiance, ambient temperature, wind
velocity, humidity and so on. A solution could consider
the worst case and to estimate the PV plant reliability
performance in that condition, but a similar result cannot
correctly characterize PV plants relaibility behaviour,
since they do not always (24 hours/ day for 365
days/year) operate in that particular condition. An
alternative method was introduced in [9] in which the
MTBF formula reported in Eq.2 was proposed for DC-
DC converters used in PV fields. The Eq.2 weights and
partial load percentages are the same of the European
efficiency formula used to evaluate inverters
performances. In this paper, the PV power optimizers
design procedure proposed in [12,16] is completed with
the converters reliability estimation since their design
start. The developed tool, after the identification of a set
of feasible commercial electronic components able to
works as a specific DMPPT converter topology, provides
suitable indices to characterize the obtained solution
efficiency, cost and reliability performances. In this case,
the RIAC Handbook 217Plus reliability prediction model
is chosen. It is the updated version of MIL-HDBK-217F
and it is compatible with its predecessor permitting to
keep unchanged industry practice for products reliability
predictions. It also considers components operating and
non-operating conditions (operating and non-operating
temperatures, Duty Cycles, Cycling Rate, etc).
Fig. 2. (a) SR boost converter; (b) DR boost converter.
As many others prediction models, it evaluates
components failure rates as the product of a base failure
rate Ȝb and some ʌi factors representing the i possible
stresses influencing devices reliability behaviour. The
purpose is to calculate the reliability performances of
Distributed Maximum Power Point Tracking (DMPPT)
boost converters [13-16].
In detail, the RIAC 217Plus is used to calculate the
reliability performances of Synchronous (SR) and Diode
Rectification (DR) boost converter shown in Fig.2. The
SR power optimizer is constituted by an input filter, an
inductor, a Low-Side (LS) MOSFET Q1, a High-Side
(HS) MOSFET Q2, an output capacitor.
Particularly, considered converters components [17-
20] are:
- Ceramic capacitor
- Low frequency, switching diode
- Field effect, low frequency silicon transistor
- Choke inductor
The DR power optimizer has a similar topology
characterized by a diode used as HS switching device.
These two DMPPT converters assure different
performances in terms of efficiency as shown in [14-15].
345
In detail, the SR boost is able to guarantee a better
efficiency since its HS FET switching device is
characterized by a lower voltage drop and so lower losses
than the DR ones. In addition, the SR converter always
works in Continuous Conduction Mode (CCM) without
requiring high inductance value to avoid Discontinuous
Conduction Mode. Table I reports the 217Plus formulas
to calculate the failure rates of the MPPT converter
devices under investigation. Since the thermal stress is
one of the most invalidating factor [16], the attention is
here focused on MTBF variations depending on
temperature increase. Referring to the reported failure
rate formulas, ʌTE and ʌTO factors and converter devices
temperature rise TR for some ambient temperature values
are shown in Figs. 3-5. In this analysis, typical
meteorological data recorded at South Italy installation
sites are used. In Fig.6 the considered temperature
distribution is represented by means of a bar graph. The
most relevant temperature ranges and how many hours
the PV system worked in those conditions during the total
operating hours are reported. In Table II, the MTBF
values of a considered SR DMPPT converter, referring to
the previous mentioned temperature ranges, are
presented. In a similar way, applying RIAC 217Plus
failure rate expressions, MTBF data for a DR boost are
obtained and shown in Table III. In the reported tables is
possible to underline the power optimizers reliability
dependence on temperature and how their performances
deteriorate with thermal stress increase. This is a crucial
aspect for systems operating in continuously changing
conditions. In detail, in case of the SR boost under
investigation, there is a great difference between the
MTBF value estimated at 15°C and that calculated at
35°C. Also in case of the DR converter, this difference is
considerable. So it is evident that the reliability
performance analysis in a unique operating point is not
sufficient to represent the system reliability behavior in
every working condition. To obtain a more realistic
evaluation the above mentioned weighted approach is
shared and the new MTBF formula reported in Eq.3 is
defined. The MTBF weights Įi are, in this case,
determined on the percentages of hours the DMPPT
converter worked at an ambient temperature in the i
temperature range. As shown in Fig.6, the synchronous
boost operates for 760 hours at a temperature value in the
15°C centered range corresponding to 18% of the
DMPPT converter total operating hours. In Table IV, Įi
values for all the considered temperature ranges are
listed. The MTBFnew values for the considered power
optimizers are calculated in Eqs.4. Qualitative results
obtained for the two analyzed solutions point out better
DR reliability performances respect to the SR ones. In
fact, the DR weighted MTBF is about 70% higher than
the SR estimated value. As a matter of fact, repeating this
study on the same SR topology using converters
characterized by different sets of commercial components
constituting their electrical parts lists (Bills Of Material),
MTBFwgt 0.03MTBF5%  0.036 MTBF10%  0.13MTBF20%  0.1MTBF25%  0.48 MTBF30%  0.2 MTBF100% (2)

TABLE I
217Plus FAILURE RATES FORMULAS
Device Failure rate by [RIAC-HDBK-217Plus]

MOSFET OMOS S G (OOBS DCOS TOS S  OEBS DCN S TE  OTCBS CRS DT )  OSJBS SJDT  OEOS
Diode Odiode S G (OOBS DCOS TOS S  OEBS DCNS TE  OTCBS CRS DT )  OSJBS SJDT  OEOS
Capacitor OC SGSC (OOBS DCOSTOS S  OEBS DCNSTE  OTCBSCRS DT )  OSJBS SJDT  OEOS

Inductor
OInductor S G (OOBS DCOS TO  OEBS DCNS TE  OTCBS CRS DT )  OEOS

Fig. 3. Converter devices ʌTE vs ambient temperature-

Fig. 6. South Italy typical temperature distribution ( year 2009).

TABLE II
SR DMPPT CONVERTER MTBF
Temperature MTBF
(°C) (106 operating hours)
15 20.55
20 20.41
25 19.82
30 15.95
35 9.70
Fig. 4. Converter devices ʌTO vs ambient temperature.

TABLE III
DR DMPPT CONVERTER MTBF
Temperature MTBF
(°C) (106 operating hours)
15 35.74
20 35.48
25 34.48
30 28.94
35 18.29
Fig. 5. Converter devices temperature rise TR vs ambient
temperature.

MTBFnew D15MTBF15qC  D 20MTBF20qC  D 25MTBF25qC  D30 MTBF30qC  D35MTBF35qC (3)

346
 TABLE IV
MTBFNEW FORMULA WEIGHTS
Temperature(°C) Įi
15 0.18
20 0.27
25 0.20
30 0.28
35 0.07
MTBF SR _ new 18.32 * 10 6 operating hours
(4)
MTBF DR _ new 32 .30 * 10 6 operatig hours
the MTBF values can change, but it is in the range (18-
20) millions operating hours. The above reported data
confirm[14-15] the less reliable SR boost behaviour due
to the presence of two MOSFETs used as HS and LS
switching devices. In fact, MOSFETs failure rates are
higher than the other components ones, so affecting the
whole converters reliability performances.
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, the problem of the reliability evaluation
of PV systems working in continuous changing
conditions is carried out. Among all the available
reliability prediction models, the RIAC Handbook
217PlusTM is chosen for its better feasibility to express
the reliability behaviour of a DMPPT converter in
operating and non operating modes, also considering its
duty cycle and its cycling rate. Then the attention is
focused on the thermal stress, one of the most
invalidating cause. A temperature distribution typical of
South Italy installation sites is considered and a new
weighted MTBF formula is proposed to suitably calculate
reliability performances at different working conditions
for the SR and DR boost topologies. In detail, different
solutions are analyzed in terms of MTBF. SR boost
converters are considered and their MTBFs are compared
with a DR ones. The carried out analysis demonstrates
that SR power optimizers are characterized by worse
reliability performances than the DR ones. The cause of
SR power optimizers worse reliability performances is
related to MOSFETs employment as LS and HS
switching devices, but this is also the reason of their
better efficiency behaviour respect to the DR boost. In
conclusion, since an "optimum" DMPPT converter
represents a trade-off solution in terms of efficiency, cost
and reliability, the designer, on the base of the tighter
constraint, chooses the more appropriate solution.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Jones, J. Hayes “A Comparison of Electronic
ReliabilityPrediction Models”, IEEE Transactions on
Reliability”, vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 127-134, June 1999.
[2] M. Economou, “The Merits and Limitations of
ReliabilityPredictions”, Reliability and Maintainability,
Annual Symposium - RAMS, 26-29 Jan. 2004
[3] MIL-HDBK-217F.
[4] Telcordia SR.332 Issue 2, reliability prediction procedure
for electronic equipment.
347
[5] Handbook of 217PlusTM Reliability Prediction Models
[6] FIDES Guide 2004 Issue, A reliability methodology for
electronic systems.
[7] H. Calleja, F. Chan, I. Uribe, “Reliability-Oriented
Assessment of a DC-DC Converter for Photovoltaic
Applications”, IEEE Power Electronics Specialist
Conference 2007, pp.1522-1527, June 2007
[8] X. Tian, “Design for Reliability and Implementation on
Power Converters”, Reliability and Maintainability
Symposium Proceedings, pp.89-95, January 2005.
[9] G. Graditi, D. Colonnese, N. Femia “ Efficiency and
Reliability Comparison of DC-DC Converters for Single
Phase Grid Connected Photovoltaic Inverters”, Symposium
on Power Electronics, Electrical Drives, Automation an
Motion Proceedings, pp.140-147, June 2010.
[10] S. Dhople, A. Davoudi, A. Domínguez-Garcia, P.
Chapman, “A Unified Approach to Reliability Assessment
of Multiphase DC–DC Converters in Photovoltaic Energy
Conversion Systems”, IEEE Transactions on Power
Electronics, vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 739-751, February 2012.
[11] A. Verma, V. Gopika, R. Gopinath, U. Kumar “Reliability
prediction of semiconductor devices using modi¿ed
physics of failure approach”, International Journal of
Systems Assurance Engineering and Management, vol. 4,
No. 1, pp. 33-47, March 2013.
[12] N. Femia, G. Petrone, G. Spagnuolo, G. Adinolfi, M.
Vitelli, “Design of dc/dc Converters for DMPPT PV
Applications Based on the Concept of Energetic
Efficiency”, Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, vol.132,
May 2010.
[13] G. Graditi, G. Adinolfi, “Energy performances and
reliability evaluation of an optimized DMPPT boost
converter”, IEEE International Conference on Clean
Electrical Power, vol. 1, p. 69-72, June 2011.
[14] G. Graditi, G. Adinolfi, N. Femia, M. Vitelli,
“Comparative Analysis of Synchronous Rectification
Boost and Diode Rectification Boost Converter for
DMPPT Applications” IEEE International Symposium on
Industrial Electronics, vol. 1, p.1000-1005, June 2011.
[15] G. Graditi, G. Adinolfi, “Performances analysis of different
DMPPT boost converters,” 26th European Photovoltaic
Solar Energy Conference, vol.1, pp.3703-3707, September
2011.
[16] G. Graditi, G. Adinolfi, “Temperature Influence on
Photovoltaic Power Optimizer Components Reliability”,
International Symposium on Power Electronics, Electrical
Drives, Automation and Motion vol. 1, pp.1113-1118, June
2012.
[17] M. Held, and K. Fritz. “Comparison and evaluation of
newest failure rate prediction models: FIDES and RIAC
217Plus”, Microelectronics Reliability vol.49, pp.967-971,
September 2009.
[17] D. Nicholls,"An Introduction to the RIAC 17PlusTM
Component Failure Rate Models", Journal of the
Reliability Information Analysis Center, First Quarter
2007.
[18] D. Nicholls, "The 217PlusTM Capacitor and Diode Failure
Rate Models", Journal of the Reliability Information
Analysis Center, Second Quarter 2007 .
[19] D. Nicholls, "The 217PlusTM Integrated Circuit and
Inductor Failure Rate Models", Journal of the Reliability
Information Analysis Center, Third Quarter 2007.
[20] D. Nicholls, "An overview of the 217PlusTM System
Reliability Assessment Methodology", Journal of the
Reliability Information Analysis Center, Fourth Quarter
2006.