AV51DOT0

ANSI/VITA 51.
0-2008
American National Standard
for Reliability Prediction
Secretariat
VMEbus International Trade Association
Approved June 2008
American National Standards Institute, Inc.

PO Box 19658, Fountain Hills, AZ 85269
PH: 480-837-7486, FAX: Contact VITA Office
E-mail: info@vita.com, URL: http://www.vita.com
(This page left blank intentionally.)
ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
American National Standard

for Reliability Prediction
Secretariat
Approved June 2008

American National Standards Institute, Inc.
Abstract
This document provides an electronics failure rate prediction standard, and
establishes a Community of Practice. It addresses the limitations of existing
prediction practices with a series of subsidiary specifications that contain the “best
practices” within industry for performing electronics failure rate predictions. The
development of ANSI/VITA 51.0 and the subsidiary specifications is an effort to give
the mean time between failure (MTBF) calculations consistency and repeatability.
American Approval of an American National Standard requires
verification by ANSI that the requirements for due process,
National consensus, and other criteria for approval have been met by the
Standard standards developer.
Consensus is established when, in the judgment of the ANSI

Board of Standards Review, substantial agreement has been
reached by directly and materially affected interests.
Substantial agreement means much more than a simple
majority, but not necessarily unanimity. Consensus requires
that all views and objections be considered, and that a
concerted effort be made toward their resolution.
The use of American National Standards is completely

voluntary; their existence does not in any respect preclude
anyone, whether he has approved the standards or not, from
manufacturing, marketing, purchasing, or using products,
processes, or procedures not conforming to the standards.
The American National Standards Institute does not develop
standards and will in no circumstances give an interpretation of
any American National Standard. Moreover, no person shall
have the right or authority to issue an interpretation of an
American National Standard in the name of the American
National Standard Institute. Requests for interpretations
should be addressed to the secretariat or sponsor whose name
appears on the title page of this standard.
CAUTION NOTICE: This National Standard may be revised

or withdrawn at any time. The procedures of the American
National Standards Institute require that action be taken
periodically to reaffirm, revise, or withdraw this standard.
Purchases of American National Standards may receive current
information on all standard by calling or writing the American
National Standards Institute.
Published by

PO Box 19658, Fountain Hills, AZ 85269
Copyright © 2008 by VMEbus International Trade Association
All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise,
without prior written permission of the publisher.
Printed in the United States of America - R1.0
ISBN 1-885731-46-9
ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
Working Group Members

The following people have contributed to the development of this standard:
Lori Bechtold
Boeing
Working Group Chair and Draft Editor
Charles Falardeau
Curtiss-Wright Controls
Working Group Chair (2005-2007)
Dan Quearry
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane
Working Group Vice Chair
Name Company
Shawn Ashley Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane
Ken Bernier Defense Supply Center, Columbus (DSCC)
John Bonitatibus Defense Supply Center, Columbus (DSCC)
Steve Cecil Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane
Robert Deppe Boeing
Chris Eckert GE Fanuc
Andy Ernst Defense Supply Center, Columbus (DSCC)
Tom Forth Moog
Jesse Garcia Defense Supply Center, Columbus (DSCC)
Jeff Harms Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane
Derek Johnson Raytheon
Chi Lam Northrop Grumman
Doug Loescher Sandia
Paul Majchrzak Moog
Chuck Miese Moog
Peter Miskelly GE Fanuc
Mark Mooder Curtiss-Wright Controls, Ottawa
Elwood Parsons Foxconn
Mark Porter General Dynamics
Sheila Prather Northrop Grumman
Michael Radecki Defense Supply Center, Columbus (DSCC)
Rob Rainen Curtiss-Wright Controls, Santa Clarita
Blaine Schmidt Moog
Jonnie Schneider Defense Supply Center, Columbus (DSCC) QML
Hunter Shaw Relex Software Co.
Bahig Tawfellos Honeywell Aerospace
Gerry Thomas Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane
Richard Wong Curtiss-Wright Controls, Santa Clarita
Copyright 2008 VITA Page 5 of 40

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 8
1.1 Overview............................................................................................................. 8
1.2 Scope................................................................................................................... 8
1.3 Purpose................................................................................................................ 9
1.4 Subsidiary Specifications.................................................................................... 9
1.4.1 General Description .................................................................................... 9
1.4.2 Purpose of Subsidiary Specifications........................................................ 10
1.4.3 Guidelines for Creating a Subsidiary Specification.................................. 10
1.5 Specification Terminology................................................................................ 10
2. Overview of Reliability Prediction Methods ............................................................ 12
2.1 Characteristics of Good Reliability Prediction Methods .................................. 12
2.1.1 Parts count versus parts stress................................................................... 12
2.1.2 Part types................................................................................................... 12
2.1.3 Quality level.............................................................................................. 12
2.1.4 Environment.............................................................................................. 13
2.2 Reliability Prediction Data Sources .................................................................. 13
2.2.1 Field Data.................................................................................................. 13
2.2.2 Test Data ................................................................................................... 13
2.2.3 Manufacturers’ Test Data.......................................................................... 13
2.2.4 Similarity Analysis.................................................................................... 14
2.2.5 Modeling & Simulation ............................................................................ 14
2.2.6 Physics of Failure...................................................................................... 14
2.3 Handbook Reliability Prediction Methods........................................................ 15
2.3.1 MIL-HDBK-217F Notice 2 ...................................................................... 15

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
2.3.2 Telcordia SR-332.......................................................................................15
2.3.3 PRISM® and Handbook of 217PlusTM.......................................................16
2.3.4 FIDES ........................................................................................................16
2.4 Mixing Methods ................................................................................................17
2.5 Reliability Prediction Disclosure Statement......................................................18
3. Community of Practice ..............................................................................................20
3.1 Registration........................................................................................................20
3.2 Purpose of Community of Practice....................................................................20
3.3 Operation of Community of Practice.................................................................21
4. Definitions, abbreviations, and acronyms .................................................................22
5. References .................................................................................................................27
Appendix A – Reliability Prediction Disclosure Statement ..............................................28
Appendix B – VITA 51 Participation in Community of Practice (CoP)...........................30
Appendix C – Factors that affect Product Reliability........................................................32
Appendix D – Guidelines for Creating a Subsidiary Specification...................................39

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
1. Introduction
This document provides an electronics failure rate prediction methodology and self-
assessment standard. It is the product of a collaborative effort by a working group in
the VMEbus International Trade Association (VITA), comprising representatives
from electronics suppliers, system integrator companies, and the Department of
Defense (DoD). In addition, independent industry participation and peer review was
included to provide the basis for development of this standard.
1.1 Overview
Failure rate predictions have been utilized by logistics and systems engineers for a
myriad of purposes, including reliability analysis, cost trade studies, availability
analysis, spares planning, redundancies modeling, scheduled maintenance planning,
product warrantees and guarantees.
In the 1950’s, electronics reliability models were derived and standardized by the
DoD through the analysis of historical failure data. In 1961, the first edition of MIL-
HDBK-217 [1] was published, providing a basic reliability analysis tool that is still in
use today.
In 1994, U.S. Secretary of Defense William Perry published his pivotal memorandum
titled “Specifications & Standards - A New Way of Doing Business.” [2] This memo,
and the changes in military acquisition that followed, caused many military standards
to be cancelled in favor of commercial standards and practices. A consequence of
this memo is the DoD is no longer updating MIL-HDBK-217, but is looking to
industry organizations to provide updated reliability prediction methods.
The VITA 51 working group was formed to investigate and develop an industry
standard to address electronics failure rate prediction. Where applicable, this
standard provides adjustment factors to existing standards. As new electronics
technology is developed, new methods will be developed, documented and added to
future releases of these standard and subsidiary specifications.
1.2 Scope
This document addresses the limitations of existing prediction practices, with a series
of subsidiary specifications that contain the “best practices” within industry for
performing electronics failure rate predictions.
This document establishes a Community of Practice, with a registration process (see

section 3) to ensure that companies have the adequate tools, best practices and self-
assessment methods to conduct reliability analysis.

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
This standard recognizes there are many industry reliability methods, each with a
custodian and acceptable practices to calculate electronics failure rate predictions. If
such a method is identified as requiring additional standards for use by electronics
module suppliers, a new subsidiary specification will be considered by the VITA 51
working group.
1.3 Purpose
This document provides an electronics failure rate prediction standard, and
establishes a Community of Practice.
Electronics failure rate predictions are typically used for comparative assessments,
reliability analysis, cost trade studies, availability analysis, spares planning,
redundancies modeling, scheduled maintenance planning, product warrantees and
guarantees. Reliability predictions are not meant to represent the field reliability (i.e.,
Mean-Time-Between-Maintenance, Mean-Time-Between-Removals, etc.).
The development of VITA 51.0 and the subsidiary specifications is an effort to give
the mean time between failure (MTBF) calculations some consistency and
repeatability.
1.4 Subsidiary Specifications

This standard is organized in a hierarchy, with this document and sub-tier documents
that are referred to as “subsidiary specifications.” This document provides an
overview, guidelines and a general purpose standard for failure rate predictions. The
subsidiary specifications provide specific methods, practices and standard approaches
for electronics failure rates predictions.
1.4.1 General Description

A subsidiary specification provides detailed methodology practices or approaches to
electronics failure rate predictions by using either an existing prediction method or
documenting new industry accepted techniques or standards. Each method, practice
or approach may be based on existing reliability prediction practices with modifying
factors to update these existing standards.
These modifying factors may be derived from a variety of sources. Consequently,

there will also be differences in the quality of the substantiation and the resulting
confidence in different factors. The subsidiary specification will also document data
sources and clarify for the user what the quality is of those sources.

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
1.4.2 Purpose of Subsidiary Specifications

A subsidiary specification provides standard processes, instructions and default
parameters for a failure rate prediction method, as it applies to electronic products for
the Defense and Aerospace Industry.
All subsidiary specifications must support the main standard, and be consistent with
the purpose of the VITA 51.0 specification.
1.4.3 Guidelines for Creating a Subsidiary Specification

See Appendix D.
1.5 Specification Terminology

To avoid confusion, and to make clear what the requirements for compliance are,
many of the paragraphs of this specification are labeled with keywords that indicate
the type of information they contain. The keywords are listed below:
RULE
RECOMMENDATION
SUGGESTION
PERMISSION
OBSERVATION
Any text not labeled with one of these keywords is descriptive or narrative.
The keywords are used as follows:
RULE <chapter>-<number>:
Rules form the basic framework of this specification. They are sometimes expressed
in text form and sometimes in the form of figures, tables, or drawings. All rules shall
be followed to ensure compatibility between reliability predictions. Rules are
characterized by an imperative style. The upper-case words “SHALL” and “SHALL
NOT” are reserved exclusively for stating rules in this specification and are not used
for any other purpose.
RECOMMENDATION <chapter>-<number>:
Wherever a recommendation appears, reliability practitioners would be wise to take
the advice given. Doing otherwise might result in some awkward problems or a poor
analysis. Recommendations found in this specification are based on experience and
are provided to speed the traversal of the learning curve. All recommendations use
the upper-case words “SHOULD” or “SHOULD NOT” to emphasize the importance
of the recommendation. The “SHOULD” or “SHOULD NOT” words are reserved
exclusively for stating recommendations and are not used for any other purpose.

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
SUGGESTION <chapter>-<number>:
A suggestion contains advice, which is helpful but not vital. The reader is
encouraged to consider the advice before discarding it. Some analysis decisions that
need to be made are difficult until experience has been gained. Suggestions are
included to help an analyst who has not yet gained this experience.
PERMISSION <chapter>-<number>:
In some cases a rule does not specifically prohibit a certain analysis approach, but the
reader might be left wondering whether that approach might violate the spirit of the
rule or whether it might lead to some subtle problem. Permissions reassure the reader
that a certain approach is acceptable and will cause no problems. The upper-case
word “MAY” is reserved exclusively for stating permissions in this specification and
is not used for any other purpose.
OBSERVATION <chapter>-<number>:
Observations do not offer any specific advice. They usually follow naturally from
what has just been discussed. They spell out the implications of certain rules and
bring attention to things that might otherwise be overlooked. They also give the
rationale behind certain rules so that the reader understands why the rule must be
followed.

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
2. Overview of Reliability Prediction Methods

This section provides information on reliability predictions methods, followed by
rules and recommendations for their use within the context of this specification.
Information provided on reliability methods is intended for guidance only, not to
imply an endorsement of any particular method for any particular application.
Reliability prediction methods vary due to varying market pressures or contract
requirements that drive different processes, needs and usage. Selection of a reliability
prediction method will depend on the accuracy of that method in representing the
application, and how well it answers the needs of the analysis.
2.1 Characteristics of Good Reliability Prediction

Methods
Some of the major factors that affect reliability predictions are 1) the type of
prediction method used (parts count vs. parts stress), 2) the type of parts used in the
system, 3) the quality of the parts, 4) and the environment in which the system
operates.
2.1.1 Parts count versus parts stress

For some reliability prediction models, a parts count method is used for the early
design stage of a project when the number and type of parts in each class are known
and overall design details are still evolving. A part stress analysis method is used in
the detail design phase when individual part level information and design stress data
are available. The method requires the use of defined models that include electrical
and mechanical stress factors, environmental factors, duty cycles, etc.
2.1.2 Part types

The base electronics failure rate determined for each part type is a major factor
affecting the overall failure rate. The factors in determining the part failure rate
include technology type, number of gates, number of pins, package type, years in
production, operating power, temperature, vibration, humidity, etc.
2.1.3 Quality level

Part quality level is a measure of a manufacturer’s production and test procedures
(including screening) and the quality controls in place

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
2.1.4 Environment
The environment in which the system operates will have a significant effect on the
electronics failure rate and reliability prediction results. A reliability model will
include factors to account for the stresses imposed by a particular environment during
the life cycle of a product..
Electronics will typically be qualified to an environmental level suitable for their

intended application. Environmental qualification may include testing of the
electronics by subjecting it to environmental stresses representative of the
usage/product environment.
Environmental choices vary between the various prediction methods. Some

prediction methods do not include models for all environments.
2.2 Reliability Prediction Data Sources
2.2.1 Field Data

Field data represents the experienced reliability performance of an item in its actual
environment. A reliability prediction based on field data is appropriate for an item
that is similar to items already in service. Field data is also used when comparing
reliability predictions based on test data or analysis and the actual reliability
performance of the equipment. Another important use of field data, is to develop
modifications to standard prediction models such as MIL-HDBK-217.
2.2.2 Test Data

The benefits of reliability predictions based on test data are that they include actual
equipment operational experience and the time required to observe failures can be
accelerated to increase the amount of data available. Test data can be used in
combination with or as a validation of other methods. Tests may be constructed so
that they either demonstrate a specific reliability at a specific confidence level or
generate valid test hours for general data accumulation. Tests are often conducted to
determine or demonstrate the reliability at the component, assembly, subsystem, or
system level. The value of test data depends on how well the test environment can be
related to the actual use environment.
2.2.3 Manufacturers’ Test Data

Incorporating manufacturers' data into a reliability prediction can be a good way of
keeping up with the improvements in reliability and advances in technology.

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
2.2.4 Similarity Analysis

This method starts with the collection of past experience data on similar products
with the same or similar manufacturing processes and procedures. The data is
evaluated for form, fit and function compatibility with the new product. If the new
product is an item that is undergoing a minor enhancement, the collected data will
provide a good basis for comparison to the new product. Small differences in
operating environments, manufacturing processes and procedures or conditions can
be accounted for by using translation methods based on previous experiences. If the
product does not have a direct similar item, then lower level similar circuits can be
compared. The advantage to using the similar item prediction is that it is the quickest
way to estimate a new product’s reliability, and is applicable when there is limited
design information e.g., very early in the design phase. The disadvantage is the
possibility that the new product will in actuality be substantially different from the
similar item, resulting in incorrect or inaccurate predictions.
2.2.5 Modeling & Simulation

Empirical models are those that have been developed from historical reliability data
bases. This data can be either from field application or from laboratory tests. As a
result of the manner in which these models are developed their relevance is a function
of the data used to derive them. Therefore, reliability predictions will vary as a
function of the specific empirical prediction methodology used, because the empirical
data on which they are based was collected from different sources and environments.
Reliability predictions based on stress and damage models rely on understanding the
mechanisms that will induce the identified failures, the loading conditions that can
produce the failure mechanisms, and the sites that are vulnerable to the failure
mechanism.
2.2.6 Physics of Failure

The objective of any physics-of-failure analysis is to determine or predict when a
specific end-of-life failure mechanism will occur for an individual component in a
specific application. A physics-of-failure prediction looks at each individual failure
mechanism such as electromigration, solder joint cracking, die bond adhesion, etc., to
estimate the probability of component wearout within the useful life of the product.
This analysis requires detailed knowledge of all material characteristics, geometries,
and environmental conditions. Specific models for each failure mechanism are
available from a variety of reference books.
The advantage of the physics-of-failure approach is that predictions using known

failure mechanisms can be performed to determine the wearout time function. The
disadvantage is that this method requires access to component manufacturer’s
material, process, test time and design data. In addition, the actual calculations and

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
analysis are complicated activities requiring knowledge of materials, processes, and

failure mechanisms.
2.3 Handbook Reliability Prediction Methods
2.3.1 MIL-HDBK-217F Notice 2

MIL-HDBK-217 was developed in the 1960’s under the preparing activity of the
Rome Air Development Center (RADC). The purpose of the MIL-HDBK-217F
Notice 2 is to establish and maintain consistent and uniform methods for estimating
the inherent reliability (i.e., the reliability of a mature design) of military electronic
equipment and systems. It provides a common basis for reliability predictions during
acquisition programs for military electronic systems and equipment. It also
establishes a common basis for comparing and evaluating reliability predictions of
related competitive designs. The handbook was intended to be used as a tool to
increase the reliability of the equipment being designed.
MIL-HDBK-217 was the original standard for reliability. It was designed to provide
reliability math models for nearly every conceivable type of electronic device. MIL-
HDBK-217 contains two methods of reliability prediction, parts stress analysis and
parts count. These methods vary in degree of information needed to apply them. The
parts count method requires less information, generally part quantities, quality level,
and the application environment. This method is applicable during the early design
phase and during proposal formulation. In general, the parts count method will
usually result in a more conservative estimate of system reliability than the parts
stress method. The parts stress analysis requires a greater amount of detailed
information and is applicable during the later design phase when actual hardware and
circuits are being designed.
MIL-HDBK-217 was last revised on February 28, 1995.
2.3.2 Telcordia SR-332

The Telcordia SR-332 reliability prediction model [4] was originally developed by
AT&T Bell Labs. Bell Labs modified the equations in MIL-HDBK-217 to better
represent what their equipment was experiencing in the field. The main concepts in
MIL-HDBK-217 and Telcordia (previously Bellcore reliability prediction) are very
similar, but Telcordia added the ability to take into account burn-in, field, and
laboratory testing. This added ability has made the Telcordia standard very popular
with commercial organizations. The current version of SR-332 is Issue 2, released in
Sept 2006.
The Telcordia reliability prediction model also supports the ability to perform a parts
count or part stress analysis, but in Telcordia, these different calculations are referred

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
to as Calculation Methods. Telcordia offers ten different Calculation Methods. Each

of these Methods is designed to take into account different information. This
information can include stress data, burn-in data, field data, or laboratory test
reliability data.
The main limitation of Telcordia is its focus on telecommunications which may

reduce its usefulness in other industries due to differing usage environments, quality,
qualification levels and technology. It has widespread acceptance and use in the
United States, but limited use in Europe.
2.3.3 PRISM® and Handbook of 217PlusTM

PRISM® is a standard for MTBF prediction and system reliability analysis, originally
developed by the Reliability Analysis Center (RAC) in the 1990’s. PRISM® provides
a number of specific analysis techniques. Applying process grades to a reliability
analysis is used to account for the process-related variability around the assembly or
system failure rate. Incorporating predecessor data into an analysis is done to factor in
historical and predicted data when calculating the overall reliability. The Bayesian
analysis technique facilitates the use of test and field data at the assembly level to
enhance predicted component failure rates.
217PlusTM is a revision of PRISM®, developed by the Reliability Information

Analysis Center (RIAC) and Wyle Laboratories and released in 2006. Improvements
over the older method, PRISM® include updated models, six new models, and a
companion handbook published along with the tool to provide better substantiation of
the results. 217PlusTM is being advertised as a replacement for both MIL-HDBK-217
and PRISM®. Like its predecessor, the tool and its associated documentation must be
purchased, and the source data behind the models remains proprietary.
PRISM® and 217PlusTM are commercially developed and marketed tools, thus their
model, handbook and background information is proprietary to RIAC and Wyle
Laboratories. The key advantages to using PRISM® or 217PlusTM are they have been
developed more recently than other models, they are supported by RIAC and they
have widespread recognition and use. The main disadvantage concerns issues of data
sharing. For example, if the reliability prediction is a deliverable product, such as a
report provided to a customer during a design development program, the customer
would also have to purchase the tool to be able to verify the prediction results.
2.3.4 FIDES
The consortium that developed the FIDES methodology was formed by French
industrialists from the fields of aeronautics and defense. This consortium was created
under the aegis of the Délégation Générale pour l'Armement (DGA, French armament
industry supervision agency). The FIDES methodology is based on the physics of
failures and supported by the analysis of test data, field returns and existing modeling.

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
It is therefore different from the traditional methods developed mainly through

statistical analysis of field returns. This process yields predicted reliability results
that are not influenced by the industrial domains of the methodology's creators.
However, after fine-tuning the models, the methodology was calibrated on the basis
of the experience of the consortium members, particularly as regards the process
factors.
The FIDES Guide is a global methodology for reliability engineering in electronics. It

has two parts:
• A reliability prediction guide,
• A reliability process control and audit guide.
The FIDES Guide aims to enable a realistic assessment of the reliability of electronic
equipment, including systems operating in severe environments (defense systems,
aeronautics, industrial electronics, transport, etc.). The FIDES Guide also aims to
provide a concrete tool to develop and control this reliability.
Its key features are:
• Providing models both for electrical, electronic, and electromechanical

components, and for the Printed Wiring Assemblies (PWAs) or some
subassemblies.
• Revealing and taking into consideration all technological and physical factors
that play an identified role in a product's reliability.
• Taking into precise consideration the mission profile.
• Taking into consideration the electrical, mechanical and thermal overstresses.
• Taking into consideration the failures linked to the development, production,

field operation and maintenance processes.
• The possibility of distinguishing several suppliers of a same component.
By identifying the factors contributing to reliability, whether technological, physical

or process-based, the FIDES Guide makes it possible to revise product definition and
intervene throughout the product lifecycle, to improve and control reliability.
2.4 Mixing Methods

RULE 2.4-1:
Mixing reliability prediction methods SHALL only be done to the extent allowed
and as specified in the subsidiary specifications.

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
OBSERVATION 2.4-1:
Choosing one model or another is a decision which must be based on a wide array
of factors specific to your application. Mixing reliability prediction methods is an
approach that can take advantage of the best of each method, provide alternatives
for technologies and environments missing from a particular method, and can
improve the accuracy of the resulting analysis.
RECOMMENDATION 2.4-1:
Mixing methods can be problematic, and SHOULD NOT be done solely to
improve the apparent resulting reliability. The user is cautioned that the use of a
combination of reliability methods SHOULD be justified to the customer
requesting the analysis.
2.5 Reliability Prediction Disclosure Statement

RECOMMENDATION 2.5-1:
A reliability prediction report SHOULD be generated for each reliability
prediction performed, unless otherwise directed by the customer. The report
SHOULD contain enough detailed information such that the customer is able to
understand the limitations of the reliability prediction that was performed.
SUGGESTION 2.5-1:
The information contained in the reliability prediction report will include the
following as a minimum:
o Inputs or assumptions
o Prediction method
o Application
o Environment (product usage)
o Temperature (ambient or operating)
o Part modeling parameters
o Results
o Predicted Failure rates (Failures-in-Time or FIT (Failures per 10e9

hours) or Failures per million hours)
o Predicted MTBFs

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
RULE 2.5-1:
Along with the reliability prediction report, a completed “Reliability Prediction
Disclosure Statement” (found in VITA 51.0 Appendix A) SHALL be included
with the submitted reliability prediction report.
OBSERVATION 2.5-1:
The limitations of an analysis are important to understand and document. The
purpose of this form is to allow the customer to quickly determine how a
reliability prediction was performed. By reviewing which box is marked in the
“Summary Section”, the customer will know whether the prediction was
performed according to this standard, or with some exceptions, or if an alternate
prediction method was used (utilization of field data, for example).
The disclosure statement also includes areas referring to “Submitted by”, “Title”,
“Company Name”, and “Date” that will be completed by the organization that
performed the reliability prediction. This information is required for two reasons.
One, it provides point of contact information in case the customer has a question
related to the reliability prediction. Second, it also establishes some level of
accountability for the reliability prediction performed. The comments section of
the form may be used to capture any pertinent information that is not included in
the reliability prediction report.
Compliance with the Reduction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) initiatives has

created reliability concerns in the use of lead free solders and finishes. If such
issues represent a concern for certain applications, then the comments section of
the Disclosure Statement can be used to indicate whether the product uses lead
free solders or pure tin finishes, which alloys are used, and how the prediction
was modified to account for RoHS.

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
3. Community of Practice
The VITA 51.0 specification was developed by a group of people with interest and
expertise in electronics reliability predictions, which came together with the common
goal to address certain specific problems with methods used for electronics reliability
prediction. This group formed a Community of Practice (CoP) in this area, and
worked together to develop a common, open standard based on their collective
knowledge. The continuation and growth of this CoP is a key part of the strategy to
assure future revisions of VITA 51.0 and the subsidiary specifications will be based
on best practices of a wider and growing group of industry specialists.
This section describes the CoP, how an interested person may join it and how it will
be used to improve future revisions of this standard and the subsidiary specifications.
3.1 Registration
Any reliability practitioner who uses VITA 51.0 for reliability predictions will be
invited to register with VITA 51 on the custodian website. After providing basic
contact information (name, phone, company, email address) the reliability practitioner
will be invited to provide further information about his or her experience and
company practices that will be used to enable the CoP to identify what expertise the
members can offer to each other. Providing this additional information will be
optional.
The VITA 51.0 registration will not be used to evaluate the practices of the
practitioner or the organization or company that he or she represents. It will be used
as a networking tool for members to find people who have the expertise to address
issues on reliability related subjects.
Appendix B contains the details of the CoP registration process.
RULE 3.1-1:
The CoP database, list of users, and/or their contact information SHALL NOT be
utilized, shared or sold for commercial purposes.
RULE 3.1-2:
Answers provided for the CoP registration will be publicly available through
VITA. Information provided as part of the CoP registration SHALL NOT contain
company proprietary data/material.
3.2 Purpose of Community of Practice

A CoP forms when a group of people are interested and motivated to work together to
understand and improve on the best practices in their field of interest. CoP’s have

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
been used in many various industries as a powerful and effective structure to address
common challenges the community face.
A CoP differs from a typical team in that the CoP members are usually volunteering
their time and energies to the CoP, and their cohesion is based on their common
dedication to their field of interest. A CoP is self-forming and self-sustaining, and
members define their own charter and rules of operation.
The purpose for the VITA 51 CoP is to develop and find best practices, to improve
member knowledge and effectiveness in performing reliability predictions and to
update and improve on the standard and subsidiary specifications. The VITA 51 CoP
will be formed by those who are interested and motivated to build on the VITA 51
standards by combining and integrating the talents of others who are interested in
participating. The VITA 51 CoP members will establish common electronics
reliability prediction practices, learn from their interaction with each other what new
prediction methods are being used, and combine their knowledge and experience to
improve on future iterations of the specification.
3.3 Operation of Community of Practice

The VITA 51 CoP will form and grow as more people in the reliability industry learn
of it and offer their time and talents to make it better. The CoP growth will be
facilitated by the VITA 51 leadership, who are the officers established by the VITA
51 working group in accordance with the VITA Standards Organization operating
procedures.
RULE 3.3-1:
General rules of operation of the CoP SHALL follow the VITA Policies and
Procedures [5]. Specific rules of operation of the CoP may be defined by the
membership, but SHALL NOT conflict with or cause a violation of VITA
Policies and Procedures.
The interactions and working relationships between CoP members will be aided by a
website, established and maintained by VITA. The website will host the registration
process, and provide information relevant and interesting to the CoP as well as links
to VITA and reliability industry resources that the CoP membership find useful. CoP
members will also have an opportunity to be on an email distribution for periodic
announcements and notices from VITA 51.
In addition, periodic face-to-face meetings will be conducted, to bring people together

to discuss and work on future revisions of the specifications. The goal is to hold
these meetings at least annually. Further work can be conducted remotely, using
telecons, when developmental efforts are required for the next update of the standard
or specification.

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
4. Definitions, abbreviations, and acronyms

Assembly or Module A combination of parts or subassemblies that may be taken
apart without destruction and which has limited application
or use of its own. It is essential for the completeness of
more complex items in which it is to be integrated.
Availability The measure of the degree to which an item is in the
operable and committable state at the start of the mission,
or when the mission is called for at an unknown (random)
time.
CMOS Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor logic
Cannot Duplicate/ The entire population of diagnostic anomalies that prevent
Fault Not Found operational failure indications from being duplicated
during maintenance. This comprises false alarms,
intermittent failures, inadequately designed BIT (resulting
in a reliance on manual and subjective fault detection, fault
isolation and/or maintenance procedure deficiencies
causing improper removals), and test verticality/tolerance
inconsistencies between maintenance levels.
Case File Collection of all pertinent data relating to a unique failure
cause/trend.
Component A general term representing a part or any combination
of parts which has a specific function. Synonyms
include item and unit.
Corrective Action Implementation and validation of specific documented

changes to requirements, design, manufacturing processes,
procedures, operating/maintenance manual, or personnel
training, intended to prevent recurrence, or to mitigate the
affect of the failure in existing and subsequent products.
Note: Replacing a failed item by a like item is not
considered corrective action.
Defect A hardware flaw or imperfection that is outside specified
tolerance levels. An error (design, requirement, or
complier) in the software code, that when executed will
lead to a failure.
Developmental or Equipment in an approved, and deliverable or controllable,
production production configuration.
deliverable

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
hardware item
Diagnostic All the capabilities associated with the detection and
Capability isolation of failures, including testability inherent to an
item, training, maintenance aiding, and technical
information
Diagnostics The action of detecting and isolating failures. This action

uses the testability inherent to the item, supplemented by
an effective mix of manual procedures and external test
equipment, to isolate all failures to the repairable item level
(system, subsystem, drawer/box, card, component) and to
confirm that the item has been restored to a non-failed
condition
Embedded Test Any portion of the product’s diagnostic capability, which is
an integral part of the product, e.g., on chip error detection
and correction. Integral indicates that the embedded
portion is attached physically or electrically.
Failure The inability of an item to perform its required function(s)
as defined in the design specification; essentially a failure
is the functional manifestation of a fault or failure mode in
the end item application.
Failure analysis The logical systematic examination of an item, its
construction, application and documentation to identify the
failure mode and to determine the failure mechanism (its
basic or root cause).
Failure detection The process of determining out of specification
performance by hardware or software means.
Failure effects The consequence(s) that a failure mode has on the
operation, function, or status of the item system and
mission.
Failure isolation The systematic process of determining the location of a
fault/problem to the extent necessary to affect corrective
maintenance.
Failure latency The elapsed time between failure occurrence and failure
indication.
Failure mechanism The physical, chemical, electrical, thermal or other process
which results in failure.
Failure mode The consequence of a fault on device operation, often an
abstraction used to represent a common effect of multiple

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
faults (e.g., shorted output, open input, fracture, excessive

wear).
Failure Rate - The number of failures of an item per unit measure of
life (cycles, time, miles, events, etc., as applicable for
the item designated). (MIL-STD-721).
Failure Review A board responsible for management and resolution of

Board problems reported in the FRACAS Process Assessment
Report (PAR): A color-coded performance report depicting
the health of the Processes.
False Alarm A failure indication that was detected by the failure
monitoring mechanism, but in reality never occurred.
Fault A fault is a physical degradation in a hardware or software
element (e.g., open or shorted transistor junction).
Fault Detection The action of determining that a fault exists.
Fault Latency The elapsed time between fault occurrence and failure/fault
indication.
Firmware Programs kept in semi-permanent storage, such as various
types of read only memory. Software is “burned in” on the
memory device so that it is non-volatile (will not be lost
when power is shut off).
FRACAS Failure Reporting, Analysis, and Corrective Action System
(FRACAS) the formal system for collecting, analyzing,
detecting, investigating, reporting, tracking and correcting
reliability, maintainability and testability (RM&T)
problems and/or trends.
Hardware The term for a collection of mechanical and electronic
components that performs some system functions.
Interface Diagram Visual information for conveying additional linkages
between RM&T and external processes where relevant
information may be exchanged. The core process, as
indicated by the darkened bubble, is defined as the RM&T
process covered in the specific process document in use.
Intermittent A nonpermanent item failure that lasts for a limited time
period [TBCI] followed by recovery of its ability to
perform within specified limits.
Investigation The process of examining all circumstances and findings,
from the discovery of a problem until the cause and

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
corrective action are identified.

Maintainability The ability of an item to be readily sustained or restored to
a specified condition when maintenance is performed in
accordance with specified procedures and resources. This
definition includes the ability of the item to support the
required fault detection and isolation.
Single Point Failure - Any piece part, assembly, component, or element of
construction, such as printed circuit board layout; the
failure of which would result in irreversible degradation
of item mission performance below contractually
specified levels, such as failure of an item in operation
which could be catastrophic to a mission objective.
(MIL-STD-1543).
- The total operating time accumulated by a population

of "primary" and "field failure not verified" (FFNV)
Mean Time to failure equipment items, divided by the number of failed
Failure (MTTF) items in that population.
Mean Time Between - For a particular interval, the total functioning life of a
Failure (MTBF) population of an item divided by the total number of
failures within the population during the measurement
interval. The definition holds for time, cycles, miles,
events, or other measures of life units. (MIL-STD-721).
Nonconformance A departure from a specification, process and/or drawing

requirement.
Problem A failure, which, if not corrected, may result in inability to
(Operational meet the reliability and/or maintainability requirements.
Nonconformance)
Process Assessment A color-coded performance report depicting the health of
Report (PAR) the Processes.
Relevant The scoring criterion, which is agreed to by the Customer,

which determines if a failure, was relevant, (i.e., design
related) or irrelevant, (i.e., not design related).
Reliability The probability that an item will perform its intended

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
function for a specified period under stated operational and

environmental conditions.
Retest OK A failure which caused a removal at the service
(RETOK) organizational level but which was not verified as a failure
at the next level of maintenance.
Reviewing Body A team of individual’s selected/appointed by the
Self-Review Administrator that will perform a self-review
of a specified process or sub-process.
Self-Review An individual designated by the Support Advisory Council
Administrator (SRA) to facilitate performance of a self-review of a specified
process or sub-process.
Software Coded instructions that direct the operation of a computer.
A set of such instructions for accomplishing a particular
task is referred to as a program.
Success Data The observed or estimated operating time (in hours), or
cycles or trials during which an item performs in
accordance with specified requirements.
Support Enterprise A technique for recording and visualizing the linkage of

Model RM&T to the other Support processes. It also portrays
how the integrated Support process is linked to the macro
level processes of the company.
Support Operating The aggregate set of processes and amplifying
System (SOS) documentation and metrics that taken together comprise the
common IDSIDS methodology for providing support.
Testability The degree to which a system or component facilitates the
establishment of test criteria and the performance of tests to
determine whether those criteria have been met [IEEE 90].
Vertical Testability The design technique to insure that parametric tolerances
are tightened as the unit under test moves from the user
level, through intermediate repair levels to the depot or
manufacturer’s repair facility.

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
5. References
[1] Military Handbook (MIL-HBDK)-217F Notice 2, Reliability Prediction of
Electronic Equipment, February 28, 1995
[2] Perry, William J., Secretary of Defense, Specifications & Standards - A New Way
of Doing Business, June 29, 1994
[3] EIA-4900, Use of Semiconductor Devices Outside Manufacturers’ Specified

Temperature Ranges, Electronic Industries Alliance, November 2001
[4] SR-332, Reliability Prediction Procedure for Electronic Equipment, Issue 02,
September 2006
[5] VSO Policies and Procedures, http://www.vita.com/vso-pp-r2d4-clean.pdf

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
Appendix A – Reliability Prediction Disclosure

Statement

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
RELIABILITY PREDICTION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Summary Section
The prediction performed conforms to VITA 51.0 and the subsidiary

specification(s) listed below.
The prediction performed conforms to VITA 51.0 and the subsidiary

specification(s) listed below, except as stated in the comments
section.
The prediction does not conform to VITA 51.0 or any subsidiary

specification because an alternate prediction method was used, as
identified in the comments section.
This prediction was performed using the following subsidiary

specification(s):______________________________________________
Submitted by __________________________Title _______________________
Company Name _______________________ Date _______________________
Comments Section
1. Are the products being used within their rated power, current, voltage, and
temperature or are they uprated?
2. Is test data used in any deviation from VITA 51.0 or the subsidiary specification
used?
3. Is field failure return data used in any deviation from VITA 51 standard?
4. Other comments:
Form RPDS – xx/xx/xx – Prepared by _______________________________
Please see the VITA 51 website for information on joining and participating in
the reliability Community of Practice (CoP).

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
Appendix B – VITA 51 Participation in Community

of Practice (CoP)
Privacy Statement
Note: Answers provided for the registration questionnaire will be publicly available
through VITA. Information provided to the registration will not be treated as company
proprietary information. (Reference Rule 3.1-2)
Answers to 1 and 2 are required for registration. The remaining questions are optional,
and are intended to help identify skills within the CoP and as a resource for future
revisions of VITA 51.0 or the subsidiary specifications.
1. Name and contact information
2. Company – What/who are your representing?
Optional additional information:
3. Suggested additions or changes to future VITA 51 releases.
4. Questions for the VITA 51 CoP.
5. Which prediction methods or tools have you used?
6. What level or scope of analysis are you most familiar with (see list)?
• Part
• Board
• Subsystem
• System
7. What other reliability related analysis do you have experience with? (please select
any that apply from this list)
• Maintainability
• Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM)
• Failure Modes Effects Criticality Analysis (FMECA)
• Failure Analysis
• Markov Modeling
• Availability
• Testability/System Health (SH)
• Qualification testing
• Environmental qualification
• Component management
• Failure Reporting and Corrective Action System (FRACAS)
• Highly Accelerated Life Testing (HALT)

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
• Highly Accelerated Stress Screening (HASS)

• Life testing
• Reliability Development/Demonstration Testing (RDT)
• Reliability Growth
• Other (please specify):_____________________________

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
Appendix C – Factors that affect Product

Reliability
This appendix provides an overview to the contributing factors for system reliability and
topics for consideration when designing or utilizing electronic products. This is provided
for general information only.
Overall product reliability results from the contributions of the inputs that make up the
product. The design, materials, processes and environments that are applied to create and
operate the product all have direct effects on its functional performance, operational
reliability and life (operational and storage).
Product failure can be considered in two classes:
• Functional Failure – functionality is lost (permanently, temporarily or
intermittent)
• Parametric Degradation – functionality is maintained but performance is
degraded
Depending on the severity and criticality of a parametric degradation, it could be

considered a functional failure.
C.1 Historical Performance

The progression of technology in the electronics industry has provided both benefits
and challenges to ensuring reliable operation of electronics products.
Since the introduction of microelectronics, industry advances have been made in

controlling the purity and consistency of materials, the robustness of their fabrication,
and the refinement of their parametric performance. Computer Aided Design (CAD)
tools and modeling systems have provided a means to provide more robust
applications.
At the same time, in support of increased performance, other factors such as increases
in circuit complexity and power density along with reduced voltage and timing
margins have provided potentially negative impacts on reliability.
There will always be a responsibility to ensure that the applied materials, design,
processes and environmental controls will be adequate to ensure sufficient reliability
for the intended application.
C.2 Root Causes of Failure in Modules

As mentioned above, the reliability of a module is dependent on:
• Materials

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
• Design
• Supporting Processes
• Environment
The same factors are applicable at all system levels (component, module, product,
subsystem, system and platform) – once integrated, operational reliability of all of
these levels may be interdependent.
Root Causes for Module Failure
Design Materials
Product
Failure
Processes Environment
C.2.1 Components
Products are assemblies consisting of modules and components. Each component in
the assembly will serve a purpose to perform a function and will inherently be
susceptible to failure. A component level failure can cause module or product level
failure(s).
Components that make up the module or product assembly will have their own failure
modes. Even at the component level, the failure can be traced to lower level failures
such as the die, wire bonds or component interconnects for integrated circuits. Every
type of component will have its own inherent failure modes.
The generic failure modes for electronics:

• Short Circuit
• Open Circuit
• Parametric Drift (out of specific tolerance)
For simple devices (or a discrete part), like interconnects, capacitors, resistors, diodes
and transistors, the impacts of short circuit, open circuit and parametric drift are fairly
evident. As the complexity of the component increases such as integrated circuits
(potentially containing millions of transistors, capacitors, resistors and

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
interconnections), the impacts of these failure modes become more difficult to define
due to the lack of knowledge of (and access to) the internal workings.
C.2.1.1 Integrated Circuit/Semiconductor Failure Modes
At the die level of a component there are well documented failure modes:
• Electromigration
– Opens or increased impedances in the die level interconnect caused by the
movement of the conductor’s ions due to the momentum transfer from the
conducting electrons.
– Susceptibility increases with increased temperature, increased current draw
and reductions in lithography feature size.
• Dielectric Breakdown
– Shorts/resistive current paths in the die level due to the degradation of the
non-conducting layer between the conductors.
– Susceptibility increases with increased temperature, electrical overstress and
due to defects or impurities in the dielectric.
• Hot Carrier Effects

– Parametric degradation or eventual electrical overstress within a device due
to injection of electrons/holes into areas they should not be.
– Susceptibility increases with increased temperature, high strength electric
fields, poor circuit design.
• Electrical Overstress (EOS)

– Physical damage to the internal circuitry caused by application of electrical
stresses (current/voltage)
– Examples of causes include CMOS Latchup which can occur with improper
power sequencing, damage from Electro-Static Discharge (ESD), lack of
current limiting provisions, misapplication of excessive voltages.
• Burn-Out (Junction/Metal)
– A specific form of Electrical Overstress causing destruction of a P-N
junction or metal interconnects causing opens or shorts.
– Susceptibility increases with high strength electric fields, poor circuit
design.
• Corrosion
– Corrosion of the metals internal to the component due to moisture ingress or
contamination can cause opens, shorts or parametric drift
– Susceptibility influenced by component material composition,
environmental conditions and aging
C.2.1.2 Package Level Failure Modes

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
The next level of component failures can occur at the package level.
• Intermetallics
– Chemical reaction between dissimilar metals that can cause embrittlement
and increased resistance of conductive bonds
• Delamination/Popcorning
– Mechanical damage to the component from thermal mechanical stresses
exerted upon the component
C.2.2 Printed Wiring Boards (PWB)

Printed Wiring Boards (also known as Printed Circuit Boards) are the standard means
for providing interconnects between electronic components and/or discretes. Failure
modes are influenced by the design rules implemented, the material composition of
the PWB, the quality of the manufacturing process and the environmental conditions
that the PWB is subjected to. Failure modes for PWBs include the following:
• Barrel Fracture
– A mechanical fracture of the plated through holes or plated through vias
potentially causing increased impedances, intermittent contact or open circuits
– Susceptibility influenced by material composition and thermo mechanical
stresses caused the coefficient of thermal expansion mismatches
• Via Separation
– Mechanical separation of the via from the bonded interconnect layers
– Susceptibility influenced by geometries, material composition and thermo
mechanical stresses
• Pad Contamination
– Impurities or oxidization can cause poor solderability and increased
resistance of conductive bonds
– Susceptibility influenced by material composition, environmental conditions
and aging
• Lifted Pads
– Open/intermittent circuits caused by the separation of solder pad from the
PWB
– Susceptibility is due to manufacturing defects or mechanical stresses
• Panel Delamination

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
– Mechanical separation of the layers that make up the PWB

– Susceptibility is primarily due to manufacturing defects or mechanical stresses
exerted upon the PWB
C.2.3 Design Processes

The design of a system can have a significant effect on its reliability. Ensuring the
correct application of all of the components that make up a system can be a
challenging process as the relative complexity of electronics increases with time.
The application of the assembly and its components will have an influence on their
susceptibility to the previously identified failure modes and the overall reliability of
the components. The operating life of a component will be directly impacted by the
Electrical and Environmental conditions that the component is subjected to. The
conditions of the target application should influence the design process.
C.2.3.1 Component Derating
Semiconductor manufacturers will often provide a specified maximum junction

temperature. This temperature is the maximum that the die was designed for without
damage. Passive component manufacturers will specify maximum voltage or power
dissipation levels.
Assurance that the module design adheres to the published limitations of the
components is a requirement. Reliability can be further improved by reducing the
stresses placed upon the component (when possible) below the maximums published
by the manufacturer, thereby providing additional margin of safety. This design
practice is known as derating and aids in reducing the risks of overstress failure
modes.
C.2.3.2 Component Uprating
In general, care should be taken not to use electronic components outside the
manufacturer’s specified design specification. However, there are applications for
which no good alternative exists other than using a component outside its specified
range. The military/aerospace industry is increasingly faced with this issue, as
increasing processing needs and diminishing military electronics sources combine to
drive the use of commercial electronics in harsh environments.
Component uprating is a process to assess the capability of a device to meet the

performance requirements of the application in which the device is used outside the
limits of the manufacturer’s specified parameters.
A recommended best practice for component uprating is provided in EIA-4900 [3].

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
C.2.3.3 Signal Integrity
As clocking and signal rates of the electronics industry increased new failure modes
were introduced. The issues arise due to the physical properties of the electrical
circuits that become more acute with increased frequency. Stray or improperly
modeled impedances have the potential to introduce signal integrity errors. Signal
integrity is a broad subject that covers multiple failure modes including:
• Timing
– Data can be interpreted incorrectly due to signal level violations stemming
from timing errors
– Susceptibility influenced by physical layout, signal frequencies and levels
• Signal Noise
– Signal noise can include any of the following electrical phenomenon: Cross
talk, Ringing, Ground bounce, Attenuation, Signal reflection
– Susceptibility influenced by physical layout, signal frequencies and levels
• Electromagnetic Interference (EMI)
– Electromagnetic radiation emitted from electronic circuitry that can cause

degradation of signal integrity
– Susceptibility influenced by physical layout, proximity to sources of
electromagnetic radiation, implementation of EMI compensators
C.3 New Technologies and Processes

Predicting reliability for new technologies can be difficult, because handbook type
reliability prediction methods cannot keep up with the changes, and will not provide
useful information for products that differ significantly from older technology. Use
of reliability test data, either from the manufacturer or conducted by a third party, will
be a better source for assessments until field experience data becomes available.
A significant technology change occurred in the electronics industry in July 2006,

when the European Union instituted the Reduction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS).
Among the changes, this drove electronics manufacturers to use lead free solders of
various types, including pure tin (Sn). Sn solder reintroduced the serious reliability
concern of tin whiskers that had become virtually unknown since early 1960’s
introduction of tin-lead eutectic solder. Tin whiskers are thin single crystal growths
of Sn that sprout up from pure tin deposits and finishes, and can cause shorting in
electrical components. Other common lead-free solder alloys in use are tin-copper
(SnCu) and tin-silver-copper (SnAgCu, also known as SAC). Many lead-free solder
alloys must be processed at higher soldering temperatures than tin-lead, leading to a
higher risk of thermal damage, brittleness, CTE mismatch failures, and damage
during repair.

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
Due to the reliability issues of lead free solders, and the current lack of widely
accepted methods to predict reliability of electronics containing lead free solder, a
supplier can disclose their use of lead free solders or components with pure tin
finishes. See Observation 2.5-1.

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
Appendix D – Guidelines for Creating a Subsidiary

Specification
This appendix provides guidelines for creating subsidiary specifications. This is provided
for general information only.
Working with VITA 51
Subsidiary specifications to the VITA 51.0 main standard will be prepared by the
VITA 51 working group and included with this standard after being approved through
the VITA balloting process.
If an organization outside of VITA would like to prepare a subsidiary specification,

they may request that the VITA 51 working group consider including their document
as a new subsidiary specification. The request should be sent to the Chair of VITA
51 (note: for the contact information of the current chair, see www.vita.com). Then
the VITA 51 working group will work with the preparers to reach a consensus on the
content of the subsidiary specification.
VITA 51 will inform VSO Standard Committees and owners of other reliability
methods if their method is included in this standard.
Recommended outline:
The following sections should be included as a minimum for any Subsidiary

Specification.
– Title page
– Table of Contents
– Main body
• Section 1 (Provides basic info about the document)
– Overview (What does the Subsidiary Specification do for

industry)
– Scope (What is the focus and bounds of the Subsidiary

Specification’s content)
– Purpose (What is the purpose of the Subsidiary

Specification and what does it accomplish)

ANSI/VITA 51.0-2008
• Section 2 (Provides standard method for using the Subsidiary

Specification in its current revision for consistent, repeatable
results)
• Section 3 (Provides additional items that would need to be added

to meet the high-level standard requirements
• Section 4 Examples (Provide several case examples using the

Subsidiary Specification)
– Definitions, abbreviations, and acronyms
– References (must list only documents or materail that can be accessible

through VITA or any other organization (public domain). No company
proprietary material shall be stated or used as reference material without
approval from VITA 51 working group
Ground Rules
Do’s
• Provide additional value over and above what is already written in the
prediction method or standard. For example, providing standard defaults
values, factors or constants for when an analyst does not have complete
information or data. Provide standard guidelines based on “best practice”. As
required by Section 4, several case example providing step by step processes
and instructions are required to accept the user(s) is applying the Subsidiary
Specification.
Don’ts
• Do not duplicate the referenced standard(s). The subsidiary specification

provides a framework for consistent application of a reliability prediction
standard, but does not duplicate existing standards.
• Subsidiary specifications will not include a figure of merit or comparison with

other methods.
• No advertising of a particular method or tool.
No company proprietary material shall be stated or used.

AV51DOT0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AV51DOT0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANSI/VITA 51.

American National Standard

for Reliability Prediction

VMEbus International Trade Association

Approved June 2008

American National Standards Institute, Inc.

VMEbus International Trade Association

American National Standard

Approved June 2008

Consensus is established when, in the judgment of the ANSI

The use of American National Standards is completely

CAUTION NOTICE: This National Standard may be revised

VMEbus International Trade Association

All rights reserved.

Working Group Members

Copyright 2008 VITA Page 5 of 40

1.4 Subsidiary Specifications.................................................................................... 9

1.4.1 General Description .................................................................................... 9

1.4.2 Purpose of Subsidiary Specifications........................................................ 10

1.4.3 Guidelines for Creating a Subsidiary Specification.................................. 10

1.5 Specification Terminology................................................................................ 10

2. Overview of Reliability Prediction Methods ............................................................ 12

2.1 Characteristics of Good Reliability Prediction Methods .................................. 12

2.1.1 Parts count versus parts stress................................................................... 12

2.1.2 Part types................................................................................................... 12

2.1.3 Quality level.............................................................................................. 12

2.2 Reliability Prediction Data Sources .................................................................. 13

2.2.1 Field Data.................................................................................................. 13

2.2.2 Test Data ................................................................................................... 13

2.2.3 Manufacturers’ Test Data.......................................................................... 13

2.2.4 Similarity Analysis.................................................................................... 14

2.2.5 Modeling & Simulation ............................................................................ 14

2.2.6 Physics of Failure...................................................................................... 14

2.3 Handbook Reliability Prediction Methods........................................................ 15

2.3.1 MIL-HDBK-217F Notice 2 ...................................................................... 15

Copyright 2008 VITA Page 6 of 40

2.3.2 Telcordia SR-332.......................................................................................15

2.3.3 PRISM® and Handbook of 217PlusTM.......................................................16

2.3.4 FIDES ........................................................................................................16

2.4 Mixing Methods ................................................................................................17

2.5 Reliability Prediction Disclosure Statement......................................................18

3. Community of Practice ..............................................................................................20

3.2 Purpose of Community of Practice....................................................................20

3.3 Operation of Community of Practice.................................................................21

4. Definitions, abbreviations, and acronyms .................................................................22

Appendix A – Reliability Prediction Disclosure Statement ..............................................28

Appendix B – VITA 51 Participation in Community of Practice (CoP)...........................30

Appendix C – Factors that affect Product Reliability........................................................32

Appendix D – Guidelines for Creating a Subsidiary Specification...................................39

Copyright 2008 VITA Page 7 of 40

This document establishes a Community of Practice, with a registration process (see

Copyright 2008 VITA Page 8 of 40

1.4 Subsidiary Specifications

1.4.1 General Description

These modifying factors may be derived from a variety of sources. Consequently,

Copyright 2008 VITA Page 9 of 40

1.4.2 Purpose of Subsidiary Specifications

1.4.3 Guidelines for Creating a Subsidiary Specification

1.5 Specification Terminology

The keywords are used as follows:

Copyright 2008 VITA Page 10 of 40

Copyright 2008 VITA Page 11 of 40

2. Overview of Reliability Prediction Methods