TECHNICAL REPORT SSB-1™ REV.

Revised 2020-01

Superseding SSB-1C

(R) Guidelines for Using Plastic Encapsulated Microcircuits and Semiconductors

in Military, Aerospace, and Other Rugged Applications

RATIONALE

This document is intended to provide guidance for Using Plastic Encapsulated Microcircuits and Semiconductors (PEMs)
in Military, Aerospace, and other rugged applications. This document addesses the various qualification and monitoring
testing of plastic encapsulated microcircuits and discrete semiconductors suitable for potential use in military and aerospace
applications. The users can use this document to evaluate the potential suitability of a PEM product or the manufacturer for
its intended application. SSB-1 Rev D has been updated from SSB-1 Rev C to take into account the comments from various
CE-12 members. The changes from SSB-1 Rev C to SSB-1 Rev D are shown in Appendix A: (informative) Differences
between SSB-1 Rev C and SSB-1 Rev D.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Members of Task Groups for Plastic Encapsulated Microcircuits (PEMs) Screening and Lot Acceptance Testing of the SAE
CE-12 Solid State Devices Committee developed this document. We would like to thank them for their dedication to this
effort. To each of them, the members of the SAE CE-12 Solid State Devices Committee extend their gratitude.

INTRODUCTION

The military and aerospace electronics industries are experiencing an ever-increasing demand for the use of plastic
encapsulated microcircuits (PEMs). This trend is the result of two major drivers:

• Acquisition Reform
On June 29, 1994 a government directive challenged DoD and industry to adopt commercial practices and to eliminate
DoD specifications and standards where appropriate. While DoD expects original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to
continue to meet specific end-item performance requirements, part selection is frequently left to the discretion of the
equipment designer. Largely due to the automotive and commercial aerospace industries, improvements in molding
processes and encapsulants now make PEMs a viable option for military electronics manufacturers to reduce material
costs.

• Reduced Demand for Military Standard Microcircuits

Over the past decade, the world-wide market for microcircuits has increased dramatically while the total demand for
military standard devices has decreased. As a result, several microcircuit manufactures have abandoned the military
and aerospace market. Fewer and fewer new products are introduced that are specified to perform to traditional military
specification limits and assembled in ceramic packages. OEMs frequently use PEMs in cases where there are no
ceramic packaged devices to replace discontinued military devices in existing equipment. PEMs are frequently the only
packaging alternative available for new devices introduced to the market place.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SAE Technical Standards Board Rules provide that: “This report is published by SAE to advance the state of technical and engineering sciences. The use of this report is entirely
voluntary, and its applicability and suitability for any particular use, including any patent infringement arising therefrom, is the sole responsibility of the user.”
SAE reviews each technical report at least every five years at which time it may be revised, reaffirmed, stabilized, or cancelled. SAE invites your written comments and
suggestions.
Copyright © 2020 SAE International
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE.
TO PLACE A DOCUMENT ORDER: Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada) SAE values your input. To provide feedback on this
Tel: +1 724-776-4970 (outside USA) Technical Report, please visit
Fax: 724-776-0790 http://standards.sae.org/SSB1D
Email: CustomerService@sae.org
SAE WEB ADDRESS: http://www.sae.org
SAE INTERNATIONAL SSB-1™D Page 2 of 19

Plastic encapsulated microcircuits and semiconductors offer a number of inherent advantages over hermetically sealed
ceramic packages, including:

• Weight Plastic packages generally weigh about half as much as ceramic

• Size Smaller configurations are available in plastic packages

• Performance Devices have better dielectric properties than ceramic parts; smaller package configurations allow
higher circuit board packing density, therefore, reducing propagation delays

• Unit price Unit prices are lower than ceramic parts because of high volume, high yield, and high quality automated
manufacturing; cost benefits decrease with higher integration levels and pin counts due to the high
price of die

• Availability Devices are more readily available than hermetic devices due to market demand

The uncontrolled use of plastic encapsulated microcircuits and semiconductors can introduce a number of technical risks in
military and aerospace equipment applications that are not associated with hermetic packaged devices. These potential
risks include:

• Moisture ingress induced by humidity

• Electrolytic/galvanic corrosion, delamination, and crack propagation induced by combined effects of temperature
cycling, humidity, and bias conditions

• Outgassing of volatile substances induced by vacuum

• Device manufacturers characterize electrical performance over limited temperature ranges (e.g., industrial temperature
Range: -40 to +85 °C)

• “Popcorn” package cracks or in delamination induced by thermal effects during soldering

• Cumulative effects of mechanical and thermal stresses from assembly manufacturing, testing, and service conditions
on device long term reliability

To mitigate these risks, the military and aerospace electronics industries are adopting risk mitigation techniques
implemented by the automotive and commercial air electronics industries.

Traditional military part selection methods typically revolve around environmental standards for a general end-item
equipment category. Military standard requirements for components were derived from these equipment level standards.
Many military and aerospace equipment applications do not require component performance at these traditional, military
standard environmental conditions.

Table 1 compares the military standard operating temperature range for microcircuits and semiconductors to other
temperature ranges commonly applied to device characterization.

Table 1 - Standard temperature ranges

Standard Temperature Ranges

Military -55 to +125 °C
Automotive -40 to +125 °C
Industrial -40 to +85 °C
Commercial 0 to +70 °C
SAE INTERNATIONAL SSB-1™D Page 3 of 19

A recent survey conducted by the Government Electronics and Information Technology Association 1 reveals that many
military and aerospace applications could potentially use commercially available components designed and characterized
to perform over commercial, industrial, or automotive temperature ranges.

Fewer and fewer new products are introduced that are specified to perform to traditional military specification limits and
assembled in hermetic packages. By selecting and evaluating components based on the specific application environment,
original equipment manufacturers are not constrained by military standard requirements that may otherwise impede
selecting the most suitable part for the application from both an equipment performance and economical perspective.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. SCOPE .......................................................................................................................................................... 5

2. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS ........................................................................................................................ 5

3. APPLICATION .............................................................................................................................................. 5
3.1 SSB-1.001: Qualification and Reliability Monitors ........................................................................................ 6
3.2 SSB-1.002: Environmental Tests and Associated Failure Mechanisms ....................................................... 6
3.3 SSB-1.003: Acceleration Factors .................................................................................................................. 6
3.4 SSB-1.004: Failure Rate Estimating ............................................................................................................. 6
3.5 SSB-1.005: Radiation Hardness (in draft)..................................................................................................... 6
3.6 SSB-1.00X: Untitled ...................................................................................................................................... 6

4. IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE .................................................................................................................. 7

4.1 Quality Control System Evaluation ............................................................................................................... 7
4.1.1 Quality System Requirements ...................................................................................................................... 7
4.1.2 Evaluation Process ....................................................................................................................................... 7
4.2 Define Use Conditions .................................................................................................................................. 9
4.2.1 Service Life ................................................................................................................................................. 11
4.2.2 Temperature (Operating and Storage) ........................................................................................................ 11
4.2.3 Temperature Cycle...................................................................................................................................... 11
4.2.4 Relative Humidity ........................................................................................................................................ 11
4.2.5 Operating Duty Cycle .................................................................................................................................. 11
4.3 Evaluation of Device Acceptability (Failure Rate Estimating) ..................................................................... 13
4.3.1 Using the Arrhenius Model as an Example ................................................................................................. 13
4.4 Evaluation ................................................................................................................................................... 16
4.4.1 FIT Does Not Meet Expectations ................................................................................................................ 16
4.4.2 Insufficient Device Hours ............................................................................................................................ 16
4.4.3 Failure Rates Not Acceptable ..................................................................................................................... 16
4.4.4 Example Insufficient Device Hours ............................................................................................................. 16
4.4.5 Example FIT Not Acceptable ...................................................................................................................... 16

5. NOTES ........................................................................................................................................................ 18
5.1 Revision Indicator........................................................................................................................................ 18

APPENDIX A (INFORMATIVE) DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SSB-1 REV C AND SSB-1 REV D .................................... 19

Figure 1 Quality control system evaluation ................................................................................................................. 8

Figure 2 Define use conditions .................................................................................................................................. 12
Figure 3 Determine device acceptability ................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 4 Evaluation ................................................................................................................................................... 17

1 Survey conducted in April 1999 by Task Group G99-03 of the G-12 Solid State Devices Committee.
SAE INTERNATIONAL SSB-1™D Page 4 of 19

Table 1 Standard temperature ranges ....................................................................................................................... 2

Table 2 Microcircuit reliability summary data example .............................................................................................. 8
Table 3 Semiconductor reliability summary data example ........................................................................................ 9
Table 4 Worst case use environments and appropriate accelerated testing for surface mount
electronics by use categories example ....................................................................................................... 10
Table 5 Example system requirements .................................................................................................................... 11
Table 6 Failure rate estimate inputs (example) ........................................................................................................ 14
SAE INTERNATIONAL SSB-1™D Page 5 of 19

1. SCOPE

This Engineering Bulletin and its annexes provide guidance to Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) in evaluating
device manufacturer flows and in selecting cost effective, standard products that meet the performance objective for
potential use in many rugged, military, space, extreme, or other environments.

2. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

The latest issue of the following documents forms part of this document:

Note: New document or SSB-1 Annex document will be added as it gets developed.

SSB-1.001 Qualification and Reliability Monitors

SSB-1.002 Environmental Tests and Associated Failure Mechanisms

SSB-1.003 Acceleration Factors

SSB-1.004 Failure Rate Estimating

SSB-1.005 Radiation Hardness (in draft)

JEP122 Failure Mechanisms and Models for Semiconductor Devices

JESD47 Stress Test Driven Qualification of Integrated Circuits

JESD69 Information Requirements for the Qualification of Silicon Devices

IPC-SM-785 Guidelines for Accelerated Reliability Testing of Surface Mount Solder Joints

ANSI/EIA-599 National Electronic Process Certification Standard

ISO 9001 Quality Management and Quality Assurance Standards

ISO/TS 16949 Quality Management System - Automotive Industry

STACK 0001 General Requirements for Integrated Circuits

AS6294/1 Requirements for Plastic Encapsulated Microcircuits in Space Applications

AS6294/2 Requirements for Plastic Encapsulated Microcircuits in Military and Avionics Applications

AS6294/3 Requirements for Plastic Encapsulated Discrete Semiconductors in Space Applications

AS6294/4 Requirements for Plastic Encapsulated Discrete Semiconductors in Military and Avionics Applications

3. APPLICATION

This guideline provides guidance in selecting plastic encapsulated microcircuits and semiconductors based upon:

1. Understanding the potential failure mechanisms associated with end use application conditions

2. Understanding a specific device manufacturer’s methodology for improving device reliability by continually evaluating
product against potential failure mechanisms

3. Evaluating device capability versus the specific application environment, circuit function and equipment level reliability
requirements
SAE INTERNATIONAL SSB-1™D Page 6 of 19

The user of this Bulletin and its annexes must determine the suitability of this guideline for a specific application. In addition
to the following SSB-1 annexes, the AS6294/1 through /4 contain requirements for evaluating, screening, and qualification
of plastic encapsulated devices for the intended use. These documents also contain information to consider for long-term
dormant storage.

3.1 SSB-1.001: Qualification and Reliability Monitors

This annex recommends minimum qualification and monitoring testing of plastic encapsulated microcircuits and discrete
semiconductors suitable for potential use in military and aerospace applications and should be used a guide in evaluating
device manufacturer test flows.

Device manufacturers may use this document as a guide to develop process flows to produce standard product for the
above environments. "Best in Class" suppliers can easily meet these criteria and can readily supply the necessary data to
demonstrate compliance.

This annex does not include all the tests typically included in device qualification and reliability monitoring, but focuses on
those tests specifically designed to apply to (or have unique implications for) plastic encapsulated microcircuits and
semiconductors.

The preferred approach is to select off-the-shelf product that, when evaluated to these guidelines, will meet the target
application requirements without requiring supplementary qualification testing. In cases where design constraints preclude
this preferred approach, this section should also be used to design supplemental device qualification test plans to establish
the required confidence in expected device performance.

3.2 SSB-1.002: Environmental Tests and Associated Failure Mechanisms

This annex provides more detailed information concerning the environmental stresses associated with tests specifically
designed to apply to (or have unique implications for) plastic encapsulated microcircuits and semiconductors, and the
specific failures induced by these environmental stresses. This information is intended to provide further insight needed to
evaluate a specific device manufacturer’s statistical reliability monitoring (SRM) approach.

3.3 SSB-1.003: Acceleration Factors

This annex provides reference information concerning acceleration factors commonly used by device manufacturers to
model failure rates in conjunction with statistical reliability monitoring. These acceleration factors are frequently used by
OEMs in conjunction with physics of failure reliability analysis to assess the suitability of plastic encapsulated microcircuits
and semiconductors for specific end use applications. This information is intended to provide the insight needed to properly
interpret a specific device manufacturer’s reliability data and, in turn, extrapolate performance under service life and storage
conditions for the target application.

3.4 SSB-1.004: Failure Rate Estimating

This annex provides reference information concerning methods commonly used by the semiconductor industry to estimate
failure rates from accelerated test results. These methods are frequently used by OEMs in conjunction with physics of failure
reliability analysis to assess the suitability of plastic encapsulated microcircuits and semiconductors for specific end use
applications.

3.5 SSB-1.005: Radiation Hardness (in draft)

This annex provides the framework for hardness assurance risk assessment for electronic parts that would be susceptible
to radiation environment. The document contains the radiation test considerations for total dose, both high dose rate and
low dose rate, displacement damage and single event effects. The definition of an acceptable radiation test report is
provided and a decision process for conducting radiation tests are discussed.

3.6 SSB-1.00X: Untitled

Annexes will be added as they are written and will be included in future updates of SSB-1. For information on additional
annexes consult the SAE International web site.
SAE INTERNATIONAL SSB-1™D Page 7 of 19

4. IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE

This section will demonstrate a typical evaluation process using this document and the above annexes, showing how they
are related to each other and how they work together.

4.1 Quality Control System Evaluation

The supplier shall have an acceptable documented quality management system in order to be considered for the evaluation
process of this guideline. ISO 9000 and EIA 599 are among the most recognized quality management systems in the
industry. The quality system used shall meet the minimum requirements of 4.1.1, herein. See Figure 1.

4.1.1 Quality System Requirements

As a minimum, supplier’s quality system shall include the following elements:

1. Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA)

2. Process Control Outlines (PCO)

3. Statistical Reliability Monitoring, as identified in SSB-1.001

ISO 9001 or EIA 599 have the key elements, but the minimum conditions must be verified as implemented on the device
under consideration. Other quality systems may be acceptable if the supplier meets the minimum conditions for the device
under consideration.

4.1.2 Evaluation Process

The next step is to obtain the reliability summary data from the supplier for the device under consideration. JESD69,
Information Requirements for the Qualification of Silicon Devices, defines the requirements for the component package
which the supplier provides to the customer. This minimum set of data elements includes the results of the supplier’s internal
qualification (i.e., the results of all tests performed to evaluate the quality, reliability, and mechanical performance of a
semiconductor device). To determine if the reliability data is acceptable, the user should:

• Determine if the device under consideration is covered by the data provided, i.e., same package family, technology
family, etc.

• Determine if the data is sufficiently current and represents the product without changes requiring requalification.

JESD47 provides a definition for a qualification family and defines criteria device manufacturers should use to identify
product/process changes requiring requalification.

JESD94 provides a method for developing an application specific reliability evaluation methodology based on the use
conditions the solid state device is expected to experience in the field.

JEP122 provides a list of failure mechanisms and their associated activation energies or acceleration factors that may be
used in making system failure rate estimations when the only available data is based on tests performed at accelerated
stress test conditions.

Tables 2 and 3 show examples of reliability summary data for a microcircuit device and for a semiconductor device.
However, in some circumstances summary data may not be sufficient and it may be necessary to obtain actual sample
sizes. The test conditions, sample sizes, and number of failures data reported in the reliability data will be used for estimating
failure rates as described SSB-1.004.
SAE INTERNATIONAL SSB-1™D Page 8 of 19

Identify Potential Supplier

Does
Supplier have acceptable
Quality System?
Reference 4.1.1

Yes

Obtain Reliability No
Summary Data

Apply to Failure Rate Choose Another

Estimates (SSB-1.004) Supplier
Figure 3

Figure 1 - Quality control system evaluation

Table 2 - Microcircuit reliability summary data example

Yearly Summary
Device Failure Rate
Test Conditions Hours Failures (α = 60%)
High Temperature 346126 0 16 FIT
1000 hours at 165 °C
Operating Life Test (Ea = 0.7)
(HTOL) (AF = 170)
Highly Accelerated 130 °C/85% RH/5.5 V 38102 1 5 FIT
Stress Test (HAST) bias, for a minimum of (Ea = 0.9)
128 hours (AF = 10445)
Temperature Cycle 1000 cycles, 464420 0 0.007 FIT
-65 to +150 °C (m = 8.4)
(AF = 12407)
(N = 1 cycle/day)
NOTE: The failure rates shown here reflect the device manufacturer’s use condition assumptions.
• Tu = 70 °C
• RHu = 17.6%
• ΔTu = +70 °C – 0 °C = 70
Refer to SSB-1.004 for further discussion.
SAE INTERNATIONAL SSB-1™D Page 9 of 19

Table 3 - Semiconductor reliability summary data example

Summary from 2 Year Previous Year

Ago Summary Summary Current Year Q3
Failures Failures Failures
per per per
Thousand Thousand Thousand
Test Device Units Device Units Device Units
Conditions Hours Tested Hours Tested Hours Tested
OP Life: 150 °C TJ/Rated Bias 0/ 80 80 0/ 80 80 0/ 60 60
(1000 hours)
Autoclave: 96 hours 0/400 400 0/400 400 0/300 300
121 °C at 15 psi
Temp Cycle: 1000 Cycles 0/400 400 0/400 400 0/300 300
-55 to +150 °C/30 minutes Dwells
NOTE: In this case, no changes were made in the past two that required requalification of the device under evaluation.

4.2 Define Use Conditions

Prior to determining if a device is acceptable for use in a system the environment in which it will be operating must be
defined. The device level use conditions must be derived or flowed-down from the system level requirements. IPC-9701A
includes a summary table of worst-case use environments including categories for military and space applications (see
Table 4). Table 5 is an example of typical environments in a military application. Tables 4 and 5 are for reference only; it is
the responsibility of the user to define the actual or predicted use condition of the selected part. Any derating conditions
used must also be defined. Figure 2 illustrates the process for defining use environments. These conditions will be used for
the calculations of failure rate estimating of SSB-1.004. Section 4.3 describes the calculation process.
SAE INTERNATIONAL SSB-1™D Page 10 of 19

Table 4 - Worst case use environments and appropriate accelerated testing for surface mount electronics by use categories 2 example

2This table was derived from IPC-9701A, Performance Test Methods and Qualification Requirements for Surface Mount Solder Attachments …
supersedes IPC-9701 January 2002.
SAE INTERNATIONAL SSB-1™D Page 11 of 19

Table 5 - Example system requirements

Systems Performance Component Part Design

Environment Requirement Requirement
Temperature Nonoperating -40 to +71 °C -40 to +85 °C
-32 to +85 °C
Temperature Operating -32 to +43 °C
(due to internal temp rise)
24 hours/day for 3 straight 24 hours/day for 3 straight
Operating Duty Cycle
days once each month days once each month
Relative Humidity up to 95% condensing up to 95% condensing
7305 7305
Temperature Cycles
(1 cycle per day; 20 years) (1 cycle per day; 20 years)
Equipment Life (Device Failure Rate) 20 years 300 FIT

4.2.1 Service Life

Define the anticipated service life of the system and establish the acceptable Mean Time To Failure (MTTF) for the device.
Allocate an acceptable failure rate (λ) to the device and define the acceptable confidence level (α). MTTF is the random
failure rate over the course of the life. Wear out it whether the part can last for the entire service life without hitting end of
life behavior. The SSB1.004 for Failure Rate Estimating have further details along with SSB1.003 for Acceleration Factors.

4.2.2 Temperature (Operating and Storage)

Define the minimum and maximum temperature extremes the device will experience in storage, shipment and in non-
operating conditions.

Define the maximum operating junction temperature of the device under consideration. It may be necessary to factor in the
effects of heat sinking, cooling, loss of coolant, and other factors, as applicable. Failure rates should be estimated for each
application of the device to account for different operating junction temperatures.

4.2.3 Temperature Cycle

Estimate temperature range(s) and the total number of temperature cycles that the device will experience. This should also
be expressed as a function of time to convert device-cycles to device-hours in order to estimate the sum-of-the-failure-rates
for the device (refer to SSB-1.004 for further discussion).

4.2.4 Relative Humidity

Determine the relative humidity that the part will experience in its application (storage and operation).

4.2.5 Operating Duty Cycle

For some applications, it may be appropriate to take into account the operating duty cycle for the purpose of establishing
realistic service life conditions.
SAE INTERNATIONAL SSB-1™D Page 12 of 19

Obtain
Sub-System Level
Use Conditions

Establish
Service Life confidence (α)
(MTBF) for failure rate
(λ) estimates

Derive
MTTF (1/λ) for
each device

Derive Junction
Temperature
Temperatures
(Operating &
(Tu) for each
Storage) device

Derive
part ambient
temperature
range (∆T)

Derive the number

Temperature of cycles (N) for
Cycles each temperature
condition

Derive part
Relative
ambient relative
Humidity humidity (RHu)

Document
Device Level Use
Conditions

Apply to Failure Rate

Estimates (SSB-1.004)
Figure 3

Figure 2 - Define use conditions

SAE INTERNATIONAL SSB-1™D Page 13 of 19

4.3 Evaluation of Device Acceptability (Failure Rate Estimating)

Using the information obtained from the reliability summary data of 4.1 and the device use conditions of 4.2 the overall
failure rate can be estimated. Figure 3 illustrates the process of evaluation of device acceptability.

The first step is to determine which reliability models are required for the particular application. This may include all, or just
one or two that are key to the application. Follow the flow chart of Figure 3 from left to right. The left column indicates where
Inputs are required for the models from either the summary reliability data (see 4.1), and from the device level use conditions
document (see 4.1 and 4.2). The center models indicate the variables to the calculation with reference to where the
information can be obtained.

A complete failure rate estimate would, of course, include other factors (e.g., derating, assembly manufacturing process,
etc.) in addition to the cumulative failure rates for all components (refer to SSB-1.004 for further discussion). For the purpose
of this guideline, however, we will confine our discussion to device level failure rate calculations. Table 6 identifies the use
condition and reliability summary attributes used for estimating failure rates.

For some applications performing this estimate for each device may not be practical. In some cases, applying a minimum
acceptable threshold for a technology may be an alternate method.

4.3.1 Using the Arrhenius Model as an Example

The inputs to the model would be:

Ea – Obtained from either SSB1-003 for a specific failure mechanism, or as an overall pessimistic number to cover most of
the concerned failure mechanism. For a typical rectifier (1)

TU – Obtained from the device level use conditions. For a typical rectifier - (55)

TT – From reliability summary data see example in Table 3 Op Life (150)

T – From reliability summary data see example Table 3 Op Life (6*80)+60)*1000=(540000)

N – From reliability summary see Table 3 Op Life (0)

a - Confidence level from device level use conditions document. Typical is either 60 or 90. For 90 = with n = 0 the chi-square
is (4.605)

Vs - Voltage derating based on Vuse Vs Vrated.

Vrated is from the supplier’s data sheet

Vuse is obtained from the device level use conditions document

This factor is covered in SSB-1.004

Typical rectifier would be rated 1000 V, Use 50% derated at 500 V. This would have a

Vs of (.1856)

The result of the example would be:

FIT = 0.282

MTTF (hours) 3.54E+09

MTTF (years) 404661

SAE INTERNATIONAL SSB-1™D Page 14 of 19

Table 6 - Failure rate estimate inputs (example)

Use Conditions Reliability Summary

Acceleration Model Attributes Attributes
Thermal Effects Arrhenius • Junction • Junction
(HTOL Test Temperature (Tu) Temperature (Tt)
Extrapolation) • Activation Energy
(Ea) • Confidence Level • Total Device-Hours
(α) (t)
• Number of Failures
(n)
Temperature-
Hallberg-Peck • Junction • Junction
Humidity-Bias Effects
(HAST, THB, Temperature (T u) Temperature (Tt)
• Activation Energy
Autoclave Test (Ea) • Relative Humidity • Relative Humidity
Extrapolation) (RHu) (RHt)
• Confidence Level • Total Device-Hours
(α) (t)
• Number of Failures
(n)
Thermo-mechanical
Coffin-Manson • Temperature • Temperature
Effects
(Thermal Cycling Test • Constant (m) Change (ΔTu) Change (ΔTt)
Extrapolation) • Temperature • Total Device-Cycles
Cycles (N)
• Confidence Level • Number of Failures
(α) (n)
SAE INTERNATIONAL SSB-1™D Page 15 of 19

Reliability Summary
Information Data Information from
obtained in QC Use Conditions
System Evaluation (Fig. 2)
Section (Fig. 1)

Determine applicability of Reliability Models (SSB-1.004)

and
Perform Calculation

Discretes Voltage Derating INPUTS:

Vs from SSB-1.004 Arrhenius Model Inputs: (AF SSB-1.003)
(Fig. 2)
Ea - SSB-1.003, SSB-1.004
TU - TJ USE CONDITION (Fig. 2)
Tt - TJ TEST CONDITION from SSB-1.001 RELIABILITY
HTOL, HTRB, IOL SUMMARY DATA (Table 1)
Summary data from SSB-1.001 T - TOTAL DEVICE HOURS (SAMPLE SIZE X TOTAL
(Table 1) TEST TIME) - FROM SSB-1.001 RELIABILITY SUMMARY
DATA (Table 1)
Microcircuits Voltage Acceleration n - NUMBER OF FAILURES - FROM SSB-1.001
INPUTS: RELIABILITY SUMMARY DATA (Table 1)
a - CONFIDENCE LEVEL (SEE SSB-1.004)(Fig. 2)
Vu VOLTAGE USE (Fig. 2)
Vt VOLTAGE TEST from SSB-1.004
(Table 2)
T MODEL INPUTS:

(SEE SSB-1.004)
TU - TJ USE CONDITION (Fig. 2)
NVM Data Tt - TJ TEST CONDITION FROM SSB-1.001 RELIABILITY
Retention SUMMARY DATA (Table 1)
Summary data from T - TOTAL DEVICE HOURS (SAMPLE SIZE X TOTAL
SSB-1.001 TEST TIME) - From SSB-1.001 RELIABILITY SUMMARY
(Table 3) DATA (Table 1)
n - NUMBER OF FAILURES - From SSB-1.001
RELIABILITY SUMMARY DATA (table 1)
a - CONFIDENCE LEVEL (See SSB-1.004)(Fig. 2)

Hallberg - Peck Inputs:

RHu - Relative Humidity Use (Fig. 2)

RHt - Relative Humidity Test -From SSB-1.001
HAST RELIABILITY SUMMARY DATA (Table 1)
THB TU - TJ USE CONDITION (Fig. 2)
Autoclave (PCT) Tt - TJ TEST CONDITION FROM SSB-1.001 RELIABILITY
SUMMARY DATA (Table 1)
Summary data from
T - TOTAL DEVICE HOURS (SAMPLE SIZE X TOTAL
ssb-1.001 TEST TIME) - FROM SSB-1.001 RELIABILITY SUMMARY
(Table 1) DATA (Table 1)
n - NUMBER OF FAILURES - From SSB-1.001
RELIABILITY SUMMARY DATA (Table 1)
a - CONFIDENCE LEVEL (SEE SSB-1.004)(Fig. 2)

Coffin - Manson Inputs:

m - Constant for failure mech. (See SSB-1.003)

∆ Tu - Change in cycle temp - use condition (Fig. 2)
Temp Cycle ∆ Tt - Change in cycle temp - test condition - FROM SSB-
Summary data from 1.001 RELIABILITY SUMMARY DATA (Table 1) Overall FIT / MTTF
SSB-1.001 N - Total device cycles -(Sample Size X Total test cycles) - (See SSB-1.004)
(Table 1) From SSB-1.001 RELIABILITY SUMMARY DATA (Table1)
Use condition cycle rate (Fig. 2)
n - Number of failures - From SSB-1.001 RELIABILITY
SUMMARY DATA (Table 1)
a - Confidence level (See SSB-1.004) (Fig. 2)
Proceed to
Next Section
Figure
4

Figure 3 - Determine device acceptability

SAE INTERNATIONAL SSB-1™D Page 16 of 19

4.4 Evaluation

It will be necessary to evaluate the results of the calculations in 4.3 (see Figure 4). There will be two cases that will arise:
one is that the FIT number meets the desired targets determined in 4.2 and two is that it does not.

4.4.1 FIT Does Not Meet Expectations

There are two reasons that this may be the case. The first reason is that there is insufficient number of device hours to meet
the expected FIT.

The other reason is that there are too many failures.

4.4.2 Insufficient Device Hours

It can be easily determined if the number of device hour cannot support the expected FIT. To determine this, recalculate
the model with a zero failure rate. If the results are higher than the desired FIT, you do not have enough device hours.

The only solution to this is to contact the supplier and obtain additional reliability summary data if available. There are a
couple of reasons that they may have more information. They may have done additional monitor tests. Most companies do
this quarterly, as in the example in Table 2. The last quarter recorded was Q3 of 1999. At the time of your evaluation they
may have completed Q4 of 1999 along with Q1 of 2000; this may be enough additional data to support the desired FIT. You
may also inquire if they have any qualification data. If the supplier is a typical automotive supplier, the standard qualifications
for most step stress tests are 3 lots of 77. This would be an additional 231000 device hours per qualification.

In the event that no additional device hours can be obtained from the supplier a decision must be made to either look
elsewhere for a suitable supplier, or to perform additional tests. In the event of choosing the later a reverse model calculation
is provided in SSB1.004 to determine what sample size and device hours would be needed to meet a desired FIT.

4.4.3 Failure Rates Not Acceptable

In the case that the device hours are sufficient, but the results do not meet desired expectations a decision must be made
either to look for a different supplier, or to mitigate the risk by reducing stress conditions.

4.4.4 Example Insufficient Device Hours

Using the example in 4.3.1, if the Tuse was 100 instead of 55, and the desired FIT was determined to be <1, then the model
with zero failure would result in a FIT of 20, indicating that you would need an additional 10260000 device hours with zero
failures to meet the expectation of 1 FIT.

4.4.5 Example FIT Not Acceptable

Using the example in 4.3.1, if the failure n was 4 instead of zero, and the Vuse was 800 V instead of 500 V, the result would
be a FIT of 4. If the desired FIT was determined to be <1, then the device reliability does not meet expectation. A check of
the device hours given the same conditions with zero failures would result in a FIT of 0.88, so there are sufficient hours to
meet the desired FIT. The conclusion in this case, is that with the conditions given, the device will not perform to
expectations. As we pointed out earlier, you can reduce the risk by reducing the stress conditions. In the above example,
reducing the Vuse back to 500 V in this case, with a failure rate of 4, would result in a FIT of 0.98 meeting the desired
FIT of 1.
SAE INTERNATIONAL SSB-1™D Page 17 of 19

CONTINUED
FROM
Fig. 3

Evaluate Results of Calculation

SSB1.004

Are Device Hours

Adequate?

Yes
No

Is Failure Rate The device has met

Yes
Acceptable? the requirements

No

Choose another Device or

Do additional test, or tests
source
to obtain needed device
hours for evaluation
OR

Mitigate risk by reducing

stress conditions or by other
means and reevaluate

Figure 4 - Evaluation
SAE INTERNATIONAL SSB-1™D Page 18 of 19

5. NOTES

5.1 Revision Indicator

A change bar (l) located in the left margin is for the convenience of the user in locating areas where technical revisions, not
editorial changes, have been made to the previous issue of this document. An (R) symbol to the left of the document title
indicates a complete revision of the document, including technical revisions. Change bars and (R) are not used in original
publications, nor in documents that contain editorial changes only.

PREPARED BY SAE CE-12, SOLID STATE DEVICES

SAE INTERNATIONAL SSB-1™D Page 19 of 19

APPENDIX A - (INFORMATIVE) DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SSB-1 REV C AND SSB-1 REV D

This table briefly describes most of the changes made in this standard SSB-1 rev D, compared to its predecessor, SSB-1
rev C (August 2000). Some minor editorial changes like punctuation changes are not included.

Section Description of change

Rationale Changed GEIA G-12 to SAE CE-12
Introduction Deleted Dr. William Perry and rephrase of first sentence to make it appropriate
1 Replace severe with space, extreme
2 Added Note: New document or SSB-1 Annex document will be added as it get developed
Added SSB-1.005 Radiation Hardness (in draft)
Added JEP122 Failure Mechanism and Models for Semiconductor Devices
Replaced ISO 9000 with ISO 9001
Replaced AIAG QS9000 with ISO/TS 16949
3.5 Added SSB-1.005 Radiation Hardness (in draft)
3.6 Replaced EIA Standards and Technology web site with SAE International web site
4.1.1 Deleted paragraph related to Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG) and STACK
4.1.2 Added, JESD94 and JEP122
4.2 Updated, SM-785 with IPC-9701A
4.2 Added statement, “Tables 4 and 5 are for reference only,….”
Figure 1 Updated, deleted box step between first box “Identify Potential Supplier” and decision box “Does Supplier
have acceptable Quality System?”, then combined in one decision box with reference to section 4.1.1
Table 4 Updated, replaced excerpt table from IPC-SM-785 with table from IPC-9701A
4.2.1 Added statement, “MTTF is the random failure rate over…. The SSB1.004 for Failure Rate Estimating have
further details…”
Table 6 Deleted, “usually 0.9eV”
Figure 4 Updated, changed Device Qualifies to The device has met the requirements