the Journal of the First Quarter 1998

Reliability Analysis Center

RAC is a DoD Information Analysis Center sponsored by the Defense Technical Information Center and operated by IIT Research Institute

Pioneering Reliability Laboratory Addresses

Information Technology
Written by the RAC Staff with the assistance of the Air Force Research Laboratory Information Directorate history office.

The Air Force Research Another of the first reliability operational parameters into
Laboratory Information efforts of RADC was the reliability requirements. The
Directorate at the Rome (NY) publication of reliability original team created by
Research Site is the current prediction models. An RCA Naresky for reliability
name for a laboratory which document, TR 1100, became the technology development was a
has been the DoD focal point basis of an RADC technical four man group: Edward
for electronic reliability since report which was the first Krzysiak (group leader),
the 1950s. Established in 1951 military reference on failure Anthony Coppola, Anthony D.
as the Rome Air Development rates of electronic components. Pettinato, Jr., and John Fuchs.
Center (RADC), becoming the A series of RADC Reliability As the number of reliability
Rome Laboratory (RL) in Notebooks provided updates, personnel grew, statistical
December 1990, and officially until RADC became the studies in reliability were
adopting its present title in preparing activity for MIL- performed by various
October 1997, the organization HDBK-217, Reliability individuals and groups under
has been the primary DoD Prediction of Electronic the overall direction of David
electronic reliability research Equipment. Prediction models F. Barber and his successor
and development agency since for electronic parts became the Anthony J. Feduccia, division
reliability was recognized as specialty of Lester Gubbins and, chiefs in a directorate headed
an engineering discipline. It on his retirement, Seymour by Naresky.
has twice received the annual Morris.
award of the IEEE Reliability In 1961, the laboratory began to
Society, in 1974 and in 1998. The laboratory also produced create facilities for research in
references on failure rates for reliability physics. These
One of the first publications non-electronic parts, the
considering reliability as an prediction and demonstration of Volume 6 Number 1
engineering discipline was maintainability, and the use of
Reliability Factors for Ground Bayesian statistics for Inside this Issue
Electronic Equipment, reliability demonstration. It ISSRE ‘97................................ 7
published by RADC in 1955. was one of the first to develop Calls for Papers...................... 9
It’s author was Joseph J. the concept of system Call for Memories ................... 9
Naresky (see biography on effectiveness, a figure of merit New from RAC ....................... 10
page 5), who created the combining availability, Industry Brief......................... 12
laboratory’s reliability reliability, and capability From the Editor ...................... 13
program and developed it from measures into a single measure Letter to the Editor ................. 16
a personal commitment to a of the overall worth of a Some Observations on
multi-faceted effort by about system to its user. Early studies Demonstrating Availability. 17
100 specialists. on operational influences on Mark Your Calendar ............... 20
reliability foreshadowed more Help from RAC....................... 22
recent development RAC Order Form ................... 23
of a means for
translating desired 1-888-RAC-USER (1-888- 722-8737)
facilities included a variety of Circuits) qualification Air Force systems, such as the
equipment useful for analyzing committee. More recently, airborne command post, and the
the cause of failures in Daniel Fayette led a program “HAVE NOTE” program, under
microelectronic devices. These for multichip module (MCM) which the laboratory tested a
have been used to isolate and reliability and performance variety of Air Force weapons
correct problems in operational assessment. Hybrids, MMIC systems for susceptibility to
Air Force systems such as the (Microwave Monolithic electromagnetic interference.
Minuteman missile. In 1962, Integrated Circuits), solid- The laboratory also created
the laboratory sponsored the state Transmit/Receive numerous test sites in which
first symposium on reliability modules, and most recently, aircraft were mounted inverted
physics, which has continued Microelectromechanical (MEM) on pedestals so that their
under IEEE sponsorship as the devices have all benefited from radiation patterns could be
International Reliability laboratory programs. quickly and inexpensively
Physics Symposium (IRPS). measured, in comparison to in-
Noted leaders of the flight tests. From these
With knowledge gained from laboratory’s microcircuit facilities, RADC became known
an in-house thin film and reliability and quality as the keeper of the “upside
monolithic microcircuit assurance activities through down Air Force.” Air Force
manufacturing facility created the years include Joseph aircraft ranging in vintage from
by Richard Nelson, the center Vaccaro, Joseph Brauer, the F-4 to the F-22, have
produced RADC Exhibit 2867, Edward P. O’Connell, Al appeared on the test stands,
Quality and Reliability Tamburrino, Regis Hilow, and recent participants have
Assurance Procedures for Charles Messenger, and Dr. been the Navy EA-6B Prowler
Monolithic Microcircuits. This Robert Thomas, among others. and some automotive
document was the direct In 1994, both the statistical communications systems. Other
ancestor of MIL-STD-883, Test studies and reliability physics recent developments have been
Methods and Procedures for were integrated into the the use of infrared imaging to
Microcircuits, the foundation of Electronics Reliability map electromagnetic fields
both military and commercial Division under Eugene without the perturbation of
microcircuit quality assurance, Blackburn. The new division conventional probing
and of MIL-M-38510, the instituted a program for techniques, and the
general specification for integrating diagnostics for development of an electro-
microcircuits under the multichip modules permitting magnetic performance monitor
military qualified parts efficient chip to system (EMPM) which can record the
program, both authored by testability. electromagnetic environment
center personnel. The inside a system. Leading EMC
laboratory later created MIL- and related studies through the
I-38535 General Specification years were Samuel Zaccari,
for Integrated Circuits Robert McGregor and Carmen
(Microcircuits) Manufacturing, Luvera.
MIL-H-38534 General
Specification for Hybrid The laboratory has often
Microcircuits, and MIL-STD- applied its knowledge of
1772 Certification advanced technologies to create
Requirements for Hybrid prototype equipment. In 1967,
Microcircuit Facility and Lines, One of the first pictures showing it contracted with General
physics of failure phenomena, this 1960s
which are the basis of the RADC photo shows the beginnings of
Electric for the development of
current dual-use qualified corrosion of aluminum circuit MIRAGE (Microelectronic
manufacturers system. interconnections. Indicator for Radar Ground
Equipment) a technology
The laboratory has always As reliability studies began in
demonstration model of a
been heavily involved in the the 1950s, the laboratory also
display having one-tenth the
reliability and quality began studies into electro-
volume of the UPA-35 radar
assurance of new technologies. magnetic compatibility (EMC)
indicators in the field, and 100
John Farrell, for example, which resulted in, among other
times the reliability. RADC
chaired the VHSIC (Very things, models used for
was designated the manager for
High Speed Integrated analyzing the EMC problems of
a joint Air Force -FAA

2 RAC Journal, Volume 6, No. 1

 procurement of the FYQ-47 also chaired a committee on a thermal design guide,
radar data digitizer, which artificial intelligence reliability management
was so superior in reliability to applications to maintenance for manuals, a built-in-test design
the FYQ-40 it replaced that a a 1984 study on reliability and guide, and many others. One of
requirement for back up units in maintainability by the the organization’s most
the field was rescinded. More Institute for Defense Analysis. popular products has been the
recent activity included the Since then, led by Dale Reliability Toolkit, first
development of the Time Stress Richards, the laboratory has produced in 1988 as the RADC
Measurement Device (TSMD) to been involved with the Reliability Toolkit, updated in
measure the environmental development of “SMART BIT” 1993 as the Rome Laboratory
stresses in localized areas of an applying artificial intelligence Reliability Toolkit, and last
equipment, and the integration to fault detection in the Joint produced in 1995 as the
of the electromagnetic Surveillance and Target Attack Reliability Toolkit:
performance monitor (EMPM) Radar System (JSTARS), and Commercial Practices Edition.
into the TSMD. The the development of an R&M The latter provides a guide for
development of the RH-32RISC Design Expert System commercial products and
(Radiation Hardened 32 bit integrating reliability, military systems under the
Reduced Instruction Set maintainability and DoD acquisition reform
Computer) is also a recent testability analysis into a policies. Preston MacDiarmid
laboratory effort. These efforts software tool capable of (now Director of The
were, and are, performed by improving itself by learning Reliability Analysis Center)
teams cutting across the from its experiences. initiated the series of toolkits
separate reliability offices at and Seymour Morris was the
the Laboratory. The laboratory ultimately principle architect of their
became the custodian of most of evolution.
RADC also pioneered the use of the DoD Specifications,
computer aided design for Standards, and Handbooks on The laboratory has been a
reliability and the application reliability and consultant in reliability
of artificial intelligence as a maintainability. Many of engineering to system program
diagnostic aid. Anthony these were written by offices since 1957, when
Coppola, lead a Reliability laboratory personnel recognized Coppola initiated support to
Panel of the Air Force Project as industry leaders in the the acquisition of the 465-L
Forecast II in 1985. Leading a specialties involved, including Strategic Air Command
team of reliability specialists Jerome Klion, Eugene Control System. Later systems
from various Air Force agencies Fiorentino, et al. These experts support was managed
he proposed and evaluated also produced or technically principally by Anthony D.
novel ideas for improving Air guided the production of a Pettinato, Jr., and, on his
Force effectiveness. Coppola library of technical references, retirement, Bruce W. Dudley.
such as a redundancy notebook, Programs supported included
the 412-L European Air
Warning and Control System,
414-L Over the Horizon Radar,
425-L NORAD Command and
Control System, 474-L Ballistic
Missile Early Warning System,
440-L Over the Horizon Radar,
and many other large systems.
Laboratory personnel were
significantly involved with
JSTARS which received its
baptism of fire in the Gulf War.
Laboratory reliability
engineers also supported
virtually all Air Force ground
radar programs and a host of
Lee Lopez of General Electric and Capt. Edwin Deady of RADC compare the prototype MIRAGE other smaller equipment
display, on table, to the current (1967) standard UPA-35, right. acquisitions.

RAC Journal, Volume 6, No. 1 3

Laboratory personnel were also produced MIL-STD-965, Parts produced a new
asked to support developments Control Program. Support in maintainability handbook in
by the Wright Laboratory (the this area was led by John response to DoD acquisition
SPN/GEANs navigation Farrell and provided to the F- reform requirements for
system and the Electronically 16 and Advanced Medium references providing technical
Agile Radar) and procurements Range Air To Air Missile guidance rather than
by the Aeronautical Systems (AMRAAM) programs, among mandating procedures).
Division (the center won an Air others.
Force Systems Command award The new Information
for its performance in achieving In 1961, the center initiated an Directorate, in fiscal year 98, is
unprecedented reliability in electronics parts data completing all commitments in
the AN/ARC-164 command repository, to collect, analyze the area of reliability sciences
radio, an ASD program). and distribute information and transitioning activities
Center personnel were name about the reliability of where appliable towards
requested for a series of electronic parts. The initial in- research and development in
command level “tiger teams” house facility soon became a information technologies. For
convened in the early 1970’s to DoD asset called the esample, the experiences and
review reliability progress on Reliability Analysis Center knowledge obtained while
avionic systems, including the (RAC) which is now one of 13 working in the field of
F-111 Mark II avionics suite information analysis centers reliability are now being
and the radars for the F-111, F- (IACs) funded by the Defense applied to development of
4 and F-20 aircraft. Air Force Technical Information Center computer aided design (CAD)
Divisions using laboratory (DTIC). Technical direction to tools and techniques for micro-
reliability support included RAC is still provided by the electro-mechanical (MEM)
the Electronic Systems Division laboratory, specifically by devices; design and advanced
(ESD), The Aeronautical Richard Hyle, DTIC’s packaging of wafer scale signal
Systems Division (ASD), the Contracting Officer’s Technical processors; design and
Space and Missile Systems Representative (COTR). development of adaptable re-
division (SAMSO) and the configurable computers and
The laboratory has also modeling and simulation of
Armaments Division (AD), all
pioneered the development of information systems. After
since renamed.
software engineering tools, fiscal year 98, all reliability
The FAA was a joint sponsor including metrics and a related tasks will be referred to
with the Air Force for the software engineering other government
AN/FYQ-40 and AN/FYQ-47 framework, in another organizations. “Rome
radar digitizer developments, laboratory directorate Laboratory” has had a long
and was so impressed by the concerned with software and heritage in the area of
reliability expertise of the not administered by Naresky reliability sciences and
laboratory personnel supporting or his successors. Principle accomplished many significant
these, that it requested their contributors in these were Al projects to advance the field of
support for FAA radar Sukert, Samuel Dinitto and reliability. The efforts of
procurements. Among the FAA Andrew Chruscicki . These “Rome Laboratory” personnel
systems supported under an software specialists and wil be missed but their legacy
interagency agreement were the Naresky’s reliability will go on.
ASR-8, ASR-9 and ASR-10 specialists, notably Fiorentino,
airport radars and the ARSR-2, collaborated on developing
models for combining hardware For more information on
ARSR-3 and ARSR-4 long range technical activities at the
radars. The United States and software reliability
predictions. Information Directorate of the
Bureau of Mines also obtained Air Force Laboratory at the
laboratory reliability support Rome Research Site, contact
Many of the traditional
under an interagency John Bart, AFRL/IF, 36
reliability activities, such as
agreement. Electronic Parkway, Rome NY
maintenance of the
specifications and standards, 13340. Tel: (315) 330-7701. E-
Reliability support activities mail: bartj@rl.af.mil. The
are being transitioned to other
also included advice on Directorate has a web site at
government agencies (although
electronic part selection and URL: http://www.rl.af.mil.
the organization recently
control, based on the center-

4 RAC Journal, Volume 6, No. 1

Joseph J. Naresky: Reliability Pioneer
From these pioneering efforts Engineering Administration
and a four man reliability from Syracuse University.
group he founded at RADC, he
developed a program Mr. Naresky was a member of
recognized for its significant Sigma Pi Sigma, a physics
contributions and the largest honor society, the IEEE
concentration of reliability Reliability Society,
specialists in the Department Engineering Management
of Defense. In 1980, RADC was Society and Electromagnetic
awarded the Air Force Compatibility Group, and the
Outstanding Unit Citation for AIAA Committee on
its reliability contributions. Reliability and
Joseph J. Naresky, the Mr. Naresky’s leadership Maintainability. He was
architect of reliability earned him Sustained Superior elected an Associate Fellow of
engineering research and Performance Awards in 1959 the AIAA. He served as
development at the then Rome and 1966, and the Air Force President of the Reliability
Air Development Center Decoration for Exceptional Society, a member of the
(RADC) in 1955, was a leading Civilian service, the highest management committee for the
figure in reliability engineering award that can be given to an Annual Reliability and
until his accidental death in Air Force civilian, in 1968. He Maintainability Symposium,
July, 1982. also received the IEEE and U. S. representative on the
Reliability Society Award in International Electrotechnical
Mr. Naresky’s accomplish- 1974 and was elected an IEEE Commission Technical
ments in reliability began when Fellow in 1976. Committee 56 (Reliability).
he produced the first general He was also President of the
reference manual for reliability Mr. Naresky served with the Rome Rotary Club in 1967 and
engineers, Reliability Factors U. S. Army Air Corps during 1968.
for Ground Electronic World War II. After the war,
Equipment. The document was he was employed by the In 1979, he retired from
widely used, including a Army’s Watson Laboratories, government service and joined
Chinese translation by the Red Bank, NJ, which was the IIT Research Institute,
People’s Republic of China. transferred to Rome, NY as the operator of the Reliability
Mr. Naresky also served on the Rome Air Development Center Analysis Center. His last
Advisory Group for Reliability in 1951. While at RADC, he project before his untimely
of Electronic Equipment, whose earned a Bachelor’s degree in death three years later was to
report in 1957 launched Physics and Master’s Degrees in complete the Reliability
reliability as an engineering both Electrical Engineering and Design Handbook, now MIL-
discipline throughout the HDBK-338.
Department of Defense.

Reliability Through the Years at the Air Force Rome, NY Facility: A Sampling

1951 Army Watson 1957 Reliability support Production Ground Electronic

Laboratories becomes Rome Air provided to “Big-L” System Equipment, prepared
Development Center (RADC) programs
1960 Microelectronics testing
1955 Reliability Factors for 1958 RADC Exhibit 2629 facility established
Ground Electronic Equipment uses parts count to establish
published reliability requirements and 1961 Requirements for an
sequential tests for verification electronic parts data repository
1956 Four man reliability established (led to creation of
group organized 1959 MIL-R-26474, RAC)
Reliability Requirements for

RAC Journal, Volume 6, No. 1 5

1962 RADC sponsored first 1976 Guidelines for 1990 Thermal analysis
reliability physics symposium application of warranties program written for use on
formulated personal computers
1963 Reliability data
collected on 412-L Air Weapons 1977 Liquid crystals used to 1991 Guide to finite element
Control System sites in test and analyze failures in analysis published
Germany large-scale integrated circuits
1992 Quantitative
1964 Nondestructive 1978 Design guide for built- evaluation made of
screening techniques for in-test published environmental stress screening
electronic parts developed (ESS) effectiveness
1979 Reliability and
1965 RADC supported Maintainability Management 1993 Rome Laboratory
Weapons Systems Effectiveness Manual published Reliability Engineer’s Toolkit
Industry Advisory Committee published
1980 Artificial intelligence
1966 First compendium of applications to testability 1994 Techniques for on-wafer
storage failure rates for identified reliability testing of
electronic parts published microwave monolithic
1981 Bayesian reliability integrated circuits (MMIC)
1966 RADC Specification test procedures developed for developed
2867 established screening repairable equipment
requirements for integrated 1995 Reliability Toolkit:
circuits (ancestor of MIL-STD - 1982 Parts derating guide Commercial Practices Edition
883) published published

1967 First microelectronic 1983 RADC sponsors Air 1996 Integrated Diagnostics
packaging handbook published Force Academy development of for Multichip Modules (MCM)
Bayesian tests for one-shot developed
1968 Minuteman integrated systems.
circuit failures analyzed 1997 Rome Laboratory
1984 Design considerations becomes the Air Force Research
1969 Tests of plastic for fault tolerant systems Laboratory Information
encapsulated integrated identified Directorate at the Rome site
circuits begin
1985 “Smart BIT” concepts 1997 CAD for
1970 Reliability support formulated microelectromechanical
provided to F-111 Mark II (MEMs) devices started
avionics development 1986 Guide to electronic
stress screening (ESS) published 1998 Organization receives
1971 “Tiger Team” reviews second IEEE Reliability Society
of avionics systems reliability 1987 Finite element analysis award
performed by command request applied to surface mounted
package
1972 Antenna measurement
facility established (start of 1988 RADC Reliability A complete history of the
“upside down Air Force”) Engineer’s Toolkit published organization now designated
the Air Force Research
1973 F-16 Avionics 1989 MIL-I-38535 General Laboratory Information
Reliability Review Team Specification for Integrated Directorate at Rome will be
chaired by RADC Circuits (Microcircuits) available in 1998. Contact:
Manufacturing, and MIL-H- Thomas W. Thompson,
1975 Nonelectronic 38534 General Specification for Chief History Office,
Reliability Notebook Hybrid Microcircuits published AFRL/IFOIHO, 36 Electronic
published Parkway, Rome, NY 13440.
1990 RADC becomes Rome Tel: (315) 330-2757.
Laboratory

6 RAC Journal, Volume 6, No. 1

 ISSRE ’97
By: Ellen Walker, Attendee

ISSRE ’97, the 8th International Automated SRE Company This is not unlike the phrase
Symposium on Software Wide “ given by James Tierney “Do the Right Thing Right the
Reliability Engineering, was from Microsoft, a co-sponsor of First Time” which has been
held Nov 2-5, 1997 in beautiful, the conference. (“Automated” spoken so often in total quality
sunny and warm Albuquerque, refers to the automation of training courses given in the
New Mexico. It was attended testing and measurement.) last ten years. It is not unique to
by more than 150 participants Terney claims that SRE has software engineering.
from government, industry, and had great success at Microsoft
academia with a strong and that improved customer Presentations
showing from the usage data and useful Underlying threads of the
telecommunications industry, predictions of ship dates have presentations ranged from “Yes,
and from the research been invaluable. He later you can test reliability into
community. Approximately stated however that adoption your software” to “You need to
one-third of the attendees were of SRE is closer to 50% than design reliability in because by
presenters. Other attendees 100% - leaving the the time you get to test it’s
were primarily leaders in interpretation of “great success” often too late or too expensive
quality or testing departments to be pondered. to test it in.” There was general
of their respective consensus that you need a way
organizations. Of the 40 or Tuesday’s Keynote, “Software to determine when the software
more presentations given in Reliability in Theory and is reliable and that is
three days, 80% addressed Practice” was given by Larry accomplished only through
research in Software Dalton, Manager, High testing and tracking failures
Reliability Engineering (SRE) Integrity Software Systems throughout the testing
with only a small number Engineering, Sandia National interval. Although much
addressing actual experience. Laboratories, Albuquerque, discussion centered around how
NM. His observation is that in to structure the testing, all the
The opening keynote address surety critical applications experts seemed to be in
was given by Dieter Rombach, such as nuclear weapons control, agreement that fault intensity
Director of the Fraunhofer software-based systems are to is the primary metric and
Institute for Experimental be avoided, and if unavoidable, should be measured relative to
Software Engineering, then “expect the unexpected” the testing interval in terms of
Kaiserslautern, Germany and and make provisions to protect time or natural units. While it
was titled “Inspections and against it. He described is difficult for many software
Testing: Core Competence for dousing an aircraft (loaded engineers to accept this
Reliability Engineering”. The with a nuclear weapon) with paradigm as relevant for
talk focused on the use of 1000 gallons of jet fuel and software, it is nevertheless
systematic inspections for early setting it on fire as a test to asserted to be necessary for
defect detection and the use of determine behavior of the determining software
testing for reliability detonator in the “unexpected” reliability.
assessment and prediction. realm. He ended his keynote
Much of what was said is also with Dalton’s Axioms for In most sessions, regardless of
proposed in the “cleanroom” Reliability in Theory and the main emphasis of the topic,
approach to software Practice: some form of reliability growth
development and embodies modeling was used to determine
some of the principles of total Specify the RIGHT THING when the software would meet
quality management although a pre-determined reliability
the “TQM” term was not Construct the THING RIGHT objective.
mentioned.
The THING may fail, so Another reoccurring thread in
His address was followed by a reduce the consequences many of the presentations was
keynote titled “Launching the concept of an “operational

RAC Journal, Volume 6, No. 1 7

profile” driving the testing. In for what they perceive to be software before it is
an organization adapting their part of the big picture. ready.
cleanroom methodology this Standards for interoperability • Software Engineers do not
might be called a “statistical are becoming more important. have equal status with
usage probability distribution”. hardware or system
If the organizational culture Concerns of Constituents engineers and their
has roots in TQM, this might be Some participants were recommendations are not
referred to as focusing on the expecting to hear about taken seriously, or they
customer. In essence it reflects practical experiences in are not consulted at all.
how the software is used rather predicting and measuring • It takes too much time to
than how it is built. The software reliability in do the detailed
profile weights functionality safety/surety critical requirements definition
according to frequency of use or applications. None were and testing needed to
criticality of the function. presented. A gentleman who ensure the software is
Weighting is then used to works for a company that reliable. If we did that
determine the quantity and makes pacemakers seemed very we would never make
types of test cases that will confused by the reference to the deadlines, and our
comprise testing, insuring that operational profile and a products would cost too
the most important or most comment that one can often much.
serious errors will be detected negotiate reliability objectives • There is little confidence
early in the test cycle. with the customer. in the reliability metrics.
Why waste time
Major Challenges Few, if any, presentations measuring if the results
There were very few sessions delineated how a specific have little value to the
that addressed software reliability objective was set decision-makers?
reliability relative to system and then actually tracked to
reliability. The thrust of one attainment. It is not clear As I reviewed in my mind the
session was that true whether this was due to the various strategies and research
assessment of software reviewing process, or simply to presented I discovered that
reliability is very complex and a lack of papers addressing very little of what was
we really can’t have much actual implementation of presented is “new”. We really
confidence in the results given software reliability do know how to test. We know
our current technology usage, so engineering. how to gather requirements,
assume the worst and ensure and who to communicate with
that the system as a whole can Concluding Thoughts in requirement definition. We
tolerate an uncertain software Throughout the conference I know that our organizational
reliability element. found myself relating topics culture impacts what we
Determining what software under discussion to an actually do versus what we
reliability number to plug into underlying question posed by know we should do. Technology
the system reliability equation guest speaker Gerry Weinberg, is providing us with new
is perhaps still a mystery. renown software development challenges so fast that we are
consultant and author of caught up in it and the basic
Software integration and its “Software Reliability, Why principles of software
impact on reliability was Aren’t We Doing What We engineering often go by the
addressed. Software products Know How To Do? “ He asked wayside.
are no longer used in isolation. the question “Why don’t we
They must work with a build reliable software?” of Is ISSRE ’97 simply an instance
multitude of other software conference attendees and got a of IEEE “preaching to the
products from competing plethora of excuses that boiled choir” in that it is attended
vendors. Who is responsible for down to the following: primarily by the research
the reliability of the community and not by software
integration? Customers are • The business area is not people with real world
often left in a vacuum because aligned with the problems seeking real world
no one owns the integration. No technical area. solutions? Is there another
one is responsible for the big • External issues force forum for addressing practical
picture. Each vendor accounts organizations to release software reliability issues than

8 RAC Journal, Volume 6, No. 1

this conference? Or is it simply
reflecting the possibility that
Calls for Papers categories of papers: full
papers to be published in the
proportionately few software 1998 Military/ Aerospace symposium proceedings and
engineers are concerned (Transportation) COTS short topics to be discussed at
specifically with software Conference, to be held the conference but not
reliability? Is software August 26-18, 1998 in published. Abstracts are due by
reliability engineering Albuquerque, NM, seeks papers May 4, 1998. Submittal details
actually being practiced by the on assuring the highest quality, were not available at receipt of
software community at large? availability, reliability and this announcement, but will be
Do the “real world” software cost effectiveness in micro- posted on the Shock and
people use other names for electronic technology and its Vibration Information Analysis
software reliability issues? insertion into high per- Center (SAVIAC) website at
formance, affordable systems. URL:
In closing, in spite of the concern Authors are requested to submit http://saviac.xservices.com,
over attendance, and the fact five copies of a one-page and published in future issues of
that the conference was abstract by May 31, 1998 to: the SAVIAC Current
research focused, I came back Edward B. Hakim Awareness Newsletter. For
with a sense of personal The Center for Commercial subscription to the latter, mail
responsibility to my role as a Component Insertion, Inc. request to SAVIAC, 2231
software engineer that I did not 2412 Emerson Ave. Crystal Drive, Suite 711,
have before the conference. I Spring Lake NJ 07762. Arlington VA 22202, or Fax to
simply have to start “doing Tel. and Fax: (732) 449-4729. (703) 412-7500.
what I know how to do”. I E-mail:
wonder what the impact would ebhakim@bellatlantic.net
be if every attendee was called
to action in the same way?
Call for
The International Journal
of Quality and Reliability Memories
About the Author: Management (IJQRM) is
Ellen Walker is a RAC In December 1998, the IEEE
seeking papers that focus on the Reliability Society will
specialist in software practice of quality, reliability
reliability. She holds publish a special issue of the
and maintainability. IJQRM is IEEE Transactions on
Bachelor Degrees in a major journal that will be
Mathematics and Computer Reliability commemorating the
entering its 15th year of 50th anniversary of the
Science and a Masters Degree in publication. Authors should
Management. In a twelve-year founding of the society. The
submit three copies of the issue will include a feature
tenure as a computer scientist, article to the North American
she has worked with all presenting interesting
Editor: experiences of practitioners in
phases of the software Professor Christian N. Madu
development cycle and any of the assurance sciences.
Dept. of Management and Your funny, poignant or
supported both engineering Management Science
services and business processes. historically relevant memories
Lubin School of Business may be submitted at any time
She has been a facilitator and Pace University
technical consultant for several up to 1 August 1998.
1 Pace Plaza Reminiscences will not be
long term quality initiatives, New York, NY 10038
and is an Examiner for New refereed, but will be edited to
Tel: (212) 346-1919 fit the available space. Send
York State’s Excelsior (Quality Fax: (212) 346-1573.
Awards) program. to the special issue editor:
E-mail: ChrisMadu@aol.com
Anthony Coppola
The 69th Shock and IITRI
Vibration Symposium to be 201 Mill Street
held October 12-16, 1998 in Rome NY 13440
Minneapolis/St. Paul, Tel: (315) 339-7075
Minnesota is seeking two Fax: (315) 337-9932
E-mail:
acoppola@rome.iitri.com

RAC Journal, Volume 6, No. 1 9

New from RAC
New Catalog Available interfaces and help files at an expected price of
Just released is the new RAC Catalog of Products $100 for U.S. orders and $120 for Non-U.S. orders.
and Services. Besides presenting the latest listing Order code will be FMD-CD. Availability will be
of RAC printed and software products and their announced in the RAC Journal.
prices, the catalog provides descriptions and
contacts for: Optoelectronics to be Next
Component Applications Guide
• RAC consulting services Subject
Available in the Spring of 1998 will be Reliable
• RAC training courses
Applications of Optoelectronic Devices, a
• The RAC Data Sharing Consortium compilation of information to assist optoelectronic
equipment designers in enhancing the reliability of
• Selected Topics in Assurance Related their products. It will provide criteria for selection
Technologies (START), a set of introductory of devices, failure rate data, failure mode data,
pamphlets available free from RAC potential reliability concerns and other
information necessary to apply the part in a
• RAC Journal subscriptions (also free) and reliable manner. The product will the latest in a
advertising rates (not free) series of application guides (See Help From RAC,
this issue). Ordering information will be presented
• The RAC website
in the RAC Journal when the publication is
The catalog includes descriptions of products still in released.
development. For example, computer text files for
MIL-HDBK-338, Electronic Reliability Design New Software Tool Will Aid COTS
Handbook, and for MIL-HDBK-470, Selection
Maintainability Design Handbook, are described, A software tool, Selection of Equipment to Leverage
priced, and labeled “available soon.” Commercial Technology (SELECT), will be offered
by RAC to quantify the estimated reliability and
The catalog is free on request to RAC. Use any of risk of using equipment designed for relatively
the contact data listed on the back cover of this benign environments in applications where the
issue, or call (888) 722-8737. expected stresses Selection of
(temperature, Equipment to
LEverage
Failure Modes and Mechanisms vibration, shock, Commercial
Commercial
C ommercial
Equipment
Military
Military
Applications
Technology
echnology
Applications
humidity, etc.)
Reference Updated
are considerably
In 1991, RAC published FMD-91, Failure Modes/
more severe. The
Mechanism Distributions, providing component
tool was
failure modes and their relative probabilities of
originally
occurrence as an aid to fault tolerant design, the
developed by IIT Research Institute (operator of
preparation of diagnostics, and failure modes,
the RAC) under contract to Rome Laboratory (now
effects and criticality analysis (FMECA). A new
called Air Force Research Laboratory Information
document, FMD-97, adds about 50% new data to
Directorate - Rome Site). In addition to allowing
that of FMD-91. The hardcopy document contains
relative risk comparisons between different
data on electronic, mechanical and
commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment, the
electromechanical parts and assemblies. It is
tool identifies the predominant environmental and
available at a cost of $100 for U.S. orders, and $120
process risk drivers of each equipment being
for Non-U.S. orders. The order blank on the inside
considered, quantifying the impact of design
rear cover of this issue may be used to obtain a copy.
changes and testing options on the risk scores and
For more information, call (888) 722-8737.
estimated reliability. Release is expected in
Spring, 1998. Order code will be SELECT, and the
FMD-97 will also soon be made available on CD-
price will be $300 for U.S. orders and $340 for Non-
ROM or 3.5” diskette software packages for use on
U.S. orders.
personal computers under Windows 95 or NT. When
available, the software will include graphical user

10 RAC Journal, Volume 6, No. 1

RAC Journal, Volume 6, No. 1 11
Industry Brief
ISO 9000 in the News
Recent news about ISO 9000, the family of Quality Management System international standards, includes:

• AS 9000, Aerospace Basic Quality System Standard, is now available from the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE) as a guide to quality management in the Aerospace industry. Like QS 9000, the
Automotive Quality System Standard, it contains a verbatim citation of ISO 9000 provisions and
industry specific additional requirements and notes. For more information on AS 9000, Contact SAE, 400
Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale PA 15086-0001. Tel: (412) 776-4970.

• Despite recent statements that the automotive sponsors of QS 9000 would discontinue the verbatim
citation of ISO 9001, present plans are to retain the ISO standard.

• ISO plans to “integrate” ISO 9000 and ISO 14000, Environmental Management System, apparently do not
intend a merger of the documents, but rather the creation of the capability to audit a site for compliance
to either or both in a single visit.

SLDA Coolers Developed Through SBIR Program

Semiconductor laser diode arrays (SLDAs) require a high degree of thermal stability to maintain specified
laser beam wavelengths and optimum efficiency. However, they generate large amounts of heat which must be
removed, and existing cooling technology has been inadequate. Under a Small Business Innovation Research
(SBIR) program sponsored by the former Air Force Phillips Laboratory, Saddleback Aerospace, Los Alamitos,
CA, has developed water-cooled heat sinks using microchannel coolant flow passages . One of the prototype
units exhibited the lowest thermal resistance ever reported for these types of devices. Saddleback is now
manufacturing units in a variety of shapes, sizes and materials.

MTIAC Supporting Internet Product News Network

The Manufacturing Technology Information Analysis Center (MTIAC), one of three Defense Technical
Information Center (DTIC) information analysis centers operated by IIT Research Institute, is providing
manufacturing expertise to assist the Thomas Magazine Group in the launch of it’s new commercial internet
venture, the “Product News Network.” MTIAC is developing hierarchical nomenclatures for six categories of
industrial products: adhesives and sealants; data acquisition; machine tools; quality control; automatic
identification systems; and plant maintenance and equipment. The Product News Network is intended to be an
on-line source of up-to-date product information. The Thomas Magazine Group is the publisher of the “Thomas
Register of Manufacturers.”

ADPA + NSIA = NDIA

On March 1, 1997, the American Defense Preparedness Association (ADPA) and the National Security
Industrial Association (NSIA) merged. On October 1, 1997, the resulting organization was officially named The
National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA). The association headquarters is located at 2111 Wilson
Boulevard, Suite 400, Arlington VA 22201. Tel: (703) 522-1820. Fax: (703) 522-1885. E-mail:
cmadeira@ndia.org.

DTIC Offers IAC Directory

The Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) is offering a Directory of the DoD and service sponsored
Information Analysis Centers (IACs). For a copy contact: Mr. Ron Hale, IAC Program Management Office,
Defense Technical Information Center, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 0944, Ft. Belvoir VA 22060-6218. Tel:
(703) 767-9171. Fax: (703) 767-9119. E-mail: rhale@dtic.com. The directory can also be downloaded from the
IAC hub page on the DTIC webesite: http://www.dtic.mil/iac/. An Adobe reader is needed.

The appearance of advertising in this publication does not constitute endorsement by the
Department of Defense or RAC of the products or services advertised.

12 RAC Journal, Volume 6, No. 1

From the Editor
The Quality Troika
How often has been heard the complaint that an automaker might measure
schedule and cost are the enemies of quality (or defect rate, sticker price and
reliability, maintainability, testability, logistics time from order to delivery.
planning, etc.)? I would like to suggest, rather, With this, or an equivalent set of three measures,
that cost and schedule are appropriate and valid he could track his progress and benchmark his
measures of quality. David Garvin once identified performance against the competition. These three
five categories of quality measures, including parameters, and many others, are certainly used
value-based measures and user-based measures. now by the automotive industry, but I am suggesting
Value-based measures integrate “goodness” and the that a troika of the top three goodness, cost and
cost involved (Phil Crosby’s “cost of quality “ schedule parameters may have value as an overall
would be a value-based quality measure). User- figure of merit. Also, each component of an
based measures try to quantify the ability to organization can select their own appropriate
satisfy the customer. I submit all measures must troika as their metric for overall performance. And
ultimately be user-based (no one else’s opinion the recommendations of the assurance specialists
really counts) and that cost and schedule are should include a three-dimensional estimate of
customer measures of quality, just as important as impact, using an appropriate quality troika.
freedom from defects or features of the product.
A characteristic of the quality troika is that any
For example, when in the market for a car, would change which improves one leg without adversely
you consider a Rolls-Royce? It has a reputation for affecting the other two is always a winner. Many
unsurpassed engineering, elegant appointments, and process improvements fall into this category, and
freedom from defects, making it one of the highest pay off handsomely. It is the case where an
quality automobiles in conventional quality improvement in one leg hurts another that requires
(“goodness”) terms. Yet the average person a trade-off analysis. In the past, the relatively
considers the cost of an automobile important, and less visible “goodness” parameters suffered when
the Rolls-Royce does not have the property of they crossed cost or schedule. In the current climate
being priced low enough for consideration by most where quality (in terms of “goodness”) is
car buyers. I contend this demonstrates cost is recognized as a customer demand, I think
indeed a quality factor. management is more willing to listen. However,
it’s up to the analyst to have his facts ready to
How about schedule as a quality factor? If you clearly show the trade-off involved, or, better, to
picked a new car to replace the one you have, but find a way where no leg of the troika suffers a loss
had to wait for a year before it was delivered, (TQM, again).
wouldn’t you pick another to buy? Perhaps you
would wait, but I suspect you would think long and Considering cost and schedule as quality
hard about it. QED: quality includes timely parameters, the assurance specialist may begin to
delivery. understand why his recommendations have not
always been accepted. More importantly, this may
My conclusion is that measures of “goodness” join be a way for the specialist to communicate better
with measures of cost and measures of schedule to with the decision makers, and it can improve the
form a “quality troika,” the three legs of which value of his recommendations. Better
must all be considered in making decisions. This is communication of better recommendations should
essentially a premise of total quality management, improve his success ratio.
(TQM), where the word “total” implicitly
recognizes the existence of the troika. Anthony Coppola, Editor

So where does this lead? First, we need to measure What do you think? Letters to the editor on this, or
our efforts in three dimensions. Among all the any other topic, are always welcome. Those of
different parameters, we can perhaps select major general interest may be printed, unless the author
factors for “goodness,” cost and schedule and use requests otherwise.
this troika as an overall indicator of our
performance. Continuing our automotive example,

RAC Journal, Volume 6, No. 1 13

14 RAC Journal, Volume 6, No. 1
RAC Journal, Volume 6, No. 1 15
Letter to the Editor be used in developing the Logistics Support
Analysis for Maintenance Planning. It also
provides the basis for Life-Cycle Cost
Dear Sir, optimization, and is one of the most important
Reference “FMEA - A Curse or Blessing” by S.J. building blocks in the development of a support
Jakuba, in the RAC Journal, Volume 5, Number 4, I plan.
would like to make the following comments:
Nevertheless, in his appraisal of the design and
The article was very well developed and written, development of systems he has put his finger on the
and I feel it hit the right note regarding the most misused and misunderstood analysis, which if
impressions the subject gives to both analysts, implemented and used in the manner he has
designers, and other personnel normally exterior to suggested will benefit all areas of system/
reliability, who regard the usefulness of a FMEA equipment development.
without any real understanding of its aims and
achievability. Currently in the European environment most
weapon platform acquisition programmes utilize a
In discussing the uses of a FMEA Stan Jakuba does mixture of existing/modified/new development
not address the uses of a FMEA when an item of equipments or a system comprising existing/
equipment or a system has to be modified or is an modified items with new software. With software
existing item (off-the-shelf) where no previous and software/hardware configurations, existing
FMEA has been developed or produced. In such FMEA methods do not suffice, but as Stan points out,
cases one of the main uses of the FMEA is to define it is the manner in which the FMEA is approached,
the types, numbers, frequencies and safety related the timing and how it is assessed, that is most
hazard quantifications, so that the information can important, and which if implemented correctly
will provide the most rewards.
However, what must be clearly
defined in each programme is why the
FMEA is to be developed, and what
are the aims of the FMEA. Most
people involved in any
system/equipment development
programme fail to lift their heads out
of the water and remind themselves
what they are trying to achieve, and
why they are doing such tasks.
On the matter of training, Stan has it
just right; experience, team effort, and
teamwork are the only answer. Too
often the team leader thinks that the
rest of the team do the work and
he/she is the team! Education is one
possibility, but the real answers are
far reaching, and go well beyond the
subject of quality and reliability.
Please, let’s have more articles like
that of Stan Jakuba’s. The more
people that read and digest such
articles, the better are the chances of
improving the quality of our
programmes.

Yours very truly,

Stewart Allen
Logistics Executive Director,
Philotech GmbH

16 RAC Journal, Volume 6, No. 1

 Some Observations on Demonstrating Availability
By: Anthony Coppola

Availability is easy to measure. It is also easy to on other distributions, such as the log-normal,
measure MTBF and MTTR and calculate inherent which is more commonly assumed for MTTR).
availability by the formula:
Selected values from a Chi-square table are:
MTBF
Ai = Degrees of Chi-squared
MTBF + MTTR
freedom ( = 2 x no. Chi-square value value at 90th
of failures) at tenth percentile percentile
The problem is in assigning risks. For example, 2 .211 4.61
suppose we wanted an availability of 95%. If we 4 1.064 7.78
had one failure in 100 hours and it took one hour to 6 2.20 10.64
8 3.49 13.36
repair, we have measured an availability of 99%, 10 4.87 15.99
well over spec. However, we would be basing the
conclusion on one failure and one repair, which 12 6.30 18.55
14 7.79 21.06
would be quite risky. We would feel more 16 9.31 23.54
confidence if we had more data (i.e. more failures 18 10.86 25.99
and repairs). There are established procedures for 20 12.44 28.41
computing confidence intervals around MTBF 22 14.04 30.81
measurements and for confidence intervals around 24 15.66 33.20
MTTR estimates. (confidence = 1-risk. A confidence 26 17.29 35.56
28 18.94 37.92
of 90% that a calculated MTBF or better has been 30 20.60 40.26
achieved means a 10% risk of being in error. In turn
a 10% risk of error means a probability of 0.10 that 40 29.05 51.81
50 37.69 63.17
the true MTBF will be lower than the calculated 60 46.46 74.40
value.) As might be expected, the more data 80 64.28 96.58
available, the closer will the calculated values for 100 82.36 118.5
a specified confidence be to the measured value.
We then use the formulas:
The problem with availability is that there is no
easy way to compute confidence limits about a 2 x total operating time
MTBF =
measured availability. Chi - square value for 2 x no. of
failures at 90th percentile
Following is a procedure for calculating risks on
availability from confidence intervals on MTBF 2 x total downtime
and MTTR. MTTR =
Chi - square value for 2 x no. of
First, collect data on MTBF and MTTR. (MTBF is repairs at tenth percentile
operating hours/failures: MTTR is down
time/failures not counting administrative and The MTBF formula gives the value of MTBF which
logistics delays). The data is collected to the end we are 90% sure will be exceeded by the true MTBF
of the last repair so that the operating time does (there is a .10 probability that the true MTBF is
not extend beyond the time of the last failure. less that that calculated by the formula).

Then use the Chi-square procedure described below The MTTR formula gives the value of MTTR which
to calculate MTBF and MTTR at a desired risk. We we are 90% sure will not be exceeded by the true
shall be using 10% risks, and calculating a value of MTTR (there is a .10 probability that the true
MTBF for which there is only a .10 probability MTTR is grater than that calculated by the
that the true MTBF will be lower, and a value of formula).
MTTR for which there is only a .10 probability
that the true MTTR will be higher. The resultant These values may be used to calculate an
values are an MTBF and MTTR demonstrated to a availability at some risk determined by the risks
90% confidence. (Note: this method assumes the on MTBF and MTTR. We shall discuss later what
exponential distribution applies to both times the risk on the calculated availability might be.
between failure and times to repair: there are Example: for 1000 hours of operating time with 10
procedures for computing confidence intervals based failures which required 10 hours of repair time:

RAC Journal, Volume 6, No. 1 17

 1000 calculated is also .10. Hence the probability of
Measured MTBF = = 100 hours;
10 both values being worse is (.10 x .10 = .01). In such a
10 case, the true availability must be worse than the
Measured MTTR = = 1 hour.
10 calculated value using the calculated MTBF and
MTTR. Hence the risk on the calculated
Using the formulas given above: availability is at least 1% (we shall show it is
more) and the confidence (1 - risk) cannot exceed
2000 99%
MTBF = = 70.4 hours
28.41
The above cases cover 82% of all possibilities. This
20 leaves 18% probability that the true value of one of
MTTR = = 1.6 hours
12.44 the figures of merit (MTBF or MTTR) is better than
the calculated value and the true value of the
The results are interpreted as showing only a 10% other is worse. In this case the true value of
chance that the true MTBF will be less than 70.4 availability may be either better or worse than the
hours, and that there is only a 10% chance that the calculated availability. Unfortunately, the
true MTTR will exceed 1.6 hours. majority of the time, the true availability will be
worse, rather than better than that calculated.
Calculating availability by the formula A = This is because a slight deviation in the percentile
MTBF/(MTBF+MTTR): towards the tails of the distribution (the bad way)
makes a bigger difference (in calculating MTBF or
100 100 MTTR) than the same deviation towards the center
Measured availability = = = .99
100 + 1 101 (the good way). For example, The difference in the
90th and 91th percentile values is greater than the
Availability using calculated MTBF and MTTR: difference between the 90th and 89th percentiles.
Hence, in less than half the cases will the true
70.4 70.4
A= = = .978 availability exceed the calculated value. So the
70.4 + 1.6 72 contribution of this 18% probable situation to the
confidence in the calculated value will be less than
If the desired availability were .98, the measured 9%. The exact value will depend on how sharp the
results would indicate achievement, but the curves are skewed and the ratio of MTBF to MTTR.
calculated results would show that when the MTBF
and MTTR are calculated to a 90% confidence, the We can conclude that calculating the availability
availability is not demonstrated as being using the 90% confidence values of MTBF and MTTR
achieved. More test data would be needed to will provide a confidence of something more than
resolve the issue. 81% but less than 90% (81% + less than 9% as
shown above) that the true availability will
The important, as yet unanswered, question is: exceed the calculated value. This will often be
what is the risk on the calculated availability satisfactory.
number?
Using other values of confidence (e.g., 95%) for the
In attempting to answer the question, note that the calculation of MTBF and MTTR will result in other
calculated MTBF will be exceeded by the true ranges of confidence on availability. The above
MTBF with probability .90 and the true MTTR will procedure, and a more complete chi-square table
be less than the calculated MTTR with probability will be needed. Note however, that the higher the
.90. Hence, the probability of both figures of merit confidence demanded, the longer the test time
being better than calculated is .90 x .90 = .81. When needed to achieve it. Also note that all this
both figures of merit are better than calculated, the assumes that the measured availability (that
true availability must exceed the value calculated calculated from the measured MTBF and MTTR)
from the calculated MTBF and MTTR. So our exceeds the specified availability. If the
confidence in the calculated availability (the measured availability is inadequate, the
probability that the true availability will be confidence in any higher value must be less than
greater than the calculated value) is at least 81%. 50% (a poor bet).
(we shall show that it is more).
Note that the probability of the true MTBF being
worse than that calculated is .10 and the
probability of the true MTTR being worse than that

18 RAC Journal, Volume 6, No. 1

RAC Journal, Volume 6, No. 1 19
Mark Your Calendar
May 18-22, 1998 Tuscon, AZ 0119. Tel: (520) 621-6120. Fax: (520) 621-8191. E-mail:
dimitri@u.arizona.edu.
24th Annual Reliability Testing Institute
Contact: Dr. Kececioglu, University of Arizona, Aerospace
and Mechanical Eng. Dept., 1130 N. Mountain Avenue, August 26-28, 1998 Albuquerque, NM
Bldg. 119, Room N517, PO Box 210119, Tuscon, AZ 85721- 1998 Military/Aerospace (Transportation) COTS
0119. Tel: (520) 621-6120. Fax: (520) 621-8191. E-mail:
dimitri@u.arizona.edu. Conference
Contact: Edward B. Hakim, The Center for Commercial
Component Insertion, Inc., 2412 Emerson Ave., Spring Lake,
May 19-21, 1998 Adelaide, Australia NJ 07762. Tel: (732) 449-4729. E-mail:
Maintenance Engineering ‘98 ebhakim@bellatlantic.net
Contact: Secretariat, Maintenance Engineering ‘98, PO Box
5142, Clayton Victoria 3168, Australia. Tel: 61 3 9544 September 13-17, 1998 New York, NY
0066. Fax: 61 3 9543 5905.
International Conference on Probabilistic Safety
Assessment and Management
June 4, 1998 Pittsburgh. PA Contact: Dr. R. A. Bari, Brookhaven National Laboratory,
November 5, 1998 Arlington, VA PO Box 5000, Upton, NY 11973-5000. tel: (516) 344-5266.
SEI Visitor’s Days Fax: (516) 344-5266. E-mail: Bari@bnl.gov.
Contact: Customer Relations, Software Engineering
Institute (SEI), Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA September 14-19, 1998 Seattle, WA
15213-3890. Tel: (412) 268-5800. E-mail: customer-
relations@sei.cmu.edu. More info at website at URL: 16th International System Safety Conference
http://www.sei.cmu.edu. Contact: Clif Ericson, 18247 150th Ave SE, Renton, WA
98058. Tel: (253) 657-5245. Fax: (253) 657-2585. E-mail:
clifton.a.ericson@boeing.com
June 8-10, 1998 Crystal City, VA
SEI Conference on Risk Management September 22-25, 1998 Ypsilanti, MI
Contact: Customer Relations, Software Engineering Practical Implementation of Probabilistic Methods
Institute (SEI), Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
15213-3890. Tel: (412) 268-5800. E-mail: customer- Workshop
relations@sei.cmu.edu. More info at website at URL: Contact: SAE Professional Development, 400
http://www.sei.cmu.edu. Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001. Tel:
(724) 772-7148. Fax: (724) 776-4955. E-mail:
profdev@sae.org.
June 15-17, 1998 Dallas, TX
10th Annual RMSL October 6-8, 1998 Reno, NV
Reliability, Maintainability, Supportability, and 20th Annual EOS/ESD Symposium
Logistics Workshop Contact: ESD Association, 7900 Turin Rd., Bldg. 3, Suite 2,
Contact: Professional Development Division, SAE, 400 Rome, NY 13440-2069. Tel: (315) 339-6937.
Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale PA 15096-0001. Tel:
(724) 772-7148. Fax: (724) 776-4955. E-mail:
profdev@sae.org. October 26-29, 1998 Annapolis, MD
20th Space Simulation Conference
Contact: Institute of Environmental Sciences &
June 23-25, 1998 Munich, Germany Technology, 940 East Northwest Highway, Mount
FTCS-28: Fault Tolerant Computing Symposium Prospect, IL 60056. Tel: (847) 255-1561. Fax: (847) 255-
Contact: Ram Chillarege, IBM Watson Research, 30 Saw 1699. E-mail: Instenvsci@aol.com.
Mill River Road, Hawthorne, NY 10352. Tel: (914) 784-
7375. Fax: (914) 784-6267. E-mail: ftcs@chillarege.com November 5, 1998 Arlington, VA
SEI Visitor’s Day
July 15-17, 1998 Tokyo, Japan Contact: Software Engineering Institute (SEI), Carneige
5th ISPE International Conference on Concurrent Mellon University, Pittsburg, PA 15213-3890. Tel: (412)
268-5800. E-mail: customer-relations@sei.cmu.edu.
Engineering
Contact: Prof. Shuichi Fukuda, Dept. of Production,
Information and Systems Engineering, Tokyo Metropolitan November 16-20, 1998 Tucson, AZ
Institute of Technology, 6-6, Asahigaoka, Hino, Tokyo 191, 36th Annual Reliability Engineering &
Japan. Tel: 81 425 83 5111 x3605. Fax: 81 425 83 5119.
E-mail: fukuda@mgbfu.tmit.ac.jp. Management Institute
Contact: University of Arizona, 1130 N. Mountain Ave.,
Tucson, AZ 85721-0119. Tel: (520) 621-6120. Fax: (520)
July 27-30, 1998 San Diego, CA 621-8191. E-mail: dimitri@u.arizona.edu.
Seventh Applied Reliability Engineering and
Product Assurance Institute for Engineers and
Managers
Contact: Dr. Kececioglu, University of Arizona, Aerospace
and Mechanical Eng. Dept., 1130 N. Mountain Avenue,
Bldg. 119, Room N517, PO Box 210119, Tuscon, AZ 85721-

20 RAC Journal, Volume 6, No. 1

RAC Journal, Volume 6, No. 1 21
Help from RAC
Complementing the RAC may be successfully exploited. handbook, Processes for
product in process on the Order Code: MCM Using Commercial Parts in
reliable application of Price: $50 U.S., $60 Non-U.S. Military Applications . The
optoelectronics devices (see handbook provides an
New From RAC, this issue) are Reliable Application of overview of the acquisition
several currently available Capacitors provides reform process, its relationship
publications on applying other information on the failure to system engineering functions,
part types and on general parts modes of the and its impact on reliability
management. Descriptions various and quality issues. It also
follow: capacitor types, Reliable
Application
provides guidance for a parts
their observed of Capacitors management program under the
Reliable Application of failure rates and RAC Parts Selection, Application and Control S
new groundrules, and case
Plastic Encapsulated specific areas of C
histories to illustrate practical
ESR

Microcircuits addresses the concern when LL RL

experience and “lessons
RI

interest in applying plastic selecting a learned.”

encapsulated microcircuits capacitor. It Order Code: PUCP
Reliability Analysis Center
(PEMs) in all environments also contains RAC is a DoD Information Analysis Center
Sponsored by the Defense Technical Information Center
Price: $25 U.S., $35 Non-U.S.
including military and quantitative relationships
telecommunication systems describing the change in Orders may be placed using the
with strict reliability demands electrical parameters order blank on the following
and harsh environments. This (capacitance, dissipation factor page, or by telephone to (888)
interest stems from real and and equivalent series 722-8737. Other RAC products
perceived improvements in resistance) as a function of time are listed in the RAC Product
PEM reliability, quality and and temperature. A thorough and Services Catalog, recently
cost. The bibliography is provided. revised. Ask for your free copy.
publication Reliable Order Code: CAP
Application
provides of Plastic Price: $50 U.S., $60 Non-U.S.
Encapsulated
information on Microcircuits RAC on the Web
PEM parts RAC Parts Selection, Application and Control Seri
The first publication in RAC’s
control, series on the reliable RAC maintains a home page on
procurement, application of parts was Parts the World Wide Web at URL:
failure modes Selection, Application and http://rome.iitri.com/RAC/.
Reliability Analysis Center
and RAC is a DoD Information Analysis Center
Sponsored by the Defense Technical Information Center
Control , an overview From there, the user can obtain:
mechanisms, reliability and document addressing topics of a
quality. A reliability • Current awareness
general nature affecting all information: copies of the
prediction model for PEMs is types of parts. It identifies RAC Journal, START sheets,
also provided. specific selection and a calendar of events
Order Code: PEM2 • RAC products and training
procurement methods and tools information: catalog of
Price: $75 U.S., $85 Non-U.S. for properly applying products, on-line order form,
electrical and electronic parts training schedules, available
Reliable Application of courses
most suitable for the unique • RAC services: RAC user
Multichip Modules requirements of a given guide, bibliographic
addresses hybrid microcircuits, application, military or searches, technical support,
multichip packaging and databases
commercial. • Links to other DoD
multichip modules (MCMs). It Order Code: PSAC Information Analysis Centers
provides an overview of the Price: $50 U.S., $60 Non-U.S. (IACs), and other reliability,
methodology and tools to ensure maintainability and quality
information sources
that these components and To help bridge the gap between
their vendors are selected, the use of military Pay us a visit at:
controlled and tested specifications and standards,
effectively for the specific end and new policies in acquiring http://rome.iitri.com/RAC/
product and usage, so that the military equipment under the
favorable weight and size DoD acquisition reform
advantages of these devices program, RAC compiled a

22 RAC Journal, Volume 6, No. 1

RAC Order Form
Send to: Reliability Analysis Center, 201 Mill Street, Rome, NY 13440-6916

Call: (888) RAC-USER (722-8737), (315) 339-7047 Fax: (315) 337-9932

E-mail: rac@rome.iitri.com

Qty Title Price Each Total

Shipping & Handling:

US Orders add $4.00 per book for first class shipments, ($2.00 for RAC Blueprints)
Non-US add $10.00 per book for surface mail (8-10 weeks), $15.00 per book for air mail ($25.00 for NPRD
and VZAP, $40.00 for EPRD). ($4.00 for RAC Blueprints)
Total

Name

Company

Division

Address

City State Zip

Country Phone Ext.

Fax: E-mail:

Method of Payment:
❒ Personal check enclosed
❒ Company check enclosed (make checks payable to IITRI/RAC)
❒ Credit Card # Expiration Date
Type (circle): AMERICAN EXPRESS VISA MASTERCARD
A minimum of $25 is required for credit card orders.

Name on card:

Signature:

Billing address:

❒ DD1155 (Government personnel) ❒ Company purchase order

❒ Send product catalog

RAC Journal, Volume 6, No. 1 23

 RAC Training Courses
Course Dates: Design Reliability Bring RAC Training Courses
This intensive overview covers theoretical to Your Facility
June 9-11, 1998 and practical aspects of reliability through RAC provides training courses to
concurrent engineering. Reliability analysis, government and industry in virtually every
test and evaluation, parts selection, circuit
Course Fee: aspect of reliability and quality. On-site
analysis, and applicable standards and training is often more cost-effective for
information sources are addressed.
$995 organizations, particularly since on-site
“closed” courses can be tailored to specific
Mechanical Reliability customer products and processes. Subjects
Location and On-Site Practical applications of mechanical addressed by RAC training include but are
Accommodations: engineering to system and component not limited to:
reliability are covered in this popular • Design for Reliability
Virginia Beach Resort Hotel & course. Basic theories of mechanical • Reliability Modeling
reliability and the essential tools of • Fault Tree Analysis
Conference Center • Failure Analysis
mechanical reliability analysis are
2800 Shore Drive covered and reinforced through
• Statistical Process Control
• Software Engineering
Virginia Beach, VA 13451 problem solving and discussion. • Software Reliability
(757) 481-9000 • Failure Data Systems
• Mechanical Reliability
Accelerated Testing • Reliability Testing
The course describes the statistical models • Testability Analysis
System Software Reliability for accelerated tests, how to plan efficient • Reliability Analysis
Featuring hands-on software reliability tests, and how to estimate and improve • Reliability Management/Planning
measurement, analyses and design, this product reliability. The methods will be • Quantitative Methods
course is intended for those responsible for illustrated with many applications to • Microelectronics Standardization
• Worst Case Circuit Analysis
measuring, analyzing, designing, electronic, mechanical, and other products,
• Maintainability Testing
automating, implementing, or ensuring including your own data, which you are • Failure Mode, Effects & Criticality Analysis
software reliability for commercial or encouraged to bring. • Total Quality Management
government programs. • Environmental Stress Screening
• Parts Selection and Control
• Reliability-Centered Maintenance
• Probabilistic Mechanical Design
• Qualified Manufacturers List

For further information on scheduled RAC training courses contact Ms. Nan Pfrimmer at the Reliability Analysis Center, (800) 526-4803 or
(315) 339-7036. For information about on-site and custom training arrangements contact Mr. Patrick Hetherington at (315) 339-7084..

IIT Research Institute/ Non-Profit Org.

Reliability Analysis Center U.S. Postage
Paid
201 Mill Street
Utica, NY
Rome, NY 13440-6916 Permit No. 566

RAC INQUIRIES AND ORDERS:

Reliability Analysis Center

201 Mill Street
Rome, NY USA 13440-6916

(315) 337-0900 ................................ Main Telephone

(315) 337-9932 .......................................... Facsimile
(315) 337-9933 ........................... Technical Inquiries
(800) 526-4802 ............................Publication Orders
(800) 526-4803 .........................Training Course Info
(888) RAC-USER (722-8737) ..... General Inquiries
gnash@rome.iitri.com............E-mail (Product Info)
rac@rome.iitri.com .......E-mail Technical Inquiries
URL: http://rome.iitri.com/RAC ........ Web Address

Contact Gina Nash at (800) 526-4802 or the

above address for our latest Product Catalog or
a free copy of the RAC Users Guide.