Connector Reliability Test Recommendations: Phase II Project End of Project Webinar Sessions: Session 1: November 14, 2018 at 11:00 am EST Session 2: November 14, 2018 at 09:00 pm EST Project Chair: Holly Rubin, Nokia Project Co-Chair: Jyoti Gupta, Keysight
43
Embed
Connector Reliability Test Recommendations: Phase II Projectthor.inemi.org/webdownload/2018/Connector_Rel_Test2_EOP.pdf · 2018. 12. 4. · phase 1, see slide 8) 6. Phase I Conclusions
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Connector Reliability Test Recommendations: Phase II Project
End of Project Webinar Sessions:
Session 1: November 14, 2018 at 11:00 am ESTSession 2: November 14, 2018 at 09:00 pm EST
Project Chair: Holly Rubin, Nokia
Project Co-Chair: Jyoti Gupta, Keysight
Agenda
• Background
• Project Description
• Recommended Test Protocol
• Identified Gaps
• Conclusions and Future Work
2
Project Participants
3
Company Name* Member Role
Amphenol ICC Jeffrey Toran, Bob Druckenmiller Team Members
Dell Phil Conde, Vasu Vasudevan Team Members
DOW Michael Lipschutz Team Member
Keysight Jyoti Gupta Co-Chair
Keysight Yen-Han Oon Team Member
Nokia Holly-Dee Rubin Co-Chair
TE Connectivity Vince Pascucci Team Member
Wistron Cindy Han, Seven Cheng Team Members
Keysight Shane Kirkbride Former Chair
CALCE Carlos Morillo Former Co-Chair
Keysight Li-Siah Tai Former team member
*company that member was associated with at time of participation
Members
4
BACKGROUND
• The iNEMI Connector Reliability Test Recommendations Project Phase I addressed the need for a standardized reliability evaluation method for connectors
• The project team reviewed current standards pertaining to connector reliability and also conducted an industry-wide connector reliability survey to determine common metrics for connector reliability evaluation guidelines across the industry
• Results presented in the publication iNEMI Connector Reliability Test Recommendations Project Report white paper at SMTAI 2016
5
Definitions
• Application Class/Product Sector: broadly
defined as categories based on the types and levels
of stress expected in the application; can be based
on type of use (e.g., consumer, office, server,
telecom, portable, etc.)
• Stress Level: relates to the values that quantify
environmental parameters expected to be seen by
the connector in the use environment
• Interconnect Level: for connectors, interconnect
levels 2 through 7 are applicable (as defined in
phase 1, see slide 8)
6
Phase I Conclusions & Recommendations
• The existing connector reliability testing standards do not address the full range of connector applications nor have the necessary detailed, defined test conditions and sequences.
• There is sufficient agreement on definition of levels of interconnect to create a common set and thus use it as needed as one factor in defining connector reliability testing standards (see next slide).
• For assessment of connector reliability a physics-of-failure approach is needed.
• If the actual application is known, then customized testing based on specific knowledge of the application conditions and connector design is optimal
• If the specific application is not known, then an application class based testing standard is required.
• An industry need exists for development of standard reliability testing protocols.
• The Project team recommends additional work to define specific test conditions to be used to evaluate the expected degradation of connectors used under different stress levels in the defined application classes.
7
Levels of Interconnect
• Level 1: On-Chip
• Level 2: Chip-to-Package
• Level 3: Package-to-Board / PCB Mount
• Level 4: Board-to-Board/Board-
Subassembly/Subassembly-to-Subassembly
• Level 5: Input-Output / Chassis-to-Chassis
• Level 6: Intersystem Cabling
• Level 7: Long Haul Telecom/Datacom
8
Connector Reliability Test Recommendations: Phase II Project
Detailed Description and Results
Purpose of Project
1. Scope/drive opportunity for industry level standard
reliability test conditions and equipment capabilities,
failure analysis capability and criteria
2. Drive common database / data formats of test results
for suppliers/OEM's to use by defining recommended
test result attributes
3. Primarily documenting the current state for a
knowledge based connector reliability evaluation
4. Set foundation for a test vehicle in Phase III
10
Scope of Work
1. Signal contacts of Level 4 separable connectors used in the following iNEMI
product sectors: office/consumer, high-end systems, and portable &
wireless
2. Define stress levels and map to Level 4 connectors
3. Review existing specification test sequences and propose updates/changes
to stress testing for each group of tests to allow parts to experience the
interaction of the resulting degradation mechanisms as they do in the real
world.
4. Test recommendations for non-noble vs noble plating systems
5. Alignment of critical elements that will be included in the connector
reliability report
6. Better alignment of connector reliability requirements between suppliers and
OEMs
Exclusions
1. Non-metallic optical connectors used for mating of fiber optics, connectors
intended for power supplies or ac/dc power applications, and RF connectors
• Addition of dust as precondition to Sequence 2 and 3
– The impact of dust is likely to be increased when a connector is exposed to
humidity or vibration.
• Addition of Thermal Shock test as precondition to test sequence 4
and 5
– Thermal shock can affect how a connector is seated and the normal force on
the contacts and because many connectors can be expected to experience
thermal shock during transportation/shipping if not during use.
• Inclusion of Mechanical Shock in test sequence 3
– Mechanical shock during operation can be applicable although it often is not a
concern in the application classes currently covered in EIA-364-1000.
17
General Guidance
• Recommended parameters/test schedules apply to
majority of connectors used in the market. There
will always be those with special needs to be agreed
between customer/supplier.
• The stress level that most closely matches the
application use condition should be selected. If the
expected stresses exceed those in one level, the
next higher level should be used.
18
• Test temperatures and durations are based on stress relaxation properties of typical
connector brass and phosphor-bronze alloys
• In critical applications, conditions appropriate for other alloys should be determined
• Five application levels are defined by ranges of maximum operating temperature
• Two lifetimes are defined based on expected operating hours at operating
temperature
• Stress relaxation is highly sensitive to minor temperature changes
• Testing all connectors at the extreme case for a specified application level may
– excessively degrade the parts relative to most applications
– result in test durations impractical for routine testing
Therefore two Application Categories, Typical and Critical, are provided
– In Typical Applications the maximum contact temperature will be in the bottom 67% of the
level range
– In Critical Applications the maximum contact temperature will be in the top 33% of the level
range
– Because stress relaxation is most rapid early in the test exposure the typical application test
durations achieve approximately 80% to 95% of the stress relaxation achieved using the
longer critical application test durations
Temperature Life Guidance
19
Temperature Life
20
• Example: • Application lifetime 10,000 operating hours, Level 3 operating temperature range
• Typical application (i.e. contact temperature in lower 67% of level range) test conditions 90 C / 1115 hrs or 100 C / 269 hrs
• Critical application (i.e. contact temperature in upper 33% of level range) test conditions 90 C / 3767 hrs or 100 C / 879 hrs
• Operating temperature is expected temperature of the contact in the application when carrying rated current• Test times for Level 1 are equivalent for both typical and critical applications due to minimal expected stress
relaxation below 30 C
Typical Application Test Times (hrs)
Operating Temp. (C)
(Level 1)≤30
(Level 2)31 to 55
(Level 3)56 to 80
(Level 4)81 to 105
(Level 5)106 to 130
Operating Time (hr)
Test Temperature (C)
60 70 80 90 100 115 120 140 150
≤8760 61 220 51 577 142 687 352 802 231
>8760 115 421 96 1115 269 1331 676 1556 440
Critical Application Test Times (hrs)
Operating Temp. (C)
(Level 1)≤30
(Level 2)31 to 55
(Level 3)56 to 80
(Level 4)81 to 105
(Level 5)106 to 130
Operating Time (hr)
Test Temperature (C)
60 70 80 90 100 115 120 140 150
≤8760 61 787 177 1920 456 2117 1069 2307 647
>8760 115 1527 337 3767 879 4159 2082 4537 1252
Dust
a) Note that several
current standards only
require benign dust
composition
b) Benign dust per EIA
364-91, A.1
c) Corrosive dust per EIA
364-91, A.2
Optional: perform testing
dependent on user
requirements
Recommended: project
team recommends testing
Dust Type anticipated (select types anticipated in
environmentLevel (a) Benign(b) Corrosive (c)
Pre Condition Dust Test Pre Condition Dust Test
Example applicationsBusiness Office,
Data Center
Warehouse,
Industrial environmentLevel 1 Weather protected,
with precautions to minimize
dust; not close to coarse
dust/sand sources, some
temperature and humidity
control. (humidity maintained
below 65%)
optional optional
Example applicationsGround-Based, Portable Electronics,
Transportation vehicles - cabin
Level 2 Locations without
precautions to minimize dust,
close to dust/sand sources, and
relative humidity expected to
exceed 65%
recommend recommend
Example applications
Level 3 Locations w/processes
producing sand/dust or in
places w/ high proportion of
wind-driven sand or dust in the
air, condensing environment
recommend recommend
21
Dust Guidance
• Recommend selection of benign or corrosive
dust per expected use environment
– Corrosive dust may be present in certain geographic
regions or when equipment is known to be located
near sources of corrosive dust
– Indoor locations can contain dust of either type
22
Thermal Shock (pg 1 of 2)
Stress Levels: Stress levels 1, 2 and 3 are ranges expected inclusive of shipping and normal
operation. See next slide for associated recommended test levels
The thermal shock experienced by a connector may be influenced by the system/equipment mass.
Testing per this method is expected to be more severe (typically) than the end-use equipment.
Recommended Tests: Duration at temperature according to specimen mass (excerpted from
EIA 364-32)
Stress
Level
Temperatures Use Case
1 -55 C to +85 C Portable equipment; equipment mounted in weather protected
& movable enclosure; equipment mounted near a
door/window or other that when opened, would expose the
equipment to air of significantly different temperature.
Equipment mounted in non-weather protected environment.
2 -65 C to +105 C3 -65 C to +125 C
4 More severe environments requiring harsher testing than those
above.
Mass of specimen Minimum time for steps 1 and 3, time in cold
zone and hot zone, (hours)
28 g (1 oz) and below 1/2 ; (or ¼ (when specified)
>28 g (1 oz) to 136 g (0.3 lb) inclusive ½
136 g (0.3 lb) to 1.36 kg (3 lb) inclusive 1
1.36 kg (3 lb) to 13.6 kg (30 lb) inclusive 2
13.6 kg (30 lb) to 136 kg (300 lb) inclusive 4
23
Thermal Shock (pg 2 of 2)
Recommended Test conditions (Testing per requirements of EIA 364-32)
i. Recommended test conditions for Test Group 2 reflecting shipping, storage
and normal operation temperature extremes.
If thermal shock is expected to occur during operation:
• Appropriate test condition recommendations still need to be developed
• In the interim, recommend test conditions in ii below
ii. Recommended test conditions for Test Groups 4 and 5 (preconditioning
intended to reflect shipping and storage only)
Stress
Level
Test
condition
Comment
1 I -55 C to + 85 C temperature range, minimum 5 cycles
2 II -65 C to +105 C temperature range, minimum 5 cycles
3 III -65 C to + 125 C temperature range, minimum 5 cycles
4 To be defined in the referenced connector specification, customer
specification or industry association specification.
24
Temperature-Humidity Cycling (pg 1 of 2)
Level and Description Recommended Test
Level 1: Equipment located in an indoor
environment with temp/humidity control. Typical
office environment where there are good controls
on the overall environment. Equipment located in
noncondensing environments with <65%RH.
EIA-364-1000 (soon to be EIA-364-
31, Method VIII)
Level 2: Equipment located in an indoor/outdoor
environment with little temp/humidity control.
More of an industrial environment where there
maybe some environmental controls but not tightly
maintained. Probably not direct exposure to
moisture. Equipment located in noncondensing
environments with >=65%RH.
EIA-364-31, Method VII, Test
Condition G (500 hours)
Level 3: Equipment located in an outdoor
environment with no temp/humidity controls.
Wide swing in temperatures and humidity. Possible
direct exposure to condensation moisture.
Equipment located in condensing environments.
EIA-364-34, Test Condition C (504
hours)
25
Temperature-Humidity Cycling (pg 2 of 2)
Level 1: EIA 364-1000 Method VIII Level 2: EIA 364-31 Method VII
Level3: EIA 364-34 Test Condition C
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Hu
mid
ity
(% R
H)
Tem
p (
De
g. C
)
Time (Hours)
Cyclic Temp & Humidity 3 hour Profile
Temp. (Deg C) Rel. Hum. (%)
26
Test Guidance
Profile the chamber to determine the exact times needed
• Once an hour, lower the chamber temperature to no less than 20C and introduce warm
humid air in order to induce heavy condensation
• Continue the influx of warm humid air for at least 10 minutes
• Once the flow of warm humid air has stopped, the chamber shall not be controlled until
the next hour’s exposure.
• Total test time 504 hours
Mixed Flowing Gas (pg1 of 3)Stress levels derived from Battelle classes
Level 1: Benign, non-industrial business-office and equipment environment, with good
atmospheric control, such as by continuous air-conditioning and filtered air re-
circulation.
Level 2: Typical conditions in business offices, control rooms, and telephone exchanges
that are associated with light industrial areas, or where air-conditioning and other
environmental controls are not operating in an efficient or continuous manner, or where
high humidity levels are anticipated within the electronic equipment enclosure.
Level 3: Industrial and related locations, including many storage areas, where moderate
amounts of pollutants and particulates are present in poorly controlled, uncontrolled,
natural outside air cooled environments, environments with evaporative cooling
systems, or within equipment enclosures such as washing machines where high
humidity levels and corrosive environments may be anticipated.