Search Results

Introduction An engineer's most critical decision is selecting the right component during PCB design. Components form the building blocks of any electronic system, and their performance can significantly impact the overall reliability and functionality of the final product. But how can you ensure your chosen components are suitable and optimized for long-term performance? The answer lies in derating components—ensuring components operate well below their maximum capacity, reducing stress, and increasing reliability. In this blog, we’ll explore what derating is, why it matters, the challenges of manual derating, and how automated tools can simplify the process. What is Component Derating? Imagine driving a car engine constantly at its maximum RPM. While it might work in the short term, the long-term damage would be inevitable. Similarly, electronic components have maximum voltage, current, and temperature ratings, among other parameters. Derating involves using components at levels significantly below these maximum ratings. For instance, a resistor rated for 2 watts might be used at only 1 Watts in your design. This ensures that the component is not pushed to its limits, which can cause failure due to overheating, electrical overstress, or wear over time. Derating is not merely a recommendation; it is necessary in high-reliability industries, such as aerospace, medical devices, and automotive. It’s also a best practice in consumer electronics to extend product lifespans and minimize warranty claims. Figure 1: Typical failure Pareto analysis Why Does Derating Matter? Derating provides multiple benefits: Increased Reliability: Operating components within safe margins reduces the likelihood of failure and increases the lifespan of components, ensuring consistent performance over time. Thermal Management: Components operating below their capacity simplify thermal design by mitigating issues caused by component overheating. Enhanced Safety: For critical applications, derating ensures that components can handle unexpected surges or environmental changes without failing. However, achieving optimal derating requires precise calculations and a deep understanding of the components and their operating environment. Figure 2: Example component derating guideline Challenges with Manual Derating Traditional derating is often done manually, requiring engineers to evaluate the stress on each component under worst-case conditions. While this approach can be practical for simple designs, it quickly becomes impractical for modern PCB designs that may involve hundreds or thousands of components and multi-board interconnects. Key challenges include: Time-Consuming Process: Analyzing each component is labor-intensive and slows the design process. Error-Prone: Human errors in calculations or oversight of critical components can lead to reliability issues. Limited Scalability: Manual derating becomes increasingly unmanageable as designs grow in complexity. How Automated Tools Simplify Derating This is where advanced reliability engineering tools like BQR’s Synthelyzer™ ECAD Plugin and fiXtress® come into play. These tools integrate directly into your design environment, automating the derating process and providing real-time actionable insights. Automate Manual Process: Greatly reduce the manual effort to verify your design during your circuit definition. Real-Time Analysis: Evaluate components dynamically during the design process, saving time and ensuring thorough analysis. Accurate Stress Evaluation: They calculate electrical and thermal stresses using real-world operating conditions, ensuring precise derating. Early Detection of Overstress: Potential issues are flagged early in the design cycle, allowing for proactive adjustments before costly revisions are needed. How Derating Fits into the Shift-Left Approach The Shift-Left design philosophy emphasizes addressing potential issues early in the design process rather than during late-stage testing or prototyping. Automated derating analysis aligns perfectly with this approach by ensuring reliability considerations are baked into the design from the outset. For example, using tools like Synthelyzer™, engineers can: Select components optimized for their specific design constraints. Avoid overstressed components that could lead to failures in the field. Integrate derating analysis seamlessly into their existing workflows. Use Case: Derating in Action In some cases, component derating analysis is mandatory. For example, in aerospace and defense industries, tenders for systems often require component derating analysis as part of the contractual deliverable documents. Additionally, medical devices and other industries require safety analysis. The analysis must include failure rate calculations that rely on operational stresses. Consider a design team working on a new medical device. If they manually derate critical components like capacitors and resistors using traditional methods, they potentially miss less obvious but equally important components. By integrating automated derating tools like Synthelyzer™ into their workflow, the team can automate stress analysis for all components , catching potential issues that might have been overlooked. The result? A more reliable product, faster time to market, and reduced development costs that meet stringent requirements across industries. Learn more about Design for Reliability. Derating Components for Design Reliability and Sustainability Component derating is not just a best practice but a necessity for designing reliable and long-lasting electronic systems. While manual methods may suffice for simple designs, modern PCBs require automated tools to ensure comprehensive and accurate derating analysis. Tools like BQR’s Synthelyzer™ and fiXtress® empower engineers to integrate derating into their designs effortlessly, improving reliability while reducing time-to-market. Derating is your first step toward robust PCB designs, but it’s only part of the equation. In the next blog, we’ll explore how schematic reviews play a critical role in detecting errors before design layout. Connect with us to learn how we can help you improve product reliability and reduce time to market.

In the fast-evolving world of PCB design, companies are constantly striving to improve product quality, reduce development costs, and accelerate time-to-market. The demand for more sophisticated and reliable electronics, coupled with shrinking product lifecycles, has pushed design teams to rethink traditional development processes. One of the most transformative movements in this space is the Shift-Left  approach—a strategy that advocates for identifying and solving potential problems earlier in the design cycle, rather than waiting until late-stage testing or prototype phases. Shift-Left  is revolutionizing PCB design by enabling engineers to catch errors, performance issues, and reliability concerns at the earliest stages. The result is faster development cycles , lower costs , and reduced risk of failure . As the complexity of modern electronics increases, this approach becomes even more critical. Integrating advanced reliability engineering tools  into the design workflow is essential to successfully shifting left and achieving these benefits. BQR's suite of tools —including CircuitHawk™ , Synthelyzer™ ECAD Plugin , and fiXtress® —are perfect examples of how technology is empowering engineers to embrace Shift-Left principles. These tools provide automated, real-time stress analysis, component evaluation, and system-wide reliability checks, which help detect potential issues long before they reach the production stage. Let’s explore how these tools work in concert with the Shift-Left movement to help companies innovate faster, reduce costs, and bring products to market more efficiently. Understanding the Shift-Left Movement in PCB Design The Shift-Left movement is centered around moving critical testing, validation, and quality assurance tasks earlier  in the design cycle. Traditionally, engineers wait until after a PCB design is completed or during the prototyping phase to check for errors, stress points, and reliability issues. This traditional approach can lead to costly and time-consuming rework, product delays, and even failures during the production stage. The Shift-Left  approach, however, involves incorporating testing and validation into the design process from the very beginning. By identifying issues early—such as electrical overstress, component derating, thermal issues, and connectivity flaws—engineers can make adjustments before they become major problems. This proactive method not only improves design quality  but also accelerates time-to-market and reduces development costs. The core benefits of the Shift-Left approach in PCB design include: Faster Time-to-Market : By detecting and addressing issues early, design teams can avoid rework and minimize delays. Reduced Costs : Early error detection reduces the need for expensive prototype revisions and rework. Improved Product Quality : Catching design flaws early ensures that final products are more reliable and perform better. Lower Risk of Failure : By addressing potential issues proactively, the risk of field failures and warranty claims is minimized. Tools Enabling the Shift-Left Movement: BQR’s Reliability Engineering Solutions The key to successfully shifting left in PCB design is the integration of advanced reliability engineering tools  that can automate time-consuming tasks like stress analysis , component evaluation , and failure prediction . BQR’s CircuitHawk™ , Synthelyzer™ ECAD Plugin , and fiXtress®  are designed to seamlessly integrate into existing design workflows, offering engineers the tools they need to detect issues early, optimize designs, and ultimately accelerate time-to-market. Let’s explore how each of these BQR tools helps in the Shift-Left approach. 1. CircuitHawk™: Advanced Schematic Analysis for Early Detection CircuitHawk™  offers automated electrical schematic analysis , helping engineers detect critical design flaws much earlier in the process. Traditional methods of design verification often occur late in the development cycle, leading to delays and increased costs when errors are found in prototypes or after production begins. CircuitHawk™ shifts the analysis left, enabling engineers to detect design flaws early and make corrective actions as part of the initial design phase. How CircuitHawk™ Supports Shift-Left: Real Stress Analysis : Unlike traditional design rule checkers (DRC), CircuitHawk™ performs dynamic stress analysis  by calculating real-world operational parameters (voltage, current, power dissipation) for every component. This ensures that the design is tested under actual operating conditions rather than simplified models, giving engineers a more accurate picture of the design’s reliability. Advanced Error Detection : The tool detects hidden design flaws , such as sneak circuits  and voltage spikes , that traditional DRC checks might miss. By identifying these issues early, CircuitHawk™ helps reduce the need for costly rework and delays. Connectivity Verification : CircuitHawk™ checks for net name conflicts , power issues , and grounding errors , ensuring the electrical integrity of the design from the start. Thermal and Stress Management : Automated stress calculations ensure that heat dissipation and electrical stress points are addressed early in the design process, preventing costly thermal-related failures later. Key Benefits : 90% Faster Verification : By automating the verification process and catching errors early, engineers can avoid delays and accelerate product development. Enhanced Design Quality : Proactively addressing stress and functional issues early improves the overall quality and reliability of the PCB design. 2. Synthelyzer™ ECAD Plugin: Real-Time Stress and Reliability Analysis The Synthelyzer™ ECAD Plugin  integrates seamlessly with industry-leading ECAD tools  like Altium , OrCAD , and Siemens EDA , providing real-time stress analysis , component derating , and MTBF prediction  directly within the designer’s native environment. This tool ensures that reliability analysis is an integral part of the design process, rather than an afterthought. How Synthelyzer™ Supports Shift-Left: Automated Component Stress Analysis : Synthelyzer™ evaluates components for electrical overstress (EOS)  and performs derating analysis  based on real thermal and electrical data. By detecting overstressed components early, designers can adjust component selection before moving into the layout phase, saving time and reducing the risk of failure. MTBF Prediction : The plugin calculates Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF)  based on real-world stress data, helping engineers predict the reliability of the PCB under typical operating conditions. Early MTBF predictions can guide designers toward more robust components and configurations. Thermal Optimization : Synthelyzer™ provides detailed insights into thermal resistance and component heat generation, allowing designers to optimize thermal management strategies before the board layout phase. Key Benefits : Faster and More Reliable Designs : By integrating real-time stress and reliability analysis into the design workflow, Synthelyzer™ allows engineers to catch potential issues early, resulting in faster and more reliable designs. Reduced Design Iterations : Early detection of overstressed components reduces the need for costly design revisions and rework. 3. fiXtress®: Comprehensive System-Level Reliability Analysis For engineers working on complex multi-board systems , fiXtress®  offers a comprehensive, system-level analysis  tool that performs electrical stress derating, MTBF predictions , and thermal simulations across entire PCB systems. This tool is particularly beneficial for larger, more complex designs where traditional point-to-point analysis may miss critical system-level issues. How fiXtress® Supports Shift-Left: System-Wide Reliability Analysis : Unlike traditional tools that focus on individual boards, fiXtress®  performs reliability analysis across all interconnected boards in a multi-board system. This comprehensive system-level analysis helps identify overstressed components  and thermal bottlenecks  before they impact the final design. EOS Violation Detection : FiXtress® automatically detects Electrical Over-Stress (EOS)  violations and provides detailed reports with actionable recommendations for resolving overstressed components, ensuring that reliability issues are addressed early in the design process. MTBF Prediction : Using real-world thermal and electrical stress data, fiXtress® predicts the MTBF  for the entire system, allowing engineers to identify potential reliability issues across multiple boards and optimize component selection for maximum longevity. Key Benefits : End-to-End Reliability : FiXtress® provides insights into the entire system's reliability, helping to ensure that both individual components and the system as a whole are designed to last. Faster Time-to-Market : With comprehensive system-level analysis, fiXtress® helps accelerate the design process by allowing engineers to address reliability concerns early, reducing the need for time-consuming revisions. Conclusion: The Future of PCB Design Is Shift-Left As PCB designs become more complex and the pressure to deliver products faster increases, the Shift-Left  approach is no longer just an option—it’s a necessity. By adopting proactive design strategies that incorporate early error detection , stress analysis , and reliability predictions , companies can not only speed up their development cycles but also improve the quality and reliability of their products. BQR’s CircuitHawk™ , Synthelyzer™ ECAD Plugin , and fiXtress®  are essential tools for engineers seeking to embrace the Shift-Left movement. These tools integrate seamlessly into the design workflow, enabling early detection of critical issues

Introduction: As an engineer, you spend most of your time working on electronic board development, which includes functional specifications, design, simulations, and testing of the product.How confident are you that your product is robust and reliable? Have you taken all the necessary steps to ensure that design errors are detected and that your customers will not experience failures? Of course, you believe you’ve done everything to ensure the product’s reliability, yet the reality may be different. Are you familiar with the defects shown in the following pictures? These defects are often discovered during internal testing, leading to multiple cycles of root cause analysis, corrective actions, and verification. This process can result in unexpected development costs, program delays, and missed market opportunities. Worse still, product defects found by your customers can lead to significant warranty costs and damage to your company’s reputation. The Solution – BQR One-Stop-Shop Complete Suite The solution to eliminating design errors is illustrated by the BQR fiXtress DFR Model, which begins with a solid foundation. The DFR Model is built layer by layer to support robust, bug-free electrical circuits. Step 1: Schematic Stress Simulation The first step aims to eliminate electrical and stress errors during the schematic design stage. The BQR software suite was primarily developed to simulate component stresses (i.e., P, V, I, Tj). It conducts Stress & Derating Analysis on circuit schematics of any size (from hundreds of pads to tens of thousands) and any type of electrical circuit (e.g., Analog, Digital, RF, or Power), all before layout and production. This approach offers high flexibility for improving designs at a lower cost compared to fixing product defects after the First Article Tests. Step 2: MTBF Part Stress The second step uses the simulated stresses to calculate the reliability of the electrical circuit with more accurate and realistic MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) predictions. This enables the identification of the weakest links in the design that could lead to poor performance and high failure rates. Step 3: FMECA & TA The third step enhances electrical circuit reliability by predicting critical failure modes, which can help mitigate technical risks discovered through FMECA (Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis). This is followed by Testability Analysis (TA), which ensures effective defect detection coverage and helps isolate defects. Step 4: FTA The fourth step addresses safety hazards, a requirement for industries such as Defense, Aerospace, Automotive, and other critical sectors. This step brings the design to the next level by enhancing availability through Reliability Block Diagram (RBD) modeling for redundancy and boosting revenue using APM (Asset Performance Management) to reduce costs from operating and maintenance optimization. Integrated Toolset for Seamless Workflow The BQR DFR tools can be used individually and self-contained, but they can also operate through a common core database that enables seamless interaction between tools. This allows for the reuse of simulation results across multiple analyses, improving accuracy and saving significant time. It provides an efficient way to ensure that design modifications are updated instantly across all simulations and analysis results. Connect with us to learn how we can help you improve product reliability and reduce time to market.

Naval vessels are complex platforms that combine highly advanced telecommunications, radar, defensive, and offensive technologies, as well as high-power propulsion systems. The goal of a vessel is to provide high mission reliability, i.e., a high probability of mission success.Naval missions have unique characteristics: Long mission durations Low or no access to spare parts other than COB (Carry On Board) Harsh conditions Several system design methods exist for achieving high mission reliability: High reliability of each piece of equipment Hot redundancy Spare parts High equipment reliability is always preferred because it reduces the need for redundant or spare units. However, most equipment is procured from third-party vendors, and it is not always possible to obtain equipment with the desired reliability. Reliability Allocation During initial system design, a process of reliability allocation should be conducted to identify equipment that requires redundancy or spare parts. Reliability allocation allows you to design effective systems with the right number of redundancies and provide realistic MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) requirements to OEMs, ensuring that the system is expected to comply with the mission reliability requirement. Reliability Prediction During detailed design, an accurate reliability analysis should be conducted to verify compliance with the required mission reliability. Spare Parts In many industries, spare parts analysis is conducted late in the design process. However, this is not the case when designing naval systems because COB spare parts are limited by weight and cost, and they significantly affect mission reliability. Therefore, redundancies and spare parts must be considered from the early stages of design. Example: Communication System Consider the case of a communication system with the following requirements: 2 transceivers must be operational 10 end units must be operational Mission reliability requirement is 98% for a mission duration of 60 days Reliability allocation with no redundancies and no spare parts provides an MTBF requirement for the transceivers and end units of 855,310 hours. The MTBF requirement is too strict for both the transceivers and end units. Therefore, spare parts must be added. Spare parts can be modeled in RBD software using standby models. By adding 2 spare end units and 1 spare transceiver, the MTBF requirement is reduced to 28,352 hours. This MTBF requirement is much more realistic. Next, an MTBF of 40,000 hours was provided by the OEM for the transceivers. This value can be fixed, and then the end units' minimal MTBF requirement is reduced slightly to 26,841 hours. Finally, an MTBF of 30,000 hours was provided for the end units by the OEM. With this, the mission reliability is calculated to be 98.46%. This simple example shows how reliability allocation and calculation can be used to optimize the system design and ensure compliance with performance requirements. CARE® is BQR's automated RAMS (Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, and Safety) analysis tool for system design. It incorporates Markov Chain models for load sharing and other multi-state models, as well as RBD (Reliability Block Diagram) network models for communication and utility networks. To learn more about how CARE® can optimize your system design, contact us or request a demo today.

Introduction: Asset availability depends on the sub-systems’ reliability and down-time due to failures. The problem is that system reliability and down-time belong to different disciplines: component reliability is under the responsibility of the reliability engineer. In contrast, down-time is an issue addressed by maintenance and operations engineers. A striking example of the interconnection between reliability and maintenance is the choice between designing a system with standby redundancy and replacing the redundancy with a spare parts maintenance policy. The similarities and differences between the two approaches will be explored in this paper regarding availability and cost. Example – pump: We begin with a simple example: Consider an oil pump with a mean time between failure (MTBF) of 3 years (26,280 hours). When the pump fails the mean time to repair (MTTR) is one week (168 hours). The pump availability is therefore: 99.365%. This means that the pump is unavailable on an average of 2.3 days each year. To improve the situation one can either design the system with a second pump on standby or put a second pump as a spare part nearby. Standby scenario: Initially the main pump works but the backup pump is not working (cold standby). When the operating pump fails the backup pump immediately replaces it. The failed pump is sent to the repair shop (hot repair). If the repair process finishes before the backup pump fails, the system goes back to the initial state, otherwise, a system failure occurs until one of the pumps is repaired. The scenario described above can be modeled as a renewal process for which a simple Markov chain diagram is given in Figure 1: λ  is the pump failure rate and μ  is the single pump repair rate. In many cases (including the example above) λ / μ <<1  therefore the renewal process can be approximated by a Poisson process for which the steady state availability is: For the values presented above, the availability is 99.998% (mean annual downtime of 10.5 minutes), a significant improvement.   Single spare scenario: When the pump in the field fails, it is immediately replaced by the spare pump. The failed pump is sent to the repair shop. If the repair process finishes before the spare pump fails, the system goes back to the initial state, otherwise, a system failure occurs until one of the pumps is repaired.   Availability: The two processes described above are almost identical, the only difference is that in the Single spare scenario, the backup pump is waiting in the storage room whereas in the standby scenario, the backup pump is waiting in the field. To account for the difference between the cases, the pump replacement time should be added to the model. This is done as follows: First define an effective repair rate: μ*  such that the availability in Eq. 1 is μ*  is found by using Eqs. 1 and 2: μ*  represents the inverse mean downtime when a pump failure occurs. Next, define the pump replacement time t , then the new Availability A*  is: The coefficient of t  in Eq. 4 depends on details of the pump replacement and the resulting elaborated Markov Chain process. Eq. 4 shows the expected availability of the pump system depending on the pump replacement time. t  is usually larger for the spare part case compared with the standby case due to the transportation, removal, and assembly times. Therefore, it is better to use a standby pump. However, there is another element which was not considered so far: cost. Cost: A high cost is usually incurred per hour of system downtime. The total downtime during the life cycle is: where tdown  is the down time and tlife is the lifecycle period. Other cost factors for the standby scenario are due to demand for parallel piping, power supplies, and increased floor space; while the spare part scenario requires storage and packaging expenses. When downtime is very costly, a standby solution is usually preferred. Indeed, in many oil refineries, remote water supply stations, and critical systems a standby design is used. The advantage of using spare pumps instead of standby units becomes apparent when many identical systems use a shared stock. Then fewer pump units have to be purchased. This gives a substantial financial saving. Example – 10 pumps: Consider a line with 10 pumps in series. To maintain a high availability, two possibilities are considered:   Standby scenario: Assume that a standby pump was added for each pump (having a total of 20 pumps). Furthermore, assume that upon failure the pump switching time is negligible. The main costs are: single pump cost of 500,000$, single pump repair cost of 5,000$, and downtime damage of 20,000$ per hour. The total cost for a lifecycle of 20 years was calculated using the apmOptimizer software to be: 11,373,720$ with a line availability of 99.979%.   Spares scenario: Instead of the 10 standby pumps, 2 spare pumps are put in storage (total of 12 pumps). The stock of two spare pumps is shared by all the pumps in the field. The pump switching time is assumed to be 2 hours. The main costs are: single pump cost of 500,000$, single pump repair cost of 5,000$, and downtime damage of 20,000$ per hour. The total cost for a lifecycle of 20 years was calculated using the apmOptimizer software to be: 8,997,945$ with an availability of 99.924%.   Comparison: The standby design gives higher availability compared to the design of the spare, however, the lifecycle cost of achieving this availability is higher than the spare design by more than 2,375,000$. The optimal number of spares for the spares scenario is 2, fewer spares incur a high penalty due to low availability while adding additional spares (3 or more) gives negligible availability improvement.   Conclusion: In this paper, we discussed the similarities and differences between using standby units and having spare units. This is an example of the connection that exists between redundancy design which is usually the job of the reliability engineer, and maintenance policy which is classically set by the maintenance engineer. The examples above demonstrate the need for both reliability and maintenance to be considered as early as the asset design stage. New design tools such as BQR’s CARE ®  and apmOptimizer®  software suites can greatly assist in such a process.

Introduction to Thermal Analysis in Electronic System Design Thermal analysis is a crucial aspect of designing reliable electronic systems, especially for high-power devices. Effective heat removal mechanisms, such as PCB substrates, heat sinks, and fans, are essential to maintain performance and prevent failure. This analysis is typically performed by mechanical engineers or specialized third-party companies that simulate heat and airflow. Accurate thermal analysis requires detailed information about component placement on the PCB, actual power dissipation, and the materials and geometry of the PCB. The Importance of Accurate Power Ratings Traditionally, thermal analysts conduct calculations using the absolute maximum power ratings from component datasheets. However, the actual power consumed is often significantly lower than these maximum ratings. This discrepancy can lead to the overdesign of heat removal mechanisms, resulting in unnecessary costs and inefficiencies. BQR Solutions for Component Stress Analysis BQR offers advanced software and professional services for component stress analysis through circuit stress simulation. Our solutions empower engineers to achieve precise calculations and documentation of actual stress values (power, current, and voltage) in electronic components. Key Features of BQR's Software Semi-Automatic Assignments:  Stresses can be easily assigned to components using the BQR E-CAD plug- in on the schematic. Automated Stress Simulation:  Component stress is calculated using our unique CircuitHawk simulator. Benefits of Using BQR for Stress Analysis Early Detection of Design Errors:  Identify and resolve potential issues before layout. Optimal Thermal Design:  Exact stress calculations save space and reduce costs. Improved MTBF Calculations:  Using precise stress data yields higher MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) values. Real-World Examples of Success Example 1: Impact of Accurate Power Dissipation For IC U2a, a junction temperature (Tj) of 137.1°C was calculated based on the absolute maximum power rating of 6.12W. This result led the mechanical engineer to plan for additional cooling, such as adding a fan. However, after using the actual power dissipation data from the CircuitHawk™ simulation (see IC U2 in Fig. 1), Tj was found to be 95°C, indicating that natural cooling was sufficient. Additionally, the failure rate decreased from 6.129 to 0.804 failures per million hours, showing a reduction by a factor of 7.6. Example 2: MTBF Calculations The MTBF of an actual board was calculated using both the Parts Stress Method and the Parts Count Method. The MTBF calculated with actual stress was found to be approximately 1.5 times higher than that calculated using the 50% stress method. Conclusion Utilizing actual power dissipation data significantly reduces the unnecessary use of costly cooling elements and results in a much higher MTBF. BQR's software solutions help engineers optimize thermal design, improve reliability, and reduce costs. Contact us for more information on our services.

At BQR, we are constantly striving to enhance the workflow of safety and reliability engineers conducting safety and MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) analyses. By collaborating closely with our customers, we have identified several time-consuming tasks that can be automated to improve efficiency. Here are our latest software innovations designed to save time in your safety analyses: MTBF Calculation Calculating the failure rate (FIT rate) is essential for identifying the primary causes of product failures and serves as the foundation for FMECA (Failure Mode, Effects, and Criticality Analysis). BQR’s MTBF software simplifies this process by providing key component data with a direct link to datasheets at the click of a button. Once the component parameters are defined, they are saved in a library for easy reuse in future projects. FMEA/FMECA – Functional Analysis To determine the failure rate of a function in an electronic circuit, components must be assigned to each function. This can be time-consuming, especially in circuits with thousands of components. BQR’s FMEA/FMECA software offers a streamlined approach, allowing users to quickly select components on the schematic and assign them to their respective functions. FMECA – Component Level Analysis During component-level FMECA, component failure modes and ratios can be automatically assigned from established failure mode libraries, significantly speeding up the analysis process. Testability Analysis (BIT Plan) For mission-critical systems, designing Built-In Tests (BIT) requires ensuring that major failure modes are detected and that effective failure isolation is provided. BQR’s software facilitates quick assignment of tests to failure modes (based on FMECA), identifies critical functions that lack testing, and calculates detection and isolation effectiveness. Schematic Review (Design Rule Check) While schematic review is not traditionally linked to safety, it plays a critical role in identifying and eliminating design errors that may pose safety risks. BQR provides patented software for advanced schematic review, allowing users to detect design errors related to safety and reliability, as well as deviations from best practices. Conclusion BQR’s software solutions streamline the safety analysis process, centralizing all safety-related data and significantly reducing the time required for analyses. By implementing these innovative features, engineers can enhance their product designs while ensuring compliance with safety standards.

Introduction Data centers are complex facilities that require a unique combination of advanced servers, robust IT infrastructure, and efficient cooling systems. In an industry where competition is fierce, companies strive to deliver high service level agreements (SLAs) with minimal downtime while keeping costs low. BQR is positioned as a leader in this market, offering patented software and professional services that enhance various aspects of data center design, from individual server components to the facility as a whole. Key Areas of Focus 1. Server Design Leading companies in the data center industry often manufacture their own servers to achieve optimal return on investment (ROI). However, the server design process presents significant challenges: Minimizing Design Time:  To stay competitive, companies must reduce design time. Design errors can lead to costly delays and multiple design cycles. Scaling Production Risks:  A single data center can house over 100,000 servers. If a design flaw goes undetected, it can result in large-scale production issues, including costly recalls and damage to the company’s reputation. BQR provides innovative, patent-based software that detects a wide range of design errors and hidden issues. Our circuit simulation for stress analysis identifies stress-related design problems, ultimately reducing design cycles and enhancing server reliability. 2. Redundancy Analysis High availability in critical infrastructure often hinges on the incorporation of redundancies. These redundancies may involve power supply sources, cooling systems, network switches, servers, and RAID configurations. The TIA-942 standard outlines the necessary redundancies for various data center tiers. Designing with redundancies ensures fail-safe operations and high service availability, protecting against both natural and human-made disruptions. BQR’s Reliability Block Diagram (RBD) software enables users to allocate subsystem availability during the early stages of data center design and assess availability during later stages. This capability allows for effective comparisons between system designs, ensuring compliance with SLA requirements. 3. Maintainability Analysis and Optimization The annual maintenance costs for best-practice data centers can approach 3% of their replacement asset value (RAV). For a $1 billion data center, this translates to a direct maintenance cost of around $30 million annually. In some cases, direct maintenance costs can soar to $80 million. While it may seem straightforward to cut maintenance costs by reducing activities and spare part inventories, such actions can lead to severe financial losses due to service downtimes. An optimization process is crucial to balance performance and maintenance, achieving key performance indicators (KPIs) effectively. BQR’s software offers a unique blend of technical and financial modeling to optimize: Spare parts management Inspection and preventive maintenance schedules Data center life-cycle costs Conclusion Improving data center design is a multifaceted challenge that requires careful consideration of server design, redundancy, and maintainability. BQR’s patented solutions and expert services are designed to help organizations navigate these challenges effectively, enhancing both operational efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Let’s Talk About Your Needs If you're interested in optimizing your data center design or have specific project needs, feel free to reach out. BQR is here to help you achieve your goals in reliability, availability, maintainability, and safety analysis.

MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) is an important parameter for various analyses: Reliability / Availability Analysis  – Probability of mission failure or system downtime Safety  – Occurrence probability of a safety event Spare Parts Provisioning  – Required spare parts to ensure system availability Warranty  – Probability of failure before warranty expires The mean number of failures is used for these analyses. Tenders for utilities, defense, aerospace, rail, and telecom systems often include an MTBF requirement that designers must meet. Initially, the designer allocates failure rates to subsystem assemblies. When a detailed design is available, a more accurate MTBF calculation must be conducted to verify compliance with the requirement. Finally, during field testing, an MTBF demonstration takes place by accumulating field failure data. How MTBF is Calculated If you have field failure data, divide the total operation hours by the total number of failures to obtain the field MTBF. You can also calculate field MTBF to specific confidence levels. Note:  This MTBF is only valid under similar operating conditions. If you do not have field data, MTBF prediction methods must be used. MTBF is usually calculated from the bottom to the top of a product/system breakdown tree. The calculation steps are as follows: Calculate the MTBF of “end items” at the bottom of the breakdown tree. Use the lower-level MTBF to calculate the MTBF at the next higher level. Repeat the process until the entire tree is calculated. “End item” MTBF can be obtained from various sources: Statistical analysis of field failure data Standard prediction methods (MIL HDBK 217, Telcordia 3, SN29500, FIDES, etc.) OEM datasheets Failure databases such as NPRD and OREDA Note:  The equipment MTBF value represents the expected rate of failure under specific operating profiles and environmental conditions. Conversion factors may be required to adapt the MTBF value for different conditions. Prediction methods typically provide “end item” MTBF according to the following formula: MTBF = 1 / (λ₀ · ΠS · ΠD · ΠE · ΠT) Parameter Meaning λ₀ Item base failure rate ΠS Stress factor (e.g., ratio of actual power applied to a resistor vs. rated power) ΠD Duty Cycle ΠE Environment factor (e.g., ground, mobile, naval, airborne, space) ΠT Temperature factor, usually in the form of an Arrhenius equation accounting for activation energy Additional Π factors in prediction methods account for manufacturing and screening quality, electronic component packaging, humidity, and more. Higher-level MTBF is calculated as a function of the lower-level item’s MTBF: MTBF_parent = 1 / ∑ᵢ(1 / MTBFᵢ) Where MTBFᵢ is the MTBF of the i-th direct child. This equation accounts for the failure of any child item, which is beneficial for: Worst-case assumptions Serial reliability models Maintenance calculations If you wish to account for redundancies, you need to calculate MTBCF (Mean Time Between Critical Failures). A Reliability Block Diagram (RBD) can be used for MTBCF analysis. Example of MTBF Calculation Specific base failure rates and factors are defined in prediction standards. There are two methods for calculating MTBF of electronic products according to MIL HDBK 217 F2: Parts Count  – Assuming default values of ΠS = ΠT = ΠD = 1 Parts Stress  – Accounting for ΠS, ΠT, and ΠD Parts count can be calculated using BQR’s online application: BQR-Digital. Additionally, parts count can be calculated using BQR’s ECAD Plug-In and fiXtress desktop software. How to Improve MTBF If you calculated MTBF using the parts count method, you might obtain a better MTBF value by using the parts-stress method. While this requires inputting component stresses, actual engineering value can be derived from such analysis. For example, an over-stressed component will exhibit a very low MTBF. By examining a Pareto view of the failure contributors, you can identify over-stressed components. Better yet, conduct a component derating analysis and then utilize the data for MTBF prediction. BQR’s fiXtress Pro provides an easy platform for conducting component derating and MTBF prediction. What are your MTBF calculation needs? Contact us for additional details regarding BQR’s MTBF prediction software and services.

In today’s fast-paced electronics industry, cost efficiency is paramount for success. Synthelyzer™  is a cutting-edge ECAD plugin designed to automate electrical stress analysis, MTBF prediction, and component derating during PCB design. Seamlessly integrating with popular design tools like Altium, OrCAD, and Siemens EDA, Synthelyzer™ empowers engineers to create robust and reliable PCBs while minimizing development costs. Here are five key ways Synthelyzer™ can help you save, supported by insights from a recent case study of a leading electronics manufacturer. 1. Automated Component Derating One of the most significant cost-saving features of Synthelyzer™ is its automated component derating capabilities. In the case study, a prominent electronics manufacturer faced high failure rates due to overstressed components in their multi-board systems. By using Synthelyzer™ for detailed derating analysis, engineers identified and mitigated these issues early in the design phase, resulting in a 30% reduction in field failures . 2. Identifying Cost-Effective Alternatives Synthelyzer™ doesn’t just flag overstressed components; it also provides insights into cost-effective alternatives that meet performance requirements. The tool generates a comprehensive Bill of Materials (BOM) that includes operational stresses, enabling engineers to identify high-quality replacements. This capability allows manufacturers to significantly reduce material costs, ultimately saving over $1 million in warranty claims . 3. Enhanced Design Efficiency With advanced AI technology, Synthelyzer™ automates circuit stress calculations and thermal resistance data. This integration enables thorough analyses and streamlines the design process. In the case study, the predicted Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF)  for redesigned systems improved from 35,000 hours to 50,000 hours . By reducing time spent on each project, your team can maximize productivity and profitability. 4. Minimizing PCB Weight and Size Synthelyzer™ allows designers to optimize component selection early in the design phase, enhancing PCB weight and space efficiency. By identifying components that occupy unnecessary space, manufacturers can create more compact designs, reducing material costs and improving performance in weight-sensitive applications. 5. Improved Reliability and Reduced Failures The plugin’s comprehensive analysis capabilities ensure robust product designs by pinpointing potential failure points. Early reliability assessments using Synthelyzer™ significantly improve MTBF predictions and prevent costly failures. By addressing these issues during development, manufacturers can avoid recalls and warranty claims, enhancing customer satisfaction and achieving long-term savings. Conclusion In an industry where every penny counts, Synthelyzer™ is a powerful ally in achieving cost efficiency. By automating processes, identifying alternatives, enhancing design efficiency, minimizing size and weight, and improving reliability, this innovative plugin streamlines PCB design and significantly reduces development costs. Embrace the future of electronic design with Synthelyzer™ and watch your savings grow! Contact us to learn more.

In the competitive landscape of electronics design, efficiency and reliability are paramount. The Synthelyzer™ ECAD Plugin is a powerful tool that automates electrical stress analysis, MTBF prediction, and component derating during board design. By seamlessly integrating with leading ECAD software like Altium, OrCAD, and Siemens EDA, Synthelyzer™ empowers engineers to optimize their designs. It evaluates component performance, utilizing real-time data to enhance reliability through detailed analyses of electrical stress and component footprints. With features like automated calculations that incorporate thermal simulation data and the ability to generate accurate Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) reports, Synthelyzer™ provides actionable insights that streamline the design process and reduce costs. Here are five key ways Synthelyzer™ can help you cut costs in your PCB design projects. 1. Optimized Component Selection for Cost Savings The Synthelyzer™ ECAD Plugin  provides in-depth analyses of electrical stress and component derating, empowering engineers to make informed decisions during the component selection  process. By ensuring that chosen components meet optimal specifications without overspending, Synthelyzer™ minimizes the risk of using unnecessary or overpriced parts, resulting in direct cost savings. Early component analysis aligns with the Shift Left methodology, allowing issues to be addressed before they escalate. 2. Identify and Replace Over-Designed Components Selecting over-engineered components can lead to inflated costs. The Synthelyzer™ ECAD Plugin  effectively identifies these over-designed components, providing insights for substituting them with more cost-effective alternatives. This proactive approach not only reduces component costs  but also maintains the integrity and reliability of the final product. By adopting Shift Left principles, engineers can catch potential design flaws early, ensuring a more streamlined development process. 3. Reduce Prototyping Costs with Proactive Analysis Prototyping is one of the most expensive phases in PCB design  due to material and labor costs. A notable case study with a leading electronics manufacturer illustrates the effectiveness of Synthelyzer™ in this area. The manufacturer faced challenges ensuring reliability in their multi-board systems amid rising customer demands for longer product lifespans. By adopting the Synthelyzer™ ECAD Plugin  for detailed single-board assessments alongside fiXtress® for system-level analysis, the team generated a comprehensive Bill of Materials (BOM) that included operational stresses. This proactive approach, in line with the Shift Left methodology, allowed for thorough derating analyses, identifying overstressed components and implementing design modifications before production. Consequently, this significantly reduced the need for multiple prototypes, leading to substantial cost savings. 4. Improve Design Efficiency for Faster Time-to-Market Time efficiency directly translates into cost savings. The Synthelyzer™ ECAD Plugin  automates essential processes such as component derating  and Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA), accelerating the design cycle. The integration of Synthelyzer™ and fiXtress® streamlined the design process for the aforementioned manufacturer, achieving a 15% reduction in time-to-market. This efficiency aligns with the Shift Left approach, allowing engineers to identify and resolve issues early, which enhances project outcomes. 5. Enhance Reliability to Minimize Warranty Claims Investing in reliability is key to reducing long-term costs. The case study also highlighted that the combined use of Synthelyzer™ and fiXtress® led to a 40% increase in predicted Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) , raising it from 35,000 hours to 50,000 hours. This proactive identification of potential failure points, facilitated by early analysis in line with the Shift Left methodology, resulted in a 30% reduction in field failures within six months. By minimizing warranty claims, the manufacturer achieved annual savings of over $1 million, demonstrating how early analyses safeguard both quality and costs. Conclusion: Unlock Cost Savings with Synthelyzer™ ECAD Plugin In an increasingly competitive landscape, the Synthelyzer™ ECAD Plugin  provides a strategic advantage for PCB designers. By optimizing component selection, improving design efficiency, and enhancing reliability, Synthelyzer™ enables significant cost reductions without compromising quality. The case study serves as a testament to the transformative impact of advanced software solutions on MTBF prediction and product reliability, particularly when adopting the Shift Left methodology. For engineers looking to elevate their design workflow and achieve substantial savings, the Synthelyzer™ ECAD Plugin  is an essential tool. Explore how Synthelyzer™ can transform your PCB design process and drive efficiency in your projects.

In today's fast-paced electronics industry, ensuring product reliability while maintaining efficiency is more critical than ever. With increasing demands for higher performance and safety, design engineers are considering innovative strategies like the shift left  approach. This proactive methodology integrates reliability assessments early in the design process, allowing for the identification and resolution of potential issues before they escalate. Leading this charge is BQR’s Synthelyzer™ ECAD Plugin , a revolutionary tool that automates electrical stress analysis, MTBF prediction, and component derating in PCB design. Understanding the Shift Left Approach What Does "Shift Left" Mean? The shift left approach advocates for moving quality assurance and reliability checks earlier in the design cycle. Traditionally, these assessments occur late in the development process, leading to costly redesigns and time delays. By implementing these practices earlier, teams can mitigate risks and enhance overall product quality. Key Advantages of Shifting Left Proactive Problem-Solving : Early identification of design flaws allows engineers to address issues before they become major roadblocks, leading to smoother project execution. Cost Efficiency : Detecting problems early reduces the financial burden of late-stage redesigns and manufacturing delays. Enhanced Collaboration : This approach fosters teamwork across design, reliability, and manufacturing disciplines, aligning everyone on product goals. Higher Quality Products : Integrating reliability assessments into the design process ensures products are better positioned to meet industry standards and customer expectations. Synthelyzer™ ECAD Plugin: Revolutionizing PCB Design What is Synthelyzer™? Synthelyzer™ ECAD Plugin  is an advanced tool that seamlessly integrates with popular electronic design automation software such as Altium, OrCAD, and Siemens EDA. It empowers engineers to automate critical processes like electrical stress analysis and MTBF prediction, ensuring designs are robust and reliable. Core Features of Synthelyzer™ Automated Electrical Stress Analysis : Performs detailed analysis of electrical stress derating for components using cutting-edge AI technology for efficiency and accuracy. Advanced MTBF Prediction : Utilizes standards like Telcordia 3 and Mil-217-F2 to predict MTBF based on real electrical and thermal stress data, improving maintenance forecasting. Seamless ECAD Integration : Integrates with leading ECAD tools to streamline workflows and eliminate manual data entry errors. Automated Circuit Stress Calculators : Accelerates design processes by providing quick assessments of potential overstress issues. Thermal Simulation Data Utilization : Enhances derating accuracy by incorporating thermal resistance data and stress metrics from 3D simulations. EOS Violation Identification : Employs Pareto analysis to detect Electrical OverStress (EOS) violations, offering detailed reports and actionable recommendations. Automated FMEA Analysis : Assigns failure modes and assesses PCB-level impacts through automated Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA). AI-Driven Components Library : Features an AI-enhanced library for automatic parameter filling, streamlining the component selection process. Comprehensive RAMS Integration : Automatically integrates reliability data across all RAMS analyses, ensuring a holistic evaluation of electronic systems. Real-Time Traceability : Maintains traceability by linking analyses directly to the latest schematic version, facilitating verification and validation. Benefits of Using Synthelyzer™ Time Savings : Automates manual component derating, significantly accelerating design cycles. Error Reduction : Minimizes the risk of human error, enhancing overall product reliability. Improved MTBF Outcomes : Generates MTBF reports based on real stress data for better predictions and maintenance strategies. Enhanced Product Robustness : Identifies overstressed components and provides actionable recommendations, leading to more reliable products. Centralized Design Data : Serves as a reliable repository for design data, ensuring clarity and consistency across analyses. Comprehensive Analysis : Specializes in PCB-level analysis, allowing for thorough evaluations of individual components. The Importance of Reliability Engineering in PCB Design Why Focus on Reliability Engineering? Reliability engineering is crucial in ensuring that electronic products perform their intended functions over time without failure. It involves assessing various thermal, mechanical, and electrical stress factors that components may encounter during their operational life. Implementing Reliability Engineering in Design Component Selection : Proper component selection is vital for reliability, with Synthelyzer™ aiding engineers by automating derating analysis. Design for Manufacturability (DFM) : Early integration of DFM principles through Synthelyzer™ creates designs that are not only reliable but also easy to manufacture. Continuous Feedback Loop : Utilizing Synthelyzer™ ensures that reliability insights inform future designs, contributing to ongoing quality improvements. Conclusion The shift left approach in PCB design marks a significant evolution in integrating reliability into electronic systems. By adopting this proactive strategy, engineers can enhance product quality, streamline development processes, and ultimately deliver superior designs. BQR’s Synthelyzer™ ECAD Plugin  stands out as a transformative tool that automates critical reliability assessments, making it an indispensable asset for modern electronics design. Incorporating Synthelyzer™ into your design workflow accelerates the development process and enhances your products' reliability. As the demand for higher quality and quicker turnaround times continues to rise in the electronics industry, leveraging innovative solutions like Synthelyzer™ will be essential for maintaining a competitive edge. For more information on how Synthelyzer™ can elevate your PCB design processes, visit BQR’s website and request a demo today. Embrace the future of reliable electronic design—shift left with Synthelyzer™. Connect with us to learn more.