Satellite task-oriented aerospace COTS device total element reliability quantitative evaluation system

Abstract

The invention relates to the technical field of aerospace COTS device evaluation systems, and discloses a satellite task-oriented aerospace COTS device total factor reliability quantitative evaluation system. The evaluation system mainly comprises a product maturity evaluation module, a manufacturer quality control evaluation module, a third-party evaluation result evaluation module, a product identification / identification evaluation module, a structure analysis evaluation module, a device anti-radiation capability evaluation module and a poor quality record evaluation module. The aerospace applicability and reliability of the COTS device are quantitatively evaluated through the seven modules. Through seven-module total factor evaluation, the limitation of traditional single test data is broken through, multi-dimensional information such as production quality, in-orbit recording and radiation resistance is integrated, the full life cycle performance of the device is comprehensively covered, the accuracy and comprehensiveness of an evaluation result are greatly improved, and more scientific guarantee is provided for the reliability of a satellite task.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of aerospace COTS device evaluation systems, and more particularly to a comprehensive reliability quantitative evaluation system for aerospace COTS devices for satellite missions. Background Technology

[0002] The concept of COTS (Commercial-Off-the-Shelf) was proposed by major military powers in Europe and America in the 1980s. COTS technology extends the application of devices with excellent electrical performance, are manufactured using advanced technologies and processes, and offer powerful functionality, exhibiting significant performance advantages over similar devices in the aerospace field, especially in low-cost satellite missions. In low-cost satellite missions, COTS devices are widely used due to their affordability, but their reliability directly affects whether the satellite can function properly in space.

[0003] Currently, the main method for evaluating the reliability of these COTS devices is to look at laboratory test data, such as third-party testing reports, structural analysis results, destructive physical analysis (DPA) data, and lifetime testing results. However, this method has several problems:

[0004] On the one hand, it relies too much on laboratory tests, which often only reflect the performance of the device under specific experimental conditions and cannot fully reflect the device's performance when it is actually working in space. For example, the stability of long-term use in space and the ability to adapt to the space environment are not taken into account.

[0005] On the other hand, this evaluation method is costly and inefficient. Many tests, such as destructive physics analysis, can damage devices, and experiments like life testing take a long time, which does not match the needs of low-cost satellites that pursue low cost and high efficiency.

[0006] Based on this, we propose a quantitative evaluation system for the full-element reliability of aerospace COTS devices for satellite missions. Summary of the Invention

[0007] To address technical issues such as limited evaluation dimensions and the trade-off between efficiency and cost, this invention provides a comprehensive reliability quantitative evaluation system for aerospace COTS devices for satellite missions.

[0008] This invention is achieved using the following technical solution: a comprehensive reliability quantitative evaluation system for aerospace COTS devices oriented towards satellite missions, comprising seven evaluation modules, the specific settings of each module being as follows:

[0009] 1. Product Maturity Assessment Module

[0010] This module quantifies device maturity based on six key evaluation factors, including:

[0011] The maturity of chip / packaging processes is assessed based on the time to market.

[0012] The technological difficulty of chip / packaging processes, distinguishing between industry-standard mature processes and manufacturer-specific / advanced and highly complex processes;

[0013] The level of automation of the production and testing manufacturers, covering fully automatic or semi-automatic modes of the tape-out, packaging, and testing processes;

[0014] Product failure rate is quantified using the FIT (Fitness Intake) value.

[0015] Product production yield is determined based on the overall yield range.

[0016] Whether it has undergone in-orbit flight verification, including in-orbit flight experience, ground application verification, or ground non-space high-reliability mission onboard verification.

[0017] 2. Manufacturer Quality Control Assessment Module

[0018] This module assesses a manufacturer's quality control capabilities from three dimensions:

[0019] For product grade, priority is given to components manufactured and certified for high-reliability scenarios such as military / automotive, followed by industrial or commercial grade.

[0020] For production process quality control, at least one built-in reliability technology is employed, such as Statistical Process Control (SPC), Process Capability Index (Cpk), Outlier Analysis, and Raw Material Inspection.

[0021] Finished product reliability is monitored through periodic quality monitoring tests (such as quality consistency tests) and the validity of the results.

[0022] 3. Third-party evaluation result assessment module

[0023] This module integrates traditional reliability test data, including:

[0024] The screening pass rate is assessed based on the number of batches, pass rate, and the completeness of the screening items.

[0025] The results of the destructive physical analysis (DPA) were verified through multiple batches of compliance assessments.

[0026] Life test experimental data, covering the verification results of continuous working capability in simulated space environments.

[0027] 4. Product Certification / Evaluation Module

[0028] This module assesses whether the device has completed product certification according to the standards of the electronics, automotive or military industries, with a focus on verifying whether the certification items cover aerospace use scenarios (excluding radiation resistance) and whether the certification conclusions are free of defects.

[0029] 5. Structural Analysis and Evaluation Module

[0030] This module evaluates the comprehensiveness of the device structure analysis and the determination of the results, including whether a structural analysis has been performed, whether the analysis items are comprehensive, and whether the results are determined to be suitable for aerospace, restricted for use, or require further verification.

[0031] 6. Device Radiation Resistance Assessment Module

[0032] This module is based on an assessment of adaptability to high-energy particle environments in space, including:

[0033] The three main elements are total dose (TID) effect, single-event event (SEE), and displacement damage (DD);

[0034] The device's sensitivity to high-energy particles, radiation experimental data, and feasibility assessment of radiation hardening design were combined.

[0035] 7. Quality Defect Record Assessment Module

[0036] This module incorporates ground test results and on-orbit application data of the devices, traces functional failure records caused by batch or design process issues, and directly determines unresolved design problems as disabled.

[0037] As a further optimization of the present invention, the evaluation results of the above seven modules will be quantified into scores, and the system will form a total score by summing the scores of each module. When the total score is >60 points, the device is determined to be suitable for aerospace and recommended for inclusion in the selection catalog; when the total score is ≤60 points, it is determined that supplementary test data is required or that it is prohibited for aerospace use.

[0038] Compared with the prior art, the beneficial effects of the present invention are as follows:

[0039] 1. This invention achieves a comprehensive evaluation across seven modules, overcoming the limitations of traditional single test data. It integrates multi-dimensional information such as production quality, on-orbit records, and radiation resistance, comprehensively covering the device's performance throughout its entire lifecycle. This significantly improves the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the evaluation results, providing a more scientific guarantee for the reliability of satellite missions.

[0040] 2. This invention adopts a quantitative scoring mechanism to convert the evaluation results of multiple modules into intuitive scores. Combined with a 60-point threshold judgment standard, it makes the determination of the aerospace suitability of devices more efficient, significantly improves the selection efficiency, and reduces the reliance on high-cost destructive testing, thereby reducing evaluation costs and meeting the needs of low-cost satellite missions.

[0041] 3. This invention focuses on incorporating space environment adaptability indicators, such as radiation resistance and on-orbit flight experience, to specifically evaluate the stability of devices in environments such as high-energy particles and extreme temperatures in space, effectively reducing the risk of on-orbit failure, making it more suitable for actual satellite mission scenarios, and improving mission success rate. Attached Figure Description

[0042] Figure 1 This is a schematic diagram of the overall system solution of the present invention; Detailed Implementation

[0043] The present invention will now be further described in conjunction with the accompanying drawings and specific embodiments. It should be noted that, without conflict, the various embodiments or technical features described below can be arbitrarily combined to form new embodiments.

[0044] Example 1:

[0045] Please combine Figure 1 This embodiment proposes a comprehensive reliability quantitative evaluation system for aerospace COTS devices for satellite missions. The evaluation system mainly includes:

[0046] The COTS device is quantitatively evaluated for its aerospace suitability and reliability through seven modules: product maturity assessment module, manufacturer quality control assessment module, third-party evaluation result assessment module, product certification / identification assessment module, structural analysis assessment module, device radiation resistance assessment module, and quality defect record assessment module.

[0047] The product maturity assessment module evaluates six key factors: chip / packaging process maturity, chip / packaging process technical difficulty, automation level of the manufacturer in production and testing, product production yield, product failure rate, and whether the device has undergone on-orbit flight evaluation. Detailed assessment scores are shown in the following figure:

[0048]

[0049] In the product maturity assessment module, the process maturity of chip / packaging technology is scored as follows: 3-4 points for technology on the market for ≥10 years, 2 points for technology on the market for 3-10 years, and 1 point for technology on the market for <3 years; the technological difficulty of chip / packaging technology is scored as follows: 3-4 points for industry-standard, relatively mature, and low-difficulty processes, and 1-2 points for manufacturer-specific or advanced processes with high difficulty; the degree of automation of production and testing is scored as follows: (tape-out, packaging, testing) Fully automated processes earn 3 points; semi-automated processes (chip fabrication, packaging, testing) earn 1-2 points. Product failure rate is scored as follows: FIT≤10 earns 3 points; FIT>10 earns 1-2 points. Product production yield is scored as follows: total yield ≥90% earns 2 points; 80≤total yield<90% or unknown earns 1 point. Whether it has undergone on-orbit flight verification is scored as follows: having undergone on-orbit flight verification earns 3-4 points; passing ground application verification tests or undergoing ground non-space high-reliability mission verification earns 1-2 points.

[0050] The manufacturer quality control assessment module includes three major evaluation elements: product grade assessment unit, production process quality control, and finished product reliability monitoring. The product grade element in the manufacturer quality control assessment module meets the following requirements: priority is given to the selection of components for high-reliability applications such as military use, followed by industrial-grade components, and finally commercial-grade components.

[0051] The production process quality control elements in the manufacturer's quality control assessment module include: monitoring the production process using at least one built-in reliability technology among Statistical Process Control (SPC), a method for monitoring and controlling the production process by collecting and analyzing data, the process capability index (Cpk), outlier analysis, and raw material inspection. The presence or absence of quality monitoring and testing in the finished product assesses the manufacturer's control over the reliability of the finished product. Detailed assessment scores are shown in the following figure:

[0052]

[0053] The evaluation is conducted across two main areas: the measures and effectiveness of production process and finished product quality monitoring. These two areas primarily focus on the reliability analysis of quality during the research and development and production stages, which can significantly reduce the cost of defective products and effectively increase the company's short-term "direct" profits.

[0054] In the manufacturer quality control assessment module, product grade is scored as follows: 5-8 points for products manufactured for high-reliability applications such as automotive or military use, having undergone relevant certifications, and being manufactured according to relevant specifications; 1-4 points for general commercial or industrial grade products manufactured according to electronics industry standards. Production process quality control is scored as follows: 4-6 points for adopting effective built-in reliability technologies such as SPC, Cpk, outlier, and raw material inspection; 1-3 points for ineffective process quality control measures, lack of control measures for key processes, or unsatisfactory monitoring results. Finished product reliability monitoring is scored as follows: 4-6 points for conducting periodic quality monitoring tests on finished products with satisfactory results; 1-3 points for not conducting periodic quality monitoring tests or with unsatisfactory results.

[0055] The third-party evaluation module assesses component screening pass rates, Destructive Physical Analysis (DPA) results, and lifetime testing data. The third-party evaluation adopts a traditional reliability assessment model. Component screening pass rates are evaluated based on batch quantity, pass rate, and completeness or absence of screening items. DPA (Destructive Physical Analysis) involves randomly selecting a small number of samples from finished electronic components and using a series of non-destructive and destructive methods to verify whether the component's design, structure, materials, and manufacturing quality meet the intended use and relevant specifications: whether multiple batches are qualified or not. In addition, lifetime testing data is included in the evaluation scope. This module is used to inspect incoming components, assess the actual pass rate, and control quality before actual application. Detailed evaluation scores are shown in the following figure:

[0056]

[0057] In the third-party testing and evaluation module, the screening pass rate is scored as follows: 5-6 points for a screening pass rate of ≥90% for 3 batches with no functional failure defects; 3-4 points for a screening pass rate of ≥70% for 3 batches or ≥90% for 1-2 batches with no functional failure defects; 2 points for a screening pass rate of ≥70% for 1-2 batches with no functional failure defects; 0-1 points for no screening, missing screening items, or early failure. The DPA destructive physical analysis results are scored as follows: 4-5 points for multiple batches of qualified tests; 1-3 points for one batch of unqualified tests or only one qualified test. The life test experimental data are scored as follows: 3-4 points for life tests conducted and with qualified results; 1-2 points for no life tests conducted or life test parameters exceeding tolerance.

[0058] The Product Certification / Qualification Assessment module evaluates whether a device has undergone product qualification according to electronics, automotive, or military industry standards, and whether the qualification items cover aerospace applications and are defect-free. Based on product certification / qualification, the device evaluation module primarily assesses whether the device has undergone product qualification according to electronics, automotive, or military industry standards, whether the qualification items cover aerospace applications, and whether any defects exist in the qualification items. The industry standards in the Product Certification / Qualification Assessment module include reliability standards for the electronics industry, stringent environmental adaptability standards for the automotive industry, and high reliability requirements standards for the military industry.

[0059] The device evaluation is based on product certification / qualification. The main evaluation content includes whether the device has undergone product qualification according to electronic, automotive, or military industry standards, with qualification items covering aerospace applications, and whether any defects exist in the qualification items. Detailed evaluation scores are shown in the following figure:

[0060]

[0061] In the Product Certification / Assessment Module, products that have undergone assessment according to electronic, automotive, or military industry standards, with assessment items covering aerospace usage scenarios (excluding radiation resistance) and a satisfactory assessment conclusion, will receive 10-15 points; products that have not undergone assessment or have missing assessment items will receive 5-9 points; and assessment results that are defective will receive 1-4 points.

[0062] The structural analysis and evaluation module is used to evaluate whether a device has undergone structural analysis, the comprehensiveness of the analysis project, and the results of the analysis in determining whether the device is suitable for aerospace use, restricted, or prohibited.

[0063] To assess the reliability of a device, traditional methods were employed, considering factors such as whether structural analysis had been performed, the comprehensiveness of the project, and whether the analysis indicated suitability, restriction, or prohibition for aerospace applications. Detailed evaluation scores are shown in the following figure:

[0064]

[0065] The structural analysis and evaluation module is scored as follows: 15 points are awarded for structural analysis that has been performed, is comprehensive, and results indicate that the technology is usable in aerospace applications; 6-10 points are awarded for structural analysis that has been performed, but results indicate that the technology is restricted or requires further verification.

[0066] The device radiation resistance assessment module is used to evaluate the device based on three major factors: total dose (TID) effect, single-event effect (SEE), and DD displacement damage, combined with the device's sensitivity to high-energy particle environments in space, radiation experimental data, and the feasibility of radiation hardening design. The reliability focus of the device radiation resistance assessment module is the ability to maintain the qualified level, and the key point of the device radiation resistance module is to conduct reliability assessment of the device in the service stage.

[0067] The device radiation resistance assessment module reflects the device's stability under operating conditions and environmental stress, its sensitivity to high-energy particles under high pressure in space, and assesses whether the device will affect the specified space mission based on radiation experimental data. It also evaluates the feasibility of radiation hardening design for radiation-sensitive components. Assessment elements include total dose (TID) effect, single-event event (SEE), and direct displacement damage (DD). Detailed assessment scores are shown in the following figure:

[0068]

[0069] The device radiation resistance assessment module is scored as follows: 13-15 points for radiation insensitivity or acceptable radiation resistance; 8-12 points for radiation resistance that does not meet the requirements but can meet the usage requirements after system hardening design; 1-4 points for radiation resistance that does not meet the requirements and cannot be hardened design; and 5-7 points for unknown radiation resistance data.

[0070] The quality defect record evaluation module is used to incorporate defect records from ground test results and on-orbit application data of devices. Devices that experience functional failures attributable to batch or design process quality issues are penalized, and unresolved design problems are deemed disabled.

[0071] In summary, based on the quantitative results of the evaluation system, a COTS device is considered qualified when its total score across the seven modules is greater than 60 points. Specifically, the core qualification conditions for each module must be met, as follows:

[0072] Product maturity assessment module: mature chip / packaging process (long time to market), low process difficulty, high degree of automation in production and testing, low failure rate (FIT≤10), high production yield (≥90%), and priority should be given to those with on-orbit flight verification experience.

[0073] Manufacturer Quality Control Assessment Module: The product grade is automotive / military grade and has passed relevant certifications. The production process adopts effective quality control technologies such as SPC and Cpk. The finished product undergoes periodic quality monitoring and the results are satisfactory.

[0074] Third-party evaluation results assessment module: high screening pass rate (3 batches ≥90% and no functional failures), multiple batches passed DPA destructive physical analysis, and life test results met the requirements.

[0075] Product certification / evaluation module: Certification is completed according to the standards of the electronics, automotive or military industries, the evaluation items cover aerospace use scenarios (except for radiation resistance) and the conclusion is qualified.

[0076] Structural Analysis and Evaluation Module: Completes a comprehensive structural analysis, and the results indicate that the structure is suitable for aerospace applications.

[0077] Device radiation resistance assessment module: radiation insensitive or radiation resistance acceptable, or although it does not meet the requirements, it can meet the needs of aerospace missions after hardening design.

[0078] Quality Defect Record Assessment Module: No records of functional failures caused by batch or design / process issues, or the existing problems have been resolved.

[0079] Devices that meet the above conditions and score more than 60 points in total are deemed suitable for aerospace applications and can be recommended for inclusion in the low-cost satellite COTS device selection catalog.

[0080] For devices exhibiting poor performance and user feedback across the six major categories listed above, ground test results and on-orbit application data will be included in the evaluation system. Devices that have experienced functional failures during testing or use, and whose analysis concludes to be batch-specific or design / process quality issues, will be penalized based on the severity of the failure. Unresolved design problems should result in the device being disabled.

[0081] The above embodiments are merely preferred embodiments of the present invention and should not be construed as limiting the scope of protection of the present invention. Any non-substantial changes and substitutions made by those skilled in the art based on the present invention shall fall within the scope of protection claimed by the present invention.

Claims

1. A comprehensive reliability quantitative evaluation system for aerospace COTS devices for satellite missions, characterized in that, The evaluation system mainly includes: The COTS device is quantitatively evaluated for its aerospace suitability and reliability through seven modules: product maturity assessment module, manufacturer quality control assessment module, third-party evaluation result assessment module, product certification / identification assessment module, structural analysis assessment module, device radiation resistance assessment module, and quality defect record assessment module. The product maturity assessment module includes six evaluation factors: process maturity of chip / packaging process, process technology difficulty of chip / packaging process, degree of automation of the manufacturer in production and testing, product production yield, product failure rate, and whether the device has undergone on-orbit flight experience assessment. The manufacturer quality control assessment module includes three major evaluation elements: product grade assessment unit, production process quality control, and finished product reliability monitoring. The third-party evaluation result assessment module is used to evaluate based on the component screening pass rate, DPA destructive physical analysis results, and life test experimental data. The product identification / evaluation module is used to evaluate whether the device has been evaluated in accordance with electronic, automotive or military industry standards, and whether the evaluation items cover aerospace use scenarios and are defect-free. The structural analysis and evaluation module is used to evaluate whether the device has undergone structural analysis, the comprehensiveness of the analysis project, and the result of the analysis determining whether the device is suitable for aerospace use, restricted use, or prohibited. The device radiation resistance assessment module is used to evaluate the device based on three major factors: total dose (TID) effect, single-event effect (SEE), and DD displacement damage, combined with the device's sensitivity to high-energy particle environment in space, radiation experimental data, and the feasibility of radiation hardening design. The defect record evaluation module is used to incorporate defect records from ground test results and on-orbit application data of devices. Devices that have functional failures attributable to batch or design process quality issues will have points deducted, and unresolved design problems will be deemed disabled.

2. The comprehensive reliability quantitative evaluation system for aerospace COTS devices for satellite missions as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The product grade elements in the manufacturer quality control assessment module meet the following criteria: priority is given to components used in high-reliability scenarios such as military applications, followed by industrial-grade components, and finally commercial-grade components.

3. The comprehensive reliability quantitative evaluation system for aerospace COTS devices for satellite missions as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The production process quality control elements in the manufacturer quality control assessment module include: monitoring the production process using at least one built-in reliability technology among statistical process control (SPC), process capability index (Cpk), outlier analysis of abnormal data, and raw material inspection.

4. The comprehensive reliability quantitative evaluation system for aerospace COTS devices for satellite missions as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The screening pass rate elements in the third-party evaluation result assessment module include the assessment of batch quantity, pass rate, and the completeness of screening items; the DPA destructive physical analysis results include the assessment of whether multiple batches of devices are qualified.

5. The comprehensive reliability quantitative evaluation system for aerospace COTS devices for satellite missions as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The device evaluation module based on product certification / identification mainly evaluates whether the device has undergone product identification in accordance with electronic, automotive or military industry standards, with identification items covering aerospace use scenarios, and whether the identification items have defects.

6. The comprehensive reliability quantitative evaluation system for aerospace COTS devices for satellite missions as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The reliability focus of the device radiation resistance assessment module is the ability to maintain the qualified level, and the key point of the device radiation resistance module is to conduct reliability assessment of the device during the use stage.

7. The comprehensive reliability quantitative evaluation system for aerospace COTS devices for satellite missions as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The radiation resistance assessment module reflects the stability of the device under working conditions and environmental stress, its sensitivity to high-energy particles under high pressure in space, and assesses whether the device will affect the prescribed space mission by referring to the device radiation experimental data. It also assesses the feasibility of radiation hardening design for radiation-sensitive components. The assessment elements include total dose (TID) effect, single-event event (SEE), and DD displacement damage.

8. The comprehensive reliability quantitative evaluation system for aerospace COTS devices for satellite missions as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The product identification / evaluation module includes industry standards such as reliability standards for the electronics industry, harsh environmental adaptability standards for the automotive industry, and high reliability requirements standards for the military industry.

Images