Envelope probability and EFAST-based sensitivity analysis method for electronic prognostic uncertainty quantification

Abstract The primary phase of electronic prognostic uncertainty quantification included the identification and quantification of uncertainty sources through utilizing sensitivity analysis method. An improved EFAST-based sensitivity analysis method that considered the possibility of parameter fluctuation was used to identify the key factors (KFS) of uncertainty sources. Also, an envelope probability method was adopted to further quantify the key factors of parameter distribution. Finally, a board-level electronic product was chosen as the study case of this paper. Comparing the result of uncertainty quantification, sensitivity analysis was used to drive the result of the single-dimensional method. It was obvious that the sensitivity analysis method used in this paper has optimized the input parameters of the model and improved the accuracy of electronic prognostic uncertainty quantification.

[1]  A. Doucet,et al.  Sequential Monte Carlo methods for multitarget filtering with random finite sets , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems.

[2]  A. Saltelli,et al.  A quantitative model-independent method for global sensitivity analysis of model output , 1999 .

[3]  Sankaran Mahadevan,et al.  Bayesian methodology for diagnosis uncertainty quantification and health monitoring , 2013 .

[4]  Jay D. Johnson,et al.  A sampling-based computational strategy for the representation of epistemic uncertainty in model predictions with evidence theory , 2007 .

[5]  A. McLean,et al.  Resource competition as a mechanism for B cell homeostasis. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[6]  A. Bardow,et al.  Sensitivity coefficient-based uncertainty analysis for multi-functionality in LCA , 2014, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[7]  F. O. Hoffman,et al.  An introductory guide to uncertainty analysis in environmental and health risk assessment , 1992 .

[8]  P. Lall,et al.  Prognostics and Health Management of Electronic Packaging , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Components and Packaging Technologies.

[9]  Vadim Gektin,et al.  Coffin-Manson based fatigue analysis of underfilled DCAs , 1998, IEEE Transactions on Components, Packaging, and Manufacturing Technology: Part A.

[10]  David L. McDowell,et al.  Thermal stress and fatigue analysis of plated-through holes using an internal state variable constitutive model , 1998 .

[11]  H. Rabitz,et al.  High Dimensional Model Representations , 2001 .

[12]  G. S. Cargill,et al.  Electromigration-induced stress in aluminum conductor lines measured by x-ray microdiffraction , 1998 .

[13]  Arika Ligmann-Zielinska,et al.  Spatially-explicit sensitivity analysis of an agent-based model of land use change , 2013, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[14]  Rui Kang,et al.  Benefits and Challenges of System Prognostics , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Reliability.

[15]  Scott Ferson,et al.  Sensitivity analysis using probability bounding , 2006, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[16]  Peter Steen Mikkelsen,et al.  Application of global sensitivity analysis and uncertainty quantification in dynamic modelling of micropollutants in stormwater runoff , 2012, Environ. Model. Softw..

[17]  Nilay Shah,et al.  The identification of model effective dimensions using global sensitivity analysis , 2011, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..