Quality assurance and quality control to ensure durability

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. C. Roy ◽  
Tanmoy Guha ◽  
R. Ekambaram
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Service Life ◽  
Performance Standards ◽  
Full Compliance ◽  
Design Build ◽  
Adequate Quality ◽  
Structural Failures ◽  
High Level ◽  
Fundamental Requirement

<p>High level of quality during design, design-build and construction stages is a fundamental requirement to ensure that structure serves its intended purpose. Establishment of a quality assurance manual is prime necessity. Lack of quality control during design, review and approving design drawings are major reasons for structural failures. Designers and design checkers need to work in tandem to ensure more adequate Quality Assurance &amp; Control (QA/QC).</p><p>In structural design Durability is a key parameter and becomes critical for service life of 100/120 years. In design build and construction stages controlling work quality is important to maintain performance standards. Tailor made quality plan for Design-build Contract is essential. Quality procedures, inspection and testing needs implementation in practice to verify full compliance and prevent occurrence of faults and defects towards durability and service life. This paper deals with Quality with special emphasis on durability in design and construction through case studies of design build contracts.</p>

LADA Synchronization for Symmetric and Asymmetric ATE Test Program Cycles

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arun Kumar Karunanithi ◽  
Joseph Caroselli ◽  
Jason Christensen ◽  
Michell Espitia
Keyword(s):  
Cycle Time ◽  
Dwell Time ◽  
Turnaround Time ◽  
Test Program ◽  
Area Of Interest ◽  
Marginal State ◽  
Structural Failures ◽  
Major Factors ◽  
High Level ◽  
Program Cycle

Abstract Laser Assisted Device Alteration (LADA) or Soft Defect Localization (SDL) is commonly used to root cause device marginality due to functional or structural failures. At a high level, LADA involves setting the device under test (DUT) at its marginal state and using focused near infra-red laser beams to perturb sensitive circuitry [1]. Scanning the focused laser beam over the die can be a long and time-consuming process. In this paper, two LADA cases are presented, which involve a parametric measurement failure while running a dynamic ATE test. Using LADA technique, these two cases were root caused. These two cases also explain how a parametric measurement-based LADA can be setup on ATE, as well as a synchronization method independent of vectors in a pattern. Synchronization was necessitated in the 2nd case due to the asymmetric test program loop, as well as the long test program cycle time. There are many factors which impact LADA turnaround time and it can take anywhere between few seconds to one day. The two major factors are the size of the Area of Interest (AOI) and test program cycle time. Test program cycle time influences the laser “dwell time” for LADA. Dwell time, in simple terms, is the total time the laser is parked at each pixel. The laser can also be synchronized with the test program cycle, keeping the two always in phase. This is explained in Case 2, where LADA synchronization was implemented, and the analysis was successfully completed in time, even though the test cycle time was very long.

Benchmarking PRAISE-CANDU 1.0 With xLPR 1.0

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Min Wang ◽  
Xinjian Duan ◽  
Michael J. Kozluk
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Fracture Mechanics ◽  
Software Quality ◽  
Verification And Validation ◽  
Quality Assurance Program ◽  
Software Quality Assurance ◽  
Full Compliance ◽  
Low Probability ◽  
State Of Art

A probabilistic fracture mechanics code, PRAISE-CANDU 1.0, has been developed under a software quality assurance program in full compliance with CSA N286.7-99, and was initially released in 2012 June. Extensive verification and validation has been performed on PRAISE-CANDU 1.0 for the purpose of software quality assurance. This paper presents the benchmarking performed between PRAISE-CANDU 1.0 and xLPR (eXtremely Low Probability of Rupture) version 1.0 using the cases from the xLPR pilot study. The xLPR code was developed in a configuration management and quality assured manner. Both codes adopted a state-of-art code architecture for the treatment of the uncertainties. Inputs to the PRAISE-CANDU were established as close as possible to those used in corresponding xLPR cases. Excellent agreement has been observed among the results obtained from the two PFM codes in spite of some differences between the codes. This benchmarking is considered to be an important element of the validation of PRAISE-CANDU.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document