pchange for resistor discussion in rough
This commit is contained in:
parent
10909863f8
commit
a40d643008
@ -77,19 +77,47 @@ It could be overstressed and burnt out, (by the application of an out of spec cu
|
||||
Resistors typically drift slightly in value with temperature. For some applications this may not be important.
|
||||
The manufacturers data-sheet will describe the temperature drift co-effecients and operating ranges.
|
||||
|
||||
We can represent our resistor then to be in four operational states, $R_s = \{ OK, OPEN, SHORT, T\_DRIFT \}$.
|
||||
\paragraph{discusion on $P\_CHANGE$ as a resistor failure mode.}
|
||||
HERE reference EN298 and RAC.
|
||||
Talk about the differences, why en298 only looks for OPEN in most cases
|
||||
and OPEN AND SHORT in one but not $P\_CHANGE$ .
|
||||
RAC gives $P\_CHANGE$ for single resistors but not for resistor networks.
|
||||
It is interesting to determine why this is.
|
||||
A network of resistors would be less prone to batch
|
||||
problems where a parameter drift would all be in the sam direction (with age perhaps)
|
||||
.
|
||||
But also a network of resistors means a load sharing where resistors will be
|
||||
under less electrical stress.
|
||||
|
||||
This is because components in EN298 must be 60\% under any environemntal electrical or mechanical
|
||||
stress safe rating as given by a manufacturer.
|
||||
Thus a resistor rated for 50V would not be allowed in a ciruit with a 100V rail,
|
||||
even though in normal operation, the resistor would never have more than say 30V applied to it.
|
||||
|
||||
For most safety critical applications components are downrated, and for resistors this means $P\_CHANGE$
|
||||
does not have to be cosidered.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
We can represent our resistor then to be in four operational states, $R_s = \{ OK, OPEN, SHORT, P\_CHANGE \}$.
|
||||
Because we are interested in failure analysis we assume that every component has an OK state
|
||||
but this is not of interest. When every component on a board is in the $OK$ state
|
||||
the sub-system will function correctly.
|
||||
We are interested in failures and how that affects the sub-system, so we
|
||||
can ignore the $OK$ state and represent our resistor thus for the purpose of fault analysis.
|
||||
|
||||
$$R_s = \{ OPEN, SHORT, T\_DRIFT \}$$
|
||||
$$R_s = \{ OPEN, SHORT, P\_CHANGE \}$$
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
This can be represented in a PLD thus
|
||||
IMAGE HERE
|
||||
|
||||
For a resistor in a safety critical regime demanding rigorous downrating, we can model our
|
||||
rsistor with
|
||||
|
||||
IMAGE HERE
|
||||
$$R_s = \{ OPEN, SHORT \}$$
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\section{ PNP Transistor }
|
||||
|
||||
Each leg open : each leg shorted all combinations.
|
||||
|
@ -555,7 +555,7 @@ of $ R = b \oplus c $.
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{figure}[h]
|
||||
\centering
|
||||
\includegraphics[width=250pt,keepaspectratio=true]{./ldmeq2.jpg}
|
||||
\includegraphics[width=250pt,keepaspectratio=true]{logic_diagram/ldmeq2.jpg}
|
||||
% ldmeq2.jpg: 572x297 pixel, 72dpi, 20.18x10.48 cm, bb=0 0 572 297
|
||||
\caption{Labels in PLD diagrams}
|
||||
\label{fig:ld_meq2}
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user