Skip Nav Destination
Close Modal
Update search
Filter
- Title
- Authors
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keywords
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- Issue
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Volume
- References
Filter
- Title
- Authors
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keywords
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- Issue
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Volume
- References
Filter
- Title
- Authors
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keywords
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- Issue
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Volume
- References
Filter
- Title
- Authors
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keywords
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- Issue
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Volume
- References
Filter
- Title
- Authors
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keywords
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- Issue
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Volume
- References
Filter
- Title
- Authors
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keywords
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- Issue
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Volume
- References
NARROW
Format
Article Type
Volume Subject Area
Date
Availability
1-1 of 1
Gerald M. Martinez
Close
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account
Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Sort by
Proceedings Papers
ISTFA2013, ISTFA 2013: Conference Proceedings from the 39th International Symposium for Testing and Failure Analysis, 75-85, November 3–7, 2013,
Abstract
PDF
Abstract Failure analysis of electronic components is almost always destructive, and there’s no going back once a destructive step is performed. Or, that’s the way it used to be, before the development of some of the more sophisticated nondestructive techniques such as computed tomography (CT). This paper presents a case study of an optocoupler, the suspected failure of which could not be confirmed until the last day of the month-long analysis, when the cause of failure was conclusively determined by a CT model captured weeks earlier.