Environmental Contamination and Corrosion in Electronics: The Need for an Industrial Standard and Related Accelerated Test Method That Makes Sense

Transcription

1 Environmental Contamination and Corrosion in Electronics: The Need for an Industrial Standard and Related Accelerated Test Method That Makes Sense Garron K. Morris, CRE, Rockwell Automation Richard A. Lukaszewski, Rockwell Automation Christopher Genthe, Rockwell Automation Key Words: corrosion, electronics, corrosion standards, mixed flow gas testing, verifying of corrosion SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS Two specifications, ISA and IEC , that are used to specify corrosive environments for electronics have created confusion for manufacturers that create products for use in these environments due to inconsistencies and incomplete information. These standards also do not specify how the products should be tested to show compliance with each standard. Lack of consistent verification methods leads to inconsistent practices in the industry and even within product development groups in the same company. Accelerated testing using single- and mixed gas are often used in industry to demonstrate compliance with these requirements, but even the accelerated testing standards have issues. This paper explores the inconsistencies in the standards and verification methods used for corrosion of industrial electronics and makes recommendations for improvements. INTRODUCTION Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) systems are commonly used for process automation and motion control in industrial and commercial applications such as cooling fans, pumps, belt conveyors, rotary kilns, and elevators. Failure of the motor drive can lead to unplanned downtime and substantial revenue loss for customers. VFDs are increasingly used in applications like rubber processing, paper making, and wastewater handling where the environments have high concentrations of corrosive gasses like hydrogen sulfide, chlorine, or nitrogen oxides. The presence of these gases, coupled with the sales growth of regions characterized by high relative humidity, have created an environment where there is the potential for failure due to corrosion of the electronics in the VFD. Two standards that are widely used in industry to define industrial corrosive atmospheres are ANSI/ISA and IEC [, 2]. Both standards define the maximum levels of various corrosive gasses in terms of parts per billion (ppb). The ISA specification provides fours levels of the corrosive gasses for atmospheres defined as Mild (G), Moderate (G2), Harsh (G3), and Severe (GX). The levels in the ISA specification are also correlated with ranges of copper and silver reactivity measured as film growth in angstroms of growth in days []. The IEC specification also lists four corrosive gas ranges in increasing concentration levels ranging from 3C to 3C4. Each chemical level is defined in the IEC specification in terms of a long-term average and maximum ppb value, where the maximum value is the peak value over time ( minutes per day) [2]. A prevalent method for accelerating corrosion is Mixed Flow Gas (MFG) testing. Mixed Flow Gas testing was developed in the early 980 s at Battelle Memorial Institute to replicate the rates of corrosion measured via copper and silver test coupons in various industrial environments. Several levels of MFG tests are defined (Class II to Class IV), where higher class levels indicate higher rates of corrosion [3]. In the MFG test, the temperature and humidity levels are elevated as well to give an acceleration factor of 80 [4]. A typical Battelle MFG test lasts 20 to days which would equate to 0 to 5 years of field life. Other MFG test standards have been developed by Electronic Industries Association (EIA) and International Electrotechnical Committee (IEC) [5, 6]. The MFG test can generate corrosion in the electronics used in VFDs; however, the main disadvantage is that there is little correlation between accelerated test methods and the ISA and IEC environmental standards. This is further complicated by inconsistencies between the ISA and IEC and standards. This paper details the authors experiences with the difficultly of verifying compliance with the IEC and ISA corrosion standards using MFG testing for critical electronic components used in VFDs. It is the authors opinion that the present corrosion standards and lack of verification methods that trace to these standards is a problem that needs to be addressed by professional societies and standards committees. 2 STANDARDS FOR CORROSIVE ATMOSPHERES Two popular standards that define operational corrosive atmospheres for electronic equipment are ISA and /7/$ IEEE

2 IEC Each standard is described below and followed by a comparison of the two standards. 2. ISA Standard The ISA specification provides four severity levels for contamination effects: Mild (G), Moderate (G2), Harsh (G3), and Severe (GX) with the following definitions []: Mild (G): Well-controlled environment where the life of the product is not dictated by corrosion. Moderate (G2): Product reliability may be affected by corrosion, which is measurable. Harsh (G3): There is a high probability that product life will be limited by corrosion. Will likely require specially design products or environmental controls are required. Severe (GX): Only specially designed equipment would be expected to work for an extended period of time. The ISA specification uses reactivity monitoring of copper and silver coupons to characterize the environment in place of direct measurements of the gaseous contaminant concentrations. The four levels in the ISA specification are correlated with ranges of copper and silver reactivity measured in angstroms of film growth over days as shown in Table. The equivalent weight gain is also listed in Table for copper using the conversion µg/cm 2 = 20 Å, which assumes equal amounts of copper sulfide (Cu 2 S) and copper oxide (Cu 2 O) as the primary corrosion products in the film growth. The standard recommends that both copper and silver reactivity rates should be obtained and the higher of the two reactivity rates ultimately determines the ISA severity level (G to GX). The ISA specification also lists four classes of gaseous compounds that together accelerate corrosion in electronic equipment through their synergistic effects: inorganic chlorine compounds, active sulfur compounds, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. The approximate concentration levels are shown in Table 2 (Group A) for four gases that frequently occur together and can lead to the copper and silver reactivity levels in Table if the relative humidity is less than 50%. Above 50% relative humidity, for each 0% increase in relative humidity results in an increase in ISA Severity Level. An increase in severity level also applies if the humidity rate change per hour is greater than 6%. Finally, concentration levels for additional contaminants are listed in Table 2 (Group B), but the synergistic effects were unknown at the time the specification was published. 2.2 IEC Standard The IEC specification broadly covers climatic conditions, biological conditions, chemical active substances, mechanically active substances, and environmental conditions for equipment operation in stationary, weather-protected location such as factories. The IEC specification lists four levels with increasing severity levels ranging from 3C to 3C4 as follows [2]: 3C: locations in rural and some urban areas with low industrial activities 3C2: locations with normal levels of corrosion in urban areas with industrial activities scattered over the area. 3C3: locations in areas next to industrial sources with chemical emissions. 3C4: locations within industrial processing plants. Table 3 shows the chemical level that is defined in the IEC specification in terms of a long-term average and maximum concentration, where the maximum value is the peak value over time (up to minutes per day). Table. Severity levels for ISA in terms of the reactivity rate of copper and silver []. Coupon Copper Å/ days Silver Å/ days Copper µg/cm 2 / day G Mild G2 Moderate G3 Harsh GX Severe <0 <000 <0 >0 < <000 <0 >0 <2.50 <8.33 <6.67 >6.67 Table 2. Concentration levels for ISA in ppb []. Contaminant G Mild G2 Moderate G3 Harsh GROUP A (synergetic effects are important) GX Severe <3 <0 <50 50, SO 3 <0 <00 <0 0 < <2 <0 0 NO X <50 <25 <,250,250 GROUP B (synergetic effects are unknown) HF < <2 <0 0 NH 3 <500 <0,000 <25,000 25,000 O 3 <2 <25 <00 00 Table 3. Severity levels for IEC and associated average and maximum gas concentration levels in ppb [2]. 3C 3C2 3C3 3C4 Parameter Average Average Average Average [Maximum] [Maximum] [Maximum] [Maximum] <7 <2,00 <9,900 [<7.] [<360] [<7,00] [<49,0] <0 <,850 <4,800 [<37] [<3] [<3,0] [<4,800] <34 <00 < [<34] [<00] [<340] [<,000] NO X <260 <,560 <5, [<52] [<520] [<4,680] [<0,400] HF <2 <20 <20 [<3.6] [<36] [<2,400] [<2,400] NH 3 <,400 <4,000 <49,000 [<42] [<4,] [<49,000] [<247,000] O 3 <25 <50 <00 [<5] [<50] [<50] [<,000] HCl <66 <660 <660 [<66] [<3] [<3,0] [<3,0] Sea Salts No Salt mist Salt mist Salt mist 2.3 Comparison Unlike the ISA specification, there is no correlation to copper or silver reactivity in the IEC specification. This makes assessment of the end-user site nearly impossible and violates almost 20 years of research in corrosion of electronics

3 that supports reactivity monitoring as the preferred method for assessing industrial environments [7]. The lack of correlation to copper and silver reactivity rates in the IEC specification also prevents correlation to accelerated testing. There are also inconsistencies in the contaminant levels specified between the two standards. For example, the mean hydrogen sulfide () specified in the IEC standard 3C2 is 7 ppb for a normal level of corrosion in an urban environment while the ISA standard specifies 50 ppb for at the worst-case GX (Severe) environment. This inconsistency also applies to chlorine gas ( ) where the mean value for IEC 3C2 is 34 ppb and ISA GX specifies 0 ppb. These inconsistencies are further extended by a note in the IEC standard that states for 3C3 and 3C4 environments, the synergistic effects of the gases do not need to be considered whereas the ISA standard acknowledges the importance of the combined interactions of, /SO 3,, and NO x on copper and silver reactivity rates. The acceleration effects of humidity on corrosion in the presence of chemically active gases is only briefly acknowledged in the IEC standard as a note in the introduction. The ISA standard explicitly defines relative humidity at 50% or below for the given G to GX concentration levels. The acceleration effects of increasing humidity on copper reactivity is explicitly stated in the ISA standard as well, which aligns with studies in the literature [7, 8]. The major shortcoming of the ISA standard is that the worst-case corrosive atmosphere (GX) has copper and silver reactivity levels defined as only lower specification limits. This creates an open-ended specification that is of no practical value to product manufacturers. Claiming that a product can withstand a GX environment will ultimately lead to unplanned downtime and unhappy customers since the product could potentially be installed in atmospheres with copper and silver reactivity levels two to five times higher than the lower specification limit of 0 Å/ days. Another major shortcoming is that the gas concentrations listed are one of many possible combinations that can result in the copper and silver reactivity levels in the four severity levels (G to GX). For example, Annex B in the ISA standard states that active sulfur compounds concentrations listed in the different severity levels include hydrogen sulfide, elemental sulfur, and mercaptans. This contradicts the authors experiences, where some electronic components like power semiconductors will react differently to 50 ppb of elemental sulfur versus 50 ppb of hydrogen sulfide, and not in an equivalent manor as implied in the standard. 3 VERIFICATION TESTING Verifying compliance with standards is a critical part of the product development process and is even more critical for standards related to corrosive atmospheres that may ultimately dictate product reliability and customer happiness. The IEC and ISA specifications are intended to define the possible corrosive gas concentrations that may occur at product installation and give comparisons as to the severity of different classes of applications. Both ISA and IEC standards do not provide any guidance on how to verify compliance with the standards and the authors have been unable to find references to directly correlate verification test methods to the IEC and ISA standards. Only IEC offers some guidance on selecting tests in Appendix C, but it is not specific to either the ISA or IEC standard. In addition to specifying the gas concentrations, any verification test would need to specify the duration of the exposure. Ideally the duration of the test should correlate to the expected reliability of the product. Hence, test acceleration is needed to complete verification within a reasonable amount of time. After such verification testing, the unit under test would need to run through functional testing to prove if the unit has passed. This section discusses a single-gas approach, mixed flow gas testing, and other methods that have been used to demonstrate compliance with the IEC and ISA corrosive atmosphere standards. 3. Single-Gas Verification Testing A single-gas verification test approach has been used in the past by several groups at Rockwell Automation as well as other manufacturers. One competitor chose to demonstrate compliance with IEC 3C4 standard using single gas testing. In their approach, the products were exposed to each gas at the mean concentration specified in Table 3 for 2 days at a relative humidity of <%. It was unknown if a new unit was used for each gas or the same unit was used for all gases. The likely justification for testing gases separately is the note in the IEC standard that implies synergistic effects of the gases can be ignored for 3C3 and 3C4 levels. The test duration of 2 days is not traceable to any known standard or acceleration factor. Another single-gas test that accelerate silver and copper corrosion in electronics is the Humid Sulfur Vapor or Flowers of Sulfur (FoS) test. The Flowers of Sulfur test setup is defined by ASTM B809 and is also designed to accelerate corrosion using powdered elemental sulfur, potassium nitrate salt solution for humidity, and higher temperatures (50 C) to produce sulfur vapor (S8) [9]. Higher levels of sulfur vapor can be achieved by elevating the test temperature. The ASTM standard for FoS testing is 24 hours, but the test duration can vary depending on the corrosion levels needed to be achieved. Unfortunately, there is no formal standard for relating FoS test duration or test temperatures with rates of copper corrosion or field experience. 3.2 Multiple-Gas Verification Testing Multiple-gas verification testing is preferred over singlegas testing as synergistic effects of multiple gases represent real world applications. One multiple-gas verification approach that the authors have observed in both internal product development and with competitors is that products are tested at the conditions specified in the IEC or ISA specifications for a fixed number of days. For example, 2 days at IEC 3C2 conditions. Since the IEC (and ISA)

4 specification define end-use conditions, the development group has only succeeded in proving that the product can survive 2 days at IEC 3C2 conditions. Accelerated multiple-gas verification testing is more compatible with the intended purpose of demonstrating compliance with one or more standards for corrosive atmospheres. Mixed Flow Gas (MFG) testing was developed in the 980s at Battelle Labs with participation from a number of telecommunication, computer, and industrial product manufacturers as a way accelerate copper and silver corrosion [3,4] Several methods/standards define mixed flow gas test conditions: Battelle Labs, EIA-364-TP65A, and IEC [3-6] are frequently referenced. There are ASTM standards for MFG testing; however, they generally repeat the contents of the aforementioned methods/standards. All tests specify concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and nitrogen dioxide with the addition of chlorine and/or sulfur dioxide gases at various temperature and relative humidity levels. The test definitions for Battelle Labs Class II to IV listed in Table 4. Class I is not defined since there are low levels of corrosion and limited acceleration. The copper reactivity rates are also listed and show that higher class levels have higher rates of copper corrosion. Comparing the Battelle Labs concentrations levels in Table 4 with the ISA and IEC specifications in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively, show there is no correlation, which is expected since the Battelle Labs MFG is an accelerated test and the ISA and IEC standards are specifications for the operating environment. As expected, the copper weight gain rates for the Battelle MFG test is higher than either standard, confirming it is an accelerated test. Table 5 lists the EIA-364-TP65A MFG test conditions. EIA Classes IIA and IIIA are just Battelle Class II and III test but with the addition of sulfur dioxide. EIA Class IV is identical to Battelle Class IV. Finally, the IEC mixed flow gas tests are listed in Table 6. As with the Battelle Labs MFG tests, there is little correlation between the EIA and IEC MFG tests and the two standards. Both MFG tests do indicate higher copper reactivity rates than the standards. Class Table 4. Battelle Labs Mixed Flow Gas test conditions. [3, 4] Temp. [ C] Relative Humidity [%] NO 2 Cu Weight Gain [µg/cm 2 /day] II /-4 +0/ to 3.5 III ±0 0 4 to 20 IV > 25 Table 5. EIA B-9 Mixed Flow Gas test conditions. [5] Class IIA IIIA IV Temp. [ C] ± ± 40 ± Relative Humidity [%] NO Cu Weight Gain [µg/cm 2 /day] 2 to 6 36 to 46 Table 6. IEC :205 Mixed Flow Gas test conditions. [6] Meth Temp. [ C] 25 ± ± ± 25 ± Relative Humidity [%] ±00 NO 2 Cu Weight Gain [µg/cm 2 /day] 0 to PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 3 to 3 2 to 22 2 to 24 The disconnect between the operational atmospheric standards ISA 7.04 and IEC , and accelerated verification test methods like mixed flowing gases ultimately needs to be resolved by the professional societies and standards committees; however, the authors describe characteristics of a new standard and provide justifications for the proposals in this section. Finally, recommendations for verification test of a new standard are discussed at the end of this section. 4. Proposed Modifications to Standard Although the IEC standard is internationally recognized and widely used, in the authors opinion, it has failed to accomplish the intent of characterizing an environment that can be easily verified by the product s end-user and correlated with accelerated test methods. The following is a list of proposed modification to ISA 7.04 that would improve the standard: Specify maximum copper and silver reactivity rates as weight gain in µg/cm 2 per days. Reactivity rates should either be inclusive of humidity effects or redefine the limits at a higher relative humidity above 50% that are more typical of industrial products. Define additional severity levels above 0 Å per days. The change from a film thickness-based measurement of reactivity in Angstroms per period ( days) to a weight-based measurement in µg/cm 2 per period is recommended to eliminate the confusion and uncertainty about converting weight to film thickness. Calculating the film thickness from weight requires assumptions of percentage of the corrosion product as well as uniformity across the coupon surface. Potential approaches to eliminate these assumptions could be defining multiple mixtures of gases that could effectively generate the specified weight gains or even eliminate concentrations levels and just specify weight gains. One challenge in moving to a weight-based classification system is that sample weight should be measured before and after exposure. Even though the effect of relative humidity on the reactivity of copper and silver is generally well-understood, the standards should either be inclusive of relative humidity effects or be stated at a higher relative humidity level or rate of change [8]. In the author s experience, customers will

5 take a product rated for ISA 7.04 G environment (50% relative humidity) and put it in an environment where humidity routinely exceeds % which equates to a near GX environment from a copper-reactivity point of view. More sophisticated customers already perform copper and silver reactivity measurements in the actual use environments, so comparison with a product specification that traces to environmental standard that is inclusive of humidity effects and stated as a maximum allowable copper and silver reactivity rates would eliminate the need to account for relative humidity and the risk of misinterpretation of the product requirement or standard. Finally, there is a strong need for additional severity levels above the ISA G3. As previously mentioned, the ISA GX limit stated as only a lower specification limit has absolutely no practical value for products like VFDs that are routinely placed in environments copper reactivity rates well above 0 Å/ days and silver reactivity rates that exceed 0,000 Å/ days. In fact, there are several Rockwell Automation customers that have over 50% of the product use locations at GX severity level. After the release of ISA specification in 985, recommendations were made to add at least one more severity levels; however, the number of levels was not increased in the 203 update. [7]. 4.2 Proposed Verification Approaches Assuming the proposed environmental standard lists both copper and silver reactivity rates for given severity levels similar to ISA 7.04, a MFG verification test can be used to demonstrate compliance with the standard. The only addition required to the MFG test methods would be an inclusion of expected silver reactivity rates for the test conditions to the already specified copper reactivity rates. The biggest unknown for verification testing is the test duration. It is the authors belief that the methods should not specify a duration or sample size, but should provide guidance as to how to demonstrate a product life with a given confidence level. A simple approach would be to estimate the test time using the equation given in Annex C of ISA 7.04 to calculate the -day normalized copper or silver film thickness if the coupon exposure time is longer or shorter than days: ( t t) A x = x / () where x is the equivalent film thickness after days, x is the film thickness after time t in days, and t is the reference condition ( days). In Equation (), the exponent A is.0 for silver corrosion and 0.3 for G, 0.5 for G2 and.0 for G3 and GX severity levels of copper corrosion. If a product has a corrosion failure mode dominate by copper corrosion, the expected copper film thickness after 0 years (t=3650 days) of exposure at G2 level is: 0.5 t A days x = x = =,0A (2) t day For verification of the G2 severity level, an EIA B Class IIIA mixed flow gas test is used with a film thickness of 4,800 Å/day (derived from an average weight gain of µg/cm 2 /day and the conversion µg/cm 2 = 20Å). The exponent A is set to one since the -day weight gain for class IIIA ( µg/cm 2 /day) exceeds the weight gain at GX level severity (>6.67 µg/cm 2 /day). Using Eq. (), the effective - day film thickness x in a class EIA IIIA accelerated test is:.0 day 4800A x = = 44,000A (3) day The test time required to demonstrate 0 year exposure under EIA IIIA accelerated test conditions is 3..days, as shown below:.0.0 x,0a t = t = = 3.days 44,000A (4) x Verification may be better linked to requirements by using reliability goals instead of statistically ambiguous terms like exposure and treating a mixed flow gas verification test as a reliability demonstration test. First, the acceleration factor AF needs to be computed. Assuming a product failure is dominated by copper corrosion and the product environment is also ISA G2 with a film thickness of 000Å/ day, the acceleration factor can be derived from Eq. () as a ratio of the film thickness at test (x ) and use-case film thickness (x) conditions. For verification, an EIA B Class IIIA mixed flow gas test is also used with the previously calculated film growth rate of 44,000Å/ days, the acceleration factor is calculated to be: t AF = t 44,000 A/ day = 000 A/ day.0.0 x = = x 44 Given a product Mean Time To Failure (MTTF) goal of 50,000 hours in the ISA G2 environment and a confidence level of 90%, the required test time (t test ) can be calculated from a zero-failure modification of the cumulative binomial distribution: ( + / β ) / N / [ ln( CL) ] β (5) MTTF t = (6) Γ where CL is confidence level, N is the number of samples, β is the Weibull shape factor, and Γ is the gamma function. The test time (t test ) required is then evaluated from Eq. (6) and scaled to account for the acceleration factor (AF): t test = t / AF (7) For the example here, the required test time to demonstrate MTTF goal is shown in Table 7 using an assumed Weibull distribution with shape factor of.0. Table 7. Test time required to demonstrate 90% confidence in MTTF goal of 50,000 hours. Sample Size Test Time 33.3 days days Either verification approach allows the test time to be traceable back to the product exposure time or reliability goal in the corrosive environment and provides flexibility in the

6 demonstration approach. In addition, either approach eliminates the uncertainty about the test duration. Finally, for verification approaches like this to be effective, the mixed flow gas standards and test methods also need to publish expected silver weight gains. 5 CONCLUSIONS The inconsistencies in the ISA and IEC standards were described and several recommendations for improvement to the ISA standard were described. Issues with single-gas testing and the case for using mixed-flow gas testing to verify compliance was made. Two potential approaches for relating accelerated mixed flow gas testing to the ISA standard were described. It is the authors belief that professional societies and individuals on standards committees should work to eliminate inconsistencies and potentially incorporate the feedback listed in this paper into future standards. 6 FUTURE WORK Rockwell Automation purchased and installed a state-ofthe-art mixed flow gas chamber in 207, as shown in Figure. This chamber will enable the authors to easily perform standardized verification test on our products. Additionally, the chamber allows Rockwell Automation to develop custom mixed flow gas test mixtures that are tailored to the needs of our customers based on temperature, humidity, and copper/silver reactivity levels obtained at the product use locations. Figure. Mixed Flow Gas chamber at Rockwell Automation. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors wish to thank Robert Veale (retired) of Rockwell Automation whose observations about standards in many internal corrosion reports provided our motivation. REFERENCES. Instruments Society of America (ISA), ISA Environmental Conditions for Process Measurement and Control Systems: Airborne Contaminants, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), IEC Edition 2.2 Classification of environmental conditions. Part 3-3: Classification of groups of environmental parameters and their severities stationary use at weather protected locations, Abbott, W. A., The Development of Performance Characteristics of Mixed Flowing Gas Test Environment, IEEE Trans. On Components, Hybrids, and Manufacturing Technology, (), March 988, pp Hindin, B. S., Mixed Flow Gas Test Procedures for Creep Corrosion and How to Minimize Its Occurrence, SMTA International Conference,. 5. Electronic Components Association (EIA), EIA B-9 TP-65B Mixed Flowing Gas Test Procedure for Electrical Connectors Contacts and Sockets, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), IEC Edition 3.0 Environmental testing -0 Part 2-60: Test Ke: Flowing mixed gas corrosion test, Muller, C. and Crosley, G., ISA Standard 7.04: Changes Required for Protection of Today s Process Control Equipment, Proceedings of TAPPI PEERS Conference, Portland, Oregon, October 2-5, Rice, D.W., P. Peterson, et al., Atmospheric Corrosion of Copper and Silver, Journal of the Electrochemical Society, 28(2), 98, pp American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), ASTM B809-95: Standard Test Method for Porosity in Metallic Coatings by Humid Sulfur Vapor ( Flowers-of- Sulfur ), 203. Garron K. Morris Rockwell Automation 6400 West Enterprise Drive Mequon, WI 592, USA BIOGRAPHIES gkmorris@ra.rockwell.com Garron Morris has over 7 years of experience in reliability of power electronics and over 20 years of experience the design of advanced thermal management systems for power electronics. He has a BS and MS in Mechanical Engineering from University of Wisconsin Milwaukee. Garron is an IEEE and ASQ member and is currently working for Rockwell Automation as principal engineer in the motor drives research and development group. As a Design for Six Sigma Master Black belt, he has taught over 500 student worldwide. He has authored 25 conference and seven journal publications, and has 3 US patents. Garron is also an ASQ Certified Reliability Engineer. Richard A. Lukaszewski Rockwell Automation (same as above) ralukaszewski@ra.rockwell.com Richard Lukaszewski (IEEE-Life SM) graduated from Milwaukee School of Engineering with a BSETE. He received an MS in Engineering Management from the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee. He also obtained an MSEE in Power Electronics from the University of Wisconsin Madison. He

7 is a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Wisconsin and is also a registered Project Management Professional. Since 992 he has been employed by Rockwell Automation where he is the manager of new product development for power electronics. He is also the author and co-author of over thirty technical papers including three committee prize papers. He also has over thirty patents. In 9, Rich was awarded the Rockwell Automation Odo J Struger Award that was established to honor engineers for outstanding technical achievement. Christopher Genthe Rockwell Automation 20 South 2 nd Street Milwaukee, WI 53204, USA cgenthe@ra.rockwell.com Chris Genthe is a Principal Engineer in Rockwell Automation s Chemistry & Materials Engineering Department. He has over 25 years of experience in the area of materials, including corrosion identification and control, failure analysis, processing, and accelerated testing. He has a BS and MS in Materials Engineering from the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, and is an adjunct professor teaching Environmental Degradation of Materials at the same institution. In addition to other job responsibilities, Chris is developing variations of the standard MFG environments to accelerate specific corrosion mechanisms found in various application environments.