© 2004 - 2007© 2004 - 2010© 2004 – 2010 wearables that work: getting it right the first time...
TRANSCRIPT
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010 © 2004 – 2010
Wearables that Work: Getting it Right the First
TimeDr. Craig [email protected]
March 2015 IoT Summit 2015March 5-6, 2015, Convention Center, Santa Clara, CA
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
o What do users want from wearables – improved battery life, better data, and enhanced analytics? Yes, yes and yes. But, first & foremost, they want devices that work and devices that work as advertised. Sadly, that’s not what they’re getting today.1,2
o The news is littered with examples of failing and marginally performing wearable electronics. This presentation is designed to help you avoid common pitfalls by understanding the wearable use environment and designing appropriately for it. Material and component selection and protection options will be discussed. Effective strategies for test plan development will also be identified.
o Wearable electronics test strategies must be tailored for the individual product design and materials, the use environment, and reliability needs. Wearables offer both significant opportunities and significant challenges to the design community. Are you up to the challenge?
o References:o Global survey finds 8 percent adoption of fitness wearables.
http://mobihealthnews.com/39382/global-survey-finds-8-percent-adoption-of-fitness-wearables/o Forget Wearable Tech. People Really Want Better Batteries.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2015/01/10/376166180/forget-wearable-tech-people-really-want-better-batteries?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social
o RELIABILITY IS LETTING WEARABLE TECH DOWNhttp://wearabletechwatch.net/reliability-is-letting-wearable-tech-down/
Abstract
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
Sound Familiar?
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
Wearable Electronics are hot, hot, hot!
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
Sensing is a Major Component in that Growth!
http://www.statista.com/statistics/259640/global-revenue-from-mems-motion-sensors-in-wearable-fitness-devices/
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
Wearable Tech is Everywhere…..
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
Wearing the Cureo 29.1 million people in the US with diabetes
o 350,000 using wearable insulin pumpso Lux Research: clinical wearable devices should surpass
their consumer counterparts in revenue by 2020
Beauty and Wearable Tech: Miss Idaho Proudly Displays Her Insulin Pump
Medtronic's MiniMed Paradigm Revel Insulin pump senses blood sugar in real time
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
o “Another month, another bad experience with regard to reliability of wearable tech – this time with the Fitbit Flex. When the silicon wristband was only about a month old, it started coming apart…..”
o “Did you try turning it off, and then on again? How about charging it?”
o “After the first time you go through that dance, you realize it will never ever work. The failure mode is 100% catastrophic from the point of view of the user.”
But “Reliability is Letting Wearable Tech Down”
http://wearabletechwatch.net/2013/09/06/reliability-is-letting-wearable-tech-down/
http://forums.jawbone.com/t5/SUGGESTIONS/Is-the-UP24-Reliable-now/td-p/79393
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
o Sweato Documented in blogs that Apple iPOD Nano’s have shorted
out due to sweat
o Strain reliefo Wearable on clothing, attached by a cord to power device,
failed prematurely due to a lack of strain relief
o Plasticizero First-generation of Amazon Kindle wiring insulation
cracked/crumbled due to the use of non-optimized plasticizer formulation
o Cyclic Fatigueo Initial video game controllers experienced fatigue of solder
joints on components attached to the backside of the push buttons
How Have Wearable Consumer Electronics Failed?
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
Terrible Wearables: Hall of Shame
o Contacts rubbing skin rawo Heat & sweato http://www.n3rdabl3.co.uk/2014/07/lg-g-watch-
charging-points-cause-injury-users/
http://wearabletechwatch.net
o “In taking blood pressure readings, the Withings blood pressure monitor failed every time (but one), all at the same point”
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
Terrible Wearables: Hall of Shameo Fitbit Recalls Force
Activity-Tracking Wristband Due to Risk of Skin Irritationo Complaints of itchy,
irritated wristso Allergic contact
dermatitiso Either the nickel that's in
the stainless steel part of the device
o Or adhesives or other materials used in the strap
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
o “Sunscreen melted my Nook”o A tiny warning on the can reads it can damage
some fabrics materials or surfaces.o http://bcove.me/hh5yfn26
Terrible Wearables: Hall of Shame
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
o Habit-forming wearable that will shock you! Literally…..
o Failure waiting to happen???
Pavlok: Is This a Wearable Device for You?
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
On Understanding the Use Environment
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
o Reliability is the measure of a product’s ability too …perform the specified function o …at the customer (with their use environment) o …over the desired lifetime
o To ensure reliability, we have to think abouto What is the product supposed to do?o Where is going to be used?o How long should it last?
What is Reliability?
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
o Wikipedia: “…miniature electronic devices that are worn by the bearer under, with or on top of clothing.”o That’s It?!
o Alternative Definitiono Technology attached to the human body or
clothing that allows the wearer to monitor, engage with, and control devices, themselves, or their social network
What are Wearable Electronics?
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
o What is ‘Next Generation’ Technology?o Materials or designs currently
being used, but not widely adopted (especially among hi reliability manufacturers)
o Carbon nanotubes are not ‘Next Generation’o Not used in electronic applications
o Ball grid array (BGA) is not ‘Next Generation’o Widely adopted
Wearable Electronics Use Next Generation Technology
Carbon Nanotube Array forTissue Regen. & Wound Repair
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
o Why is knowing about ‘Next Generation’ Technologies important?
o These are the technologies that you or your supply chain will use to improve your producto Cheaper, Faster, Stronger,
‘Environmentally-Friendly’, etc.
o However…
Next Generation Technology (cont.)
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
o One of the most common drivers for failure is inappropriate adoption of new technologieso The path from consumer (high volume, short lifetime)
to high reliability is not always clear
o Obtaining relevant information can be difficulto Information is often segmentedo Focus on opportunity, not risks
o Sources are either marketing mush or confusing, scientific studieso Where is the practical advice?
Reliability and Next Gen Technologies
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
o Market studies and mobile phone markets can skew reality of market adoptiono Annual sales of >100 million may be due to one
or two customers
o Mobile phone requirements may not match the needs of wearable electronics
o Market studies exclusively focused on volumeo More relevant may be number of customers
o Example: 0201 capacitors
Next Gen Technologies: The Reality
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
o Embedded components
o Ultra-small components (i.e., 01005 capacitors)
o New substrate materialso Polyethersulfone, polyethylene terephthalate (PET),
polyethylene napthalate (PEN)o Polyimide is not a next gen technology
o Printed connectionso Silver inks, copper inks, nanosolders, conductive
polymers
o Organic displays
o Power Via Supercapacitors
Examples of Next Gen Technologies in Wearables
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
Ensuring Wearable Electronics Reliability o DfR at Concept / Block-Diagram Stageo Specification creation
o Part Selectiono Derating and uprating
o Design for Manufacturabilityo Reliability is only as good as what you make
o Wearout Mechanisms and Physics of Failureo Predicting degradation in today’s electronics
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
Bringing it All Togethero Two key specifications important to
capture at concept/contract stage that influence reliability
Reliability expectations
Use environment
Appropriate Material Selection
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
Reliability Goalso Identify and document two metrics
o Desired lifetimeo Product performance
o Desired lifetimeo Defined as when the customer will be satisfiedo Should be actively used in development of part and product
qualification
o Product performanceo Returns during the warranty periodo Survivability over lifetime at a set confidence levelo MTBF or MTTF calculation should be primarily an
administrative or marketing exercise (response to customer demands)
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
o What is the desired lifetime of wearable electronics?
o Rough equivalents: Clothes, shoes, watches, glasses, cell phoneso Clothes: ??o Shoes: 3 months to 5 years (600 miles)o Watches: 3 to 20 yearso Glasses: 2 to 5 yearso Cell phones: 12 to 36 months
o With a new technology, there is an opportunity to influence expectations
Desired Lifetime and Wearable Electronics
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
Product Performance: Warranty Returns
o Consumer Electronicso 5-25%
o Low Volume, Non Hi-Reliabilityo 1 to 2%
o Industrial Controlso 500 to 2000 ppm (1st Year)
o Automotiveo 1 to 5% (Electrical, 1st Year)o Can also be reported as
problems per 100 vehicles
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
Product Performance: Survivability
o Some companies set reliability goals based on survivabilityo Often bounded by confidence levelso Example: 95% reliability with 90%
confidence over 15 years
o Advantageso Helps set bounds on test time and sample
sizeo Does not assume a failure rate behavior
(decreasing, increasing, steady-state)
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
o Temperature Cyclingo Tmax, Tmin, dwell, ramp times
o Sustained Temperatureo T and exposure time
o Humidityo Controlled, condensation
o Corrosiono Salt, corrosive gases (Cl2, etc.), UV
o Power cyclingo Duty cycles, power dissipation
o Electrical Loadso Voltage, current, current densityo Static and transiento Electrical Noise
o Mechanical Bending (Static and Cyclic)o Board-level strain
o Random Vibration o PSD, exposure time, kurtosis
o Harmonic Vibrationo G and frequency
o Mechanical shocko G, wave form, # of events
Identify and Quantify Failure Inducing Loads
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
o Usually, the first approach is to use standards
o However, existing standards do not work well with wearable electronics
o More geared towards permanent installations
Identify Environment: Standards
IPC SM785
MIL HDBK310
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
o Maximum temperatures likely not a significant concern
o Typically far below ratings
Field Environment: Body & Outdoor Temperatures
o However, very cold temperatures (below -20C) could be a challengeo Especially in
combination with a mechanical load
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
o Vibrationo Not typically affiliated with human body, but outliers
can occur (especially with tools, transportation)o Examples: Jackhammer, reciprocating sawo Have induced failures in rigid medical devices
o Mechanical Shocko Drop loads can reach
1500g for mobile phone(some OEMs evaluate upto 10,000g)
o Likely to be lower for lighterwearables, but could be repeated (i.e., affiliated with shoes)
Field Environment: Mechanical
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
o Bending (Cyclic / Overstress)o Often considered one of the biggest risks in
regards to wearableso Certain human movements that induce bending
(flexing of the knee) can occur over 1,000/day
o Case Studyo There is indication that next-gen
substrate materials experience a change in electrical properties after exposure to bending
o Can be exacerbated byelevated temperature
Field Environment: Mechanical (cont.)
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
Corrosion: Handling / Sweato Composition of dissolved salts in water
o Can include other biological molecules.
o Main constituents, after the solvent (water), o Chloride, sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, lactate,
and urea.
o Chloride and sodium dominate. o To a lesser but highly variable extent, iron, copper, urocanate
(and the parent molecule histidine), and other metals, proteins, and enzymes are also present.
o The main concern regarding sweat is as a source of chloride
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
Handling / Sweat (cont.)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Raw stock After Cleaning Handling (office) Handling(exercise)
Handling (brow)
Type of Exposure
Co
nta
min
ati
on
Ex
tra
cte
d (
μg
)
Chloride
Sodium
Potassium
Calcium
Magnesium
Lactic acid
0.141.200.360.000.3946.610.00Handling (after wiping brow)5
0.090.920.410.000.3925.630.00Handling (after exercise)4
0.101.300.410.000.4914.350.00Handling (office environment)3
0.091.070.210.000.450.470.00After polish and clean2
0.071.000.260.000.432.140.00Raw stock aluminum1
SO4
(μg/in2)PO4
(μg/in2)NO3
(μg/in2)Br
(μg/in2)NO2
(μg/in2)Cl
(μg/in2)F
(μg/in2)ID
0.141.200.360.000.3946.610.00Handling (after wiping brow)5
0.090.920.410.000.3925.630.00Handling (after exercise)4
0.101.300.410.000.4914.350.00Handling (office environment)3
0.091.070.210.000.450.470.00After polish and clean2
0.071.000.260.000.432.140.00Raw stock aluminum1
SO4
(μg/in2)PO4
(μg/in2)NO3
(μg/in2)Br
(μg/in2)NO2
(μg/in2)Cl
(μg/in2)F
(μg/in2)ID
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
o Issue of exposure to water & rain must be addressed for wearable electronics to survive
o Some cell phone manufacturers coat the product with either a conformal coating or a superhydrophobic coating to protect the electronics
Rain & Water Immersion Challenges
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
o Exposure to ultraviolet (UV) is typically not sufficient to induce degradation in electronic materials
o However, a combination of temperature, moisture, and UV can break polymeric chainso Exact combination, and specific portion of the
UV spectrum, is not always well characterized
o It has been documented that stress corrosion cracking has been caused by sunscreen lotion
Corrosion: UV Exposure
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
o Of Cities listed, Phoenix has highest avg annual exposure. Note: Model is isolated to UV. Humidity is not included.
UV Exposure
Annual UV Energy Calculations by City
CityLatitude
Average Total Energy at 340nm (W*hr/m^2/nm)
Average Annual Total Radiant Dose at 340nm (kJ/m^2/nm)
Singapore 1 426 1532Paris, France 48 499 1796Sao Paulo, Brazil 22 553 1991Tokyo, Japan 35 570 2053Guatemala 14 648 2334Miami, FL 25 661 2380New York NY 40 661 2381Barcelona, Spain 41 662 2382Brasilia, Brazil 15 662 2383Melbourne, Australia 37 708 2549Buenos Aires, Argentina 34 727 2618Baghdad, Iraq 33 732 2634Minneapolis, MN 44 735 2647Townsville, Australia 19 743 2673Madrid, Spain 40 748 2694LA, CA 34 767 2761Phoenix, AZ 33 869 3129
http://www.drb-mattech.co.uk/uv%20map.html
Annual UV Intensity – Global Picture
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
o Washer / Dryer
o Cleaning fluids
o Mud / Dust / Water
Other Challenging Environments for Wearables
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
Environment (Best Practice)o Use standards when…
o Certain aspects of your environment are commono No access to use environment
o Measure when…o Certain aspects of your environment are uniqueo Strong relationship with customer
o Do not mistake test specifications for the actual use environmento Common mistake with mechanical loads
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
o Wearable electronics are an exciting revolution in our engagement with ourselves and the world around us
o However, there are clear riskso Wearables use new technology that hasn’t been fully
characterizedo They’ll be placed in environments not fully considered by
the designers
o Results if wearable manufacturers don’t use industry best practices &physics of failure to qualify their technology:o Unexpected failureso Delays in product launcho Advisory notices (medical tech)
Conclusions
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
Wearable Users
Sourced: http://www.accenture.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/us-en/engaging-digital-consumer-new-connected-world.pdf
o Survey finds that an especially high % of consumers have challenges using wearable health deviceso 24% said the products are too complicated to useo 22% said they did not set up properlyo 21% said they don’t work as advertised
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
How do they select?
Sourced: http://www.accenture.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/us-en/engaging-digital-consumer-new-connected-world.pdf
o Reliability is not on the listo “Trusted brand” is as close as it gets to quality or reliability
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
Top 20 Wearable Technology Companies 2014 Adidas
• Boston Scientific • Eurotech • Fitbit • Garmin • Google • Jabra • Jawbone • Johnson & Johnson • Medtronic • Meta Watch • Motorola Solutions • Nike • Pebble • Plantronics • Polar Electro • Recon Instruments • Samsung • Sony • Zephyr Technology
o Lots of players but sales concentrated in hands of a few
o Basic wearable bandso FitBito Jawboneo Nike
o Smart wearable bandso Samsungo Sonyo Pebble
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/top-20-wearable-technology-companies-2014-2014-06-18
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/12/wearables-market-heating-up/
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/12/wearables-market-heating-up/
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
Selling Lots of Them
http://www.statista.com/statistics/259372/wearable-device-market-value/
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
o Big Playerso Many have expertise in house
o Startupso Limited budgets, time
o Medical is different from consumero Standards & needso Costo Volume
Market Opportunities
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
o THE BOTTOM LINE
o We estimate the global wearables market will grow at a compound rate of 35% over the next five years to hit 148 million units shipped annually in 2019.
o The smartwatch is the wearable device category to bet on. The Apple Watch will kick-start growth in the overall smartwatch market, but over the long run cheaper alternatives will surface. Consumers will be swayed by the Apple Watch and cheaper smartwatch alternatives, which will increase the smartwatch's share of the overall wearables market.
o Other wearables, like fitness bands and Google Glass, will continue to cater to niche audiences. Fitness bands will continue to appeal to health- and fitness-oriented users, but mainstream users will ultimately prefer a more feature-loaded smartwatch. Google Glass is still an anomaly that has yet to hit the mainstream market.
o Price will be a significant factor to how smartwatches will perform with consumers over the next few years. Over time, we expect average smartwatch prices to drop, which will drive demand.
o Now that both Apple and Google are in the market, they will dominate much as they have in the smartphone and tablet markets. Because these platforms make up nearly 97% of the entire mobile market, many mobile users interested in wearable devices will gravitate toward Apple Watch and Android Wear.
o Barriers we previously discussed still persist and are inhibiting consumers from embracing the wearable trend. These barriers include price, style, lack of a killer app ecosystem, and limited functionality.
Yahoo Finance
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/wearable-computing-market-report-growth-192528241.html
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
Money in the Industry
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
o Wearables MVPo Minimum viable product, Most Valuable producto Silver: Get it to Market Good & Fast
o Develop a flat rate price /tiered price structure based on number of devices to be tested (lab) or number of sensor types within the design(design review)
o Premise is offering just enough to get by – hence “minimum viable.”
o Won’t be overpriced, overtested, or late to market either
o lead staffer – maybe Seth, Nick, or Melissa? – as owner.
o Basic test plan & streamlined testingo Gold: Get it to Market & Make it Greato Platinum: Get it to Market & Get It Approved (FDA)
Wearables MVP TM
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
o Key considerations for wearableso Corrosion: environmental stress cracking of
polymerso Biocompatibility/biostability: allergic contact
dermatitiso RF susceptibility/compatibility: interactions with
implantables & wearableso Safety: dermal injury
iNEMI Analysis
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
iNEMI Wearable Qualification Process
Build basic plan
Different needs for Different segments
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
Wearable Medical Device Standards
© 2004 - 2007 © 2004 - 2010
o Synonyms:o Perfectiono Greatnesso Perfectiono Purityo Supremacyo Merit
Excellence