Electronic Components and Systems. Handbook for Robustness Validation of Automotive Electrical/Electronic Modules

Transkript

1 Electronic Components and Systems Handbook for Robustness Validation of Automotive Electrical/Electronic Modules

2 Preface In late 2006 Members of the SAE International Automotive Electronic Systems Reliability Standards Committee and ZVEI - German Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers` Association formed a joint task force to update SAE Recommended Practice J1211 NOV1978 Recommended Environmental Practices for Electronic Equipment Design. The 1978 version of J1211 was written in an era when electronics were first being introduced to the automobile. There was a high level of concern that the harsh environmental conditions experienced in locations in the vehicle could have a serious negative affect on the reliability of electronic components and systems. Some early engine control modules (ECMs) had failure rates in the 350 failures per million hours (f/10 6 hrs) range, or expressed in the customer s terms, a 25% probability of failure in the first 12 months of vehicle ownership. At that time, warranty data was presented in R/100 (repairs per 100 vehicles) units, for example, 25 R/100 at 12 months. In these early years, when the automotive electronics industry was in it s infancy, a large percentage of these were hard catastrophic and intermittent failures exacerbated by exposure to environmental extremes of temperature (-40ºC to +85ºC); high mechanical loads from rough road vibration and rail shipment; mechanical shocks of up to 100g from handling and crash impact; severe electrical transients, electrostatic discharge and electromagnetic interference; large swings in supply voltage; reverse supply voltage; and exposure to highly corrosive chemicals (e.g., road salt and battery acid). The focus of the 1978 version of J1211 was on characterizing these harsh vehicle environment for areas of the vehicle (engine compartment, instrument panel, passenger compartment, truck, under body, etc.) and suggesting lab test methods which design engineers could use to evaluate the performance of their components and systems at or near the worst-case conditions expected in the area of the vehicle where their electrical/electronic components would be mounted. By testing their prototypes at the worst case conditions (i.e., at the product s specification limits) described in the 1978 version of J1211 designers were able to detect and design out weaknesses and thereby reduce the likelihood of failure due to environmental factors. By the mid-1980s, it became common practice to specify test-to-pass (zero failures allowed) environmental conditions-based reliability demonstration life tests with acceptance levels in the 90% to 95% reliability range (with confidence levels of 70% to 90%). This translates to approximately 5 to 20 f/10 6 hrs. The sample size for these tests was determined using binomial distribution statistical tables and this would result in a requirement to test 6 to 24 test units without experiencing a failure. If a failure occurred, the sample size would have to be increased and the testing continued without another failure till the bogie was reached. The environmental conditions during the test were typically defined such that the units under test were operated at specification limits based on J1211 recommended practices (e.g., -40ºC and +85ºC) for at least some portion of the total test time. 2

3 The goal of passing such a demonstration test was often very challenging and the test-analyze-fix programs that resulted, although very time-consuming and expensive, produced much-needed reliability growth. Reliability improved significantly in the late 1980s and early 1990s and vehicle manufactures and their suppliers began expressing warranty data in R/1000 units instead of R/100 units. By the turn of the century automobile warranty periods had increased from 12 months to 3, 4, 5 (and even 10 years for some systems) and most manufacturers had started specifying life expectancies for vehicle components of 10, 15 and sometimes 20 years. And by this time several vehicle manufacturers and their best electrical/ electronic component suppliers had improved reliability to the point where warranty data was being expressed in parts-per-million (ppm) in the triple, double and even single-digit range. This translates to failure rates in the 0.05 f/10 6 hrs range and better! The achievement of such high reliability is not the result of test-to-pass reliability demonstration testing based on binomial distribution statistical tables. With this method, reliability demonstration in the 99,99% to 99,9999% range would require thousands of test units! On the contrary, the methods and techniques used by engineering teams achieving such reliability excellence did not require increasingly large sample sizes, more expensive and lengthy testing, or more engineers. It is about working smarter, not harder; and about systems-level robust design and robustness validation thinking rather than component-level test-to-pass thinking. The task force leaders and members were of the strong opinion that the 2008 version of SAE J1211 should document the state-of-the-art methods and techniques being used by leading companies and engineering teams to achieve ultra-high reliability while at the same time reducing overall cost life-cycle and shortening time-to-market. The SAE International Automotive Electronic Systems Reliability Standards Committee and ZVEI German Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers` Association are hopeful that this Handbook for Robustness Validation of Automotive Electrical/Electronic Modules will help many companies and engineering teams make the transition from the 1980s cookbook reliability demonstration approach to a more effective, economically feasible knowledge-based Robustness Validation approach. Sincerely Yours Helmut Keller Chairman ZVEI Robustness Validation Committee Jack Stein Chairman SAE Automotive Electronics Reliability Committee 3

4 Date of issue: April 2008 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means (print, electronic, mechanical, photocopying) or otherwise without the prior permission of ZVEI. Every effort is made to ensure that the information given herein is accurate, but no legal responsibility is accepted for any errors, omissions or misleading statements in this information. 4

5 Foreword The quality and reliability of the vehicles a manufacturer produces has become a deciding factor in determining competitiveness in the automotive industry. Achieving quality and reliability goals effectively and economically depends on fundamental knowledge of how to select and integrate materials, technologies and components into functionally capable and dependable vehicle systems and being able to assess whether acceptable levels of quality and reliability have been achieved as the design comes together, matures and transitions into a mass production environment. Evaluation methods, whether physical or analytical, must produce useful and accurate data on a timely basis in order to provide added value. Increasingly, manufacturers of automotive electrical and electronic (E/E) equipment must be able to show that they are producing a product which performs reliably in applications having defined mission profiles. Reliability is a measure of conditional probability that a product will perform in accordance with expectations for a predetermined period of time in a given environment under defined usage conditions. To efficiently meet any reliability objective requires comprehensive knowledge of the relationships between failure modes, failure mechanisms and mission profile. Gradual reliability growth by repeated test-analyze-fix cycles is no longer sufficient or competitive (see Rationale). Ten years ago the prevailing philosophy was: Qualification tests of production validation units must ensure that quality and reliability targets have been reached. This approach is no longer sufficient to guarantee robust electronic products and a failure free ownership experience for the life of the car, i.e., a philosophy of the Zero-Defect-Strategy. The emphasis has now shifted from the detection of failures at the end of the development process to prevention of failures throughout the full life cycle, beginning with concept development and requirements specification. In the past, screening methods were still required after the product had been manufactured and after the product had successfully passed a qualification program. In recent years the emphasis has shifted to reliability-by-design methodologies applied during development. The philosophy of Robust Design has been widely accepted and the number methods, tools and techniques to support the approach have been increasing steadily. The fundamental philosophy of product qualification is also changing from the detection of defects based on predefined sample sizes to the generation and reuse of knowledge gained by studying specific data regarding the product s failure modes and mechanisms combined with existing knowledge in the field. Using these methods, known as physics of failure or reliability physics it is possible to generate highly useful knowledge on the robustness of products. This handbook is intended to give guidance to engineers on how to apply a robustness validation process during development and qualification of automotive electrical/electronic modules. It was made possible because many companies, including electronic/equipment manufacturers and vehicle manufacturers worked together in a joint working group to bring in the knowledge of the complete supply chain. This handbook is synchronized with its US counterpart document SAE J1211 Handbook for Robustness Validation of Automotive Electrical/Electronic Modules published by the SAE International Detroit, Software Robustness is not specifically addressed in this document. However some degree of software evaluation is addressed by the test methods. Some examples are: Testing the module in a sub-system configuration if possible. Testing the module with realistic loads. Exercising the module in various modes during a test. Also, although this handbook is directed primarily at electrical/electronic modules it may certainly be applied to other equipment such as sensors, actuators and mechatronics. Colman Byrne Core Team Leader RV Editor in Chief 5

6 Acknowledgement We would like to thank all teams, organizations and colleagues for actively supporting the robustness validation approach. EE Module Robustness Validation Joint International Task Force Team Leader (ZVEI) Colman Byrne, Kostal Ireland GmbH EE Module Robustness Validation Joint International Task Force Team Leaders (SAE) Dennis Craggs, Chrysler LLC. ZVEI Robustness Validation Committee Chair Helmut Keller, ZVEI e.v. and Co-Chairman SAE Reliability Committee Europe SAE Automotive Electronic Systems Reliability Committee Chair Jack Stein, TCV System Corp. We would specially like to thank the team members of various committees and their associates for their important contributions to the completion of this handbook. Without their commitment, enthusiasm, and dedication, the timely compilation of the handbook would not have been possible. ZVEI Robustness Validation Committee Helmut Keller, Keller Consulting Engineering Services and ZVEI e.v. Rolf Winter, ZVEI e.v. SAE Automotive Electronic Systems Reliability Standards Committee Jack Stein: SAE Automotive Electronic Systems Reliability Standards Committee Chair Robustness Validation Core Team WG Leaders Frank Menninger, Delphi Deutschland GmbH Colman Byrne, Kostal Ireland GmbH Uwe Girgsdies, Audi AG Günter Vogl, Continental/SiemensVDO Bernd Enser, Sanmina-SCI Dennis Craggs, Chrysler LLC Rolf Becker, Robert Bosch GmbH Jack Stein, TCV Systems Corp. James McLeish, DfR Solutions Representative of ZVEI Rolf Winter, ZVEI e.v. Representative of SAE Caroline Michaels, SAE International, Inc. 6

7 Team Members of Working Groups Aldridge Dustin, Delphi Corporation Aubele Peter, Behr GmbH & Co. KG Berkenhoff Niels, Kostal Kontakt Systeme GmbH Butting Reinhard, Robert Seuffer GmbH & Co. KG Duerr Johannes, Robert Bosch GmbH Edson Larry, General Motors Corp Freytag Juergen, Daimler AG Gehnen Erwin, Hella KGaA Hueck & Co Getto Ralf, Daimler AG Girgsdies Uwe, Audi AG Guerlin Thomas; Harman/Becker Automotive Systems Hodgson Keith, Ford Motor Company Hrassky Petr, STMicroelectronics Design and Application GmbH Jeutter Roland, Agilent Technologies AG Kamali Dogan, Delphi Deutschland GmbH Kanert Werner, Infineon Technologies AG Knoell Bob, Visteon Corporation Koetter Steffen, W. C. Heraeus GmbH Contact Materials Division Krusch Georg, Robert Seuffer GmbH & Co. KG Liang Zhongning, NXP Semiconductors BV Lindenberg Thomas,, Preh GmbH Lorenz Lutz, Audi AG Mende Ralf, DELPHI Deutschland GmbH Nielsen Arnie, Arnie Nielsen Consulting LLC Reindl Klaus, On Semiconductor Germany GmbH Richter Stefan, Brose Fahrzeugteile GmbH & Co. KG Ring Hubertus, Robert Bosch GmbH Roedel Reinhold, Audi AG Schackmann Frank, Automotive Lighting GmbH Schleifer Alexander, VDO Automotive AG Schmidt Herman Josef, Leopold Kostal GmbH Schneider Konrad, AUDI AG Schneider Stefan, Audi AG Then Alfons, Preh GmbH Trageser Hubert, Conti Temic microelectronic GmbH Unger Walter, Daimler AG Weikelmann Frank; Harman/Becker Automotive Systems Wiebe Robert, Global Electronics Wilbers Hubert, Huntsman AG 7

8 Contents 1 Introduction 12 2 Scope Purpose 3 Definitions Definitions of terms 3.2 Acronyms 4 Definition and Description of Robustness Validation Definition of Robustness Validation 4.2 Robustness Validation Process 5 Information and Communication Flow Product Requirements 5.2 Use of Available Knowledge 6 Mission Profile Process to Derive a Mission Profile 6.2 Agree Mission Profile for EEM (System level with Module level) 6.3 Analyze Failure Modes for Reliability of EEM 6.4 Translate to Components Life Time Requirements 6.5 Agree on Mission Profile for Components (Module Level with Component Level) 6.6 Analyze Failure Modes for Reliability of Component 6.7 Verify Mission Profile at Component Level in EEM (Module level to Component level) 6.8 Verify Mission Profile at EEM level in Vehicle (Module level and System Level) 6.9 Verify Mission Profile at System Level 6.10 Stress Factors and Loads for EEMs / Mechatronics 6.11 Vehicle Service Life 6.12 Environmental Loads in Vehicle 8

9 6.13 Functional Loads in Vehicle 6.14 Examples for Mission Profiles / Loads 7 Knowledge Matrix for Systemic Failures Knowledge Matrix Definition 7.2 Knowledge Matrix Structure 7.3 Knowledge Matrix Use 7.4 Knowledge Matrix Change Control 7.5 Lessons Learned 7.6 Knowledge Matrix Availability 8 Analysis, Modeling and Simulation (AMS) Introduction to the Use of Analysis, Modeling and Simulation 8.2 Integration of Design Analysis into the Product Development Process 8.3 Circuit and Systems Analysis 8.4 Categories of E/E Circuits and Systems Modeling and Simulations 8.5 EMC & Signal Integrity (SI) Analysis 8.6 Physical Stress Analysis 8.7 Durability & Reliability Analysis 8.8 Physical Analysis Methods 9 Intelligent Testing Introduction and Motivation for Intelligent Testing 9.2 Intelligent Testing Temple 9.3 Assessment of Product Robustness in the Development Phase 9.4 Retention of Robustness during the Production Phase 10 Manufacturing Process Robustness and its Evaluation Purpose and Scope 10.2 EEM Manufacturing Process 10.3 Robust Process Definition 9

10 Contents 10.4 Process Interactions 10.5 Component Process Interaction Matrix 10.6 CPI Matrix Calculations 10.7 Robustness Indicator to Describe the Process Robustness 10.8 Extended Use and Scope of the Matrix Result 10.9 Preventive Actions and Side Benefits 11 Robustness Indicator Figure (RIF) Meaning and Need for a Robustness Indicator 11.2 RIF Diagram 11.3 Instructions for Generating a RIF 11.4 Generation of RIF A Appendix Section Examples 108 A.1 Mission Profile Example 1: Door module A.2 Mission Profile Example 2: Mechatronic Transmission Control Module A.3 Knowledge Matrix Proactive Example 1: Wire Harness Molded Connector Housing A.4 Knowledge Matrix Proactive Example 2: PCB Electro-Chemical Migration A.5 Knowledge Matrix Reactive Example 1: PCB Electro Migration A.6 Knowledge Matrix Reactive Example 2: Component Overload A.7 CPI Matrix Example B Appendix Prototype Test Examples 130 B.1 Purpose and Scope B.2 Procedures Summary 10

11 B.3 General Methodology and Requirements B.4 Acceptance Criteria B.5 Sample Size B.6 Test Plan, Specific DUT Characteristics, Setup B.7 Development Procedures C Appendix References and Additional Reading 146 C.1 Applicable Publications C.2 SAE Publications C.3 Related Publications C.4 Other Publications 11

12 1 Introduction This Robustness Validation Handbook provides the international automotive electronics community with a common knowledge-based qualification methodology based on the philosophy of robust design. Robustness Validation activities begin in the product conceptualization phase and continue throughout the full life cycle of the product. By integrating robust design and robustness validation with systems engineering practices, project teams are able to design-in and demonstrate product reliability for the user s intended application(s). This handbook defines a methodology to assess the Robustness Margin of an electrical/electronic module. Robustness Margin is defined as the margin between the outer limits of the modules specification and the actual performance capability of the mass-produced product considering all significant source of variation. The task of determining Robustness Margin is started during the design and development process and continues throughout the production life using monitoring mechanisms. It is in this manner that reliability is assured throughout the life cycle of the product. This Robustness Validation Handbook defines a Robustness Validation process in which the user and the supplier of the electrical/electronic module establish requirements and acceptance criteria based on a defined Mission Profile and reliability performance requirements for the vehicle application(s). The objective of Robustness Validation process is to design-out susceptibility to failure mechanisms, assess whether the Robustness Margin is sufficient for the intended application(s), and develop inherently robust manufacturing and assembly processes capable of producing zero-defect product. Robustness Validation relies first on knowledge-based modeling simulation and analysis methods to develop a highly capable design prior to building and testing physical parts; and then on testto-failure (or acceptable degradation) and failure/defect susceptibility testing to confirm or identify Robustness Margins, to enable failure prediction and verify that manufacturing processes produce defect free parts. These techniques represent advancement beyond test-to-pass qualification plans which usually provide very little useful engineering information about failure modes, failure mechanisms and failure points. Robust design concepts provide an efficient way to optimize a product in light of the real world operating conditions it will experience. Validation is a process for evaluating a product s suitability for use in its intended use environment. Thus it is natural that robustness and validation go handin-hand. To achieve efficiency, robustness relies on up front use of physics-of-failure knowledge and tools, fundamental principles of statistical experimentation, and techniques and tools like FMEA, P-Diagrams, orthogonal arrays and Response Surface Methodology. However, the objective of robustness is not merely to complete a design of experiments (DOE), but to understand how the product or process performs its intended function within, and at the limits of, the user specifications. 12

13 Design: 147

14 Electronic Components and Systems German Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers Association (ZVEI) Electronic Components and Systems Division Lyoner Straße Frankfurt am Main Fon Fax Mail zvei-be@zvei.org

15 Handbook for Robustness Validation of Automotive Electrical/Electronic Modules (Pages 148, June 2008) This document addresses robustness of electrical/electronic modules for use in automotive applications. Where practical, methods of extrinsic reliability detection and prevention will also be addressed. This document primarily deals with electrical/electronic modules (EEMs), but can easily be adapted for use on mechatronics, sensors, actuators and switches. EEM qualification is the main scope of this document. Other procedures addressing random failures are specifically addressed in the CPI (Component Process Interaction) section 10. This document is to be used within the context of the Zero Defect concept for component manufacturing and product use. The Robustness Validation approach emphasizes knowledge based engineering analysis and testing a product to failure, or a predefined degradation level, without introducing invalid failure mechanisms. The approach focuses on the evaluation of the Robustness Margin between the outer limits of the customer specification and the actual performance of the component These practices integrate robustness design methods (e.g., test-to-failure in lieu of test-to-pass) into the automotive electronics design and development process. With successful implementation of robustness validation practices, the producer and consumer can realize the objectives of improved quality, cost, and time-to-market. Contents: Introduction Scope Definitions Definition and Description of Robustness Validation Information and Communication Flow Mission Profile Knowledge Matrix for Systemic Failures Analysis, Modelling and Simulation (AMS) Intelligent Testing Manufacturing Process Robustness and its Evaluation Robustness Indicator Figure (RIF) Appendix: - Section Examples - Prototype Test Examples This Robustness Validation Handbook provides the automotive electrical/electronics community with a common qualification methodology to demonstrate robustness levels necessary to achieve a desired reliability. To assure robustness of semiconductor devices and other components used in the EEM, ZVEI Handbook for Robustness Validation of Semiconductor Devices in Automotive Applications is recommended. Further Information to Robustness Validation in general: ZVEI-Services GmbH sender: Fax: / Bestellung_FV-ECS@zvei.org Home: Herewith we order one Handbook including CD-ROM: 90,- (ZVEI member rate) 150,- (none members) plus tax and posting plus tax and posting Date Sign

16 V 2008 Quality Management Training and Professional Development Robustness Validation VDA 6.x * Six Sigma Automotive SPICE Cross-Cultural Training China Maturity Level Assurance Implementation* QM Methods Contractual and Product Liability ISO/TS 16949:2002 * +++ *The Original +++ Automotive-Specific only at VDA-QMC. Practice-Oriented

17 Robustness Validation: New Release Procedure for Semiconductor Components NEW Robustness Validation Parameter B Failure mode c?? App I Failure mode a? App II Parameter A Spec Robustness curve Failure mode b? Robustness margin Automotive-Specific Qualification Quality Management in the Supply Chain ISO/TS, VDA 6.x, QM Basic Principles QM-Methods and Tools A Zero Defect strategy for electronic devices requires a modern inspection and release procedure. Formal inspection scopes that have their origins in the 70s and are laid out for an acceptable quality level percentage have done their duty in the past. Today they are however little suited to guarantee the required single-digit ppm rates. Instead a fit-for-standard is replaced by a knowledge based fit-for-application. Only this time and cost saving release procedure makes the pursuit of a Zero Defect strategy possible. In this connection, relative evaluations appear to be especially purposeful, based on end-of-life tests, limit of function and the inspection of the previous field experiences. These are only limitedly formulatable and require a competent decision-making capability. The procedure, called Robustness Validation, is especially based on the determination of the gap between the real capabilities of the components and the later operating conditions. It helps to demonstrate the physical limits of the semiconductor products under realistic use conditions, and this also constitutes the basis of a risk management. A knowledge-based qualification approach which is based on specific fault mechanisms underlies the procedure. In this way, examinations without knowledge gain are avoided and the concentration on relevant risks is made possible. This standard will increase the reliability of electronic control units in vehicles and in this way will also lead to lower warranty costs. You can find further information at Automotive SPICE Strategical Approaches Law and Goods Traffic Collaborative Qualification Programs Auditor Qualification ISO/TS 16949:2002 VDA 6.x Implementation in Practice 55

18 NEW Robustness Validation: New Release Procedure for Semiconductor Components, Basic Training (for SQA) TARGET AUDIENCE In order to use the potential of robustness validation to its full scale, its use in a very early stage of the project phase is necessary. Therefore on the side of the OEMs and first tier suppliers, we address experts from development and advance development, as well as persons in charge of quality who accompany the complete product cycle. For this group, the basic training (Supplier Quality Assurance Level) is recommended. For developers and design engineers at the circuit level and semiconductor specialists, the consolidation training with a multitude of concrete examples is intended (Supplier Quality Engineering and Developer Level). Automotive-Specific Qualification Quality Management in the Supply Chain ISO/TS, VDA 6.x, QM Basic Principles QM-Methods and Tools Automotive SPICE Strategical Approaches Law and Goods Traffic Collaborative Qualification Programs Auditor Qualification ISO/TS 16949:2002 VDA 6.x Implementation in Practice OBJECTIVE: BASIC TRAINING (FOR SQA) Qualification to evaluate whether the rules of a robustness validation have been applied. Inspection of whether RV reporting and PPAP were completely and correctly carried out. Component release according to robustness validation. PREREQUISITE FOR PARTICIPATION Fundamentals of the approval of electronic components and test specifications required. CONTENTS Basis of the Robustness Validation concept and the procedures. Influence of Robustness Validation on the component approval. Documentation of RV reports and PPAP, including the interpretation of the results. Evaluation of a PPAP with regard to the Robustness Validation. Examples. QUALIFICATION CERTIFICATE After successful completion you receive a VDA-ZVEI (German electrical and electronic manufacturers' association) participation certificate. EVENT DATES (SQA LEVEL) Duration 1 Day Date Venue Event-No. Fee* Oberursel ID 2720/ ,- EUR Oberursel ID 2720/ ,- EUR * The seminar fee plus VAT includes the seminar-specific participant documents and of course lunch, warm and cold beverages in the breaks, fruit and pastries. 56

19 Robustness Validation: New Release Procedure for Semiconductor Components, Consolidation Training (for SQE) NEW TARGET AUDIENCE In order to use the potential of robustness validation to its full scale, its use in a very early stage of the project phase is necessary. Therefore on the side of the OEMs and first tier suppliers, we address experts from development and advance development, as well as persons in charge of quality who accompany the complete product cycle. For this group the basic training (Supplier Quality Assurance Level) is recommended. For developers and design engineers at the circuit level and semiconductor specialists, the consolidation training with a multitude of concrete examples is intended (Supplier Quality Engineering and Developer Level). OBJECTIVE: CONSOLIDATION TRAINING (FOR SQE AND DEVELOPER LEVEL) Preparation of a comprehensive qualification plan according to the Robustness Validation. Compiling and preparing a mission profile for the next step in the value-added-chain. Execution of a risk examination. Feeding back of attained information from the RV process for the purpose of product improvement. Preparation of a monitoring plan. Supplier and technology evaluation and release. APQP Specifications (mission profiles) and quality requirements. PREREQUISITE FOR PARTICIPATION Additional basic knowledge of semiconductor components, their technology and their test procedures. CONTENTS Concept and procedure of Robustness Validation Mission profiles: requirements and format Robustness Validation knowledge matrix Design rules and their verification Documentation of RV reports and PPAP, including the interpretation of results Examples. QUALIFICATION CERTIFICATE After successful completion you receive a VDA-ZVEI (German electrical and electronic manufacturers' association) participation certificate. EVENT DATES (SQE LEVEL) Duration 2 Days Date Venue Event-No. Fee* Oberursel ID 2721/ ,- EUR Oberursel ID 2721/ ,- EUR Automotive-Specific Qualification Quality Management in the Supply Chain ISO/TS, VDA 6.x, QM Basic Principles QM-Methods and Tools Automotive SPICE Strategical Approaches Law and Goods Traffic Collaborative Qualification Programs Auditor Qualification ISO/TS 16949:2002 VDA 6.x Implementation in Practice * The seminar fee plus VAT includes the seminar-specific participant documents and of course lunch, warm and cold beverages in the breaks, fruit and pastries. 57

20 Registration and Payment Conditions (valid until the end of 2008) GENERAL DETAILS Please only use our registration forms and fill these out completely and legibly. We need your correct information to issue the VDA-QMC certificates. For some seminars there are special prerequisites concerning professional qualifications and experience. If required prerequisites are not fulfilled, the VDA-QMC reserves the right to decline the registration to a seminar. You can direct your application to us in three different ways: 1. Fax us the registration form at: +49 (0) 6171/ Book our seminars online: on our homepage at you will find our seminar offer that leads you to the online booking. 3. Send us your application by post to the following address: VDA-QMC Training and Professional Development An den Drei Hasen 31 D Oberursel TERMS OF PAYMENT! The following terms of payment are valid independent of the method of payment: immediately after receipt of your application you will receive a confirmation of receipt from us. The invoice will be sent to you generally one or two weeks before the beginning of the event and is due without deduction. Examination fees are to be paid in advance. You must bring the receipt of payment on the examination day. CANCELLATION/REBOOKING Please send us your cancellations/rebookings in writing by post or fax (for address and fax number see above). The following fee table is valid for cancellations of all events: 6 weeks before the start of the event: free From 4 to 6 weeks before the start of the event: 25% of the event price From 2 to 4 weeks before the start of the event: 50% of the event price Less than 2 weeks before the start of the event: 100% of the event price The cancellation fees naturally do not apply when a replacement participant is named. With multiple part events the first event day of the first event block is always considered for the calculation of the cancellation fee, irrespective of the cancelled event part. Special cancellation conditions are valid for 3 rd party auditors of ISO/TS 16949:2002. These are known to the accredited certification bodies. he literature for the seminar preparation that has already been delivered will be invoiced at the regular sales price if you do not participate in the seminar and if this literature is not sent back to us in new condition at the latest on the day of the cancellation. CANCELLATION OF THE EVENT If an event is fully booked or cannot take place due to an act of God (e.g. the trainer falls ill on short notice) we will inform you immediately. If the number of registered participants is too low, we reserve the right to cancel the event up to seven days before the start of it. In either case we will make efforts to offer you a new event date. We will refund all fees that you have already paid if there is a cancellation on our part, however all further claims are excluded. 96 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Our T&C can be found on our homepage