Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • Home
  • About
    • Contributors
  • Reliability.fm
    • Speaking Of Reliability
    • Rooted in Reliability: The Plant Performance Podcast
    • Quality during Design
    • Critical Talks
    • Dare to Know
    • Maintenance Disrupted
    • Metal Conversations
    • The Leadership Connection
    • Practical Reliability Podcast
    • Reliability Matters
    • Reliability it Matters
    • Maintenance Mavericks Podcast
    • Women in Maintenance
    • Accendo Reliability Webinar Series
    • Asset Reliability @ Work
  • Articles
    • CRE Preparation Notes
    • on Leadership & Career
      • Advanced Engineering Culture
      • Engineering Leadership
      • Managing in the 2000s
      • Product Development and Process Improvement
    • on Maintenance Reliability
      • Aasan Asset Management
      • CMMS and Reliability
      • Conscious Asset
      • EAM & CMMS
      • Everyday RCM
      • History of Maintenance Management
      • Life Cycle Asset Management
      • Maintenance and Reliability
      • Maintenance Management
      • Plant Maintenance
      • Process Plant Reliability Engineering
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • RCM Blitz®
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Metals Engineering and Product Reliability
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Product Validation
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
    • on Risk & Safety
      • CERM® Risk Insights
      • Equipment Risk and Reliability in Downhole Applications
      • Operational Risk Process Safety
    • on Systems Thinking
      • Communicating with FINESSE
      • The RCA
    • on Tools & Techniques
      • Big Data & Analytics
      • Experimental Design for NPD
      • Innovative Thinking in Reliability and Durability
      • Inside and Beyond HALT
      • Inside FMEA
      • Integral Concepts
      • Learning from Failures
      • Progress in Field Reliability?
      • Reliability Engineering Using Python
      • Reliability Reflections
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Manufacturing Academy
  • eBooks
  • Resources
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinars
    • Journals
    • Higher Education
    • Podcasts
  • Courses
    • 14 Ways to Acquire Reliability Engineering Knowledge
    • Reliability Analysis Methods online course
    • Measurement System Assessment
    • SPC-Process Capability Course
    • Design of Experiments
    • Foundations of RCM online course
    • Quality during Design Journey
    • Reliability Engineering Statistics
    • Quality Engineering Statistics
    • An Introduction to Reliability Engineering
    • An Introduction to Quality Engineering
    • Process Capability Analysis course
    • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
    • Return on Investment online course
    • CRE Preparation Online Course
    • Quondam Courses
  • Webinars
    • Upcoming Live Events
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home

by Fred Schenkelberg 13 Comments

Accelerated Life Testing

Accelerated Life Testing

A form of testing that reduces the time till results are known, ALT provides a means to estimate the failure rate over time of a product without resorting to normal use conditions and the associated duration.

For example, solar photovoltaic cells should operate for 25 years without failure. The product development time is less than a year for a new panel and the team wants to estimate the reliability of the cells over the 25-year duration.

Why is it better than other methods?

A simplistic way to determine the reliability is to set up and operate solar systems for 25 years and track the number of failures over time. This isn’t practical or useful.

Another method is to only test units as above for one year then use the available information to make a decision. While product failures may occur (most likely due to manufacturing and installation errors) it will not be useful for delimitation of coatings or sealants, solder joint fatigue, PV cell degradation, and other longer term failure mechanisms. While we could make an estimate, it would not be very accurate beyond the one year of use replicated in the testing.

 

Two words: Time compression

Accelerated testing uses a variety of methods to compress time. Using the solar cell example, if UV radiation degrades one of the coatings, we can ‘accelerate’ this by exposing the cells and coatings to UV radiation more often per day than in normal use. If in normal use the panel would have 10 hours of direct daylight per 24 hour day, then using UV lamps, we could expose the units 24 hour per day, for a 2.4 x acceleration. Thus instead of 25 years, we would require little more than 10 years for the testing.

Still not good enough.

If we explore the UV damage mechanism, it may be part of a chemical reaction that clouds the coating. This chemical reaction most likely can be accelerated with temperature (Arrhenius rate equation – remember your chemistry). With a little work, we find the expected coating temperature during use is 40°C or less 90 percent of the time. By increasing the temperature (and not melting the coating – watch those phase transitions) we may find another 10x of acceleration. The specifics of the acceleration is related to the activation energy of the specific chemical reaction, the testing temperature, and the use temperature.

 

Use ALT to its best ability

Therefore, with a little understanding of the use conditions (10 hours of daylight per day) and the specific failure mechanism in question (UV and temperature driven chemical reaction) we can achieve a 24x acceleration factor. This will still take a little more than a year to fully test out to 25 years, yet the team may be able to use the data out to 24 years as a rough estimate and update when the final results become available.

This is just a short example and mainly an example of my approach to accelerated life testing. There is a lot more to ALT design, yet the most important by far is the understanding of the failure mechanism.


Related:

Reading a Datasheet (article)

Sources of Reliability Data (article)

Sample Size – success testing (article)

 

Filed Under: Articles, CRE Preparation Notes, Reliability Testing Tagged With: Reliability test planning

« What is Reliability Engineering?
Recommended Books for Maintenance Reliability Engineers »

Comments

  1. RaviShankar . N.R says

    August 16, 2020 at 10:59 PM

    Regarding accelerated life test plan it will be helpful if you could give your suggestion on below queries

    1.How to select the failure distribution before starting accelerated test for new component which does not have a previous history
    2.How to have the scale or shape parameter for new component which does not have a previous history
    3.These two inputs are required for creating a optimum test plan , kindly give your suggestion
    4.Once the test plan is established , what can be the allowable variance or standard error
    5.How to adjust the sample size for the confidence interval and failure percentage we need to know

    Reply
    • Christopher Jackson says

      August 23, 2020 at 7:12 AM

      Ravi – there are a couple of really good questions here! But the first thing we need to know is what decision is your ALT informing? Are you choosing between two different materials? Are you trying to assess the reliability of something in ‘normal’ conditions? Are you trying to see if the reliability of something exceeds a requirement in ‘normal’ conditions? There are several other questions that might be answered by ALT … so to answer yours can you give us some further insight?

      Reply
      • Ravishankar says

        August 23, 2020 at 1:41 PM

        Hi christopher Jackson I am trying to access the reliability of something in normal use condition.

        Reply
    • Christopher Jackson says

      August 23, 2020 at 7:15 AM

      But to answer a couple of specifics … your ‘scale’ parameter is based on your ‘life model’ which describes how reliability changes when you accelerate testing through (for example) increasing temperature. The ‘failure’ model (which I presume you mean to be the model that describes the random nature of your item failing around the ‘scale’ parameter) is going to be a wear-out probability distribution model. Think normal, lognormal or Weibull with a shape parameter greater than 1.5. And your sample size is all about the decision you are trying to inform. Hope this helps!

      Reply
      • Ravishankar says

        August 23, 2020 at 1:45 PM

        Thanks Christopher Jackson that cleared a lot

        Reply
        • Christopher Jackson says

          September 2, 2020 at 6:01 AM

          No worries Ravi … let me know if there is anything else you need to talk about.

          Reply
  2. Lee says

    July 9, 2022 at 8:31 PM

    ALT from some reliability textbooks say that we need a few (at least two) levels of stress to 1) obtain the parameters of the acceleration life factor and 2) if the life data for each levels of stress will fit to a set of parallel lines.

    However, based on my work experience, I have never seen the reliability engineers used different levels of stressor for the ALT.

    What’s your recommend best practice?

    Reply
    • Fred Schenkelberg says

      July 10, 2022 at 7:58 AM

      Hi Lee,

      There are many ways to conduct ALT – if you have a good (actually known to be representative of the specific failure mechanisms being accelerated and of interest for the study) then using only one stress level is fine. This places a very large assumption that the model to translate the accelerated results actually are meaningful and accurate – which is way too often not the case in my expereince.

      Using only two stress levels assumes you have a linear response between stress level and time to failure – which means not running a third stress level means you cannot check that assumption.

      Everything we do in ALT that is different or further away from how customers will use the product creates opportunities for our assumptions to lead us astray. Running multiple stress levels permits us to check more assumptions and confirm our model at high stress is creating meaningful results or not.

      I routinely run multiple stress levels and once the results and assumptions and model all check out, then can streamline to one or two stress levels based on that knowledge. Pulling a model from a book or paper and assuming an acceleration factor so one can run a single stress is very nearly always going to end with results that are just plain misleading. And, one then has no concrete way to check.

      ALTs are expensive experiments – take the time to do them well in order to create information that is useful and meaningful.

      cheers,

      Fred

      Reply
      • Lee says

        July 10, 2022 at 6:42 PM

        I am so happy to hear your response.

        I was questioning the AF (acceleration factor) for some of our one-stressor ALTs, and people just said they assumed it is metal fatigue or plastic degradation …so they just assumed the AF. The worse part was the assumption that the ALT will actually accelerate the particular failure mode.

        Here is what I think we should have for the following at least:
        1) the life vs stress plot, and
        2) the fitting of life data of each stressor with similar parameters (are they parallel on the life data plot)

        What do you think?

        Reply
        • Fred Schenkelberg says

          July 11, 2022 at 7:31 AM

          Hi Lee,

          The hard part of just guessing or assuming the acceleration factor and then running just one stress level – it you won’t know of far off the results are until customer use the product at normal stress (second level), which is a very expensive way to check an assumption.

          Unless there is very solid evidence to support using an acceleration factor or model (such as what you propose) the results are very likely meaningless and misleading.

          cheers,

          Fred

          Reply
          • Lee says

            December 4, 2022 at 11:25 AM

            Thank you!

            One following up question:

            In the NPI phase (Proto, EVT…), when is the better time to perform the quantitative accelerated life testing?

          • Fred Schenkelberg says

            December 5, 2022 at 8:16 AM

            Hi Lee, as soon as possible for two reasons – ALT’s (often) take time from start to results. Second, you want the team to have time to deal with the results – good or bad. Ideally, you can characterize a new material or component well before the design starts for a new product, second best is as soon as the new item is being considered and has a question on longevity. cheers, Fred

  3. Kelvin Adams says

    November 21, 2022 at 1:08 AM

    Fantastic article, Fred! In essence, an accelerated lifetime test (ALT) is a means to speed up time so that we can determine whether a thing can endure that long without having to wait 20-30 years. Such testing is frequently carried out under demanding circumstances, including open circuit voltage (OCV), high current density, high temperature, and similar circumstances.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CRE Preparation Notes

Article by Fred Schenkelberg

Join Accendo

Join our members-only community for full access to exclusive eBooks, webinars, training, and more.

It’s free and only takes a minute.

Get Full Site Access

Not ready to join?
Stay current on new articles, podcasts, webinars, courses and more added to the Accendo Reliability website each week.
No membership required to subscribe.

  • CRE Preparation Notes
  • CRE Prep
  • Reliability Management
  • Probability and Statistics for Reliability
  • Reliability in Design and Development
  • Reliability Modeling and Predictions
  • Reliability Testing
  • Maintainability and Availability
  • Data Collection and Use

© 2023 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies to give you a better experience, analyze site traffic, and gain insight to products or offers that may interest you. By continuing, you consent to the use of cookies. Learn how we use cookies, how they work, and how to set your browser preferences by reading our Cookies Policy.