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 Dianna Deeney Leave a Comment

QDD 041 Getting Comfortable with using Reliability Results

Getting Comfortable with using Reliability Results

We want to engage a reliability engineer in an analysis for our product design. They can help us produce some great information from which we can make decisions. You might be feeling uncomfortable about our team making a design decision based on those results. You don’t quite understand how the reliability engineer came up with the answer. You want to know where that information comes from so you can gauge the level of project risk of our decision.

We peel-back the curtain on reliability engineering methods. We explore reliability engineering’s roots and development, from the 1950’s through today, to better understand the results of an analysis. Having a general understanding of reliability methods can help us get comfortable with using the results.

 

View the Episode Transcript

 

The key takeaways from today:

Reliability engineers use failure data. There are many methods for them to do this, and the methods they use are dependent upon what product is being developed. There is no one reliability plan that applies to everything.

To better understand the reliability prediction we’re studying, we can consider where we got the failure data and which failure mechanisms we’re considering. Early calculations will use failure data that is not specific to our product. When we start to evaluate an engineering design, failure data from using physics of failure and finite element analysis can help us consider different design choices for different failure mechanisms. When we have parts, the failure data from testing our product may focus on one failure mechanism; the models of different failure mechanisms may be combined, or the team can use a worst-case method.

Finally, use your reliability engineering friends’ skills throughout the design development process, from early concept evaluations through product launch and field monitoring. They can help you make decisions for a robust design and avoid costly mistakes. Reliability predictions can evolve as the product design evolves and are a useful tool for decision-making.

Citations

An interesting case study of Physics of Failure:

Chary, Geetha V., Ed Habtour, Gary S. Drake. “Improving the Reliability in the Next Generation of US Army Platforms through Physics of Failure Analysis.” Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention, iss. 12, Dec. 2011, pp. 74-85.

Just two standards-based methods that are still being maintained:

Telcordia SR-332 Originally developed for the Telecom industry, it has expanded to be used widely for other commercial and military applications. It uses a black box technique.

217Plus Handbook™ of 217Plus Reliability Prediction Models (The 217Plus Standard) Originally named PRISM, it was developed with the Reliability Analysis Center (RAC) and Reliability Information Analysis Center (RIAC). It is meant to replace the older MIL-HDBK-217 with more reliability data and models. It considers all phases of a product life cycle as a function of calendar hours.

Other QDD podcasts that might interest you:

If this episode spoke to you, there are 3 other Quality during Design podcasts you may want to revisit. They get into more detail about some of today’s concepts.

Episode 6: HALT! Watch out for that weakest link, describes highly accelerated life testing.

Episode 31: 5 Aspects of Good Reliability Goals and Requirements, where we build up a reliability requirement based on 5 aspects.

Episode 37: Results-Driven Decisions, Faster: Accelerated Stress Testing as a Reliability Life Test, where we describe more about reliability life testing and more specifically about accelerated stress testing.

Episode Transcript

We want to engage a reliability engineer in an analysis for our product design. They can help us produce some great information from which we can make decisions. You might be feeling uncomfortable about our team making a design decision based on those results. You don’t quite understand how the reliability engineer came up with the answer. You want to know where that information comes from so you can gauge the level of project risk of our decision. Let’s talk about reliability engineering methods, and how we can get comfortable with the results.

Hello and welcome to quality during design, the place to use quality thinking to create products others love, for less. My name is Dianna. I’m a senior level quality professional and engineer with over 20 years of experience in manufacturing and design. Listen in and then join the conversation at QualityDuringDesign.com.

Reliability is the probability that something won’t fail in given conditions over a period of life, like time or cycles. Can our product function correctly for a certain time? Reliability engineering methods focus on addressing risk and reliability challenges in design and manufacturing production.

Reliability engineering can sometimes seem like a magical black box, especially if we’re not part of the process. Reliability engineers gather some data and output results. Or they plan some special tests. Those special tests can look to be methods that don’t align with the product’s design function, they can be expensive or complicated, and their results are intertwined with mathematical equations, both of the statistical and applied physics kinds.

Making a design decision based on reliability engineering is a very powerful method for designers to make decisions and its only getting more complicated as we get better tools. To demystify it, let’s pull back the curtain on reliability engineering. This will allow you to better understand the inner workings without having to jump in and become a reliability engineer yourself.

To understand what we can expect out of a reliability engineering activity, let’s put it into some historical context. How did the reliability engineering field grow up?

In the mid 1900s, military components were failing in the field and we didn’t want those failures. How can we study them to prevent them from happening? Early reliability engineering methods were based on observed failure rates of components, focusing on the fracture and fatigue of parts. First, we would collect information about how many products fail, how it failed, at what times of use and under what type of conditions. Then, we’d calculate reliability, assuming that the failure rate was a constant. (Remember that reliability is a probability. And, an extra fun fact is that a constant failure rate is modeled by the exponential distribution.) We collected catalogs of data about components. Using that empirical data (the things we observed from the field), we would use statistical methods to estimate the reliability of new, similar components or of designs that were combinations of components.

A lot of development happened in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s. One of those developments is when we started to apply a statistical model to the data, to fit it to a probability distribution like lognormal or Weibull. IThese methods originated with studying fracture of materials and fatigue and creep. Having a life model gave us better reliability predictions because we weren’t assuming that the design had a constant failure rate. Instead, we created a mathematical model that more closely matched the reality of product performance. We’d use that distribution to be able to predict reliability life data at different times or stresses, and it was more accurate than assuming we had a constant failure rate.

Still in the early 1960s, with life models being developed for fractures, fatigue, and creep, a U.S. Air Force laboratory introduced a Physics of Failure program. Bell Labs was investigating ways to use the Arrhenius math formula to evaluate temperature-induced aging of semiconductor parts. The following year, in 1962, they decided to join together for a Physics of Failure symposium called RAMS(r) (Reliability and Maintainability Symposium). The RAMS(r) conferences are still going on today.

The Physics of Failure approach to reliability engineering is to use science (namely physics) to identify how and why our part is going to fail. What are the potential root cause failure mechanisms that are going to lead to our part failure? Is it one mechanism or is it a combination or two or more? We’ve studied and captured many models about the common mechanisms of failure. We can apply them to model the life data of our design.

The physics of failure method is considered a bottom-up approach. We use known failure mechanisms to help us correlate a mechanism to failure with a measure of degradation to be able to calculate reliability and time to failure. We need detailed information about the components, like their use cases, performance expectations, material, the manufacturing process, and other design data.  Knowing about the component, we study the places on the product that would be the most susceptible to failure and then choose the stresses or other damage mechanisms that will affect it. Or, if we have failures from test, we can look at what those failures are and what type of stresses typically cause them. From that, we decide what failure modes to model.

There are 3 basic models of physics of failure. There’s the stress-strength model, where something fails if the stress applied to it is greater than its strength. The damage-endurance model considers a stress that degrades our product: the stress creates cumulative, irreversible damage that doesn’t affect performance, but will break the product after a time. And, the third is a performance-requirement model, where stress degrades our product and negatively affects performance until the performance falls below what is considered acceptable. There are standard models we use for different stresses, some of which are derived from Quantum Mechanics, like the Erying model! We can combine models: we could have a Physics of Failure model for each failure, damage, or degradation mechanism that we can then combine to assess the overall degradation of the system.

We’re not finished with innovating reliability engineering methods, though. Since the 1960s, we’ve gotten better tools. We have better inspection instruments that can identify more specific failures. We now readily have computers and software available to nearly everyone, capable of being used to mathematically model complex failures. Starting in the 2000s, Probabilistic Physics-of-Failure methods started being developed.  Whenever we use a mathematical model to predict real-life events, there is an uncertainty involved. It can come from the randomness in the real-world failure mechanism that we’re trying to predict, that inherent variability of a phenomenon that we just can’t control or reduce.  Uncertainty can also be introduced because we chose a model that is incomplete: we lack knowledge about our design, we don’t have enough measurements, or we have measurement errors. It’s possible to develop a model and consider the confidence we have in its results. Uncertaintly may also come from the variation in our materials and introduced by manufacturing.  For that, we’ve started using probabilistic finite element analysis.

That brings our historical tour of reliability engineering methods to an end, at least for this episode!

What are we doing today with reliability engineering? There are lots of options for evaluating the reliability of a design.

Going full-circle, back to the observed failure rates in the field, Reliability Engineers still use standards-based methods. There is a lot of failure information and history about product families and groups of components. Using all that collective experience and observations, we can develop mathematical models to help us predict what’s going to happen. The good thing about the models is that they’re available for most things. The not so good thing is that we’re not always sure that the use case for the data matches the use case for our product. Also, some of the data may be out-of-date with modern design and manufacturing methods. These standards-based methods are best used to get a quick and rough estimation of product reliability, especially early in the design phase. These models can be used to help make design decisions about component options, the possible need for redundancies, and component configuration options for our concept. On the podcast blog, I’ll include a couple of these standards-based reliability options.

Physics of Failure and Probabilistic Physics of Failure are just getting better over time. Advantages of the Physics of Failure methods is that they are accurate with known failure mechanisms for components.  These models can be used to help make design decisions about components, the need for redundancies, and the overall, system assembly of our components. And, they can be performed with innovative design concepts, cutting-edge technologies, and with existing products. We can use the physics of failure models to make reliability predictions if we know our product, how it’s used, in what conditions it’s used, and defining the point at which any failure or degradation is going to force it to fail to perform the way we want. Modeling a complex system using Physics of Failure at the component level may be difficult, but it is getting easier with software solutions.

No matter what type of reliability engineering method we use, we need data about failures. We can use what we know about similar products and what we know about the physics of failures. Those databases and collections of information are just getting to be more complete. Sometimes, we need to just test our own designs to failure. And, reliability engineering methods are addressing that, too. The Physics of failure information is used to shorten test times. Examples are burn-in at manufacturing, HALT, and accelerated stress testing.

Let’s conclude. We talked about the history and roots of reliability engineering, to better understand what methods are used today. Reliability engineering calculations can be complex, and they’re getting even more complicated. But you don’t need to know how to do those calculations to understand what decisions to make and to be comfortable with them. Just like design concepts evolve during the design development process, reliability and performance assessments can evolve with it. You can still use the information to make decisions during the design development process.

When you talk with the Reliability Engineer on your team about your new product design, realize that they need failure data in one form or another. When it’s the early concept evaluation phases, the failure data they’re likely to use is from historical, published sources or experiences with similar products. They’ll want to know the design concept, the general construction of component types, the performance expectations, and the working conditions of the product (like it’s use environment or use cases). When you speak with them during the design process (when you’re choosing components and starting the engineering design), know that they want the specifics of the design: the actual construction of the components, the materials, and sometimes the geometry of the components. They may want to evaluate which components are the most susceptible to failure, so they may want to test a component, sub-systems, or the system itself. After the product is released to market, they may use the failure data from the field to verify if the reliability models they used for development is what is actually being experienced in use.

The key takeaways from today:

Reliability engineers use failure data. There are many methods for them to do this, and the methods they use are dependent upon what product is being developed. There is no one reliability plan that applies to everything.

To better understand the reliability prediction we’re studying, we can consider where we got the failure data and which failure mechanisms we’re considering. Early calculations will use failure data that is not specific to our product. When we start to evaluate an engineering design, failure data from using physics of failure and finite element analysis can help us consider different design choices for different failure mechanisms. When we have parts, the failure data from testing our product may focus on one failure mechanism; the models of different failure mechanisms may be combined, or the team can use a worst-case method.

Finally, use your reliability engineering friends’ skills throughout the design development process, from early concept evaluations through product launch and field monitoring. They can help you make decisions for a robust design and avoid costly mistakes. Reliability predictions can evolve as the product design evolves and are a useful tool for decision-making.

If this episode spoke to you, there are 3 other quality during design podcasts you may want to revisit. They get into more detail about some of today’s concepts.

Episode 6: “HALT! Watch out for that weakest link” describes highly accelerated life testing.

Episode 31: “5 Aspects of Good Reliability Goals and Requirements”, where we build up a reliability requirement based on 5 aspects.

Episode 37: “Results-Driven Decisions, Faster: Accelerated Stress Testing as a Reliability Life Test”, where we describe more about reliability life testing and more specifically about accelerated stress testing.

Please go to my website at QualityDuringDesign.com. You can visit me there, and it also has a catalog of resources, including all the podcasts and their transcripts. Use the subscribe forms to join the weekly newsletter, where I share more insights and links. In your podcast app, make sure you subscribe or follow Quality During Design to get all the episodes and get notified when new ones are posted. This has been a production of Deeney Enterprises. Thanks for listening!

 

Filed Under: Quality during Design, The Reliability FM network

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Quality during Design podcast logo

Tips for using quality tools and methods to help you design products others love, for less.


by Dianna Deeney
Quality during Design,
Hosted on Buzzsprout.com
Subscribe and enjoy every episode
Google
Apple
Spotify

Recent Episodes

QDD 101 Quality Tools are Legos of Development (and Their 7 Uses)

QDD 100 Lessons Learned from Coffee Pod Stories

QDD 099 Crucial Conversations in Engineering, with Shere Tuckey (A Chat with Cross-Functional Experts)

QDD 098 Challenges Getting Team Input in Concept Development

QDD 097 Brainstorming within Design Sprints

QDD 096 After the ‘Storm: Compare and Prioritize Ideas

QDD 095 After the ‘Storm: Pareto Voting and Screening Methods

QDD 094 After the ‘Storm: Group and Explore Ideas

QDD 093 Product Design with Brainstorming, with Emily Haidemenos (A Chat with Cross Functional Experts)

QDD 092 Ways to Gather Ideas with a Team

QDD 091 The Spirits of Technical Writing Past, Present, and Future

QDD 090 The Gifts Others Bring

QDD 089 Next Steps after Surprising Test Results

QDD 088 Choose Reliability Goals for Modules

QDD 087 Start a System Architecture Diagram Early

QDD 086 Why Yield Quality in the Front-End of Product Development

QDD 085 Book Cast

QDD 084 Engineering in the Color Economy

QDD 083 Getting to Great Designs

QDD 082 Get Clarity on Goals with a Continuum

QDD 081 Variable Relationships: Correlation and Causation

QDD 080 Use Meetings to Add Productivity

QDD 079 Ways to Partner with Test Engineers

QDD 078 What do We do with FMEA Early in Design Concept?

QDD 077 A Severity Scale based on Quality Dimensions

QDD 076 Use Force Field Analysis to Understand Nuances

QDD 075 Getting Use Information without a Prototype

QDD 074 Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Supplements Test

QDD 073 2 Lessons about Remote Work for Design Engineers

QDD 072 Always Plot the Data

QDD 071 Supplier Control Plans and Design Specs

QDD 070 Use FMEA to Design for In-Process Testing

QDD 069 Use FMEA to Choose Critical Design Features

QDD 068 Get Unstuck: Expand and Contract Our Problem

QDD 067 Get Unstuck: Reframe our Problem

QDD 066 5 Options to Manage Risks during Product Engineering

QDD 065 Prioritizing Technical Requirements with a House of Quality

QDD 064 Gemba for Product Design Engineering

QDD 063 Product Design from a Data Professional Viewpoint, with Gabor Szabo (A Chat with Cross Functional Experts)

QDD 062 How Does Reliability Engineering Affect (Not Just Assess) Design?

QDD 061 How to use FMEA for Complaint Investigation

QDD 060 3 Tips for Planning Design Reviews

QDD 059 Product Design from a Marketing Viewpoint, with Laura Krick (A Chat with Cross Functional Experts)

QDD 058 UFMEA vs. DFMEA

QDD 057 Design Input & Specs vs. Test & Measure Capability

QDD 056 ALT vs. HALT

QDD 055 Quality as a Strategic Asset vs. Quality as a Control

QDD 054 Design Specs vs. Process Control, Capability, and SPC

QDD 053 Internal Customers vs. External Customers

QDD 052 Discrete Data vs. Continuous Data

QDD 051 Prevention Controls vs. Detection Controls

QDD 050 Try this Method to Help with Complex Decisions (DMRCS)

QDD 049 Overlapping Ideas: Quality, Reliability, and Safety

QDD 048 Using SIPOC to Get Started

QDD 047 Risk Barriers as Swiss Cheese?

QDD 046 Environmental Stress Testing for Robust Designs

QDD 045 Choosing a Confidence Level for Test using FMEA

QDD 044 Getting Started with FMEA – It All Begins with a Plan

QDD 043 How can 8D help Solve my Recurring Problem?

QDD 042 Mistake-Proofing – The Poka-Yoke of Usability

QDD 041 Getting Comfortable with using Reliability Results

QDD 040 How to Self-Advocate for More Customer Face Time (and why it’s important)

QDD 039 Choosing Quality Tools (Mind Map vs. Flowchart vs. Spaghetti Diagram)

QDD 038 The DFE Part of DFX (Design For Environment and eXcellence)

QDD 037 Results-Driven Decisions, Faster: Accelerated Stress Testing as a Reliability Life Test

QDD 036 When to use DOE (Design of Experiments)?

QDD 035 Design for User Tasks using an Urgent/Important Matrix

QDD 034 Statistical vs. Practical Significance

QDD 033 How Many Do We Need To Test?

QDD 032 Life Cycle Costing for Product Design Choices

QDD 031 5 Aspects of Good Reliability Goals and Requirements

QDD 030 Using Failure Rate Functions to Drive Early Design Decisions

QDD 029 Types of Design Analyses possible with User Process Flowcharts

QDD 028 Design Tolerances Based on Economics (Using the Taguchi Loss Function)

QDD 027 How Many Controls do we Need to Reduce Risk?

QDD 026 Solving Symptoms Instead of Causes?

QDD 025 Do you have SMART ACORN objectives?

QDD 024 Why Look to Standards

QDD 023 Getting the Voice of the Customer

QDD 022 The Way We Test Matters

QDD 021 Designing Specs for QA

QDD 020 Every Failure is a Gift

QDD 019 Understanding the Purposes behind Kaizen

QDD 018 Fishbone Diagram: A Supertool to Understand Problems, Potential Solutions, and Goals

QDD 017 What is ‘Production Equivalent’ and Why Does it Matter?

QDD 016 About Visual Quality Standards

QDD 015 Using the Pareto Principle and Avoiding Common Pitfalls

QDD 014 The Who’s Who of your Quality Team

QDD 013 When it’s Not Normal: How to Choose from a Library of Distributions

QDD 012 What are TQM, QFD, Six Sigma, and Lean?

QDD 011 The Designer’s Important Influence on Monitoring After Launch

QDD 010 How to Handle Competing Failure Modes

QDD 009 About Using Slide Decks for Technical Design Reviews

QDD 008 Remaking Risk-Based Decisions: Allowing Ourselves to Change our Minds.

QDD 007 Need to innovate? Stop brainstorming and try a systematic approach.

QDD 006 HALT! Watch out for that weakest link

QDD 005 The Designer’s Risk Analysis affects Business, Projects, and Suppliers

QDD 004 A big failure and too many causes? Try this analysis.

QDD 003 Why Your Design Inputs Need to Include Quality & Reliability

QDD 002 My product works. Why don’t they want it?

QDD 001 How to Choose the Right Improvement Model

© 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.