Applied Reliability
Page 1
APPLIED
RELIABILITY
Techniques for Reliability Analysis
with Applied Reliability Tools (ART) (an EXCEL AddIn) and JMP® Software
AM216 Class 5 Notes
Santa Clara University
Copyright David C. Trindade, Ph.D.
STATTECH ^{®}
Spring 2010
Applied Reliability
Page 2
AM216 Class 5 Notes
• Accelerated Testing
(continued from Class 4 Notes)
– Accelerated Test Example (Analysis in JMP)
– Degradation Modeling
– Sample Sizes for Accelerated Testing
• System Models
– Series System
– Parallel System
– Analysis of Complex Systems
– Standby Redundancy
• Defective Subpopulations
– Graphical Analysis
– Mortals and Immortals
– Models
– Case Study
– Class Project Example
• Modeling the Field Reliability
– Evolution of Methods
– General Reliability Model
– AMD Example
Applied Reliability
Page 3
System Models
Series System
Consider a system made up with n components in series. If the i th component has reliability R _{i} (t),
the system reliability is the product of the individual
reliabilities, that is,
R
s
(
t
)
R
1
t
R
2
t
. R
n
t
which we denote with the capital “pi” symbol for
multiplication
R
s
t
n
i 1
R
i
t
The system CDF, in terms of the individual CDF’s, is
F
s
t
1
n
i 1
1
F
i
t
The system failure rate is the sum of the individual
component failure rates.
is higher than the highest individual failure rate.
The system failure rate
Applied Reliability
Page 4
System Models
Parallel System
Consider a system made up with n components in parallel. The system CDF is the product of the individual CDF’s, that is,
F
s
t
n
i 1
F
i
t
The system reliability is
R
s
t
1
n
i 1
1
R
i
t
System failure rates are no longer additive (in fact, the system failure rate is smaller than the smallest individual failure rate), but must be calculated using basic definitions.
Applied Reliability
Page 5
System Failure Rate
Two Parallel Components
A component has CDF F(t) and a failure rate h(t). Two components are used in parallel in a system. Determine the failure rate of the system.
SOLUTION The CDF for the two components in parallel is F ^{2} (t) and the PDF, by differentiation, is 2F(t)f(t). The failure rate of the system is
h
s
t
f
s
t
1 F
s
t
2
F t
f
t
1 F
2
t
2 F t
1
F t
f
t
1
F t
2 F t
1 F t
h t
The result shows that the system failure rate is a factor 2F/(1+F) times the component failure rate. The smaller the component CDF, the bigger the improvement. Redundancy makes a larger difference in early life, and much less difference later on.
Applied Reliability
Page 6
Class Project
System Models
A) A component has reliability R(t) = 0.99. Twentyfive components in series form a system. Calculate the system reliability.
B) A component has reliability R(t) = 0.95 Three components in parallel form a system. Calculate the system reliability.
Applied Reliability
Page 7
Reliability Block Diagrams
For components in series:
A
B
For components in parallel:
Applied Reliability
Page 8
Example of SeriesParallel System: Big Rig
Reliability Block Diagram (RBD)
Applied Reliability
Page 9
Class Project
Complex Systems
A system consists of seven units: A, B, C, D, E, G, H.
For the system to function unit A and either unit B or C and either D and E together or G and H together must
be working. Draw the reliability block diagram for this
setup.
Write the equation for the CDF of the system in terms
of the individual component reliabilities, that is, the R _{i} ,
where i = A, B, C,
subsystems:A alone; B with C; and D,E,G,H.
, G, H. Hint: Consider the three
Applied Reliability
Page 10
Standby Versus Active Redundancy
In contrast to active parallel redundancy, there is standby redundancy in which the second component is idle until needed. Assuming perfect
switching and no degradation of the idle
component, standby redundancy results in higher
reliability and less maintenance costs than active
parallel redundancy.
exponentially distributed failure times, is shown below.
An illustration, assuming
System Failure Rates (2 Components)
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
Applied Reliability
Page 11
Series, Parallel Reliability in ART
In ART, select System Reliability information. Click OK.
Enter necessary
Applied Reliability
Page 12
Reliability Experiment
Consider
We test 100 units for 1,000 hours. There are 30 failures by 500 hours, but no more by the end of
test.
Question :
populations or just censored data ?
Are we dealing with two
Question : If we continue the test, will we see only a few more failures, or will the other 70 fail with the same life distribution ?
Applied Reliability
Page 13
Defect Models
Mortals versus Immortals
The usual assumption in reliability analysis is that all units can fail for a specific mechanism. If a defective subpopulation exists, only a fraction of
the units containing the defect may be susceptible
to failure. These are called mortals.
Units without the fatal flaw do not fail. These are called immortals.
The model for the total population of mortals and immortals becomes :
CDF = (fraction mortals) x CDF(mortals)
Reliability analysis focuses on the life distribution of
the defective subpopulation and the mortal fraction.
Applied Reliability
Page 14
Example of a Defective Subpopulation
A Processing Problem
Suppose we have 25 wafers in a lot, but only two wafers are contaminated with mobile ions due to a processing error.
If components are assembled from the 25 wafers, assuming equal yield per wafer, only 2/25= 8% of the components can have the fatal “defect” that
makes failure possible.
The components from the noncontaminated wafers will not fail for this mechanism since they are defect free; that is, we have a defective subpopulation.
Applied Reliability
Page 15
Spotting a Defective Subpopulation
Graphical Analysis
Assume that a specified failure mode follows a lognormal distribution.
Plot the data on lognormal graph paper. If instead of
following a straight line, the points seem to curve away from the cumulative percent axis, it’s a signal that a defective subpopulation may be present.
If test is run long enough, expect plot to bend over
asymptotic to cumulative percent line that represents
proportion of defectives in the sample.
Applied Reliability
Page 16
Defective Subpopulations
Graphical Analysis
Plot based on total sample (mortals and immortals).
Plot based only on mortal subpopulation.
Applied Reliability
Page 17
Defect Model
Mortals and Immortals
The observed CDF F _{o}_{b}_{s} (t) is
F _{o}_{b}_{s} (t) = p F _{m} (t)
where F _{m} (t) is the CDF of the mortals and p is the fraction of mortals (units with the fatal defect) in the total sample size.
For example, if there are 25 % mortals in the population, and the mortal CDF at time t is 40%, then we would expect to observe about 0.25x0.40 = 0.10 or 10% failures in the total random sample at time t.
Applied Reliability
Page 18
Major Computer Manufacturer Reliability Data
Gate Oxide Fails
Time (hours) 
24 
48 
168 
500 
1000 
Rejects 
201 
23 
1 
1 
1 
Sample Size 
58,000 
57,392 
10,000 
2,000 
1,999 
Censored 
407 
47,369 
7,999 
0 
1,998 
Analysis by Company Using Lognormal Distribution
T _{5}_{0} : 1.149E32 hours
Sigma: 26.175
Applied Reliability
Page 19
What Do These Numbers Mean?
Analysis by Company Using Lognormal Distribution
T _{5}_{0} : 1.149E32 hours
Sigma : 26.175
Plus and minus 3 sigma range of time to failure distribution extends from 33 seconds to 1.66E62 years !
It takes seconds to get to 0.1% cumulative failures,
but over 412,000 hours (that is, 47 years) to get to 1.00% !
Assuming everything can fail is misleading and unnecessary.
Applied Reliability
Page 20
Modeling with Defective Subpopulations
The same data, assuming 99% of the failures have occurred by 48 hours, can be modeled by a fraction defective subpopulation of 227/58,000 = 0.39% and
a lognormal distribution of failure times for the mortals T _{5}_{0} =10.6 hours and sigma = 0.68.
Practically 100% of failures occur by 168 hours. Any failures thereafter are probably not related to the defective subpopulation. For example, handling
induced failures are a possibility.
Applied Reliability
Page 21
Defective Subpopulation Models
If we don’t consider mortals vs. immortals, we will incorrectly assume that all units can fail.
Projections of field reliability will be biased
unless we identify the limited defective units.
Applied Reliability
Page 22
Statistical Reliability Analysis and Modeling:
A Case Study
Analysis of Reliability Data
with Failures from a Defective Subpopulation
Applied Reliability
Page 23
Reliability Study
Background
One lot of a device type with initial burnin results at 168 hours, 125 ^{o} C :
Over 50% fallout due to bake recoverable
failures
Since other lots, with similar manufacturing, might have escaped to a few customers, we needed to assess the field impact.
We were able to impound this lot, containing about
300 devices not burnedin.
Applied Reliability
Page 24
Reliability Study
Design
Two static stresses:
179 Units :
90 Units :
30 Units:
125 ^{o} C ambient 150 ^{o} C ambient Control
Frequent readouts at 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 48, 68, 92, 116 hours
Applied Reliability
Page 25
Purpose of Study
Reliability Modeling
• Determine if fraction defective (mortals) model applies
• Determine failure distribution (lognormal, parameters)
• Determine if true acceleration is present
• Determine activation energy for acceleration factors
• Determine recovery kinetics with and without bake  Is 24 hours at 150 ^{o} C necessary?  Do devices recover at room temperature?
Applied Reliability
Page 26
Modeling Procedure
Statistical Analysis Plan
• Analyze cumulative percent failures plot versus time, both linear and probability plots.
• Estimate fraction mortals for stress cells. Test
for significant difference.
• Plot fallout of mortals (reduced sample size) on lognormal probability graph. Check for linearity and equality of slopes.
• Run maximum likelihood analysis. Test for equality of shape factors (sigmas). Estimate single sigma. Estimate median life T _{5}_{0} for both cells.
• Check model fit against original data.
Applied Reliability
Page 27
Reliability Study
Bake Recoverable Failures
L in e a r
P lo t o f C u m u la tiv e
F a ilur e s Ve rsu s T im e
Stre s s Tim e (Pow e r on H our s )
Sam ple S iz e s : 1 5 0 oC =9 0 ; 1 2 5o C = 1 7 9
Applied Reliability
Page 28
Reliability Study
Bake Recoverable Failures
Applied Reliability
Page 29
Reliability Study
Bake Recoverable Failures
Norm a l V a ria te : Z
S ta nda rd
Probability Plot (Adjusted for Mortals)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0
0.5
1
1.5
4
4.5
5
3.5
150oC
125oC
Ln(Tim e to Fa ilure )
M orta l S a m ple S iz e s: 150oC = 64;
125oC = 113
Applied Reliability
Page 30
APL PROGRAM FOR MLE
GENLNEST
ENTER NUMBER OF CELLS: 2
CHOOSE CONF. LIMIT FOR BOUND IN PERCENT: 90
ENTER ANY EXACT TIMES OF FAILURE FOR CELL 1
ENTER START AND ENDPOINT OF ALL READOUT INTERVALS (INCLUDE ZERO’S)
SPREAD 2 4 8 16 32 48 68 92 116
ENTER CORRESPONDING NUMBERS OF FAILS PER INTERVAL (INCLUDE ZERO’S)
34 6 21 2 0 0 0 1 0
ENTER TIMES ALL FAILED UNITS WERE REMOVED FROM TEST (INCLUDING END OF TEST)
116
ENTER CORRESPONDING NUMBERS REMOVED
0
ENTER ANY EXACT TIMES OF FAILURE FOR CELL 2
ENTER START AND ENDPOINT OF ALL READOUT INTERVALS (INCLUDE ZERO’S)
SPREAD 2 4 8 16 32 48 68 92 116
ENTER CORRESPONDING NUMBERS OF FAILS PER INTERVAL (INCLUDE ZERO’S)
5 0 36 8 42 7 3 4 3
ENTER TIMES ALL FAILED UNITS WERE REMOVED FROM TEST (INCLUDING END OF TEST)
16 116
ENTER CORRESPONDING NUMBERS REMOVED
2 3
MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES
VARIANCE 
VARIANCE 
COVARIANCE 

CELL 
T50 
SIGMA 
M U 
SIGMA 
M U 
MU SIGMA 
1 1.90 
1.208 
.444 
.0322 
.0373e1 
.643e2 

2 15.08 
1.060 
2.714 
.0059 
.0104e3 
.266e5 

ESTIMATE BOUNDS (90 PERCENT CONFIDENCE) 

NUM. 
NUM. 

CELL 
ON TEST 
FAIL 
T50 LOW 
T50 UP 
SIGMA LOW 
SIGMA UP 
1 
64 
64 
1.38 
2.63 
.909 
1.508 
2 
113 
108 
12.74 
17.86 
.933 
1.187 
WANT EQUAL T50’S OR SIGMAS OR BOTH IN SOME CELLS (Y/N)? 

Y 

CELLS: 1 2 

TYPE 1 FOR EQUAL SIGMA’S, 2 FOR EQUAL MU’S, 3 FOR BOTH THE SAME: 1 

THE ASSUMPTION OF QUAL SIGMA’S CAN NOT BE REJECTED AT THE 95 PERCENT LEVEL. 

UNDER THIS ASSUMPTION, RESULTS LIKE OBSERVED OCCUR ABOUT 41.9 PERCENT OF THE TIME. 

(THE SMALLER THIS PERCENT, THE LESS LIKELY THE ASSUMPTION.) 

MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES 

VARIANCE 
VARIANCE 
COVARIANCE 

CELL 
T50 
SIGMA 
M U 
SIGMA 
M U 
MU SIGMA 
1 
2.02 
1.090 
.704 
.0051 
.0247e2 
.538e3 
2 
15.08 
1.090 
1.713 
.0051 
.0110e2 
.250e5 
ESTIMATE BOUNDS (90 PERCENT CONFIDENCE) 

NUM. 
NUM. 

CELL 
ON TEST 
FAIL 
T50 LOW 
T50 UP 
SIGMA LOW 
SIGMA UP 
1 
64 
64 
1.56 
2.63 
.972 
1.207 
2 
113 
108 
12.68 
17.54 
.972 
1.207 
WANT EQUAL T50’S OR SIGMAS OR BOTH IN SOME CELLS (Y/N)?
N
Applied Reliability
Page 31
Reliability Study
Bake Recoverable Failures
Model Fit to Actual
Tim e
(P ow er o n Ho ur s)
Applied Reliability
Page 32
Projection to Field Conditions
Acceleration Statistics
• Estimate acceleration factor between two
stress cells :
AF = 15.08 / 2.02 = 7.465
• Estimate activation energy, based on Tj’s,
35 ^{o} C above ambient:
E _{A} = 1.375 eV
• Estimate field T _{5}_{0} based on Tj at 55 ^{o} C ambient : field T _{5}_{0} = 18,288 hours
• Using field T _{5}_{0} , sigma = 1.090, lognormal distribution:
project fallout and failure rates for various mortal fractions use customer field data to determine which mortal fraction applies
Applied Reliability
Page 33
Projection to Field Use
Bake Recoverable Fails
P e r ce nt
C um u lat iv e
Pr o je cted F ie ld F a llo u t w ith Va rio u s M o rtal
2 0%
1 8%
1 6%
1 4%
1 2%
1 0%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
P er cen tag es
0 
2 
4 
6 
8 
1 0 

T ime 
i n 
F ie ld 
( K 
H o ur s ) 
Applied Reliability
Page 34
A Note of Caution
Analysis When Mortals Are Present
Since the analysis which took into account the presence of a defective subpopulation, parameter estimates were accurate. The two customers, notified of the affected lots, used analysis for decisions on how to treat remaining product in field.
If assessment is not done correctly and there is a low incidence of mortals, the T _{5}_{0} ’s and sigma’s for a lognormal distribution may become very large and inaccurate.
Applied Reliability
Page 35
A Side Benefit
Screening a Wearout Mechanism
Note that it may be possible to screen a wearout
failure mechanism if only a subpopulation of the
units are mortal for that mechanism and sufficient acceleration is obtainable.
See Trindade paper “Can Burnin Screen Wearout Mechanism? Reliability Models of Defective Subpopulations  A Case Study” in 29 ^{t}^{h} Annual Proceedings of Reliability Physics Symposium (1991)
Applied Reliability
Page 36
Class Project
Defect Models
50 components are put on stress. Readouts are at 10, 25, 50, 100, 200, 500, and 1,000 hours. The failure counts at the respective readouts are 2, 2, 4, 5, 4, 3, and 0.
1. Estimate the CDF for all units using the table below with n = 50.
CDF Est 

Cum # 
All Units 

Time 
Fails 
(%) 
10 
2 

25 
4 

50 
8 

100 
13 

200 
17 

500 
20 

1000 
20 
2. Plot the data on Weibull probability paper on the next page.
Does the data appear distributed according to a
Weibull distribution or does a defect model seem possible?
Applied Reliability
Page 37
Weibull Probability Paper
Applied Reliability
Page 38
Note: “Percent Failure” scale on Weibull Probability paper is faint. Values are 99.9, 98.0, 90.0, 70.0, 50.0, 30.0, 20.0, 10.0, 5.0, 2.0, 1.0, 0.5, 0.2, 0.1, etc.
Applied Reliability
Page 39
Class Project
Defect Model Estimates
Weibull Parameter Estimates for Mortal Population:
Characteristic Life (c)
Shape Parameter (m)
F
(
t
) 1
e
t
/
c
m
How could we confirm that the Weibull model for the mortal population fits the data? We estimate the CDF at three times and compare to observations.
Mortal 

CDF 
Model 
Empirical 

(Weibull 
Mortal 
CDF for 
CDF All 

Time 
Model) 
Fraction 
All Units 
Units 
25 
0.221 
0.4 

100 
0.632 
0.4 

1000 
1.000 
0.4 
Applied Reliability
Page 40
Defective Subpopulations in ART
Enter failure information (readout times, cumulative failures) into columns. Under ART, select Defective Subpopulations… Enter required information. Click OK.
Applied Reliability
Page 41
System Models
A General Model for the
Field Reliability of
Integrated Circuits
An Evolution in the Projection of Field Failure Rates
Applied Reliability
Page 42
Failure Rate Calculations
Primitive Method
Assumptions
• Constant failure rate
• Single overall activation energy
• Ambient temperatures
• No separation of failure modes
Applied Reliability
Page 43
Primitive Method
Problems with Calculations
Example
100 units are stressed for 1,000 hours at 125 ^{o} C. Assume no self heating. One unit fails at 10 hours for mechanism with E _{A} of 1.0 eV. Second unit fails at 500 hours for failure mechanism with E _{A} of 0.5 eV.
Primitive Method Calculation
Overall average activation energy : 0.75 eV Acceleration Factor (125 ^{o} C to 55 ^{o} C): AF = 106 IFR (constant) at 55 ^{o} C :
[1E9x2/(10+500+98x1000)]/AF = 192 FITS
Applied Reliability
Page 44
Primitive Method
Comparative Calculation
Individual Analysis by Failure Mechanism
Mechanism 1: E _{A} = 1.0 eV, AF = 501 IFR (constant) at 55 ^{o} C:
[1E9/(10+500+98x1000)]/AF = 20 FITS
Mechanism 2: E _{A} = 0.5 eV, AF = 22,
IFR (constant) at 55 ^{o} C:
[1E9/(10+500+98x1000)]/AF = 461 FITS
Total IFR = 481 FITS
Applied Reliability
Page 45
Failure Rate Calculations
Later Improved Method
• Early failures (infant mortality) reported separately
• Longterm life modeled with activation energy
specific to failure mechanisms
• Constant failure rate for long term life
• Temperature acceleration calculated with junction temperatures
Applied Reliability
Page 46
Later Method
Problems
• Defective subpopulations not adequately modeled
• Competing failure modes not adequately modeled with constant failure rate
• Zero rejects and unidentified mechanisms often not treated
• Bathtub curve approximated in flat region only because of constant failure rate
Applied Reliability
Page 47
An Alternative Model
Three categories of possible failures:
Test Escapes Defective Subpopulations Competing Failure Mechanisms
The three D’s:
Dead
Defective
Deficient
Applied Reliability
Page 48
NonFunctional Test Escapes
Dead on arrival (DOA)
Quality issue
Inadequate testing at manufacturer or damaged after testing prior to customer receipt
Rejects “discovered” at customer; called mistakenly reliability failures
Assume zero in model
Applied Reliability
Page 49
Defective Subpopulations
There are proportions of the total population at risk of failure. Defective units are called mortals. The ones without the defect are called immortals.
Defective subpopulations are generally associated with processing problems.
There are physical reasons why defective subpopulations should exist.
Always question the assumption (common in the traditional approach) that any observed failure type will eventually affect all other devices.
Applied Reliability
Page 50
Competing Risks
There are failure mechanisms that can affect all units.
We call these mechanisms competing risks
because several different types may exist and any
one can cause the unit to fail.
These mechanisms are typically associated with design, processing, or material problems.
We model the failures using Weibull or Lognormal distributions
Applied Reliability
Page 51
General Reliability Model
F
T
1
F
e
F
d
where
F _{N} =
1  R _{1} R _{2}
R _{N}
F
N
• Activation energies are specific to failure mechanisms.
• Zero rejects and unidentified mechanisms are included.
• Generates complete bathtub curve!
Applied Reliability
Page 52
General Reliability Model In Use at AMD
AMD Reliability Brochure 1994 Data
Applied Reliability
Page 53
AMD Reliability Brochure 1994 Data
Applied Reliability
Page 54
Appendix
Applied Reliability
Page 55
Class Project
System Models
A) A component has reliability R(t) = 0.99. Twentyfive components in series form a system. Calculate the system reliability.
R _{s} (t) = (0.99) ^{2}^{5} = 0.778 or 77.8%
B) A component has reliability R(t) = 0.95
Three components in parallel form a system.
Calculate the system reliability.
R _{s} (t) = 1 (1 0.95) ^{3} = 0.9999 or 99.99%
Applied Reliability
Page 56
Class Project
Complex Systems
A system consists of seven units: A, B, C, D, E, G, H. For the system to function unit A and either unit B or C
and either D and E together or G and H together must
be working. Draw the reliability block diagram for this setup.
Write the equation for the CDF of the system in
terms of the individual component reliabilities, that is,
the R _{i} , where i = A, B, C,
three subsystems:A alone; B with C; and D,E,G,H.
1) R _{A} 2) R _{B}_{C} =1 (1 R _{B} )(1 R _{C} ) 3) R _{D}_{E}_{G}_{H} = 1 (1 R _{D}_{E} )(1 R _{G}_{H} ) = 1 (1 R _{D} R _{E} )(1 R _{G} R _{H} ) The system CDF is F _{S} = 1  R _{S} = 1  R _{A} R _{B}_{C} R _{D}_{E}_{G}_{H}
, G, H. Hint: Consider the
Applied Reliability
Page 57
Class Project
Defect Models
1. Estimate the proportion defective p and the number of mortals in the sample. Fill in the mortal CDF column in the table below.
Cum # 
CDF Est All 
CDF Est 

Time 
Fails 
Units (%) 
Mortals (%) 
10 
2 
2/50 = 4% 

25 
4 
4/50 = 8% 

50 
8 
8/50 = 16% 

100 
13 
13/50 = 26% 

200 
17 
17/50 = 34% 

500 
20 
20/50 = 40% 

1000 
20 
20/50 = 40% 
2. Plot the data for the mortal subpopulation on the same sheet of paper. Does the fit look reasonable?
4. Estimate the characteristic life c = T _{6}_{3} , the 63rd percentile.
5. Estimate the shape parameter m by drawing a line perpendicular to the “best fit by eye line” through the estimation point on the Weibull paper and reading the beta estimation scale.
Applied Reliability
Page 58
Class Project
Defect Model Example
n = 50
Cum # 
CDF Est All 
CDF Est 

Time 
Fails 
Units (%) 
Mortals (%) 
10 
2 
2/50 = 4% 
2/20 = 10% 
25 
4 
4/50 = 8% 
4/20 = 20% 
50 
8 
8/50 = 16% 
8/20 = 40% 
100 
13 
13/50 = 26% 
13/20 = 65% 
200 
17 
17/50 = 34% 
17/20 = 85% 
500 
20 
20/50 = 40% 
20/20 = 100% 
1000 
20 
20/50 = 40% 
20/20 = 100% 
Estimated mortal fraction, p : 0.40 or 40%
CDF estimate for mortals is based on sample size of defective subpopulation.
Applied Reliability
Page 59
Weibull Probability Plot
Applied Reliability
Page 60
Class Project
Defect Model Example Model Check
Weibull Parameter Estimates for Mortal Population :
Characteristic Life (c) Shape Parameter (m)
100
1.0
F
(
t
) 1
e
t
/
c
m
Mortal 

CDF 
Model 
Empirical 

(Weibull 
Mortal 
CDF for 
CDF All 

Time 
Model) 
Fraction 
All Units 
Units 
25 
0.221 
0.4 
0.088 
0.08 
100 
0.632 
0.4 
0.253 
0.26 
1000 
1.000 
0.4 
0.400 
0.40 
Applied Reliability
Page 61
Class Project
Defect Model p x Weibull CDF Plot
Defect Model Example
Times (Hrs)
Much more than documents.
Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.
Cancel anytime.