Best Reliability Tools-Larry Edson

The Best Reliability Tools And
Methods Being Used Today

Learn More In Less Time At Lower Cost
By
Larry Edson
Larry Edson Consulting Inc.
September 2022 larryedson@hotmail.com 1
A Reliable Product Is The Result Of A Good Reliability Program Plan
Preserving
Anticipation Analytical Qualitative Quantitative
Reliability In
Methods Methods Methods Methods
Production
A Presentation Of Modern Reliability Methods For ASML:

Larry Edson Consulting Inc. “The personal decision as to
Home: 248-347-6212 which product to purchase is most
Cell: 248-207-2187 influenced by the reputation of the
21880 Garfield Road company's ability to consistently
Northville, Michigan, U.S.A. deliver a reliable product.”
48167 Marketing Study 2003
September 2022 Copyright 2022- Larry Edson Consulting Inc. 2
We Both Deal With The Complex Integration Of
Interacting Systems To Form An Overall Assembly
Inside Your Product……
Inside My Product……
Reliable components make for

reliable systems which make for
reliable assemblies…

The Truth vs. Misconception Of The Cost Of
Reliability
The Misconception NOT TRUE The TRUTH!
Reliability Reliability
Requirement Requirement
Starting Starting
Point Point
Reliability Reliability
Material costs and the state of the art of design dictate how reliable a product
could be. Unreliability is the result of many small errors in design or
manufacturing that detract from what could be the inherent reliability of this
device. “Reliability” is the result of removing this collection of small errors or
preventing their occurrence in the first place. Being “Reliability Smart” does not
increase the cost of the product, and often results in a cost savings. However,
there is a limit with a given technology and materials, and if more reliability is
needed, then there will be a quantum jump in cost. This quantum jump in cost is
usually never necessary.
Reliability Is Not About Cost But About How
Knowledgeable You Are In Your Design!
• How do we get knowledgeable?.... We learn.
• We learn from the experiences of others, analytical

simulations, and we learn from testing.
– Simulations include the expected.
– Testing includes the unexpected.
• Learn fast if you want to keep up in any business today.
• Everything that follows is about learning fast and being

product smart when it comes to reliability.
• Reliability is all about having adequate design

margin where it counts the most.

Class Objective And The Directions Companies Have
Taken With Success And Those That Have Been
Abandoned
Class Objectives
• Understand The Best Of What Is Done In Other
Companies
• “Physics of Failure” is the foundation For
Reliability
• Learning Faster Is An Equal Partner In Reliability
• Large Sample Sizes Are Not Needed!
Mindset Approaches To Reliability
• Accounting Based Predictions
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
 Your Mission, Should You Decide To Accept It, Is To Think Of How

These Examples Can Best Be Applied To Your Product!

Why Are We Crossing Off Accounting
Based Reliability Prediction Methods?
• Most of the world has come to realize that the cookbook
approach to reliability using Mil-Hdbk-217 adds no value, and
by post-facto analysis, has no correlation to reality. These
methods focus on predicting the MTBF of a product, which is
a metric that does not serve us well. Numerous studies have
repeatedly shown a lack of correlation between the predicted
reliability and the actual reliability performance in the field.
– Time and resources spent doing the wrong thing takes
away from the precious time we have that could be spent
doing the right thing.
– Do not take this cookbook approach to reliability!
“There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which
should not be done at all.”
Peter F. Drucker
This Accounting Based Prediction Method Has No
Relationship To Reality!

The Concept of MTBF Was Used By The Military In The Past
But Should Not Be Used For Durable Goods Today
Probability Density Function
0. 009 Pdf
Data 1
Useful For “Consumables” Like Light Weibull-2P
RRY SRM MED FM
F=1/S=0
Bulbs But Not For Durable Goods Pdf L ine
0. 007
MTBF is 100 η t

β
− 
Units of Time  f (t ) = 1 − e  η
0. 005
0 β
η  η
− 
 f (t ) = 1− e  η
f(t)
63% Have Failed 0 = 1 − e −1

0. 004 By The Time We = .632
Reach The MTBF = 63.2%
63.2% of 100
0. 002
L arry Edson
L arry Edson Consulting
10/15/2009
3:11:16 PM
0. 000
0. 000 100. 000 200. 000 300. 000 400. 000 500. 000
Time, (t)
β=2 .0 0 0 0 , η=1 0 0 .2 8 8 6

Meeting A Reliability Requirement
• Reliability is the probability of acceptable performance up through
the end of the customer’s expected life-time ownership period.
• Reliability can be considered “Quality Over Time.”
• Reliability is the green portion of the
distribution shown below after “one-life” of cumulative damage.
Reliability Requirement Line Now

Defined by The Severe User That’s
Reliability
Area To The Right

Of The Line
Area To The Left Of The Line
Represents Un-Reliability On Test Represents
Reliability
Strength
Strength
Stress Degradation Over

Time – One-Life
Stress Stress
T = 10 Years Later T=0
The Quick Learning Cycle Strategy For
A Reliability Program Plan
• Product development can be partitioned into five phases:
Key Product
• A1nticipation – Robustness in Concept (DFMEA, DRBFM, AFD)
Characteristics
• A2nalysis – Before Physical Prototypes (Design Margin - FEA) (KPCs) Are Identified
In The First Half Of
• Q3ualitative – Earliest Prototypes (Learn The Unknowable - HALT) This Process And
Statistical Process
• Q4uantitative – The Final Confirmation (Validation - Statistical) Control Is Applied To
• Preserving Reliability in Production (SPC and Screening Tests) The KPCs During
Production
Anticipation
Methods
Underestimation
Weakness
Weakness
• “Quick Learning Cycles”
is our motto.
• “Waiting” for anything is a Preserving
dirty word.
Reliability
Squeeze Out Time
In Production
Preserving
Reliability In
Production
METHODS OF
ANTICIPATION
FMEA = Failure Mode And Effects Analysis

DRBFM = Design Review Based On Failure Modes
AFD = Anticipatory Failure Determination
Improved Anticipation Method: DRBFM
Design Review Based On Failure Modes
• A form of focused DFMEA activity most useful for a
changed product:
– Many products evolve through generations of
change. “Change” is what drives problems in
each new iteration of the product.
– Focusing on “change” and how the “change”
interfaces to other devices will drive efficiency in the
design review process.
– This method evolved out of Toyota and was their
solution to making DFMEA more efficient.
– Adopted by many companies around the world.
– Is becoming an SAE recommended best practice
(SAE J2886).
Best Anticipation Method For Test Planning:
Anticipatory Failure Determination (AFD®)
• DFMEA focuses on managing the expected. But

product failure most often occurs because of
“what was not supposed to be.”
• Recognizing that “things can happen that were
not supposed to be” points to the fact that parts
of our designs may intrinsically contain zones of
poor information, and this becomes the focus for
AFD.
• AFD uses the TRIZ approach of problem inversion to
convert a failure problem into an inventive problem
– We no longer ask “how could it fail” but rather
“how could we make it fail! ”
http://www.ideationtriz.com/afd.asp

Preserving
Reliability In
Production
QUALITATIVE TEST
STRATEGIES
Discovering Unexpected Weaknesses And Removing Those

Weaknesses When It Is Easiest And Least Expensive
HALT Is A Philosophy And A Process

HALT: The Stepped-Stress Approach Is Used
During The Protype Stage To Discover Outlier
Weaknesses
• Many different stresses can be incrementally increased in an
effort to find a weakness…. The question is: “what will we do
with the weakness once we discover that it exists?”
Stress
Time = Weaknesses
Establishing A Strategy To Decide
“What Weaknesses Shall We Fix?”
Patch it Up And Keep On Testing Towards The Limit Of Technology…..
Look For The Diminishing Return On Investment

Start Limit Of End
Temporary Fix… Keep Testing To Find Next Weak Link
Low Technology High
Stress FIXED FIXED Stress
First
Time On Test Third
Second Weakness
Weakness Weakness Uncovered
Uncovered Uncovered Intended
Design
Errors That Crept Into The Design Margins By
If you do not fix these then you waste Analysis
the money you spent to get these

The Comprehensive HALT Testing Process
Vibration Stepping With

Temperature Swings
Step-Stressing Thermal Cycling Step-Stressing Simultaneously
Temperature in Vibration
Celsius (Room Temperature) Temperature UOL
Upper Operating Limit
(No Vibration)
+100 ? For Temperature
+70
+40
+25
Time
-20
-50
Lower Operating Limit “Tickle Vibration”

-100 ? For Temperature .5 to 10 GRMS For
Temperature LOL
Vibration
30 Seconds At
End Of Dwells
30 Seconds
The Wide Range of HALT Frequencies
Affect Many Different Components
Thermotron Vibration Profile Shown
Chip Capacitors and Die Bond Wires

Components on
PWB
Circuit Board
Resonant
Frequencies

Example of How A 94 Million Dollar Warranty
Expense Could Have Been Prevented With HALT
• Woops! - HALT was not used prior to production and
the following failure in a solder joint in the wiper
system resulted. HALT used during warranty analysis
reveals the problem in 20 minutes with thermal cycling
or 10 minutes with vibration. This problem resulted in
94 million dollars of warranty and resulted in the
demise of two supplier companies.

The Effect of Qualitative Testing And
Responsible Improvements
• Design maturity thinking using HALT improves the
actual Design Margin quickly and efficiently.
• But the question still remains: “Is it good enough?”
Accelerated Reliability Growth

During Development
High
Specification Range Spec
Validation
Developing
Low Robustness
Spec Against
Stresses
Stress
Preserving
Reliability In
Methods Methods Methods Methods Production
QUANTITATIVE TEST
STRATEGIES -ACCELERATED
TESTING EXAMPLES
Answering The Question: “Is It Good Enough?”

Equations That Relate To Words Used In This
Presentation
• Success-Run Testing – How many parts do I put on test with no
failures ln (1 − C ) N = Sample Size, C=Bias but called confidence,
N=
ln ( R ) R=Reliability
• Multiple Life Testing – Testing for multiple lives to compensate

for a smaller sample size on test
Xnew = Xold × MLF MLF = β ( Nold ) ÷ ( Nnew ) MLF = Multiple Life Factor
• Acceleration Factor (AF) for Inverse Power Life-Stress

Relationships Life  Stress 
m
Stress can be T, Gs, GRMS,
normal accelerated
AF = = 
Lifeaccelerated Stress KPA, Lbs.-Force, Volts
 normal 
• Acceleration Factor (AF) for Arrhenius Life-Stress Relationships

 Ea   1 1  Stress is absolute
 
  X  −  
  K Boltzmann ' s   Stressnormal Stressaccelerated  temperature in Kelvin
AF = e
• Acceleration Factor (AF) for combined humidity and temperature
  H u m id ity 
−3
   .7 7  ×  1 − 1   Acceleration Factors
A c c e le ra tio n F a c to r =   lo w
 ×  e  K   T1 T 2  
multiply when working
  H u m id ity   
 h ig h  
together
The Process We Use In Developing A Test Plan
ID Critical Failure Mechanisms In Terms Of Engineering Metrics

Physics & Chemistry
Quantify Damage in “One-Life” For The Severe

User/Environment For Each Failure Mechanism Keep
Damage
Translate Damage Into An Accelerated Test While Constant
Keeping Damage Constant For Each Failure Mechanism
Interactions
Assemble Accelerated Tests Into A Test-Flow That Between
Makes Optimum Use Of Interactions Between Stresses Stresses!
• What Are The Detailed Demonstrate Reliability Test To Failure

Steps For Making This With Statistical Methods
Happen? For Key Stress Types Success-Run
Reliability Statistics
• What Is Our Timing

Requirement For How
Long This Can Take?
Make Decisions Based Upon

Statistical Evidence
Electronic Power Steering Controller - Generalized Test-Flow
Demonstrating Reliability For Thermal Fatigue And Vibration
Multi-Voltage-Multi-Frequency-Multi-Temperature Evaluation
(Do The Samples Work Properly Before Testing Begins?)
Samples 1 – 6 Samples 7 - 9 Samples 7 - 9

Thermal
High Shock Corrosion Robustness
Thermal Fatigue
Temperature Evaluations
Aging
Power & Temp Reverse Voltage
Environmental
Cycling Protection Over Voltage
Code Testing
Examples
Drop Test
(Water Drips,
Spray, or The list continues…
Mechanical Cyclic Constant Submersion)
Shock Humidity Humidity Collision Impact
Mechanical
Shock 100Gs
Vibration At All
Controller Temperatures Dissection Dissection
and and
Inspection Inspection
Dissection and
for Buds of for Buds of
Inspection for Buds of
Problems Problems
Problems
= Reliability Demonstration
Answering The Question: “What Is One-Life”
Using Actual Measured Delta-T Stress Levels
Arizona
Two
Thermal
Cycles
Minn. Arizona Per Day
Minn.
2 cycles per day X 365 days in a year X 10 years = 7300 Thermal Cycles

Calculating One-Life And Its Equivalent
Accelerated Test For The Interior Controller
• The data from the Jimmy Hu SAE paper shows that the
severe user environment for the underhood of the car is:
– 7300 thermal cycles
B= Defining “What Is One Life” (severe user)
0
– ∆T = 43 C.
• Using the equivalent damage concept; what is the
equivalent accelerated test?
• Our product can operate between -400 and +850 thus we
could use a ∆T = 1250 while operating and monitoring the
product. How many thermal cycles should we apply using
this elevated level of stress?
507 thermal cycles
A=
Coffin-Manson Equation
m
∆T = 1250C
 Stressaccelerated 
AF =   Lifenormal A=B
 Stress  Lifeaccelerated =
normal
AF
2 .5
 125  7300
AF =  = 14.4 507 Thermal Cycles =
 14.4
 43 
Statistics: Success-Run Combined With The Lipson
Equality – We Only Want To Test 6 Controllers – How
507 Cycles Became 1063 Cycles
Starting Point Values: R = 97% For Severe User and C = 50%

Xold= 507 Thermal Cycles (One-Life)
Bayes  R = (1-C)(1/N)  .97 = (1-.50)(1/N) thus N=22.75
Nold = 22.75 and Nnew = 6 parts (our choice)
what is Xnew? (Answer = 1063 thermal cycles)

We will
use a Multiple Life Factor
Beta of
1.8 Xnew = Xold × β
( Nold ) ÷ ( Nnew ) 1.8
( 22.75) ÷ ( 6) = 2.09
1063 = 507 × 1.8 ( 22.75) ÷ ( 6 )

Completed Test Flow For Electric Power
Steering System – Electronics And Mechanical
Samples 1 – 6 Samples 7 - 9 Samples 10-12 Samples 13-18
Interior Controller
1063 Total Cycles
Thermal Corrosion Robustness Mechanical
High
Thermal Fatigue
Shock – 963 Evaluations System Life
Temperature
Cycles Environmental Test With 6
Aging – At Protection Code Reverse
Voltage Samples On
1150 Giving Testing
Test R97/C50
Power & Temp (Water Drips,
434.9 Hours Wear Plotted
Cycling – 100 Spray, or
Over Voltage
Interior Submersion) While Fatigue
Cycles Failures May
Controller Drop Test
Occur
The list
continues… 63 Days Or
Mechanical Cyclic Humidity Constant Humidity Much Less If
Shock IEC 60068-2-38 193 Hours 850/85RH Collision Accelerated
10 Day Test 8 Day Test Interior Impact With CALT
12 Gs 20ms Controller Mechanical
400 Times Shock
100Gs
Dissection and
Vibration At All Temperatures Inspection for
24 Hours/Axis At 1.506 GRMS Buds of Dissection 9 Weeks Or
Problems and
9 Weeks Inspection Less
for Buds of
Dissection and Problems
Inspection for Buds of
Copyright 2022- Larry
September 2022 Problems Edson Consulting Inc.
= Reliability Demonstration
29
Example Using Micro-Inverters For Solar Panel
Systems – The Important Message Is The Use Of
“Stress-Strength Interference”
• Reliability test plan for a roof mounted inverter with an
intended 25-year life.
• Let’s follow the process
in the flow-chart.
– ID Failure Mechanism.
– Quantify Damage In One-
Life For The 99%+
Severe
Microinverter
User/Environment.
– Translate Damage Into An
Equivalent Accelerated Microinverters
Test.
– Apply Appropriate
Statistical Method For
99% Reliability In The
Field. Battery And Grid
Connection Monitoring
App
– Feedback Result Into The
Design Of The Product.
Thermal Fatigue: Identifying The Stress Distribution As A
Weibull Plot To Determine the 99+% User/Environment
These Cities Selected For Selected Cities Shown As A Weibull Plot

Variation In Test Severity ReliaSoft Weibull++ 7 - www.ReliaSoft.com
One-Life Number Of Test Thermal Cycles Across Different City Locations
99.900
Probability-Weibull
Data 1
Weibull-2P
RRX SRM MED FM
F=11/ S=0
Data Points
90.000 Probability Line
50.000
Severity
User Unreliability , F(t) 10.000
5.000
Larry Edson
Larry Edson Consulting Inc.
4/9/2022
1.000 5:29:30 PM
100.000 1000.000
Number O f Test Thermal Cycles
β=4.6038, η=286.0491, ρ=0.9620

Using Stress-Strength Interference To Determine
What Reliability Is Needed On A 99+% Test
ReliaSoft Weibull++ 7 - www.ReliaSoft.com Rel iaSoft Weibull++ 7 - www.ReliaSoft.com
Stress-Strength Interference - DTR Stress vs. Product Life Stress-Strength Interference - DT R Stress vs. Product Life
99.000 0.007
Probability-Weibull Pdf
Folio1\ DTR Severity Folio1\Product Life

Weibull-2P W eibull-2P
90.000 RRX SRM MED FM RRY SRM MED
Stress-Strength
F=11/ S=0 F=1/ S=0
Data Points Pdf Line
Probabi lity Line
0.006 Folio1\DTR Severity
Folio1\ Product Life W eibull-2P
Interference
Weibull-2P RRX SRM MED FM
RRY SRM MED F=11/S=0
F=1/S=0 Pdf Line
50.000 Data Points
Probabi lity Line
Unre liabilit y, F(t ) O r DTR Se ve rity
0.004
f(t) O r DTR Sev erity

Stress
0.003
10.000
5.000 98% Reliable

For The 99+% 0.001
Location
Larry Edson
Product Life Larry Edson
Larry Edson Cons ulting Inc.
Larry Edson Consulti ng I nc.
4/10/ 2022
4/ 9/2022 10:58:20 AM
5:38:10 PM 0.000
1.000 0.000 1600.000 3200.000 4800.000 6400.000 8000.000
100.000 1000.000
Ho urs Of Acce lera ted Te st
Hour s O f Acce lera te d Test
Fol io1\Product Life: β=1.8000, η=3521.6336
Folio1\ DTR Severity: β=4.6038, η=286.0491, ρ=0.9620 β=4.6038, η=286.0491, ρ=0.9620
Fol io1\D TR Severity:
Folio1\ Product Life: β=1.8000, η=3521.6336
Iterative Trial And Error 98% Reliability On

Eventually Finds The Test For The 99%
Green Point And Line Severity Will Result
Above That Will Give Us In 99+% Reliability
Our Desired Field In The Field Covering
Reliability All Levels Of Severity
Roof Mounted Inverter Test-Flow For 25 Year Life With 10
Degrees Of Self-Heating
Test Leg One Test Leg Two Test Leg Three
Samples 1 - 12 Samples 13-15 Samples 16-18
Thermal Shock Circuit Boards
Mechanical Shock Separately Salt Based Corrosion Robustness
18 Impacts Of 25G 689 Cycles -400 To +850
Evaluations
Thermal Fatigue
With 11ms. Duration – Not Power Not Monitored Environmental
No Power Protection Code
Power & Temperature Cycling Testing Reverse Voltage
High Temperature For Damage And Detection
Aging Pre-Treat
Powered And Monitored Over Voltage
1607-34 =1573 Hrs.
Examples
34 Cycles -400 To +850
At 1050C
Evaluate Before And Short Circuiting
After 425 Hours Constant Humidity950/90%RH
Maybe Arbitrarily Momentary Periodic Powered And
The list continues…
Reduced For Time Monitored Minimized Heat Production
1/2 Day Frost Test
I Want To Leave Samples In Freezer Overnight Before Dissection and Dissection and
Capture Vibration Testing And Samples Will Be Inspection for Inspection for
Interactions Warming Up During The Test - 6 Samples Buds of Problems Buds of Problems
Between Random Vibration 1.669 GRMS For One
Critical Hour Each Axis – Then… = Reliability Demonstration 99% 25yrs.
Stresses Optionally Step-Stress Two To Failure

Calibrated Stepped Stress Vibration After
Success-Run Reliability Demonstration:
Fatigue Exponent Of 4 Used For Solder
HALT-ALT Hybrid With Correlation To Real Life
Success-Run With 6 Samples

The Calibrated Accelerated Life Testing Process – What To Do
When You Do Not Know The Acceleration Factor And Must Give
Statistical Evidence Of 99.99% Reliability
1.00E+5 IPL/Weibull
Data 1
Time
CALT Eta
(hours)
Units of
10000.00 Stress
Test Two or More Parts

Life
1000.00
Available
Time Test Two More Parts
Requirement
Third Stress Level Test Two Parts

Identified
10.00
100.00 300.00
Stress
Normal Stress Level Foolish Stress Level
We Want To Be Operating In The High
Cycle Fatigue Region
Life vs. Stress
1.00E+8
1.00E+7
Infinite
Life
1.00E+6
Hi Cycle
1.00E+5 Fatigue
10000
Low
Life “N” Cycle
1000 Fatigue
100
10 Foolish
1
100.00
“S” 1000.00
Stress (Kpa)
Beta=2.9, K=2.4567E-25, n=8.3048
Using The Life-Stress Slope To Transpose Data
Points From High Stress To Normal Stress
1.00E+5
1
Life (log scale) Life = f ( stress ) = Slope (m) = 4.92
K × ( stress ) m in this example
10000.00
(L2, S2)
ln( L2 ) − ln( L1 )
Slope (m) =
ln(S1 ) − ln( S 2 )
1 Slope of line (L1, S1)
1000.00
m m
Lifenormal K × ( snormal ) s 
AF = = =  accelerated 
Lifeaccelerated 1  snormal 
m
K × ( saccelerated )
Units of
m Stress
 Stress accelerated 
Acceleration Factor =  
 Stress normal 
m
 Stress accelerated 
Life normal stress = Data Valueaccelerated × 
 Stress normal 
10.00
100.00 Stress (log scale) 300.00

All Data Points Translated To Normal Stress And
Plotted On Weibull Paper
99.00
90.00 336
IPL/Weibull Collapsing
Data 1 Our 2+2+2
50.00 100 Data Points
F=6 | S=0
Into a
10.00
Single Plot
5.00
of 6 Data
Points by
Unreliability
Subtracting
1.00
the
0.50
Changing
Stress
0.10
Effect
0.05 Requirement
0.01
5.00E-3
Beta=3.9678
1.00E-3
5.00E-4 K=1.1493E-14
n=4.9162
1.00E-4
100 1,000 10,000 100,000
Hours of Stress Applications
Calibrated Accelerated Life Test Method
Explained in Words
• Generate the S-N curve for the product as follows (all failures used in the
final calculations should be of the same failure mode):
1. Identify the highest possible stress, just short of being foolish, to
obtain failures.
2. Reduce the stress level to 90% of this “foolish value” and test two
parts to failure at this stress level.
3. Reduce the stress level again by 10% and test two more parts to
failure. This stress level should be 90% of the previous stress level
(81% of the foolish value).
4. Identify the lowest possible stress level that will result in failures
within the project timing constraints. This third level of stress is
identified from extrapolation from the previous pairs of failures.
5. Test two or more parts to failure at this lowest stress level.
6. Solve for the missing parameters in the stress-life model from the
above data and transpose all test values to normal stress using the
resulting acceleration factor.
Evaluating Fatigue And Wear At The Same Time In
The Same Accelerated Test For A Wiper System
Added Weight
Expected On Altered
Risk of Arms
Life at Risk extrapolation
Normal
1000.00 self-adjusts to
Stress available test
time
Time Available Less Weight Used
100.00
Life
Highest Weight Used
Stress
Least
Normal Weight
Foolish Limit (limited by motor)
Stress Used
Pictures Of Accelerated Wiper Testing
Added Weight
Fatigue
Fatigue Failure Failure
September
September 2022
2022 Copyright 2022- Larry Edson Consulting Inc. Page - 41 41
Fatigue Failures Plotted On Log-Log Paper Allows Fast
Comparison To Alternate Design - Both Exceed The
Reliability Requirement
GMX381 Wiper Module Vs. Benchmark Comparable Product
1.00E+13
IPL/Weib
Data 1
Eta
1.00E+12
1
0.043
1.00E+11 F=5 | S=0
IPL/Weib
Data 2
1.00E+10 Eta
1
0.06
Life
1.00E+9 F=4 | S=0

-User Modified-
1.00E+8
1.00E+7
1.00E+6
1.00E+5 Requirement
Larry Edson
10000.00 Moment of Inertia Stress Load (Kg-MeterSquared) 4/1/2003 07:19

0.01 0.10 1.00
GMX381 Benchmark (Nissan)
503 mm 380 mm
September 2022 Copyright

September 2022 2022- Larry Edson Consulting Inc. Page - 42
42
Wear As Degradation Is Measured In The
Wiper Linkage During The CALT Fatigue Test
Single Stress Degradation vs. Time
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Wear Angle
0.6
0.5
0.4
Example of Single Stress Wear
0.3 Accumulation
0.2
0.1
Y = a * Xb
0
0 20 40 60
Marks
80
Showing
Time Wear In
Linkage
Data 1, 3.25 Power Fit 1, 3.25 Critical Degradation

CALT Combined With Degradation Analysis:
Two Forms Of Test Acceleration
Modeling Change In Life From Change In Stress
High Stress Normal

Medium Stress Stress
Lower Stress
A B C E
Specification
When Will
Degradation
Normal Stress Level E This “E” Line

Each group of lines is a different Cross The
stress level and each stress is Specification
replicated with sample size Line?
Time or Cycles
Degradation Analysis For “Wear/Play” In
Windshield Wiper System
Wear in Angular Play vs. Stress
1.00E+7
IPL/Weibull
Data 1
99% Reliability Line E Eta
5
1
1.00E+6
0.0628
“Life” in Hours
F=24 | S=0
1.00E+5
Extra Design
Margin For
10000.00
Wear C
B
A
Requirement:
417 Hours
100.00
0.01 0.10 1.00
Beta=2.3490, k=0.0185, Moment of Inertia

n=3.9763

Wiper System: Quantitatively Evaluating Fatigue
And Wear Many Times Faster Than Previously
Traditional Process
Failure occurs…
17 Week Test Duration
fix applied…test
begins again Failure
17 Week Test Duration occurs…fix
applied…test
Three Learning Iterations begins again
17 Week Test Duration
Calibrated Accelerated Life Testing Alternative

(CALT)
Three Learning Iterations Shown
2.4 days Test Duration Per Iteration


Best Reliability Tools-Larry Edson

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Best Reliability Tools-Larry Edson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Best Reliability Tools And

Methods Being Used Today

A Presentation Of Modern Reliability Methods For ASML:

Reliable components make for

September 2022 Copyright 2022- Larry Edson Consulting Inc. 3

The Misconception NOT TRUE The TRUTH!

• We learn from the experiences of others, analytical

– Simulations include the expected.

– Testing includes the unexpected.

• Learn fast if you want to keep up in any business today.

• Everything that follows is about learning fast and being

• Reliability is all about having adequate design

September 2022 Copyright 2022- Larry Edson Consulting Inc. 5

 Your Mission, Should You Decide To Accept It, Is To Think Of How

September 2022 Copyright 2022- Larry Edson Consulting Inc. 6

September 2022 Copyright 2022- Larry Edson Consulting Inc. 8

MTBF is 100 η t

63% Have Failed 0 = 1 − e −1

September 2022 Copyright 2022- Larry Edson Consulting Inc. 9

Reliability Requirement Line Now

Area To The Right

Stress Degradation Over

FMEA = Failure Mode And Effects Analysis

• DFMEA focuses on managing the expected. But

September 2022 Copyright 2022- Larry Edson Consulting Inc. 14

Discovering Unexpected Weaknesses And Removing Those

HALT Is A Philosophy And A Process

Patch it Up And Keep On Testing Towards The Limit Of Technology…..

Look For The Diminishing Return On Investment

September 2022 Copyright 2022- Larry Edson Consulting Inc. 17

Vibration Stepping With

Lower Operating Limit “Tickle Vibration”

Chip Capacitors and Die Bond Wires

September 2022 Copyright 2022- Larry Edson Consulting Inc. 19

September 2022 Copyright 2022- Larry Edson Consulting Inc. 20

Accelerated Reliability Growth

September 2022 Copyright 2022- Larry Edson Consulting Inc. 22

• Multiple Life Testing – Testing for multiple lives to compensate

• Acceleration Factor (AF) for Inverse Power Life-Stress

• Acceleration Factor (AF) for Arrhenius Life-Stress Relationships

ID Critical Failure Mechanisms In Terms Of Engineering Metrics

Quantify Damage in “One-Life” For The Severe

• What Are The Detailed Demonstrate Reliability Test To Failure

• What Is Our Timing

Make Decisions Based Upon

Samples 1 – 6 Samples 7 - 9 Samples 7 - 9

September 2022 Copyright 2022- Larry Edson Consulting Inc. 26

Starting Point Values: R = 97% For Severe User and C = 50%

Bayes  R = (1-C)(1/N)  .97 = (1-.50)(1/N) thus N=22.75

Nold = 22.75 and Nnew = 6 parts (our choice)

what is Xnew? (Answer = 1063 thermal cycles)

1063 = 507 × 1.8 ( 22.75) ÷ ( 6 )

Samples 1 – 6 Samples 7 - 9 Samples 10-12 Samples 13-18

These Cities Selected For Selected Cities Shown As A Weibull Plot

September 2022 Copyright 2022- Larry Edson Consulting Inc. 31

Folio1\ DTR Severity Folio1\Product Life

f(t) O r DTR Sev erity

5.000 98% Reliable

Iterative Trial And Error 98% Reliability On

September 2022 Copyright 2022- Larry Edson Consulting Inc. 33

Success-Run With 6 Samples

September 2022 Copyright 2022- Larry Edson Consulting Inc. 34

Test Two or More Parts