Chapter 13

BITS Pilani
Pilani Campus
Reliability Testing
Chapter - 13
Product Testing
• An integrated product test program consists of several types of
test each having different objectives.
• Reliability qualification tests obtain various measures of
product reliability.
• Reliability growth testing has as its objective increased
reliability for the end product.
• All product testing may provide useful reliability information,
and an aggressive failure mode, effect, and critically analysis
program will capture any relevant failure data.
• Reliability testing and safety testing are distinguished from
other tests in that they attempt to generate failures in order to
identify failure modes and eliminate them.
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus

Reliability Life Testing
• The primary objectives:
- to obtain information concerning failures in order to quantify
reliability
- to determine whether reliability and safety goals are being
met
- to improve product reliability.
• The different types of reliability tests addressed are

- Burn-in and screen testing
- Acceptance and qualification testing
- Sequential tests
- Accelerated life testing
- Experimental design
Reliability Life Testing
• The important factors to be addressed before any reliability test:
- objective of the test
- type of test to be performed
- operating and environmental conditions
- number of units to be tested
- duration of tests
- definition of failure
Test Time Calculations
• For a constant failure rate , the cumulative test time T
may be obtained from the following table:
5
Test Time Calculations
• Cumulative test time for = Total operating time that all

CFR model units experienced on test
• For a CFR model an estimate for the MTTF is given by
MTTF = T/r (13.1)

where,
r – total number of failures.

Example

Length of Test
• For Type II testing, the length of time to complete the test
depends on :
1. The number of units being tested.
2. The number of failures to be observed.
3. Time-to-failure distribution.
• If n units are placed on test until r failures are observed, then
expected test time under CFR model:
E(test time) (13.2)

where,
TTFr,n is the test time for r failures with n units at risk

Length of Test
• If failed units are replaced immediately, so that n units are
always on test,
where,
TTRr,n - test time factor with replacement of failed units.
Observations
• The number of units needed to complete the test = n+r-1
• More the units on test, lesser the expected test time.

Length of Test
• For Type I testing, the length of time is t* and the number of
failures r is random.
• For CFR model with n units on test,
• Probability of a single unit failing by time t*, p = 1- e-t*/MTTF

 The number of failures among n units on test can be a
binomial process with mean np.
• With replacement of failed units,

Example

Burn-in Testing
• Merits
 Increases the mean residual life of components.
 Survived items will have a greater MTTF than the original items.
Probability of a failure occurring over a fixed length of time is
reduced.
 Burn-in testing may allow contract specifications to be met where
they otherwise couldn’t .
• Considerations
 Costs such as cost of testing, warrant costs, item lost due to burn-
in failures and cost of failure during operation decide whether to
use burn-in testing or not and if so, to which extent.
 Item must have a decreasing failure rate (DFR).
 Increases production lead time as well as costs.
Burn-in Testing
• Items that have failed during burn-in may be
 replaced with a new item from the same parent population which
may or may not have had some burn-in time accumulated.
 repaired to its original condition or may be minimally repaired.

- for the minimally repaired condition, if the intensity function is
decreasing, then improved reliability will result.
• Mathematical modelling of burn-in period depends on the

manner in which failures are disposed of.
• Primary determination for burn-in period is the length of test.

Burn-in Testing
• The model based on following figure assumes that only the
surviving units are utilized following burn-in.
14
Burn-in Testing
• Given a reliability goal at time t0 of R0 where R(t0) , R0 and R(t)
has a DFR, a burn-in period, T, is desired such that R(t0|T) =
R0.
• For Weibull distribution
15
Example
16
Burn-in Testing
• The length of the burn-in period can also depend on costs.
• Let,
Cb – cost per unit for burn-in testing
Cf - cost per failure during burn-in
Co – cost per failure when operational
T - length of burn-in testing
t - operational life of the units.
• Assume that n units having a reliability function R(t) and
each undergoing burn-in testing are to be produced.
• The expected number of failures during burn-in = n[1-R(T)].

Burn-in Testing
• The expected number of operational failures
nR(T) [1 - R(t|T)] = nR(T) [1- R(t+T)/R(T)] = n [R(T) - R(t+T)]
• Expected total cost
E[TC] = nCbT + Cfn[1-R(T)] + Con[R(T) – R(t+T)]
• Expected cost per unit
E[C] = E[TC]/n = CbT + Cf[1-R(T)] + Co[R(T) – R(t+T)] (13.7)
• For the Weibull distribution,

Example
19
Example
20
Acceptance Testing
• To demonstrate that the system design meets performance
and reliability requirements under specified operating and
environmental conditions.
• It may be based on a predetermined sample size or on an

unspecified sample size resulting from a sequential test as
described subsequently.
• Units from the production line for testing must be selected

randomly.
21
Binomial Acceptance Testing
• Objective – to demonstrate that the system reliability at time T is
R1.
• The sample size n and maximum number of failures, r, for

acceptance are specified.
• X failures are observed by time T and if X ≤ r, then the desired

reliability is demonstrated; otherwise R(T) < R1 .
• The random variable X has a binomial distribution with

parameters n and p = 1-r.

• If α – probability of incorrectly rejecting the reliability
specification
β – probability of incorrectly accepting the reliability
specification
• Then, to find the values for n and r that will result in high
probability of acceptance if R(T) = R1 and a low probability of
acceptance if R(T) = R2<R1,
Pr{X≤ r | R= R1} = 1 – α and Pr{X≤ r | R= R2} = β
• The operating characteristic curve for the distribution depends

on the values specified for n and r.
• The region R1<R<R2 is referred to as the indifference zone.

• The operating characteristic curve:

• Since X is binomial, the probability statements discussed earlier
can be written as

Example

Sequential Tests
• Efficient method for accepting or rejecting a statistical
hypothesis.
• Used in a reliability or maintainability demonstration or in

acceptance and qualification testing, not for estimating reliability
parameter.
• Since the sample size required depends on the observed times,

fewer failures may need to be generated.
• Assume a reliability parameter represented in general by ϕ has a

specification ϕ0 and an unacceptable value ϕ1.

Sequential Tests
• A null (H0) and alternate (H1) hypothesis are defined as:
H0 : ϕ = ϕ0 (the product meets the specification)
H1 : ϕ = ϕ1 > ϕ0 (the specification is not met)
• With each sequentially generated failure or repair time

t1,t2,..tr, a test static yr = h(t1,t2,..tr) is computed.
• Depending on the test static, the null hypothesis may be

accepted or rejected or judgement may be reversed.
• If judgement is reversed, the test is repeated using a new

sample time and test static until H0 is accepted or rejected.
Sequential Tests
• The criterion to accept, reject or continue sampling is based on
the probability of making an incorrect decision.
• We may reject a correct null hypothesis (called type I error) or

we may accept a false null hypothesis (called type II error).
Pr { reject H0|ϕ0} = α and Pr{accept H0|ϕ1} = β

α – the producer’s risk
β – the consumer’s risk
• A test static yr is formed from the ratio of the likelihood function

formed under H1 to that formed under H0 .
Sequential Tests
• If yr ≤ A, H0 is accepted.
• If yr ≥ B, H0 is rejected.
• In conducting a sequential test, α,β,ϕ0 and ϕ1 must be specified.

• If A < yr < B, then the test continues by generating another
sample.
Exponential Case
• For the exponential distribution f(t) = λe –λt ,
H0: λ≤ λ0
H1: λ = λ1 > λ0
• The continuation region is represented by
where, ti – time to failure of the ith unit tested.

• Taking logs and rearranging,

Example
32
Example
33
Binomial Testing
• No assumption concerning the failure distribution is necessary.
• Test is based on a binomial process.
• The hypotheses to test are

H0: R(t0) = R0
H1: R(t0) = R1 < R0
• If n units are tested until time t0 and that y survivors are
observed,
34
Binomial Testing
• Therefore, the continuation region is found from
• After taking logarithms and performing some algebra,
• Number of survivors yn ,among n units at risk is observed.

• If yn is less than or equal to lower bound, H0 is rejected.
• If yn is equal to greater than upper bound H0 accepted.
• If yn is in continuation region, another unit is tested until t0.
35
Example
36
Example
37
Maintainability Demonstration
• The hypotheses for binomial sequential test to perform
maintainability demonstration :
H0 : H(t0) = P0
H1 : H(t0) = P1 < P0
where,
H(t) – CDF of the repair distribution
P0 – fraction of repairs to be completed within t0 time units.
P1 – unacceptable fraction of repairs to be completed within
time t0.
• If the number of repairs yn among n attempts completed within
time t0 equals or exceeds the upper bound, then H0 is accepted.
• If yn is less than or equal to lower bound, then H0 is rejected.
38
Maintainability Demonstration
• Parameter under the alternative hypothesis may take on a
range of values.
• The farther these values from the hypothesized value ϕ0, the
smaller will be the value of type II error β .
• A plot of the probability of Type II error Vs the value of ϕ
under the alternate hypothesis generates the following OC.

Accelerated Life Testing
• The amount of time available for testing is considerably less
than the expected lifetime of the component.
• For highly reliable components, testing under normal

conditions would generate only few failures within a
reasonable time period.
• In order to identify design weakness during testing,
1. Increase the number of units on test

2. Accelerate the number of cycles per unit of time
3. Increase the stresses that generate failures.
Number of Units on Test
• The fraction savings in test time by having n units, rather than r
units at risk, when r failures are desired can be found using the
expected test time table.
• Let
• Then the percent savings is 100(1- fr,n)

• If failed units are replaced, then fr,n = r/n .
• For the Weibull failure distribution,
• If failures are replaced, then fr,n = (r/n)1/β

Example
42
Accelerated Cycling
• Assume
- no new failure modes are introduced as a result of
increasing the number of cycles per unit of time.
- failures occur due to cycling only.
• Define
xn- number of cycles per unit of time under normal operating
conditions.
xs – number of cycles per unit of time under accelerated
conditions.
tn – time to failure under xn cycles per unit of time.
ts – time to failure under xs cycles per unit of time.

Accelerated Cycling
• xntn = xsts , since the number of cycles to failure is the same for
both normal and accelerated conditions.
• For the Weibull and exponential distributions
• Therefore βs = βn = β, and

Example

Constant-Stress Models
• Assumptions
- at higher stress levels the same failure mechanisms will be
present and act in the same manner as at normal stress levels.
- failures will happen more quickly.
- only a transformation of time scale is observed
- no new failure modes are introduced.
• The simplest case of accelerated stress testing assumes a
linear acceleration effect over time.
tn = time to failure under normal stress
ts = time to failure at high stress level
then
tn = AF x ts
• AF – acceleration factor to be determined.
• Therefore CDF of the distribution,
• PDF
• Hazard rate function

• If the failure rate at the accelerated stress level is constant,
then the failure rate under normal stress will also be constant.
• For Weibull failure distribution
• Therefore only characteristic life is affected by the linear

accelerated stress testing.
• For the Weibull failure law,
48
Example
49
Example
50
Other Acceleration Models
Arrhenius model
• When failures are accelerated primarily as a result of an
increase in temperature,
where,
r – reaction process rate
A and B – constants
T – temperature in Kelvin.
• Acceleration factor may be determined from,

Arrhenius model
• The constant B can be estimated by testing at two different
stress temperatures and computing the AF on the basis of
the fitted distributions.
where AF = θ1/θ2
θi – scale parameter at the stress level
corresponding to Ti

Example

Eyring Model
• Allows for additional stresses and can be derived from quantum
mechanics.
r = ATae–B/TeCS
where,
r – process rate
A,a,B and C – constants
T – temperature in Kelvin
S – second stress.
• The first exponential factor and its coefficient account for the
temperature and , except for Ta, behave as Arrhenius model.
• The second exponential factor accounts for a non thermal
stress and additional factors for additional stress can be added.

Eyring Model
• If a is close to zero, Ta factor will be close to 1 at all temperature
and in the absence of a second stress, it’s similar to Arrhenius
model.
• To apply Eyring model, constants must be estimated.
• For this four data points at two different temperature levels and
two different stress levels are required.
• The AF for this model,

Degradation Models
• For products with performance variation with time, by
extrapolating degradation in performance over time, time to
failure may be predicted.
• Examples of degradation process can be corrosion, crack

propagation and the shelf life of pharmaceutical products.
• The simplest relationship is linear with y = a- bt where,

y – performance measure
a,b – constants
t- amount of time the product is exposed at a constant stress
level.

Degradation Models
• If yf is the level at which a failure occurs, then the time to failure
tf,
• It may be interpreted as the median or mean of the failure

distribution.
• Testing n units and fitting separate regression lines to each unit

will generate a sample of n predicted failure times.

Example
58
Example

Cumulative Damage Models
• A component damage is leading to continuous failure
accumulation and the damage rate depends only on the
amount of damage and not on any past history.
• Then
where, ti – amount of time at stress level i

Li – expected lifetime at stress level i
• To apply this model, consider a normal stress level(t1) and an
other high stress level (t2),

• The Eq. (13.29) represents ‘the failure line’ and any
combination of stress times (t1,t2) that lie on the line will result
in a failure.

• To determine the value for L2, test the component at the high
stress level until failure (L2).
• To determine a second point on the line, test the component

first for some time t1 at normal stress level and then at high
level until failure occurs at time t2.
• Then L1, time to failure under normal stress, is found from

Step Stress Models
• Testing begins with normal stress
• Stress is increased after a period of time
• Stepwise stress increase is continued until all the test units fail.
• The increase in stress is assumed to be equivalent to a linear

change in the time scale.
• More complex models than the constant-stress models.
63
Experimental Design
• Efficient collection and analysis of data that will maximize the
obtained information.
• The factors and their values to be investigated are identified
wrt their effect on dependent variable.
• The objective of the experiment may be to identify critical
factors, or to estimate the effect the selected factors have on
the response variable or both.
• A particular experimental design consisting of a statistical
model for collection and analysis of data is selected.
• The design will identify the factors, levels, number of
replications and the use of blocking

Experimental Design
• Let us discuss the use of factorial designs in identifying factors
that significantly affect a reliability or maintainability parameter.
• A factorial experiment consists of the collection and
simultaneous evaluation of data at all combinations of the levels
of the factors being investigated .
• If k factors are being considered, each at m different levels,
then a single replication will consist of mk experiments.
• To overcome the requirement of large number of experiments,
the number levels and factors must be kept small.
• The advantage of factorial designs is the ability to measure the
effect of the interaction two or more factors have on the
response variable.

Experimental Design
• Mathematical model for a two-factor factorial experiment is
66
Experimental Design
• Since the factor effects are assumed to be deviations from the
overall mean,
• The statistical hypotheses of interest are
67
Experimental Design
• To test these hypotheses an analysis of variance (ANOVA) is
performed.
• Independent estimates of population variance (factor mean

square) from the data is computed.
• If a factor is not significant, its variance estimate should not

differ significantly from a pure population mean square( the
mean square for error).
• A significant factor would have a larger mean square than the

mean square for error.
68
Experimental Design
• Te ratio of the factor mean square over the mean square for
error forms an F distribution.
• The larger the computed F static, the more likely the factor is
significant.
• A comparison with a tabulated F distribution will establish the
critical value at a given level of significance.
• A table summarizing the result of analysis when the factor
levels are determined by the experimenter( a fixed-effects
model) rather than being randomly selected from a parent
population (a random-effect model).
• For the fixed effects model, conclusions are valid only for the
factor levels considered.
69
Experimental Design
70
Experimental Design
• In the table,
and
71
Experimental Design
• Where the notations
72
Example
73
Example
74
Example
75
Example
76
Example
77
Competing Failure Modes
• To distinguish among failure modes during reliability testing.
• If the failure modes are mutually independent, they can be

separately analyzed by treating them as multiply censored data.
• The failure times of all the failure modes except the failure
mode under investigation would be considered censored times.
• Different methods are then applied to determine an acceptable

theoretical reliability model.
78
Thank You!
79

Chapter 13

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Chapter 13

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

BITS Pilani

BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus

• The different types of reliability tests addressed are

- objective of the test

- type of test to be performed

- operating and environmental conditions

- number of units to be tested

• Cumulative test time for = Total operating time that all

• For a CFR model an estimate for the MTTF is given by

MTTF = T/r (13.1)

BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus

BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus

E(test time) (13.2)

BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus

BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus

• Probability of a single unit failing by time t*, p = 1- e-t*/MTTF

BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus

BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus

 repaired to its original condition or may be minimally repaired.

• Mathematical modelling of burn-in period depends on the

• Primary determination for burn-in period is the length of test.

BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus

• For Weibull distribution

• The expected number of failures during burn-in = n[1-R(T)].

BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus

BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus

• It may be based on a predetermined sample size or on an

• Units from the production line for testing must be selected

• The sample size n and maximum number of failures, r, for

• X failures are observed by time T and if X ≤ r, then the desired

• The random variable X has a binomial distribution with

BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus

• The operating characteristic curve for the distribution depends

• The region R1<R<R2 is referred to as the indifference zone.

BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus

BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus

BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus

• Used in a reliability or maintainability demonstration or in

• Since the sample size required depends on the observed times,

• Assume a reliability parameter represented in general by ϕ has a

BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus

• With each sequentially generated failure or repair time

• Depending on the test static, the null hypothesis may be

• If judgement is reversed, the test is repeated using a new

• We may reject a correct null hypothesis (called type I error) or

Pr { reject H0|ϕ0} = α and Pr{accept H0|ϕ1} = β

• A test static yr is formed from the ratio of the likelihood function

• In conducting a sequential test, α,β,ϕ0 and ϕ1 must be specified.

where, ti – time to failure of the ith unit tested.

BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus

• Test is based on a binomial process.

• The hypotheses to test are

• After taking logarithms and performing some algebra,

• Number of survivors yn ,among n units at risk is observed.

BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus

• For highly reliable components, testing under normal

• In order to identify design weakness during testing,

1. Increase the number of units on test

• Then the percent savings is 100(1- fr,n)

• If failures are replaced, then fr,n = (r/n)1/β

BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus

• For the Weibull and exponential distributions

BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus

BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus

• Probability of a single unit failing by time t, p = 1- e-t/MTTF