Speaking Of Reliability: Friends Discussing Reliability Engineering Topics | Warranty | Plant Maintenance

Using Peck’s Equation Abstract Chris and Fred discussing the proper use of the equation often used to determine acceleration factors for accelerated temperature and humidity testing. Key Points Join Chris and Fred as they discuss Topics include: The creation of the equation and the specific failure mechanism Other failure mechanisms and technologies most likely are not modeled by this equation General guidance when using a formula from a book or standard Enjoy an episode of Speaking of Reliability. Where you can join friends as they discuss reliability topics. Join us as we discuss topics ranging from design for reliability techniques to field data analysis approaches. Download Audio RSS Related Topics: QDD 046 Environmental Stress Testing for Robust Designs(Opens podcast in a new browser tab) SOR 125 The Reliability Equation – The Robust Design(Opens podcast in a new browser tab) The post SOR 864 Using Peck’s Equation appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Failure Rate to a Distribution Abstract Chris and Fred discussing a listener’s questions on how to convert a failure rate to a distribution. Key Points Join Chris and Fred as they discuss a rather common problem when a vendor only provides a FIT or failure rate as reliability information and you want to use a distribution as part of your reliability work. Topics include: Ask your vendor better questions and get better information. (sometimes works) Assuming a constant hazard rate often leads to very poor outcomes. Use what you know about failure mechanisms, field data, technical papers, models, etc. to make better assumptions. Enjoy an episode of Speaking of Reliability. Where you can join friends as they discuss reliability topics. Join us as we discuss topics ranging from design for reliability techniques to field data analysis approaches. Download Audio RSS Related Topics: Calculating the Failure Rate of Parts The post SOR 863 Failure Rate to a Distribution appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Dealing with Reliability Risk Abstract Greg and Fred discussing how reliability inherently involves variability and risk. Key Points Join Greg and Fred as they discuss how to address decision making involving reliability and risk.  Topics include: What does reliability risk mean? How to address reliability risks. What are the tools to address reliability risk in problem solving and decision making. Enjoy an episode of Speaking of Reliability. Where you can join friends as they discuss reliability topics. Join us as we discuss topics ranging from design for reliability techniques to field data analysis approaches. Download Audio RSS Related Topics: SOR 442 How to Quantify Reliability Risk   The post SOR 862 Dealing with Reliability Risk appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Reshoring and Talent Abstract Greg and Fred discussing bringing suppliers back to the location of OEM headquarters and factories.  A common risk is finding the talent to design and build these factories. Key Points Join Greg and Fred as they discuss reshoring and finding the right talent.  Reshoring is the business of bringing suppliers back to the US.  This creates new challenges such as finding engineers and craft people to design and build few factories. Topics discussed in this episode include: What is reshoring? What are the challenges of reshoring. What are benefits of bringing suppliers back to the US. Where are the people (talent) to design and build these plants. Enjoy an episode of Speaking of Reliability. Where you can join friends as they discuss reliability topics. Join us as we discuss topics ranging from design for reliability techniques to field data analysis approaches. Download Audio Related Topics: SOR 221 Reliability Program Assessment in a Factory Setting(Opens podcast in a new browser tab)   The post SOR 861 Reshoring and Talent appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Software and Thinking Abstract Chris and Fred discuss the many and varied different software package that can help you do ‘reliability stuff’ … and how we usually assume everything they do is ‘OK.’ But how do we know the software is giving us the numbers we need? Key Points Join Chris and Fred as they discuss how software packages help us do reliability stuff … and how we trust them to do the right thing. Is this trust well placed? Topics include: Let’s talk about Weibull Plotting. Weibull plotting is perhaps the most widespread reliability activity that we use software to help us do. But if you put the same data into a number of different commercially available software packages, we will get different outcomes. Why? Because these software plotting tools make 4-5 assumptions to quickly get things like confidence bounds. If you don’t know about these assumptions, then you don’t really know what the software is doing. Come up with what you ‘expect’ to see in your data analysis. Do you believe that your system has some infant mortality or wear-in? Do you then believe that the majority of systems that survive infant mortality will fail due to (for example) ball bearing wear out? Do you know what both these types of failure look like? Do you also know how you expect this to visualize on a Weibull plot? You really need to answer questions like this before you conduct data analysis. If you don’t have the skills to answer these questions … you are not qualified to conduct analysis on any software package (sorry). If you can answer these questions, and the data analysis meets your expectations … great. If not … then there is a gap in your knowledge that you need to fill in before you use the outputs to make a million-dollar decision. Do you simply trust your software package(s)? You can’t. They are all useful. They all have their issues. They are only useful if you know what the issues are. This means you know when to trust the outputs (and when to question the rest). Enjoy an episode of Speaking of Reliability. Where you can join friends as they discuss reliability topics. Join us as we discuss topics ranging from design for reliability techniques to field data analysis approaches. Download Audio RSS Related Topics: R Software and Reliability(Opens webinar recording in a new browser tab)   The post SOR 860 Software and Thinking appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

An ALT Design Question Abstract Chris and Fred discuss an ALT or Accelerate Life Test Design Question. We love these podcasts … as we are directly answering a question from one of our listeners. Interested in hearing a response to a real-world question from a listener? Key Points Join Chris and Fred as they discuss helping out one of our listeners through a problem he is experiencing regarding a ‘thermal-shock’ test in the order of 1 000 000 cycles. There are a few things to unpack here … so let’s go. Topics include: Can we just focus on the ‘b50′? What is the ‘b50′? It is the median time to failure of something like a bearing or other things that fail due to damage being accumulated through repeated stresses or cycles. But … is the ‘b50′ the right metric? For most decisions, it isn’t. It won’t help you work out (for example) how long it will take before 5 % of your products fail. This is a much more common question that needs to be answered. Do we need three different stress levels? For ALT … yes. This is because ALT is based on a model that you need to pick to help convert time spent at accelerated stresses back to normal operating conditions. Many organizations simply find a model they like in a textbook and go with it. Finding a model in a textbook is a great first step … but you need to confirm that it works for your product, which has its own set of failure mechanisms. Then Chris and Fred talk about their different take on the samples, stress levels and so on. It is very important to make sure that by increasing stresses (like temperature) you don’t change the state of the product. You don’t want to (for example) melt it. But even if you don’t melt it, there are things that temperature can do at a microscopic level that will change the way things fail. Fred likes stacking the samples closer to the use case level. Chris … not so much. Listen to this podcast to hear why? Enjoy an episode of Speaking of Reliability. Where you can join friends as they discuss reliability topics. Join us as we discuss topics ranging from design for reliability techniques to field data analysis approaches. Download Audio RSS Related Topics: How to Create an ALT Plan(Opens podcast in a new browser tab) The post SOR 859 An ALT Design Question appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Reliability Predictions and FMEA Occurrence Abstract Carl and Fred discussing a reader question about FMEAs. Specifically, whether reliability predictions (for similar systems) are valid input to the Occurrence rating in an FMEA. Key Points Join Carl and Fred as they discuss the subject of Reliability Predictions, and whether they can be used in an FMEA. Topics include: Reliability Predictions methodology Parts count can be misused as a way to predict reliability Can Reliability Predictions be useful when assessing Occurrence rating in an FMEA? Use of failure rates vs failure distributions in Supportability FMEA Why Design FMEA Occurrence rating is subjective Using a Reliability prediction from a handbook to inform FMEA occurrence rating gives a false sense of knowledge Using less parts, as a strategy to improve reliability, can have validity FMEA Occurrence rating is associated with the failure mode due to cause, not the aggregate component failure rate Assumptions matter; if a reliability prediction assumes constant failure rate, this is often a wrong assumption Field failure history can be important input to FMEA, as input to failure mode identification; this can help ensure field failures do not repeat Beware of reliability software that takes the FMEA occurrence rating and transfers it to the System Reliability Analysis as component or system failure rates Models are useful, however, the assumptions and methodologies must be correct A “one-off” failure during product development should not be dismissed Enjoy an episode of Speaking of Reliability. Where you can join friends as they discuss reliability topics. Join us as we discuss topics ranging from design for reliability techniques to field data analysis approaches. Download Audio RSS iTunes Stitcher Related Topic: SOR 069 Should reliability prediction be part of your reliability plan?(Opens podcast in a new browser tab)   The post SOR 858 Reliability Predictions and FMEA Occurrence appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Selecting the Right Method Abstract Greg and Fred discussing the right method (s) to solve quality and reliability problems specifically answering the question ‘is the approach good enough?’ Key Points Join Greg and Fred as they discuss how to approach a problem and make a decision.  Asking the right questions in the front end saves time and money.  Most importantly, it helps ensure that you’ll get a better answer. Topics include: How to approach a problem by asking better questions in the front end. How to select the right tool and approach to solve a problem. Is there one best approach or method to solve a problem Does problem solving come down to analytics or professional judgment or something in between. Enjoy an episode of Speaking of Reliability. Where you can join friends as they discuss reliability topics. Join us as we discuss topics ranging from design for reliability techniques to field data analysis approaches. Download Audio RSS Related Topics:   SOR 875 What Should a Reliability Engineer Do(Opens podcast in a new browser tab) The post SOR 857 Selecting the Right Method appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

ChatGPT and Reliability Abstract Kirk and Fred discuss the use of artificial intelligence engines such as ChatGPT  in Reliability Engineering. A copy of the ChatGPT questions and responses that we discuss on this podcast is listed in the show notes below. Key Points Join Kirk and Fred as they discuss the recent introduction of the ChatGPT artificial intelligence engine that has been in the news, and its implications or use for reliability guidance in design and failure analysis. Fred and I refer to the sample questions below in the notes below that were asked of ChatGPT (version 4.0) Topics include: In the first question asked to ChatGPT it response was not exactly answering the question of how to test, but instead it answered with good methods for reliability development. ChatGPT answers are highly dependent on how the question is asked. A major difference on how Fred and I would answer would be first asking many more questions about what it is that you are wanting to make reliable. Some of our questions to further define the answer might be 1) are you making a dozen or a million of these devices? 2) is this a new or follow up design? 3) what is the intended end use environment going to be? Way back in 1968 in the science fiction movie “2001 A Space Odyssey”  the HAL 9000 computer predicts the major communication system will fail in the next 24 hours. The astronauts remove the circuit board, probe it to evaluate it, and the HAL 9000 cannot determine the potential latent failure. The astronauts fail to ask the HAL 9000 what its analysis of future failure is based on, a fatal mistake on their part. In this first pass at using AI for reliability the answers are fairly generic, but we know this is the first iteration and in future iterations will be more interactive in next generations. In the future it will be asking specific questions to provide more detailed specific answers. Enjoy an episode of Speaking of Reliability. Where you can join friends as they discuss reliability topics. Join us as we discuss topics ranging from design for reliability techniques to field data analysis approaches. Download Audio RSS Show Notes Here are the text of the ChatGPT reliability questions and answers Fred and I discussed in this podcast. You can go to the ChatGPT here https://chat.openai.com/chat First Question: What is the best method for testing the reliability of electronics and electronic systems for latent defects or design flaws Chat GPT4 answer 1.The best method for testing the reliability of electronics and electronic systems for latent defects or design flaws involves a combination of multiple techniques, as no single method can provide comprehensive coverage. Some of the widely used methods include: 2. Design for Testability (DFT): Implement testability measures in the design phase to improve the ease of testing and fault detection. Techniques include boundary-scan testing, built-in self-test, and scan chains. 3. Design for Reliability (DFR): Design electronic systems to meet specified reliability and lifetime requirements by considering factors like temperature, humidity, and mechanical stresses. 4. Design Review: Conduct thorough design reviews to identify and address potential issues, involving experienced engineers and cross-functional teams. 5. Simulation and Modeling: Use computer-aided engineering tools to simulate and model the behavior of the electronic systems under various conditions, helping identify and fix issues before prototyping. 6. Prototype Testing: Test early-stage prototypes to catch latent defects or design flaws before moving to mass production. 7. Environmental Stress Testing: Subject the electronic system to environmental stresses like temperature cycling, humidity, vibration, and shock to identify potential failure modes. 8. Accelerated Life Testing (ALT): Test the electronic system under elevated stress levels to induce failure mechanisms more rapidly and estimate product life under normal conditions. 9. Highly Accelerated Life Testing (HALT): Test the system to its limits by applying extreme levels of stress in order to identify potential weaknesses and design flaws. 10. Highly Accelerated Stress Screening (HASS): Screen production units using accelerated stress testing to detect manufacturing defects and ensure reliability. 11. Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA): Analyze potential failure modes and their impact on the electronic system, ranking them by severity and likelihood, to prioritize design improvements and testing efforts. 12. Continuous Monitoring and Feedback: Monitor field performance and collect feedback from users to identify failure trends, enabling further improvements to the design and testing processes. 13.It is important to apply a combination of these methods and tailor them to the specific electronic system being developed, as this will help improve the likelihood of detecting latent defects and design flaws effectively 2nd Question I have a electronic circuit board that has intermittent failure. How do I best troubleshoot to find out where the failure mechanism is? Chat GPT4 Answer Intermittent failures can be challenging to diagnose, but with a systematic approach, you can increase your chances of finding the issue. Here are some steps to help you troubleshoot an electronic circuit board with intermittent failure: 1. Visual inspection: Start by examining the board for any visible signs of damage, such as burnt components, broken traces, cracked solder joints, or loose connectors. Use a magnifying glass or microscope if necessary. 2. Check for temperature-related issues: Intermittent failures can sometimes be caused by temperature changes. Test the board by heating or cooling it gently (e.g., with a hairdryer or a can of compressed air), and observe if the failure occurs more or less frequently. If the problem seems temperature-related, look for components that are sensitive to temperature changes or have poor thermal connections. 3. Reseat connectors and components: Unplug and re-plug all connectors, ensuring they are seated properly. If there are socketed components, remove and re-insert them to ensure good contact. 4. Test the power supply: Check the voltage levels of the power supply, and make sure they are stable and within the specified range. Intermittent failures can be caused by an unstable power supply. 5. Use an oscilloscope and/or logic analyzer: To analyze signals in the circuit, use an oscilloscope for analog signals and a logic analyzer for digital signals. Look for signal anomalies, such as noise, glitches, or incorrect voltages, that could cause the intermittent failure. 6. Test components individually: Test components (resistors, capacitors, diodes, etc.) with a multimeter to ensure they are functioning within their specified range. Replace any suspicious components with known good ones. 7. Check for mechanical stress: Gently flex the board or tap on components while the circuit is operating to see if the failure occurs. This can help identify poor solder joints, hairline cracks, or damaged components. 8. Use freeze spray or a heat gun: Apply freeze spray on specific components or areas of the board to lower their temperature and see if the issue goes away. Alternatively, use a heat gun to heat components and observe if the failure occurs more frequently. 9. Record the failure: Document the exact circumstances under which the failure occurs, including the input conditions, output conditions, and environmental factors. This can help you establish a pattern and identify the problematic area or component. 10. Seek assistance: If you’re still having trouble diagnosing the problem, consider reaching out to colleagues or online forums for advice. Sometimes, a fresh perspective can be invaluable in identifying the root cause of an intermittent failure. Remember, patience and persistence are key when troubleshooting intermittent issues. It may take time to identify the cause, but a systematic approach can help you uncover the problem and resolve it.   You can now purchase the recent recording of Kirk Gray’s Hobbs Engineering 8 (two 4 hour sessions) hour Webinar “Rapid and Robust Reliability Development 2022 HALT & HASS Methodologies Online Seminar” from this link. Please click on this link to access a relatively new analysis of traditional reliability prediction methods article from the US ARMY and CALCE titled  “Reliability Prediction – Continued Reliance on a Misleading Approach” For more information on the newest discovery testing methodology here is a link to the book “Next Generation HALT and HASS: Robust design of Electronics and Systems” written by Kirk Gray and John Paschkewitz. Related Topics: SOR 380 How to Find an Intermittent Failure Mechanism?(Opens podcast in a new browser tab) The post SOR 856 ChatGPT and Reliability appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Mechanical Lessons Learned Abstract Kirk and Fred discussing Kirk’s recent trip to the Texas Pinball Festival (TPF) and the reliability of Pinball Machines which new designs have been produced for over six decades. Some of the mechanical assemblies have not changed in design for those many decades, even though some changes would be simple and useful, but change is difficult in this very small group of manufacturers. Key Points Join Kirk and Fred as they discuss mechanical issues with Pinball machines. Topics include: Even though pinball flippers now have to shoot multiple balls at the same time the flipper assemblies still use a analog squeeze grip to mechanically connect the flipper shaft to the solenoid arm. Two engineers at the TPF were trying to sell a better mechanically locked flipper assembly to the end user. The only way they are going to make money off their design is to sell it to the pinball manufacturers. We want engineers to innovate and improve technology. When the first portable (luggable?) computers were made, the reliability was poor but it was new and cool. The market demanded better reliability and through innovation and testing they evolved to very lightweight laptop computers, with long battery life and high resolution displays. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it is the reason that Flipper assemblies today are the same basic design that has been used for decades. The pinball manufacturers are innovating many new technologies into their machines and have little motivation to change old flipper assembly designs for a slight advantage to the alignment of flippers Enjoy an episode of Speaking of Reliability. Where you can join friends as they discuss reliability topics. Join us as we discuss topics ranging from design for reliability techniques to field data analysis approaches. Download Audio RSS Show Notes You can now purchase the recent recording of Kirk Gray’s Hobbs Engineering 8 (two 4 hour sessions) hour Webinar “Rapid and Robust Reliability Development 2022 HALT & HASS Methodologies Online Seminar” from this link. Please click on this link to access a relatively new analysis of traditional reliability prediction methods article from the US ARMY and CALCE titled  “Reliability Prediction – Continued Reliance on a Misleading Approach” For more information on the newest discovery testing methodology here is a link to the book “Next Generation HALT and HASS: Robust design of Electronics and Systems” written by Kirk Gray and John Paschkewitz. Related Topics: SOR 131 Pinball Machine Reliability(Opens podcast in a new browser tab) SOR 236 Evolution of Pinball Machine Reliability(Opens podcast in a new browser tab) The post SOR 855 Mechanical Lessons Learned appeared first on Accendo Reliability.