SEQUENTIAL TEST PLANS


Sequential test plans can also be used for variables demonstration tests. The sequential test leads to a shorter average number of part hours of test exposure if the population MTBF is near s , d (i.e., close to the specified or design MTBF).

EXPONENTIAL DISTRIBUTION SEQUENTIAL TEST PLAN

This test plan can be used when:

  1. The demonstration test is based upon time-to-failure data.

  2. The underlying probability distribution is exponential.

The method to be used for the exponential distribution is to:

  1. Identify s , d , ± , and ²

  2. Calculate accept/reject decision points

Evaluate the following expression for the exponential distribution:

where t i = time to failure of the ith unit tested and n = number tested .

If L > , the test is failed.

If L < , the test is passed.

If , the test should be continued . -a a

A graphical solution can also be used by plotting decision lines:

nb - h 1 and nb + h 2

where n = number tested; click to expand .

Let t i equal time to failure for the ith item. Make conclusions based on the following:

If < nb “ h 1 , the test has failed.

If nb + h 2 , the test is passed.

If nb “ h 1 < nb + h 2 , continue the test.

start example

Assume you are interested in testing a new product to see whether it meets a specified MTBF of 500 hours with a consumer's risk of 0.10. Further, specify a design MTBF of 1000 hours for a producer's risk of 0.05. Run tests to determine whether the product meets the criteria.

Determine D based on the known criteria:

Then calculate

Now solve for b

Using these results, we can determine at which points we can make a decision, by using the following:

If < nb - h 1 , 693n - 2890, the test has failed.

If nb + h 2 , 693n + 2251, the test is passed.

end example
 

If nb - h 1 < nb + h 2 , 693n - 2890 < 693n + 2251, continue the test.

WEIBULL AND NORMAL DISTRIBUTIONS

Sequential test methods have also been developed for the Weibull distribution and for the normal distribution. If you are interested in pursuing the sequential tests for either of these distributions, see the selected bibliography

INTERFERENCE (TAIL) TESTING

Interference demonstration testing can sometimes be used when the stress and strength distributions are accurately known. If a random sample of the population is obtained, it can be tested at a point stress that corresponds to a specific percentile of the stress distribution. By knowing the stress and strength distributions, the required reliability, the desired confidence level, and the number of allowable failures, it is possible to determine the sample size required.

RELIABILITY VISION

Reliability is valued by the organization and is a primary consideration in all decision making. Reliability techniques and disciplines are integrated into system and component planning, design, development, manufacturing, supply, delivery, and service processes. The reliability process is tailored to fit individual business unit requirements and is based on common concepts that are focused on producing reliable products and systems, not just components .

RELIABILITY BLOCK DIAGRAMS

Reliability block diagrams are used to break down a system into smaller elements and to show their relationship from a reliability perspective. There are three types of reliability block diagrams: series, parallel, and complex (combination of series and parallel).

  1. A typical series block diagram is shown in Figure 7.2 with each of the three components having R1, R2, and R3 reliability respectively.

    click to expand
    Figure 7.2: A series block diagram.

    The system reliability for the series is

    R total = (R 1 ) (R 2 ) (R 3 ) ... (Rn)

start example

If the reliability for R1 = .80, R2 = .99, and R3 = .99, the system reliability is: R total = (.80)(.99)(.99) = .78. Please notice that the total reliability is no more than the weakest component in the system. In this case, the total reliability is less than R1.

  1. A parallel reliability block diagram shows a system that has built-in redundancy. A typical parallel system is shown in Figure 7.3. The system reliability is


    Figure 7.3: A parallel reliability block diagram.

    R total = 1 - [1 - R 1 (t) (1 - R 2 (t) (1 - R 3 )(t) ... (1 - R n (t)]

end example
 
start example

If the reliability for R1 = .80, R2 = .90, and R3 = .99, the system reliability is: R total = 1 - [(1 - .80)(1 - .90)(1 - .99)] = .9998 Please notice that the total reliability is more than that of the strongest component in the system. In this case, the total reliability is more than the R3.

  1. Complex reliability block diagrams show systems that combine both series and parallel situations. A typical complex system is shown in Figure 7.4. The system reliability for this system is calculated in two steps:

    • Step 1. Calculate the parallel reliability.

    • Step 2. Calculate the series reliability ” which becomes the total reliability.

    click to expand
    Figure 7.4: A complex reliability block diagram.

end example
 
start example

If the reliability for R1 = .80, R2 = .90, R3 = .95, R4 = .98, and R5 = .99, what is the total reliability for the system?

  • Step 1. The parallel reliability for R3 and R4 is

    • R total = l - [1 - R 1 (t) (1 - R 2 (t) = 1 - [1 - .95) (1 - .98)] = .999

  • Step 2. The series reliability for R1, R2, (R3 & R4), and R5 is

    • R total = (R 1 ) (R 2 ) (R 3 & R 4 ) (R 5 ) = (.80)(.90)(.999)(.99) = .712

Please notice that the parallel reliability was actually converted into a single reliability and that is why it is used in the series as a single value.

end example
 

WEIBULL DISTRIBUTION ” INSTRUCTIONS FOR PLOTTING AND ANALYZING FAILURE DATA ON A WEIBULL PROBABILITY CHART

This technique is useful for analyzing test data and graphically displaying it on Weibull probability paper. The technique provides a means to estimate the percent failed at specific life characteristics together with the shape of the failure distribution. The following procedure presents a manual method of conducting the analysis, but many computer programs can do the same calculations and also plot the Weibull curve. Weibull analysis is one of the simpler analytical methods, but it is also one of the most beneficial. The technique can be utilized for other than just analyzing failure data. It can be used for comparing two or more sets of data such as different designs, materials, or processes. Following are the steps for conducting a Weibull analysis.

  1. Gather the failure data (it can be in miles, hours, cycles, number of parts produced on a machine, etc.), then list in ascending order. For example: We conduct an experiment and the following failures (sample size of 10 failures) are identified (actual hours to failure): 95, 110, 140, 165, 190, 205, 215, 265, 275, and 330.

  2. Using the table of median ranks (Table 7.2), find the column corresponding to the number of failures in the sample tested. In our example we have a sample size of ten, so we use the "sample size 10" column. The "% Median Ranks" are then read directly from the table.

  3. Match the hours (or some other failure characteristic that is measured) with the median ranks from the sample size selected. For example:

    Actual Hours to Failure

    % Median Ranks

     

    95

    6.7

     

    110

    16.2

     

    140

    25.9

    Sample size of 10 failures

    165

    35.5

    190

    45.2

     

    205

    54.8

     

    215

    64.5

     

    265

    74.1

     

    275

    83.8

     

    330

    93.3

     
  4. In constructing the Weibull plot, label the "Life" on the horizontal log scale on the Weibull graph in the units in which the data were measured. Try to center the life data close to the center of the horizontal scale (Figure 7.5).

    click to expand
    Figure 7.5: The Weibull distribution for the example.

  5. Plot each pair of "actual hours to failure" (on the horizontal logarithmic scale) and "% median rank" (on the vertical axis, which is a log-log scale) on the graph. The matching points are shown as dots (" s") on Figure 7.5. Draw a "line of best fit" ( generally a straight line) as close to the data pairs as possible. Half the data points should be on one side of the line, and the other half should be on the other side. No two people will generate the exact same line, but analysts should keep in mind that this is a visual estimate. (If the line is computer generated, it is actually calculated based on the "best fit" regression line.)

  6. After the line of "best fit" is drawn, the life at a specific point can be found be going vertically to the "Weibull line" then going horizontally to the "Cumulative % Failed." In other words, this is the percent that is expected to fail at the life that was selected. In the example, 100 was selected as the life, then going up to the line and then across, we can see the expected % failed to be 10%. In this case, the life at 100 hours is also known as the B 10 life (or 90% reliability) and is the value at which we would expect 10% of the parts to fail when tested under similar conditions. (Please note that there is nothing secret about the B 10 life. Any B x life can be identified. It just happens that the B 10 is the conventional life that most engineers are accustomed to using.) In addition, we can plot the 5% and the 95% confidence using Tables 7.3 and 7.4 respectively.

    Table 7.3: Five Percent Rank Table

     

    Sample Size (n)

    1

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    1

    5.000

    2.532

    1.695

    1.274

    1.021

    0.851

    0.730

    0.639

    0.568

    0.512

    2

     

    22.361

    13.535

    9.761

    7.644

    6.285

    5.337

    4.639

    4.102

    3.677

    3

       

    36.840

    24.860

    18.925

    15.316

    12.876

    11.111

    9.775

    8.726

    4

         

    47.237

    34.259

    27.134

    22.532

    19.290

    16.875

    15.003

    5

           

    54.928

    41.820

    34.126

    28.924

    25.137

    22.244

    6

             

    60.696

    47.820

    40.031

    34.494

    30.354

    7

               

    65.184

    52.932

    45.036

    39.338

    8

                 

    68.766

    57.086

    49.310

    9

                   

    71.687

    60584

    10

                     

    74.113

     

    Sample Size (n)

    j

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    1

    0.465

    0.426

    0.394

    0.366

    0.341

    0.320

    0.301

    0.285

    0.270

    0.256

    2

    3.332

    3.046

    2.805

    2.600

    2.423

    2.268

    2.132

    2.011

    1.903

    1.806

    3

    7.882

    7.187

    6.605

    6.110

    5.685

    5.315

    4.990

    4.702

    4.446

    4.217

    4

    13.507

    12.285

    11.267

    10.405

    9.666

    9.025

    8.464

    7.969

    7.529

    7.135

    5

    19.958

    18.102

    16.566

    15.272

    14.166

    13.211

    12.377

    11.643

    10.991

    10.408

    6

    27.125

    24.530

    22.395

    20.607

    19.086

    17.777

    16.636

    15.634

    14.747

    13.955

    7

    34.981

    31.524

    28.705

    26.358

    24.373

    22.669

    21.191

    19.895

    18.750

    17.731

    8

    43.563

    39.086

    35.480

    32.503

    29.999

    27.860

    26.011

    24.396

    22.972

    21.707

    9

    52.991

    47.267

    42.738

    39.041

    35.956

    33.337

    31.083

    29.120

    27.395

    25.865

    10

    63.564

    56.189

    50.535

    45.999

    42.256

    39.101

    36.401

    34.060

    32.009

    30.195

    11

    76.160

    66.132

    58.990

    53.434

    48.925

    45.165

    41.970

    39.215

    36.811

    34.693

    12

     

    77.908

    68.366

    61.461

    56.022

    51.560

    47.808

    44.595

    41.806

    39358

    13

       

    79.418

    70.327

    63.656

    58.343

    53.945

    50.217

    47.003

    44.197

    14

         

    80.736

    72.060

    65.617

    60.436

    56.112

    52.420

    49.218

    15

           

    81.896

    73.604

    67.381

    62.332

    58.088

    54.442

    16

             

    82.925

    74.988

    68.974

    64.057

    59.897

    17

               

    83.843

    76.234

    70.420

    65.634

    18

                 

    84.668

    77.363

    71.738

    19

                   

    85.413

    78.389

    20

                     

    86.089

    Table 7.4: Ninety-five Percent Rank Table

     

    Sample Size (n)

    j

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    1

    95.000

    77.639

    63.160

    52.713

    45.072

    39.304

    34.816

    31.234

    28.313

    25.887

    2

     

    97.468

    86.465

    75.139

    65.741

    58.180

    52.070

    47.068

    42.914

    39.416

    3

       

    98.305

    90.239

    81.075

    72.866

    65.874

    59.969

    54.964

    50.690

    4

         

    98.726

    92.356

    84.684

    77.468

    71.076

    65.506

    60.662

    5

           

    98.979

    93.715

    87.124

    80.710

    74.863

    69.646

    6

             

    99.149

    94.662

    88.889

    83.125

    77.756

    7

               

    99.270

    95.361

    90.225

    84.997

    8

                 

    99.361

    95.898

    91.274

    9

                   

    99.432

    96.323

    10

                     

    99.488

     

    Sample Size (n)

    j

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    1

    23.840

    22.092

    20.582

    19.264

    18.104

    17.075

    16.157

    15.332

    14.587

    13.911

    2

    36.436

    33.868

    31.634

    29.673

    27.940

    26.396

    25.012

    23.766

    22.637

    21.611

    3

    47.009

    43.811

    41.010

    38.539

    36.344

    34.383

    32.619

    31.026

    29.580

    28.262

    4

    56.437

    52.733

    49.465

    46566

    43.978

    41.657

    39.564

    37.668

    35.943

    34366

    5

    65.019

    60.914

    57.262

    54.000

    51.075

    48.440

    46.055

    43.888

    41.912

    40.103

    6

    72.875

    68.476

    64.520

    60.928

    57.744

    54.835

    52.192

    49.783

    47.580

    45.558

    7

    80.042

    75.470

    71.295

    67.497

    64.043

    60.899

    58.029

    55.404

    52.997

    50.782

    8

    86.492

    81.898

    77.604

    73.641

    70.001

    66.663

    63.599

    60.784

    58.194

    55.803

    9

    92.118

    87.715

    83.434

    79.393

    75.627

    72.140

    68.917

    65.940

    63.188

    60.641

    10

    96.668

    92.813

    88.733

    84.728

    80.913

    77.331

    73.989

    70.880

    67.991

    65.307

    11

    99.535

    96.954

    93.395

    89.595

    85.834

    82.223

    78.809

    75.604

    72.605

    69.805

    12

     

    99.573

    97.195

    93.890

    90.334

    86.789

    83.364

    80.105

    77.028

    74.135

    13

       

    99.606

    97.400

    94.315

    90.975

    87.623

    84.366

    81.250

    78.293

    14

         

    99.634

    97.577

    94.685

    91.535

    88.357

    85.253

    82.269

    15

           

    99.659

    97.732

    95.010

    92.030

    89.009

    86.045

    16

             

    99.680

    97.868

    95.297

    92.471

    89.592

    17

               

    99.699

    97.989

    95.553

    92.865

    18

                 

    99.715

    98.097

    95.783

    19

                   

    99.730

    98.193

    20

                     

    99.744

    The confidence lines are drawn for our example in Figure 7.5. The reader will notice that the confidence lines are not straight. That is because as we move in the fringes of the reliability we are less confident about the results.

  7. The graph can be used for estimating the cumulative % failure at a specified life, or it can be used for determining the estimated life at a cumulative % failure. In the example, we would expect 63.2% of the test units to fail at 222 hours. This value at 63.2% is also known as the characteristic life or the mean time between failures (MTBF) for the example distribution. Or looking at the chart another way, we would like to estimate the failure hours at a specified % failure. For example at 95% cumulative % failed, the hours to failure are 325 hours. Once the Weibull plot is determined, an analyst can go either way.

  8. The Weibull graph can also be used to estimate the reliability at a given life, using the equation of R(t) = 1 - F(t). A designer who wishes to estimate the reliability of life at 200 hours would go vertically to the Weibull line, then go horizontally to 52%, which is the percent expected to fail. The estimated reliability at 200 hours would be 1 - 0.52 = 0.48 or 48%. At 80 hours it would be 1 - 0.056 = 0.944 or 94.4%. The slope is obtained by drawing a line parallel to the Weibull line on the Weibull slope scale that is in the upper left corner of the chart.

  9. If a computer program is used, the calculation for the line of best fit is determined by the computer. Some programs draw the graph and show the paired points, the line of best fit (using the least squares method or the maximum likelihood method), the reliability at a specified hour (or other designated parameter), and the slope of the line.

  10. One of the interesting observations regarding the Weibull graph is the interpretations that can be made about the distribution by the portrayal of the slope. When the slope is:

    • Less than 1, this indicates a decreasing failure rate, early life, or infant mortality

    • Approximately 1, the distribution indicates a nearly constant failure rate (useful life or a multitude of random failures)

    • Exactly 1, the distribution has an exponential pattern

    • Greater than 1, the start of wear out

    • Approximately 3.55, a normal distribution pattern,

  11. Weibull plots can be made if test data also include test samples that have not failed. Parts that have not failed (for whatever reason during the testing) can be included in the calculations together with the failed parts or assemblies. The non-failed data are referred to as suspended items. The method of determining the Weibull plot is shown in the next set of instructions.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PLOTTING FAILURE AND SUSPENDED ITEMS DATA ON A WEIBULL PROBABILITY CHART

  1. Gather the failure and suspended items data, then including the suspended items, list in ascending order.

    Item Number

    Hours to Failure or Suspension

    Failure or Suspension Code [a]

     

    1

    95

    F1

     

    2

    110

    F2

     

    3

    140

    F3

     

    4

    165

    F4

    Sample Size 13 10 failures 3 suspensions

    5

    185

    S1

    6

    190

    F5

    7

    205

    F6

     

    8

    210

    S2

     

    9

    215

    F7

     

    10

    265

    F8

     

    11

    275

    F9

     

    12

    330

    F10

     

    13

    350

    S3

     

    [a] Code items as failed (F) or suspended (S).

  2. Calculate the mean order number of each failed unit. The mean order numbers before the first suspended item are the respective item numbers in the order of occurrence, i.e., 1, 2, 3, and 4. The mean order numbers after the suspended items are calculated by the following equations.

    Mean order number = (previous mean order number) + (new number)

    where, new increment =

    and N = total sample size.

    For example, to compensate for S1 (first suspended item), new increment = [(13 + 1) -4]/(1 + 8) = 1.111 and the mean order number of F5 (fifth failed item) = 4 + 1.111 = 5.111.

    Note  

    Only one new increment is found each time a suspended item is encountered . Mean order number of F6 = 5.111 + 1.111 = 6.222.

    New increment for mean order number of F7 = [(13 + 1) - 6.222] (1 + 5) = 1.296.

    Then, the mean order number of F7 (seventh failed item) is 6.222 + 1.296 = 7.518 (and so on for F8, F9, and F10).

    This new increment also applies to mean order numbers:

    Item Number

    Hours to Failure or Suspension

    Failure or Suspension Code

    Mean Order Number

    1

    95

    F1

    1

    2

    110

    F2

    2

    3

    140

    F3

    3

    4

    165

    F4

    4

    5

    185

    S1

    6

    190

    F5

    5.111

    7

    205

    F6

    6.222

    8

    210

    S2

    9

    215

    F7

    7.518

    10

    265

    F8

    8.815

    11

    275

    F9

    10.111

    12

    330

    F10

    11.407

    13

    350

    S3

  3. A rough check on the calculations can be made by adding the last increment to the final mean order number. If the value is close to the total sample size, the numbers are correct. In our example, 11.407 + [11.407 - 10.111] = 11.407 + 1.296 = 12.702, which is a close approximation to the sample size of 13.

  4. Using the table of median ranks for a sample size of 13 we can determine the median rank for the first four failures, or we can use the approximate median rank formula.

    Median rank = [J - .3]/[N + .4]

    where J = mean order number and N = total sample size.

    For example, the median rank of F5 is:

    = 0.359

    and, the remainder of the failures:

    = 0.442

    and so on.

    Item Number

    Hours to Failure or Suspension

    Failure or Suspension Code

    Mean Order Number

    % Median Rank

    1

    95

    F1

    1

    5.2

    2

    110

    F2

    2

    12.6

    3

    140

    F3

    3

    20.0

    4

    165

    F4

    4

    27.5

    5

    185

    S1

    6

    190

    F5

    5.111

    35.9

    7

    205

    F6

    6.222

    44.2

    8

    210

    S2

    9

    215

    F7

    7.518

    53.9

    10

    265

    F8

    8.815

    63.5

    11

    275

    F9

    10.111

    73.2

    12

    330

    F10

    11.407

    82.9

    13

    350

    S3

  5. Label the "Life" on the horizontal log scale on the Weibull graph in the units in which the data were measured. Try to center the life data close to the center of the horizontal scale.

  6. Plot each pair of "actual hours to failure" (on the horizontal scale) and "% median rank" (on the vertical scale) on the graph. Draw a "line of best fit" (generally a straight line) as close to the data pair as possible. Half the data points should be on one side of the line, and the other half should be on the other side.

  7. Once the line is drawn, the life at a specific point can be found by going vertically to the "Weibull line" then going horizontally to the "Cumulative % failed." In other words, this is the percent that is expected to fail at the life that was selected. In the example, 200 hours was selected as the life, then going up to the line and then across, we can see the expected % failed to be 40%.

  8. Other reliability parameters that can be read from the Weibull plot are:

    MTBF

    =

    240 hours

    B 10

    =

    105 hours

    B

    =

    2.5

    Reliability at 100 hours is 1 - 0.09 = 0.91 reading from the graph, or using the Weibull equation

  9. Comparing the two examples shows that the analysis with suspended items results in a slightly higher reliability characteristics. This is using the same failure data plus the three suspended items.

ADDITIONAL NOTES ON THE USE OF THE WEIBULL

  1. Weibull plotting is an invaluable tool for analyzing life data; however, some precautions should be taken. Goodness-of-fit is one concern. This can be tested with various tests such as the Kolmogorov-Smirnov or Chisquare. The use of an adequate sample size is another concern. Generally a sample size should be greater than ten, but if the failure rate is in a tight pattern (with relatively low variability), this generality may be relaxed . Be suspicious of a curved line that best fits the data. This may indicate a mixed sample of failures or inappropriate sampling.

  2. If the Weibull plot is made and a curvilinear relation develops for the connecting points, it usually indicates that two or more distributions are making up the data. This may be due to infant mortality failures being mixed with the data, failures due to components from two different machines or assembly operations, or some other underlying cause. If a curved relationship is indicated, the analyst should revisit the data and try to determine if the data are made up of two or more distributions and then manage each distribution separately.

  3. There is another parameter in the Weibull analysis that was not discussed. Beside the shape or slope (b) of the Weibull line and the scale or characteristic life (the mean life or MTBF at the 63.2% cumulative percentage), there is the "location parameter." In most cases it is usually zero and should be of little concern. In effect, it states that the distribution of failure times starts at zero time, which is more often the case because it is difficult to imagine otherwise . The characteristic life splits the distribution in two areas of 0.632 before and 0.368 ( R ( ) = = e -1 = .368) after.

  4. One of the advantages of using the Weibull is that it is very flexible in its interpretations. A wealth of information can be derived from it. If the Weibull slope is equal to one, the distribution is the same as the exponential, or a constant failure rate. If the slope is in the vicinity of 3.5, it is a "near normal distribution." If the slope is greater than one, the plot starts to represent a wear out distribution, or an increasing hazard rate. A slope less than one generally indicates a decreasing hazard rate, or an infant mortality distribution.

  5. Analysts should be careful about extrapolating beyond the data when making predictions . Remember that the failure points fall within certain bounds and that the analyst should have a valid reason when venturing beyond these bounds. When making projections over and above these confines, sound engineering judgment, statistical theory, and experience should all be taken into consideration.

  6. The three-parameter Weibull is a distribution with non-zero minimum life. This means that the population of products goes for an initial period of time without failure. The reliability function for the three-parameter Weibull is given by

    R(t) = , t

    where t = time to failure (t ); = minimum life parameter ( 0); ² = Weibull slope ( ² > 0); and = characteristic life ( ).

    For a given reliability

    t = +( - ) —

    and the B 10 life is

    B 10 = +( - ) —




Six Sigma and Beyond. Design for Six Sigma (Vol. 6)
Six Sigma and Beyond: Design for Six Sigma, Volume VI
ISBN: 1574443151
EAN: 2147483647
Year: 2003
Pages: 235

flylib.com © 2008-2017.
If you may any questions please contact us: flylib@qtcs.net