Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • Home
  • About
    • Contributors
  • Reliability.fm
    • Speaking Of Reliability
    • Rooted in Reliability: The Plant Performance Podcast
    • Quality during Design
    • Way of the Quality Warrior
    • Critical Talks
    • Dare to Know
    • Maintenance Disrupted
    • Metal Conversations
    • The Leadership Connection
    • Practical Reliability Podcast
    • Reliability Matters
    • Reliability it Matters
    • Maintenance Mavericks Podcast
    • Women in Maintenance
    • Accendo Reliability Webinar Series
  • Articles
    • CRE Preparation Notes
    • on Leadership & Career
      • Advanced Engineering Culture
      • Engineering Leadership
      • Managing in the 2000s
      • Product Development and Process Improvement
    • on Maintenance Reliability
      • Aasan Asset Management
      • AI & Predictive Maintenance
      • Asset Management in the Mining Industry
      • CMMS and Reliability
      • Conscious Asset
      • EAM & CMMS
      • Everyday RCM
      • History of Maintenance Management
      • Life Cycle Asset Management
      • Maintenance and Reliability
      • Maintenance Management
      • Plant Maintenance
      • Process Plant Reliability Engineering
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • RCM Blitz®
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
      • The People Side of Maintenance
      • The Reliability Mindset
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Metals Engineering and Product Reliability
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Product Validation
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
    • on Risk & Safety
      • CERM® Risk Insights
      • Equipment Risk and Reliability in Downhole Applications
      • Operational Risk Process Safety
    • on Systems Thinking
      • Communicating with FINESSE
      • The RCA
    • on Tools & Techniques
      • Big Data & Analytics
      • Experimental Design for NPD
      • Innovative Thinking in Reliability and Durability
      • Inside and Beyond HALT
      • Inside FMEA
      • Integral Concepts
      • Learning from Failures
      • Progress in Field Reliability?
      • R for Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Using Python
      • Reliability Reflections
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Manufacturing Academy
  • eBooks
  • Resources
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinars
    • Journals
    • Higher Education
    • Podcasts
  • Courses
    • 14 Ways to Acquire Reliability Engineering Knowledge
    • Reliability Analysis Methods online course
    • Measurement System Assessment
    • SPC-Process Capability Course
    • Design of Experiments
    • Foundations of RCM online course
    • Quality during Design Journey
    • Reliability Engineering Statistics
    • Quality Engineering Statistics
    • An Introduction to Reliability Engineering
    • Reliability Engineering for Heavy Industry
    • An Introduction to Quality Engineering
    • Process Capability Analysis course
    • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
    • Return on Investment online course
    • CRE Preparation Online Course
    • Quondam Courses
  • Webinars
    • Upcoming Live Events
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home

by Adam Bahret 2 Comments

HALT shouldn’t be “H.A.L.T.”

HALT shouldn’t be “H.A.L.T.”

The fist part of this post you likely already know.  It’s the second part that may be helpful.

I love HALT testing and almost always include it in a new program.  With a team new to the concept there is always the hurdle of getting them to understand it’s value.  It’s not intuitive to see value in destroying a product with stepped stresses.  Often these stresses aren’t even apart of the product’s use case. Why vibrate a lab electronic device that spends its entire life on a bench? Seeing the failure mode is a capacitor flying off the PCB at 50 G’s doesn’t reinforce the value of the activity without some explanation.

The value in finding out that Capacitor C5 is the first to break loose under physical duress is that it very likely will be the first component to break it’s electrical connection if the board is constructed under a bad solder flow.  It also may be the first component to break when the device gets dropped three feet onto a tile floor only once in it’s 10 year life. By finding this first high stress failure early in the program we can make simple changes to up robustness. The solution could be as simple as putting a drop of glue on the capacitor to tie it to a neighboring component.  That is a big difference in strength with, what is likely, a free design improvement.

As I said I know many of you reading this already understand this.  So why am I writing this post?

To share an education step that may help you explain the value of HALT to design teams.

I always start any HALT program by saying that “The acronym of HALT is wrong, and even Dr. Greg Hobbs (the creator of HALT) said so”

HALT stand for “Highly Accelerated Life Test.”  I have a few problems with this.  It doesn’t’ provide much information about life. Vibration based failure isn’t much help in predicting life of that bench bound device. You also could debate that it is not really a “test.”  Tests are things we want to pass or use to make quantitative statement. If you “pass” a HALT test you have actually failed. What did you learn if there are no failures to root cause?  When this happens I often advise we start over with a different set of stresses.

Is it more fitting to replace “Life” with “Failure” and “Test” with “Exploration”  Highly Accelerated Failure Exploration possibly.

Let’s do a HAFE!  (doesn’t have the same ring to it)

Next time you are educating a group on the value of HALT start by breaking down the acronym, then build it back up based on what you discussed. Who knows what you will come up with, but surely it will be better.

-Adam

Filed Under: Apex Ridge, Articles, on Product Reliability

About Adam Bahret

I am a Reliability engineer with over 20 years of experience in mechanical and electrical systems in many industries. I founded Apex Ridge Reliability as a firm to assist technology companies with the critical reliability steps in their product development programs and organizational culture.

« Building and Using Pareto Charts
Maintenance Excellence – no quick fixes »

Comments

  1. John Bessman says

    February 21, 2021 at 5:11 PM

    How about the GANDALF test: Generate Additional New Designs by Accelerating Likely Failures. And it’s easy to remember that “YOU SHALL NOT PASS!” the GANDALF test. 🙂

    Reply
    • Adam Bahret says

      February 21, 2021 at 5:59 PM

      OMG! That is hilarious. PERFECT!

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Article by Adam Bahret
in the Apex Ridge series

Join Accendo

Receive information and updates about articles and many other resources offered by Accendo Reliability by becoming a member.

It’s free and only takes a minute.

Join Today

Recent Articles

  • test
  • test
  • test
  • Your Most Important Business Equation
  • Your Suppliers Can Be a Risk to Your Project

© 2025 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy