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 Oleg Ivanov Leave a Comment

Lifetime Evaluation vs. Measurement. Part 2.

Lifetime Evaluation vs. Measurement. Part 2.

Guest post by Oleg Ivanov

A result of life testing can be measurement or evaluation of the lifetime.

Measurement of the lifetime requires a lot of testing to failure. The results provide us with the life (time-to-failure) distribution of the product itself. It is long and expensive.

Evaluation of the lifetime does not require as many test samples and these tests can be without failures. It is faster and cheaper [1]. A drawback of the evaluation is that it does not give us the lifetime distribution. The evaluation checks the lower bound of reliability only, and interpretation of the results depends on the method of evaluation (the number of samples, test conditions, and the test time).

Measurement and evaluation properties are different (“the lifetime distribution” vs. “the lower bound”). Thus, the application of the measurement and evaluation of the lifetime must be different. We see this difference for complex systems. For example, we can use the measurements (life distribution) directly for a reliability block diagram model for a complex system, whereas using the evaluations directly for calculations of the system may be incorrect.

There is an old parable “The blind men and the elephant”:

Six blind men study an unknown phenomenon – in this case, an elephant. The first blind man touched the elephant’s leg and reported that the unknown phenomenon was similar to a tree trunk. The second blind man touched the elephant’s stomach and said that the elephant was like a wall. The third blind man touched the elephant’s ear and asserted that the phenomenon was precisely like a fan. The fourth blind man touched the elephant’s tail and described the elephant as a piece of rope. The fifth blind man felt the elephant’s tusks and declared the phenomenon to be a spear. The sixth blind man touched the elephant’s snout and with great fear announced the phenomenon was a snake.

Although one’s subjective experience is true, it may not be the totality of truth. In our case, we cannot determine the reliability of the system from the evaluations of the reliability of components by a reliability block diagram model. Does this seem heretical?

Here a simple example:

Case 1. We tested 30 two-component products without failures. The estimation of the product reliability for the test time is R = 0.9 with CL = 0.95 by using the well-known expression 1− CL = Rn for binomial tests without failures.

Case 2. We tested separately 30 “components 1” and 30 “components 2” of this two-component product without failures too. The estimation of the component 1 reliability for the test time is R = 0.9 with CL = 0.95 by using 1− CL = Rn. The estimation of the component 2 reliability for the test time is R = 0.9 with CL = 0.95 too by using 1− CL = Rn.

“A lot of research has been done on how to estimate the system reliability and its confidence intervals from its subsystem test data” [2]. There are methods on how to evaluate system reliability from component reliabilities when there are no failures. The expression 1− CL = Rn is the distribution of the reliability of a component. Guo et al. [2] have shown that this distribution is the same as a beta distribution β(r; a = n, b = 1), where a and b are parameters of the beta distribution.

The calculation of the component reliability is shown in first two lines of the following table:

Component N Mean Variance a b R(CL = 0.95)
1 30 0.967742 0.000975546 30 1 0.904966147
2 30 0.967742 0.000975546 30 1 0.904966147
System 0.936524 0.001828198 29.51588 2.000521 0.853739992

The mean and the variance of the component reliabilities calculated as for a beta distribution are represented here as well. The mean and the variance of the reliability of a sequential system formed from the two components are represented in the third line of the table. The distribution of the system reliability is approximated by a beta distribution β(r; a = 29.5, b = 2) having the same first two moments. The evaluation of the reliability of the product is R = 0.85 with CL = 0.95.

The method is good, but questions appear. There is a big difference between estimations R = 0.9 and R = 0.85. Can you explain this difference? CL is the same. These components have shown an identical ability to pass the tests in a product or separately. (We are certain that the test environment of the components was reproduced completely.) In practice, we must pass more tests at the component level to receive the same reliability.

It would be correct if we have a measured reliability of R = 0.9 for component 1 and R = 0.9 for component 2 and have calculated the reliability of the product as R = 0.81. It is incorrect for evaluations, however, because we multiply our mistakes only. These mistakes are independent of the method of evaluation of the system reliability from the component reliabilities. These mistakes are made at the level of the component reliability as in the story about the elephant.

Why does this happen? The “worst-case” method that we use for deriving evaluations is the reason for this. The expression 1− CL = Rn is a special case of this method.

  1. http://nomtbf.com/2016/03/lifetime-evaluation-v-measurement/.
  2. “Reliability Estimation for One-Shot Systems with Zero Component Test Failures” by Huairui Guo, Sharon Honecker, Adamantios Mettas, and Doug Ogden (ReliaSoft). Presented at RAMS 2010 (January 25–28, in San Jose, CA).

 

Filed Under: Articles, NoMTBF

About Oleg Ivanov

Oleg Ivanov is an aircraft engine design engineer with experience creating accelerated tests of aviation products (auxiliary power units, turbo generators, turbopumps, electro pumps). I see the shortcomings of standards and theory reliability/lifetime tests. My passion is to create new approaches (methods, tools) for accelerated tests. Life Cycle Simulator is one of these new tools.

« Understanding the Design Process
You May Often be Exceeding Operating Specifications! »

Comments

  1. Anderson says

    April 9, 2017 at 10:56 AM

    Interestingly, if the two components (shown in the Table) were tested as a system with no failures then Rs at 95% CL would be 0.904966147.
    This verifies your statement that is incorrect to multiply component reliabilities to evaluate a system reliability.
    [Note: my major technology is one-shot devices that rarely fail when used within specification limits.]

    Reply
    • Oleg Ivanov says

      April 19, 2017 at 10:36 AM

      Hi Anderson,
      Yes, it is. Testing the system as a whole is the “Сase 1” above.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

[popup type="" link_text="Get Weekly Email Updates" link_class="button" ]

[/popup]

The Accendo Reliablity logo of a sun face in circuit

Please login to have full access.




Lost Password? Click here to have it emailed to you.

Not already a member? It's free and takes only a moment to create an account with your email only.

Join

Your membership brings you all these free resources:

  • Live, monthly reliability webinars & recordings
  • eBooks: Finding Value and Reliability Maturity
  • How To articles & insights
  • Podcasts & additional information within podcast show notes
  • Podcast suggestion box to send us a question or topic for a future episode
  • Course (some with a fee)
  • Largest reliability events calendar
  • Course on a range of topics - coming soon
  • Master reliability classes - coming soon
  • Basic tutorial articles - coming soon
  • With more in the works just for members
Speaking of Reliability podcast logo

Subscribe and enjoy every episode

RSS
iTunes
Stitcher

Join Accendo

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

It’s free and only takes a minute.

Join Today

Dare to Know podcast logo

Subscribe and enjoy every episode

RSS
iTunes
Stitcher

Join Accendo

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

It’s free and only takes a minute.

Join Today

Accendo Reliability Webinar Series podcast logo

Subscribe and enjoy every episode

RSS
iTunes
Stitcher

Join Accendo

Receive information and updates about podcasts 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