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 Dianna Deeney Leave a Comment

QDD 056 ALT vs. HALT

ALT vs. HALT

Reliability engineers may suggest environmental stress tests. There are many types of tests in an RE’s toolbox. We compare two types of commonly known tests that are used for design: ALT vs. HALT. What are the important distinctions between these two methods? What value do they each bring to design engineering? And how do they fit into other reliability test methods?

 

 

View the Episode Transcript

 

There are many uses for reliability tests, but they have different purposes.

ALT is Accelerated Life Test

It’s used for quantitative data and for estimating the real-use reliability of a product.

To remember ALT, think of driving our automobile off road, an alternative to pave road, and we’re going to measure the damage afterwards to estimate how tough our car really is.

 

HALT is Highly Accelerated Life Test

It’s used for qualitative data to highlight areas for improvement.

To remember HALT, think of a car crash test: we’re highly accelerating our car toward a wall to halt it, and then seeing what failed.

(Car crash tests can also be used with sensors to collect data, but this is good way to remember the differences of HALT compared to the other reliability tests).

Citations

Further explore these topics from these other QDD episodes:

HALT! Watch out for that weakest link

Results-Driven Decisions, Faster: Accelerated Stress Testing as a Reliability Life Test

Environmental Stress Testing for Robust Designs

Getting Comfortable with using Reliability Results

5 Aspects of Good Reliability Goals and Requirements

Want to learn more about car crash tests? Or just want to watch cars getting smashed?

Attribution of pictures at the end of the video:

car crash dummy
Airbag vector created by brgfx – www.freepik.com

off roading
4×4 photo created by teksomolika – www.freepik.com

Episode Transcript

You’re listening to an installment of the Quality during Design “Versus Series”. In this series, we’re comparing concepts within quality and reliability to better understand them and how they can affect product design engineering. We have eight episodes in this series, which means we’ll be reviewing at least 16 topics. Let’s get started. Hello and welcome to quality during design the place to use quality thinking to create products others love for less. My name is Diana Deeney. I’m a senior level quality professional and engineer with over 20 years of experience in manufacturing and design. Listen in and then join the conversation. Visit quality during design.com and subscribe.

Hi, welcome to Quality during Design for products others love for less. I’m your host, Diana Deeney. Today, we’re comparing ALT and HALT: accelerated life testing versus highly accelerated life testing. And really what we want to talk about today is environmental testing that a reliability engineer might recommend for our product. Why would a reliability engineer recommend environmental stress testing? Well, there’s a couple of reasons. One is that they want to be able to test the product and understand its reliability before it’s been used in the field, before our customers start to use it. The other is so that they can help us make informed decisions about the design. The results of these tests can also help designers with a lot of design decisions. Things like choosing components. This component might be cheaper. Is it just as reliable? And does it matter in the grand scheme of the whole system? Evaluating suppliers: is there a difference between components or systems or assemblies or even manufacturing methods between two different suppliers? And for our own manufacturing methods themselves: are they able to produce the reliable components that we need?

Reliability engineers, in order to design a test, they need to know a few things. They need to know how this concept or product is going to be used. The environment that it’s used in and – think of temperature, humidity, and vibration – all of the environments in which our product could be used. And they at least need to know the basic concept and layout of the product design. Now we’ll know these things, or at least come up with a good estimate because they’re an important input into our design.

There are a lot of different techniques reliability engineers could use to test reliability of systems and components and of products. And they’re used for different purposes. Some tests are qualitative where we’re testing to a failure and some tests are quantitative where we’re measuring the stress and life of a product. Still other test methods are meant for screening product from manufacturing and determining if there is a shift from a special cause.

Today, I wanted to discuss two particular types of reliability engineering tests: ALT and HALT. And the reason is that these terminologies seem to be more widely known than some of the other reliability engineering tests. They’re both done to help make design choices and not necessarily monitor manufacturing. But they have different purposes and deceivingly similar names. So let’s break down the differences between these two types of reliability engineering tests.

ALT is short for “accelerated life test”, and this is a quantitative type of test it’s collecting data and information about the stress and the life of a product. The goal of ALT is to correlate those stresses in test with reliability and real use, to determine an acceleration factor and fit a probability model. Reliability engineers could just perform a regular old life test, but it might take too long. So they accelerate the stresses that would normally be seen in use in order to get failures faster. The acceleration factor and the probability distribution model are what allow the reliability engineers to transcribe that accelerated data into what they think will happen in real use. This data can be used to calculate the reliability of products, and it’s a demonstration of the reliability because you’re actually testing the product. The results of these tests could be used for verifications and qualification tests and also warranty analysis and where out analysis. These results could show us that the component or the system or product that we’re testing is good enough to be used in the field, or maybe it’s not. We may still get failures that we can investigate for design changes.

The stresses applied during accelerated life testing are usually accelerated usage rate or an overstress. As an example, I went to a home store, Ikea, and they had chairs in a test room and there was a weight being dropped on top of the chair consistently. And that was to simulate somebody getting up and sitting down in the chair several times. Now in real use, someone may only sit in the chair maybe three times, but they were accelerating the test by having a weight drop onto it 30 times a minute. This accelerated the usage rate of their chair. A life test using over stress is applying a stress that is above and beyond what the product would normally see in real use. If we’re designing a part for an airplane, there’s going to be vibration, then we’re going to test it at vibration rates that would be above and beyond what would be seen in the airplane. Stresses during accelerated life testing are also usually applied uniformly and consistently. The acceleration factor is picked based on the unit under test and its use cases, ’cause remember we want to accelerate our tests, but we’re still simulating real use environments. And the accelerated life test time is also correlated to customer use time.

HALT, on the other hand, is a qualitative test to destruct. We’re not going to be able to use results from HALT to simulate real use conditions or develop probability models to be able to calculate or estimate the reliability of something. Instead, we’re testing to a limit or we’re testing to desct. HALT is typically a test to destruct. HAST, or highly accelerated stress test, is usually a test to a limit. The goal with HALT is to rapidly find probable failure modes and vulnerabilities in our components or systems and to help design future tests. The results of HALT may be used in downstream tests for manufacturing audits or stress screens.

HALT is usually not a once-and-done test. It’s usually done, we break something, we investigate the failure mode and find the root cause, design it out or eliminate the source of that cause, and then maybe we might test it again and find out what more vulnerabilities have come up. And these corrective action cycles could be about the design or about the manufacturing process. HALT results also assure a design margin between the specs and the operational limits or the operational limits to the destruct limits. The stresses applied at HALT are usually non uniform combinations (things like step stress or rapid acceleration). And the acceleration factors are unknown. It’s said that acceleration factors could be as high as 2,500. And HALT results are not correlated to customer use time.

Now to put HALT into some more perspective, HALT is not the only qualitative environmental test that a reliability engineer has in their toolbox. There is environmental stress test, EST, which is very similar, but it’s just not highly accelerated. The acceleration factors aren’t on the order of thousands. There’s STRIFE (or life-stress or stress-life, if you’d like): those are also an overstress test, but the stress profile is just below the designed operating specs.

There are also different reliability engineering test methods that have to do with inspection and manufacturing. being able to monitor the products, coming off the manufacturing line to make sure that the process is still in control. These methods don’t damage the product. And it’s either done on all products or treated as an inspection of a few. Some examples of these stress testing for manufacturing are things like burn-in, where we’re essentially wearing in a product through an any initial fallout failures – removing the lemons, o to say. Environmental stress screening uses mild stresses with complicated stress profiles. And highly accelerated stress screen is similar except it uses highly accelerated stresses. There’s also some thing called HASA, highly accelerated stress audit which is another version of a highly accelerated test for inspection.

In all of these, the tests are designed to be able to give us data and information about our product, to be able to make wise decisions. And they all apply stresses to our product like temperature, humidity, vibration, power, and voltage. These are all typical stresses that are applied at stress screens, stress audits, and stress tests. Sometimes reliability engineers need to do some exploratory testing to find out what stresses have the most effect.

So reliability engineering testing isn’t usually just a once and done test. It’s a buildup of knowledge over time about a product and its processes. The information and things we learn about tests that were performed on the concept product are filtered through to the rest of the design process and affect the types of tests that reliability engineers may want to perform later on in the development.

So what’s, today’s insight to action, with ALT versus HALT? Well know that there are many options for reliability engineers to help with product design, even starting at the very early concept phases of product development. The test design itself can tie back to risk-based decisions and reliability engineers consider the use cases of the products in the field when they’re developing tests. What you may learn is that you may need to change a component, reconfigure an assembly, try a different concept, or change how you’re making it. So getting reliability engineers involved early in the concept development is important. You’ll also be able to use the results of tests for due diligence and evidence that your product is safe and dependable before you ship it to the customer.

To remember the differences between ALT and HALT, we can think of an automobile. If we take our car off-roading into mud and sink holes and a big mess, then we may be performing ALT. We’re driving our car through an alternate road course, and we’re measuring the damage that could happen to it afterwards. If on the other hand, we’re loading up our car with crash test, dummies, driving it at high speeds toward a wall so that it crashes – well, that’s more akin to HALT: we’re highly accelerating our automobile until it crashed and halted.

If you like the content in this episode, visit quality during design.com, where you can subscribe to the weekly newsletter to keep in touch. This has been a production of Deeney Enterprises. Thanks for listening.

 

Filed Under: Quality during Design

About Dianna Deeney

Dianna is a senior-level Quality Professional and an experienced engineer. She has worked over 20 years in product manufacturing and design and is active in learning about the latest techniques in business.

Dianna promotes strategic use of quality tools and techniques throughout the design process.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Quality during Design podcast logo

Tips for using quality tools and methods to help you design products others love, for less.


by Dianna Deeney
Quality during Design,
Hosted on Buzzsprout.com
Subscribe and enjoy every episode
Google
Apple
Spotify

Recent Episodes

QDD 128 Leveraging Proven Frameworks or Concept Development

QDD 127 Understanding Cross-Functional Collaboration

QDD 126 Exploring the Problem Space: A Key Principle for Robust Product Design and Project Success

QDD 125 Exploring Product Development and AI Through Literature

QDD 124 Design for User Tasks using an Urgent/Important Matrix

QDD 123 Information Development in Design, with Scott Abel – Part 2 (A Chat with Cross-Functional Experts)

QDD 122 Information Development in Design, with Scott Abel – Part 1 (A Chat with Cross-Functional Experts)

QDD 121 Crafting Effective Technical Documents for the Engineering Field

QDD 120 How to use FMEA for Complaint Investigation

QDD 119 Results-Driven Decisions, Faster: Accelerated Stress Testing as a Reliability Life Test

QDD 118 Journey from Production to Consumption: Enhancing Product Reliability

QDD 117 QDD Redux: Choose Reliability Goals for Modules

QDD 116 Reliability Engineering during Design, with Adam Bahret (A Chat with Cross-Functional Experts)

QDD 115 QDD Redux: 5 Options to Manage Risks during Product Engineering

QDD 114 The Instant Glory of Projects

QDD 113 What to do about Virtual Meetings

QDD 112 QDD Redux: How to self-advocate for more customer face time (and why it’s important)

QDD 111 Engineering with Receptivity, with Sol Rosenbaum (A Chat with Cross-Functional Experts)

QDD 110 Don’t Wish for Cross-Functional Buy-in on Product Designs – Plan to Get It!

QDD 109 Before You Start Engineering Solutions, Do This

QDD 108 QDD Redux Ep. 4: Statistical vs. Practical Significance

QDD 107 QDD Redux Ep. 3: When it’s Not Normal: How to Choose from a Library of Distributions

QDD 106 QDD Redux Ep. 2: How to Handle Competing Failure Modes

QDD 105 QDD Redux Ep. 1: How Many Do We Need to Test?

QDD 104 The Fundamental Thing to Know from Statistics for Design Engineering

QDD 103 What to do for Effective and Efficient Working Meetings

QDD 102 Get Design Inputs with Flowcharts

QDD 101 Quality Tools are Legos of Development (and Their 7 Uses)

QDD 100 Lessons Learned from Coffee Pod Stories

QDD 099 Crucial Conversations in Engineering, with Shere Tuckey (A Chat with Cross-Functional Experts)

QDD 098 Challenges Getting Team Input in Concept Development

QDD 097 Brainstorming within Design Sprints

QDD 096 After the ‘Storm: Compare and Prioritize Ideas

QDD 095 After the ‘Storm: Pareto Voting and Screening Methods

QDD 094 After the ‘Storm: Group and Explore Ideas

QDD 093 Product Design with Brainstorming, with Emily Haidemenos (A Chat with Cross Functional Experts)

QDD 092 Ways to Gather Ideas with a Team

QDD 091 The Spirits of Technical Writing Past, Present, and Future

QDD 090 The Gifts Others Bring

QDD 089 Next Steps after Surprising Test Results

QDD 088 Choose Reliability Goals for Modules

QDD 087 Start a System Architecture Diagram Early

QDD 086 Why Yield Quality in the Front-End of Product Development

QDD 085 Book Cast

QDD 084 Engineering in the Color Economy

QDD 083 Getting to Great Designs

QDD 082 Get Clarity on Goals with a Continuum

QDD 081 Variable Relationships: Correlation and Causation

QDD 080 Use Meetings to Add Productivity

QDD 079 Ways to Partner with Test Engineers

QDD 078 What do We do with FMEA Early in Design Concept?

QDD 077 A Severity Scale based on Quality Dimensions

QDD 076 Use Force Field Analysis to Understand Nuances

QDD 075 Getting Use Information without a Prototype

QDD 074 Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Supplements Test

QDD 073 2 Lessons about Remote Work for Design Engineers

QDD 072 Always Plot the Data

QDD 071 Supplier Control Plans and Design Specs

QDD 070 Use FMEA to Design for In-Process Testing

QDD 069 Use FMEA to Choose Critical Design Features

QDD 068 Get Unstuck: Expand and Contract Our Problem

QDD 067 Get Unstuck: Reframe our Problem

QDD 066 5 Options to Manage Risks during Product Engineering

QDD 065 Prioritizing Technical Requirements with a House of Quality

QDD 064 Gemba for Product Design Engineering

QDD 063 Product Design from a Data Professional Viewpoint, with Gabor Szabo (A Chat with Cross Functional Experts)

QDD 062 How Does Reliability Engineering Affect (Not Just Assess) Design?

QDD 061 How to use FMEA for Complaint Investigation

QDD 060 3 Tips for Planning Design Reviews

QDD 059 Product Design from a Marketing Viewpoint, with Laura Krick (A Chat with Cross Functional Experts)

QDD 058 UFMEA vs. DFMEA

QDD 057 Design Input & Specs vs. Test & Measure Capability

QDD 056 ALT vs. HALT

QDD 055 Quality as a Strategic Asset vs. Quality as a Control

QDD 054 Design Specs vs. Process Control, Capability, and SPC

QDD 053 Internal Customers vs. External Customers

QDD 052 Discrete Data vs. Continuous Data

QDD 051 Prevention Controls vs. Detection Controls

QDD 050 Try this Method to Help with Complex Decisions (DMRCS)

QDD 049 Overlapping Ideas: Quality, Reliability, and Safety

QDD 048 Using SIPOC to Get Started

QDD 047 Risk Barriers as Swiss Cheese?

QDD 046 Environmental Stress Testing for Robust Designs

QDD 045 Choosing a Confidence Level for Test using FMEA

QDD 044 Getting Started with FMEA – It All Begins with a Plan

QDD 043 How can 8D help Solve my Recurring Problem?

QDD 042 Mistake-Proofing – The Poka-Yoke of Usability

QDD 041 Getting Comfortable with using Reliability Results

QDD 040 How to Self-Advocate for More Customer Face Time (and why it’s important)

QDD 039 Choosing Quality Tools (Mind Map vs. Flowchart vs. Spaghetti Diagram)

QDD 038 The DFE Part of DFX (Design For Environment and eXcellence)

QDD 037 Results-Driven Decisions, Faster: Accelerated Stress Testing as a Reliability Life Test

QDD 036 When to use DOE (Design of Experiments)?

QDD 035 Design for User Tasks using an Urgent/Important Matrix

QDD 034 Statistical vs. Practical Significance

QDD 033 How Many Do We Need To Test?

QDD 032 Life Cycle Costing for Product Design Choices

QDD 031 5 Aspects of Good Reliability Goals and Requirements

QDD 030 Using Failure Rate Functions to Drive Early Design Decisions

QDD 029 Types of Design Analyses possible with User Process Flowcharts

QDD 028 Design Tolerances Based on Economics (Using the Taguchi Loss Function)

QDD 027 How Many Controls do we Need to Reduce Risk?

QDD 026 Solving Symptoms Instead of Causes?

QDD 025 Do you have SMART ACORN objectives?

QDD 024 Why Look to Standards

QDD 023 Getting the Voice of the Customer

QDD 022 The Way We Test Matters

QDD 021 Designing Specs for QA

QDD 020 Every Failure is a Gift

QDD 019 Understanding the Purposes behind Kaizen

QDD 018 Fishbone Diagram: A Supertool to Understand Problems, Potential Solutions, and Goals

QDD 017 What is ‘Production Equivalent’ and Why Does it Matter?

QDD 016 About Visual Quality Standards

QDD 015 Using the Pareto Principle and Avoiding Common Pitfalls

QDD 014 The Who’s Who of your Quality Team

QDD 013 When it’s Not Normal: How to Choose from a Library of Distributions

QDD 012 What are TQM, QFD, Six Sigma, and Lean?

QDD 011 The Designer’s Important Influence on Monitoring After Launch

QDD 010 How to Handle Competing Failure Modes

QDD 009 About Using Slide Decks for Technical Design Reviews

QDD 008 Remaking Risk-Based Decisions: Allowing Ourselves to Change our Minds.

QDD 007 Need to innovate? Stop brainstorming and try a systematic approach.

QDD 006 HALT! Watch out for that weakest link

QDD 005 The Designer’s Risk Analysis affects Business, Projects, and Suppliers

QDD 004 A big failure and too many causes? Try this analysis.

QDD 003 Why Your Design Inputs Need to Include Quality & Reliability

QDD 002 My product works. Why don’t they want it?

QDD 001 How to Choose the Right Improvement Model

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

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