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 John Kreucher Leave a Comment

Test Reliability Targets and Expected Field Reliability

Test Reliability Targets and Expected Field Reliability

An example of an automotive validation test reliability target is R97C50.  In this case, the objective of the validation effort would be to demonstrate at one life on test, with 50% confidence, that the product has a reliability of 97% or better.  

Does this mean that a field failure rate of 3% can be expected?  

To answer this, we should consider each of the following:

  1. What is the test severity relative to the distribution of stress in the field?  If you could know the true field distribution of each important environmental stress factor or usage condition, this would be extremely valuable information.  You would use these data to inform the parameters of your validation tests.   

However, this is much easier said than done.  Some would argue that this is the most difficult challenge facing a validation engineer.  It requires that field measurements be collected on representative parts installed on a representative application running the full range (i.e., representative) of customer usage conditions.  

An internal study conducted by a client revealed that this distribution was unknown in 60% of their product reliability warranty claims.  Doesn’t it make sense that their validation test protocols were inadequate for revealing all field-relevant failure modes?

Now let’s say you have some understanding of the field stress distribution.  Would you apply this stress distribution to your test parts?   Except for those unique industries whose end-user stress distributions are fairly narrow, the answer is no.  To do so would result in a large amount of test time run under non-damaging test conditions.  Instead, the conservative (and typical) approach is to test at high severity stress levels representing (e.g.) the 95th %-tile user.  In many cases, in order to accelerate a test even further, the test is run at even higher stress levels with reliability estimations projected back to (e.g.) the 95th %-tile stress level using ALT or other quantitative methods. 

I’ve found that the choice of test severity is of little consequence if the field stress distribution is not well understood.  Collecting representative field data requires a good deal of engineering rigor and resource, but for most products and applications this activity is vital.

  • Does the reliability target apply to the overall test plan or a few critical tests?  Validation test protocols often consist of several accelerated tests each designed to exercise a particular failure mechanism or mode.  Test reliability targets are sometimes intended for only these individual, reliability-critical test exposures.  For these, a statistical demonstration of reliability and confidence is required.  The remaining tests in the validation protocol can be considered capability tests.  These are often short duration tests or tests of low risk or low occurrence environments, and often for mature products.  Examples are dust testing, drop tests, shipping damage, connector strength, etc.  These often have very small sample sizes, for example 3 to 6 parts.
  • How was reliability demonstrated on test?  Reliability demonstration by testing-to-failure has a number of advantages.  It confirms that the observed failure mode(s) are as expected and align with the physics of failure model used to correlate/accelerate the test, it reveals the margin to one life (i.e., do parts fail just after one life or much later), and for the purposes of this discussion, it allows for an accurate estimate of reliability and confidence.  

Reliability demonstration using a success testing strategy however has as its premise that no failures are observed on test.  As such, the reliability estimate is conservative irrespective of the stated confidence level.  We can only say statistically that the combination of reliability and confidence are at least as high as stated.

Now let’s reconsider the original question.  Does a demonstration of only R97C50 on test mean that we can expect 3% field failures?  It does not.  First, as described above, the spec may be directed at specific tests and thus only those failure modes.  Second, though we may have only demonstrated 97% reliability on test, this was accomplished on a very high severity test.  Finally, if a success test was used to demonstrate test reliability, this provides even more conservatism to what we can expect in the field.

Regarding test to field reliability conversion.  There exist quantitative methods for translating test reliability to field reliability (and vice versa).  These methods have limitations: They require that you know or assume a field stress distribution; and they apply only to that stressor and failure mechanism.  See Kleyner1 for a good summary and example of one such approach.

  1.  Kleyner, A. (2015) Effect of Field Stress Variance on Test to Field Correlation in Accelerated Reliability Demonstration Testing.  Quality and Reliability Engineering International (QREI) 2015, 31:783–788 DOI: 10.1002/qre.1635

Filed Under: Articles, on Product Reliability, Product Validation

About John Kreucher

John has a passion for coaching, consulting, and training individuals and teams on product reliability engineering topics.  He specializes in reliability sciences, validation test development and planning, reliability demonstration, accelerated life testing, ALT, Proportional Step Stress testing (MEOST), field-to-test correlation, warranty analysis, and validation engineering leadership.

« Texas Black Swan Event
Water Works and Railroad Employee Manuals »

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Photo of John KreucherArticles by John Kreucher
in the Product Validation article 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 Posts

  • 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