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 nomtbf Leave a Comment

The MTBF Battle Continues

This site is part a long string of attempts to eradicate the improper use of MTBF. This week two people have sent me references to work previously done and Chris sent me another podcast also highlighting issues with MTBF. Jim McLinn wrote about the possible transition away from constant failure rate back in 1990. Jim’s article titled “Constant failure rate – A paradigm in transition?” has the following abstract:

As a science, reliability has now entered middle age, having achieved almost 40 years of recognized modern practice. As we move into the new decade of the 1990s it is appropriate that we review the status of modern reliability. The history of science has lessons for us to learn concerning the nature of paradigm changes. Clearly some reliability practitioners have had difficulty changing their own world views as scientific knowledge has increased and the conditions of the profession have changed.

The very first generalized model for reliability was based upon electron tube life data from the early 1950s. It was with these old types of complex and failure prone products upon which the original reliability model was developed and generalized. This first model dictated that the failure probability density of electronics follows the exponential law which implies that the electronics will show constant failure rates during their useful lives. To get to the constant failure rate period, an infant mortality was traversed and about 10 per cent failures observed. The reliability beliefs of the 1950s when combined with the product successes of the 1960s has created a reliability paradigm problem that first became apparent in the late 1970s. Improved quality and design effort with new technologies and knowledge about effective screening changed the conditions. Modern semiconductor electronic products do not follow the original electron tube reliability model. The applicability of this original model and the subsequent thinking that it led to must now be questioned. It is time to create a new and better paradigm to replace the defunct exponential law.  

McLinn, J. A. (1990), Constant failure rate—A paradigm in transition?. Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int., 6: 237–241. Then in 2001 Jeff Jones wrote the article titled “Estimation of System Reliability Using a  “Non-Constant Failure Rate” Model”. The abstract follows:

One of the most controversial techniques in the field of reliability is reliability-prediction methods based on component constant-failure-rate data for the estimation of system failure rates. This paper investigates a new reliability-estimation method that does not depend upon constant failure rates. Many boards were selected from the Loughborough University field-reliability database, and their reliability was estimated using failure-intensity based methods and then compared with the actual failure intensity observed in the field. The predicted failure-intensity closely agrees with the observed value for the majority of a system operating lifetimes. The general failure intensity method lends itself very easily to system-reliability prediction. It appears to give an estimate of the system-reliability throughout the operating lifetime of the equipment and does not make assumptions, such as constant failure rate, which can be detrimental to the validity of the estimate. The predictions seem, on present evidence, to track the observed behavior well, given the uncertainties that are evident in the field. The failure intensity method should be investigated further to see if it is feasible to estimate the system reliability throughout its lifetime and hence provide a more realistic picture of the way in which electronic systems behave in the field.  

Jeff Jones and joe Hayes,

Estimation of System Reliability Using a “Non-Constant Failure Rate” Model, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON RELIABILITY, VOL. 50, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 2001

And, more recently, Chris Peterson, in her daily blog, Test to be your Best, continues to alert us to the perils of MTBF and it’s associated mindset. So, why do we still need to remind ourselves and still need to educate others on how to properly use and when not to use MTBF? Apparently, the battle continues. If you’d like to help – let others know about this site and encourage the widespread eradication of MTBF. Let me now how it’s going.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Failure Rate, MTBF, non-constant failure rate

« What will Advance Reliability Engineering?
Hypergeometric Distribution »

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