Evaluation of reactive chemical hazards can range from simple paper-based calculations to highly complex testing and modeling. This post is aimed to help you formulate a systematic strategy for evaluating reactive chemical hazards in your facility.  I will divide the various approaches in three tiers – simple to complex.

[Read more…]

Give me a place to stand on, and I will move the Earth.

Archimedes

[Read more…]

“What’s the MTBF of a Human?” That’s a bit of a strange question?

Guest post by Adam Bahret

I ask this question in my Reliability 101 course. Why ask such a weird question? I’ll tell you why. Because MTBF is the worst, most confusing, crappy metric used in the reliability discipline. Ok maybe that is a smidge harsh, it does have good intentions. But the amount of damage that has been done by the misunderstanding it has caused is horrendous.

MTBF stands for “Mean Time Between Failure.” It is the inverse of failure rate. An MTBF of 100,000 hrs/failure is a failure rate of 1/100,000 fails/hr = .00001 fails/hr. Those are numbers, what does that look like in operation? [Read more…]

What is Wrong With Success Testing?

Three prototypes survive the gauntlet of stresses and none fail. That is great news, or is it? No failure testing is what I call success testing.

We often want to create a design that is successful, therefore enjoying successful testing results, I.e. No failures means we are successful, right?

Another aspect of success testing is in pass/fail type testing we can minimize the sample size by planning for all prototypes passing the test. If we plan on running the test till we have a failure or two, we need more samples. While it improves the statistics of the results, we have to spend more to achieve the results. We nearly always have limited resources for testing.

Let’s take a closer look at success testing and some of the issues you should consider before planning your next success test. [Read more…]

MTBF is Not a Duration

Despite standing for the time between failures, MTBF does not represent a duration. Despite having units of hours (months, cycles, etc.) is it not a duration related metric.

This little misunderstanding seems to cause major problems. [Read more…]

The Fear of Reliability

MTBF is a symptom of a bigger problem. It is possibly a lack of interest in reliability. Which I doubt is the case. Or it is a bit of fear of reliability.

Many shy away from the statistics involved. Some simply do not want to know the currently unknown. It could be the fear of potential bad news that the design isn’t reliable enough. Some do not care to know about problems that will requiring solving.

What ever the source of the uneasiness, you may know one or more coworkers that would rather not deal with reliability in any direct manner. [Read more…]

We Need to Try Harder to Avoid MTBF

Just back from the Reliability and Maintainability Symposium and not happy. While there are signs, a proudly worn button, regular mentions of progress and support, we still talk about reliability using MTBF too often. We need to avoid MTBF actively, no, I mean  aggressively.

Let’s get the message out there concerning the folly of using MTBF as a surrogate to discuss reliability. We need to work relentlessly to avoid MTBF in all occasions.

Teaching reliability statistics does not require the teaching of MTBF.

Describing product reliability performance does not benefit by using MTBF.

Creating reliability predictions that create MTBF values doesn’t make sense in most if not all cases. [Read more…]

3 Ways to Expose MTBF Problems

MTBF use and thinking is still rampant. It affects how our peers and colleagues approach solving problems.

There is a full range of problems that come from using MTBF, yet how do you spot the signs of MTBF thinking even when MTBF is not mentioned? Let’s explore there approaches that you can use to ferret out MTBF thinking and move your organization toward making informed decisions concerning reliability. [Read more…]