MPD 575

Design for Reliability

 DReliability Development
History
• Originally developed by MPD Cohort 3
team of Julie Earle, Dave Herczeg, and
Jim Van Gilder in Fall 2002.

2
Desig
n for R
el iab i l
ity
Why Design for Reliability?
• Reliability can make or break the long-
term success of a product:
– Too high reliability will cause the product to
be too expensive
– Too low reliability will cause warranty and
repair costs to be high and therefore
market share will be lost

4
 What is Reliability?
• Reliability is:
• Elimination/avoidance of failure modes/mistakes
• The probability that a product will perform its intended
function:
• Under customer operating conditions
• For a specified life
• In a manner that meets or exceeds customer expectations
• A reliable product is robust and mistake-free

5
 What is Probability?
• Probability is:
• a measure that describes the chance or
likelihood that an event will occur.
• The probability that event (A) occurs is
represented by a number between 0 (zero) and 1.
• When P(A) = 0, the event cannot occur.
• When P(A) = 1, the event is certain to occur.
• When P(A) = 0.5, the event is as likely to occur as it is not.

6
 Reliability Failure Modes

Two types of failure mode:

a) hard = something breaks
b) soft = performance degrades

Two root causes:

1. lack of robustness (sensitivity to noise factors)
2. mistakes

7
 What are Noise Factors?
• Noise Factors are sources of disturbing influences that
can disrupt the ideal function, causing error states
which lead
to quality problems.
The definition above applies to dynamic situations, but there are also
static situations which are subject to noise disturbance in their
functional performance (e.g., seat upholstery, paint, etc.) These
are not functions that respond to a signal from the user, but are
simply there and expected to do their job under noise conditions.
Paint is expected to stay nice, despite pebbles kicked up from
the road, hot sun, salt, etc. These disturbances are all noise
sources, but there is no signal form the user involved.
8
 What is Population and
Sample Size?
• A population is:
• The entire group to be studied (e.g. all Ford
Contours)
• A sample is:
• A subset of a population selected randomly for
analysis (e.g., every hundredth Ford Contour off
the assembly line)

9
 Common Measures of
Unreliability
• % Failure - % of failures in a total population

• MTTF (Mean Time To Failure) - the average time

of operation to first failure.

• MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) - the

average time between product failures.

• Repairs Per Thousand (R/1000)

• Bq Life – Life at which q% of the population will fail

10
 Introduction to DFR

• DFR has many aliases:

– Design for Durability
– Design for Robustness
– Design for Useful Life

11
 When to Use DFR
• DFR should be considered throughout the PD
cycle:
• Early - to develop "product concepts" which
are well suited for production (i.e., conceptual
product design)
• Continually - to ensure that the chosen
product concept is implemented through
optimal component design

12
Steps in Designing for Reliability
1. Develop a Reliability Plan
• Determine Which Reliability Tools are
Needed
2. Analyze Noise Factors
3. Tests for Reliability
4. Track Failures and Determine
Corrective Actions
13
 1. Develop a Reliability Plan
• Planning for reliability is just as important as planning for design
and manufacturing. Why? To determine:
• useful life of product
• what accelerated life testing to be used
• where to begin
• Reliability must be as close to perfect as possible for the
product’s useful life.
• The “amount” of reliability desired is always 1.0, that is, perfect
performance is desired, but not forever, only up to some useful life.
After that, it is silly to have spent resources to make the brakes work
when the car is dead.
• Warranty goals are always zero. We never set out to have $x in
warranty. We may tolerate it, but we should never set out to make
14
something fail so that we can achieve some $ in warranty.
1. Develop a Reliability Product Plan

• A Reliability Plan helps ensure that

product reliability is optimized within the
cost and performance constraints of a
program and customer requirements.

15
 1. Develop a Reliability Plan
• How much reliability do you need? Should you accelerate life testing?
Where do you even begin?
• Planning for product reliability is just as important as planning for product
design and manufacturing.
• The amount of product reliability must be in proportion to a product's usage
and warranty goals. Too much reliability and the product will be too
expensive. Too little reliability and warranty and repair costs will be high.
• You MUST know where your product's major points of failure are!

The slide shows a generic reliability product plan flow diagram.

How much reliability do you need? Should you accelerate life testing? Where
do you even begin? Planning for product reliability is just as important as
planning for product design and manufacturing. The amount of product
reliability must be in proportion to a product's usage and warranty goals.
Too much reliability and the product will be too expensive. Too little
reliability and warranty and repair costs will be high.
16
• Where are your product's major points of failure? If component A fails,
how does it affect the system? Failure Mode Effects and Criticality
Analysis (FMECA) and Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) are reliability tools
that ascertain the effects of a failure on system operation and safety.
• FMECA is a bottoms-up component approach for seeing how a system
behaves after a component fails. Each component is partitioned into its
failure modes (e.g., open, short, and change in value) and each failure
mode is weighted by its failure rate. For each failure mode, the failure's
effect on the next higher level assembly is described over and over again
until the top system level is reached.
• The entire system, including all components and their failure mode
severity and occurrence probabilities, can be rolled up into a report
highlighting the rank of each failure mode: critical, severe, high,
moderate, or negligible. The report can be used by designers to make
system design changes and can be used by diagnostic engineers to
improve their fault coverage.
• Fault Tree Analysis, on the other hand, is a top-down approach to system
fault modeling. You start with the failure's effect on the system's 17
 Some Reliability Tools
• Block Diagram
• P-Diagram
• QFD
• DFMEA & PFMEA
• Design Verification Plan
– Key Life Testing
– Weibull Testing
• Reliability Demonstration Matrix
18
 Reliability Block Diagram
Three categories:
•Series
•Parallel (Redundant)
•Complex (combo of the two – shown below)
                                                                                                                                                   

19
 P-Diagram

Input
Noises Outputs

Signal System IDEAL Response


(energy related) (energy related)
error states/
Control Factors failure modes 

20
 Quality Function Deployment
Technical
Axis
Technical System
Expectations

Customer Customer
Customer Wants Relationship Matrix Customer Targets Competitive
Axis Evaluations
Technical Importance

Customer Desirability Index Strategic CDI

Technical Targets

Technical Competitive
Benchmarking
Stds

Safety & Regulatory Safety & Regulatory

Reqmts Reqmts Matrix
Stds

WCR/SDS WCR/SDS Matrix

21
 FMEAs

• Potential Failure Mode • Design Controls

• Potential Effects of Failure (Prevention/Detection)
• Detection
• Severity
• Risk Priority Number
• Classification
• Recommended Actions
• Potential Cause/Mechanism of
• Responsibility/Target Completion
Failure Date
• Occurrence • Actions

22
 DVP&Rs

• Test Specification • Quantity Tested

• Acceptance Criteria • Scheduled Start/
Complete
• Test Results
• Actual Start/ Complete
• Design Level
• Remarks
• Quantity Required

23
 Reliability Demonstration Matrix
Robustness Assessment and Noise Factor Management Matrix
“In the development of robustness, it is essential to provide one noise condition for each failure mode”.

M G - 0 0 3Y0 re g . d e s s t d . s t a ll f o r c e w it h a u t o r e v

M R -0 0 3Y2 re g .d e s .s td .o c c u p a n t p ro t.in t.im p .

M R -0 0 0 7Y w in d n o is e & w in d t h r o b / b u f f e t in g
CD1 3 2 EL E CT RICAL S UNROOF S YS T E M Updated: Ju l y 09, 1999

Don Clausing, Professor of Engineering, MIT.

M R -0 0 3Y1 r e g .d e s .std .fla m a b ility o f in t. m a tr ls .

M G - 0 0 3Y3 s y s t e m p e r f o r m . o v e r v o lt a g e
r e g . d e s . s t d . g la z in g . m a t e ria ls
ROBUSTNESS and RELIABILITY CHECKLIST Desig n Co
Desig n trols,
n Co CAD
n tro ls, / CAE
CAD ......Co
/ CAE Compo
mp onnen
ent t=>
=>Su
Subbsystem
system ==>
==> System ===>
System ===>

s lid in g sh a d e b r e a k a w a y e ffo r t
Kick-off :

c o lo r c o d in g id e n t if ic a t io n
e le c . d e v ic e c o n n . o r ie n t .

t e m p e r a t u r e d if f . g la z in g
w in d n o is e w in d o w c lo s e d

s u n r o o f a s s e m b ly & fu n c t.te s t
w a te r m a n a g m .E /E d e v .

s t r e s s c r a c k . f . p la s t ic s

s m o o t h o p e r . & t r a c k in g
P I A w ir e a s s e m . c o m p .

v e lo c it y m o o n o o f p a n e l
Veh icle Tests Veh icle Tests

S t a n d a r d Is th is te s t in c lu d e d in D VRPe f.?
s lid in g sh a d e o p e r . e ffo r t

E n te r IF , IF 2 , IF 3 ... (fo r "Id e a l F u n c tio n /s ") a n d /o r A , B , C ... (fo r "E rro r S ta te /s ") m o n ito re d o r m e a s u re d in e a c h in d iv id u a l te sDt e s c r i p t i o n
c u s t o m e r d u t y c y c le
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

w a t e r le a k a g e s e a ls

a p p e a r a n c e a g e in g

p o s it io n s t a b ilit y
o p e r a t in g s o u n d

P A S C A R T e st
fo rc e d e n t ry
Useful Life Period Target
10 Years or 240,000 km (or 13,000

Y o r N (Y e s / N o )
Test
cycles)

E RROR S T AT E S -- potential T GW and/or "Noises" for other sub-system s (detail description)

M G - 0 0 0Y8
M G - 0 0 0Y9

M G - 0 0 1Y3

M G - 0 0 1Y9
M G - 0 0 0Y6

M G - 0 0 3Y1

M G - 0 0 3Y8
M G - 0 0 1Y2

M G - 0 0 1Y8
E D - 0 0 4Y0
E D - 0 0 4Y0

E D - 0 0 7Y7
E D - 0 0 8Y1
M R -0 00 2Y

IT 11 6 Y

M R -0 0 1 Y
M R -0 0 1Y6
M R -0 0 1Y7

N
N
VII Sunroof produce not acc eptable windnoise (closed: windnoise, open: buffeting) VII NOISE FACTOR MANAGEMENT
VI Sunroof rattles, sqeaks VI

T E S T No /
V Water m anagement is insuffic ient V Cat Strateg y
IV Sunroof seal comes away IV A Change T echnology
III
II
I
Potential Failure modes
Anti Pinch devic e doesn't work proper
Sunroof binds on rear edge
Sunroof doesn't operate proper (jamm ing, judder, no smooth m ovem ent) I
II
III BI Apply Param eter Design
BII Upgrade Design Spec.
C Reduce / Remove Noise

10 NOISE 1: TOTAL DESIGN / MANUFACTURING VARIABILITY

D Add Compensation Device
E

I
Disguise / Divert

II III IV V VI VII u sed

St rat egy
Sp ecifics appl ied (d escribe)
Available Tests
Failure mode to test
11 Piec e-t o -p iece v ariat io n o r a) gear assy single parts variation x x x x C; A SPC on crit dim, encaps. glass I;VI I I VII I I I III I I VII I I I I
d rawin g t o leran c e, b) gear assy assembly v ariation (PTA, Webasto) x x x x x C SPC on crit dim. I;II;V V I I III I VII I I I II;IV
wh ich ever is g reater, an d c) BIW component variation (single parts) x x x x A encap. glass I;II V VII VII II;IV
t o t al sc o p e ap p licab le d) BIW assembly variation (Body Construction) x x x x x A encap. glass I;II V VII III VII II;IV
e) BIW paint variation x x x x A Modified seal I;II III II;IV
f)
g)
h)
vehicle interior trim component v ariation
vehicle interior trim assembly variation
sunroof assembly v ariation (PTA, Genk) x x x x x
x
mode traceability
x
x
A
A
A
new edge trim design
new edge trim design
new locator strategy I traceability and VII III VII
I
I
I
I
II;IV

Noises #1
20 NOISE 2: COMPONENT CHANGES OVER TIME / MILEAGE -- o ver Useful L i fe Peri o d
Noise to failure

21 Ch an g e in d imen sio n o r a) gear assy component wear x x x C,A SPC on crit dim., new s/r frame I;VI VII I I I VII I I I
(ass u mp t io n s ab o v e) d) BIW stiffness degradation x B II Reinforce BIW VI

Noise factor to test

e) v ehicle interior trim fatique (fixing) x B II Upgrade interior trim fix ings I;VI VI

Noises #2
f) paint surface wear x B II Use harder paint VI VI

management
30 NOISE 3: DUTY CYCLE / CUSTOMER USAGE -- ov er Us eful L i fe Peri o d
high frequency use x x Noise factor
traceability leading to ...
31 " Typ ical" a) B II using SDS instead of ES spec I;VI I I I I
Cu s t o mer u sag e b) vehicle speed x x C,A SPC on crit dim., new s/r frame VII III VII
sunroof misuse (override), only on mechanical sy stem x

Noises #3
o v er Usef u l Lif e Perio d c) B II using SDS instead of ES spec I
(ass u mp t io n s ab o v e) d) external roof load x B II Change anti trap parametrisat. III
e) road profile x x A new s/r frame tech. VI III
anti trap usage x x B II WDS instead of EWG74/60 I;III
32 Tran s p o rt , st orag e, d ewax in g f) non-usage N/A

Noises #4 strategy
Hig h p ress u re c lean in g clean in g x B II

Reliability & Robustness

33 g) water / chemicals, high pressure jet using SDS instead of ES spec IV;V
35 Cu s t o mer misu se/ab u se i) n eg lec t poor serv ice, uncontrolled fluids N/A No service necessary

40 NOISE 4: EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT

41 Climatic co n dit io n s, Ty p ical t errit o ry Co n d it io n 1 Co n d it io n 2

Noises #5 Demonstration
g eo g rap h ic co n d it io n s, a) Canada, Scandinavia cold dry x x x x B II using SDS instead of ES spec I;IV;VI I III I I I
lo cal en viro n men t , b) Britain, Germany cold humid x x x x x B II using SDS instead of ES spec I;IV;VI I I III I I I II;IV
s u rf aces o r o b st acles, c) Arizona, Florida, AUS sunload dry B II using SDS instead of ES spec I III I I I
ramp s an d c urb s , d) Taiwan hot wet x x x B II using SDS instead of ES spec I;VI I I III I I I
in d u s t rial f all-o u t , e) Nov a Scottia salt x B II using SDS instead of ES spec I I I III I I
in sect s, t rees... d ro p p in g s, f) Pikes Peak, GGlockner high altitude long downhill
mart en b it e etc. g) industrial fall out, trees dropping, dust, dirt, B II using SDS instead of ES spec I;IV

50 NOISE 5: IN-VEHICL E SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENT -- ov er Usefu l L i fe Peri o d

51 Ph ys ical in t erf ac es a) generic passenger compartment seal conditions x B II Change winddeflector design VII VII
wit h as so c iated s yst ems b) torsional stiffnes of different body styles x B II Reinforce weakest BIW VI
o r matin g co mp o n en ts c) suspension ty pe/ tires of different deriv ativ es x B II Increase sunroof S&R robust. VI
o v er Usef u l Lif e Perio d d) passenger comp. volume of different body sty les x B II Change winddeflector design VII
52 L o ad s f ro m or f) vibration x x B II using SDS instead of ES spec I;VI III
in t eract io n wit h g) EDS voltage v ariation x B II using SDS instead of ES spec I III I I
n eig h b o rin g sy st ems h) electromagnetic field B II using SDS instead of ES spec III

24
 Reliability Demonstration Matrix
Robustness Demonstration
Battery Suspension bushing

1 Light Calcium
Note: failure modes 1.1 & 1.2
Probability

Heavy-Hi Calcium (c)

Displacement under 6kNload

generate functional degradtion as
Heavy CAG (p) illustrated. Robustness
B10 Window
Heavy CAG Plus
0.1 (c) Current EU
(p) Proposed EU
current design
0 2400 5700
1000 10000 modified design
Failure cycles
current target proposed target Lucas Yuasa in Toy ota
200 400 600 800
Number of test cycles

25
2. Analyze Noise Factors
• Inner Noises
• Wear-out or fatigue
• Piece-to-piece variation
• Interfaces with neighboring
subsystems
• Outer Noises
• External Operating
Environment (e.g., climate,
road conditions, etc.)
• Customer usage / duty cycle

26
 2. Reduce Sensitivity to
Noise Factors
1. Change the design concept
2. Make basic current design
assumptions insensitive to the noises
– design out failure
• Parameter Design
• Beef Up Design
3. Insert a compensation device
4. Disguise the effect - Send the error
state/noise where it will do less harm
27
 2. Noise Factor Management
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Change (i)Parameter (ii)Beef-up Reduce Comp- Disguise
Concept Design. Design Noise ensate

Piece-to-piece x x x
Wear Out x x x
Customer Use x x x
External Environment x x x
System Interactions x x x x
28
 3. Test for Reliability
• How robust are the products?
– Test to Bogey: assessing performance at a predetermined
time, cycle or number of miles. It estimates the proportion of
failures at a particular time. pass/fail
– Test to Failure: shows when a component or system can
no longer perform at a specified level
– Degradation Testing: focuses on the key stresses
associated with real world uses – for example - increasing
the tire load to create a tire failure
• How can you shorten the reliability test time
for new designs?
– Key Life Test/Accelerated Test

29
3. Example – Testing for Reliability
• Proportional Hazard Model to Tire Design
Analysis
– Perform Root cause analysis
• Consists of laboratory tests aimed to duplicate field
failures
• Tire geometry and physical properties are selected as
variables that potentially affect the tire
• Survival data is analyzed by a proportional hazard
model
– The adequacy is assessed by the chi-square goodness-
of fit test and the Cox-Snell residual analysis
• Identify elements of a tire design that affect the
probability of tire failure due to failure mode in
question.

30
3. Example - Testing for Reliability
Cont’d
• Type of failure mode analyzed – tread
and belt separation

31
3. Example - Testing for Reliability
Cont’d
• Tread and belt separation can be considered a
sequence of two events:
– Failure crack initiation in the wedge area
– Crack propagation between the belts
• Design characteristics that could be variables:
– Tire age
– Wedge gauge
– Interbelt gauge
– End of belt # 2 to buttress
– Peel force
– Percent of carbon black (chemical in rubber)
32
3. Example - Testing for Reliability
Cont’d
• Testing procedure
– Dyno testing
• Warm up over 2 hours at 50 mph
• Cool down over 2 hour at full stop
• At 1300 lbs of load: speed steps starting at 75
mph and increasing by 5 mph every half hour
till 90 mph and then every hour till failure
• At 1500 lbs of load: all the above speed steps
are half-hour duration

33
3. Example - Testing for Reliability
Cont’d
• Test speed profile

34
3. Example - Testing for Reliability
Cont’d
• Vibration and sound pattern of tire
before tread and belt separation failure

35
3. Example - Testing for Reliability
Cont’d
• Test data
set used in
proportional
hazard
analysis

36
3. Example - Testing for Reliability
Cont’d
• Estimates of proportional hazard model
with covariates identified

37
3. Example - Testing for Reliability
Cont’d
• Estimates of Proportional Hazard Model
with statistically significant covariates

38
3. Example - Testing for Reliability
Cont’d
• Exponential probability plot of Cox-Snell
Residuals

39
3. Example - Testing for Reliability
Cont’d
• Cumulative Hazard function predicted from the estimated
model based on some typical values of covariates for
“poor” and “good” tires

40
3. Example - Testing for Reliability
Cont’d
• Conclusion
– Wedge and interbelt gauges as well as the
peel force are significant factors affecting
hazard rate of tire and belt separation
failures in an inversely proportional way
– Agree with hypothesis

41
 3. Test for Reliability
• Component design and manufacturing
technologies are becoming
increasingly complex.
• As geometries shrink and
development cycles shorten,
opportunities for defects increase.
• Testing for Reliability is becoming
increasingly important.

42