Five Facets of Performance Testing

(1)

Five Facets of Performance Testing

• What is Performance Testing

• Scope of testing

• Purposes

• Tools

• 1) Verification vs Validation

• 2) Simulation/Life Testing

• 3) Testing to Failure

• 4) Parameter/Feature Testing

• 5) How to synthesis a performance test

• Failure is good

(2)

Scope and Purposes

• Performance - The way in which a product functions.

• Applies to all products that have an expected function and

duration.

• Types of Performance:

• Function: the operation of a product

• Time: how fast or how long something functions

• Stress/noise factors: source of damage/interference to a product

• Accuracy: how close to the desired value the function is

• Precision: how repeatable the function is

• Information Goal: The key piece of information about the

(3)

Performance Testing-Tools

(4)

Infant Mortality: Production

errors, material flaws

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

Environmental Testing

• Exposing materials, components,

sub-systems or full product to conditions that

may be found in their end-use environments.

• Temperature (Hot, Cold, Ramp)

• Humidity, non-Condensing Humidity,

Condensing Humidity

• Radiated (UV or Heat Lamp)

• Sunlight (Carbon Arc and Xenon exposure)

• Salt mist, Salt Spray

• Dust

• Chemical Attack

(13)

Material Testing

• Measuring the Physical, Chemical or

Mechanical properties of material

• Material can be raw, fabricated into a

product, taken from field returns, etc.

• Physical Properties

• Color, density, thermal expansion, Glass Transition Point

• Chemical Properties

• Molecular make up

• Molecular structure (micro structure)

• Contaminants

• Flammability

• Melt Point

• Mechanical Properties

(14)

Mechanical/Durability Testing

• Exposing a product to cyclic mechanical

loads in order to measure or

demonstrate life.

• Measure or Demonstrate:

• Measuring life means running to failure

• Demonstrate life means running to a

target with no failures (more common)

(15)

Vibration Testing

• Exposing a product to vibration energy in order to measure or

demonstrate life.

• Measure or Demonstrate:

• Measuring life means running to failure

• Demonstrate life means running to a target with no failures (more

common)

• This type of test is often done in conjunction with Environmental

exposures (Temperature, Relative Humidity, Dust, Ultraviolet)

and functional testing (while the product is functioning)

• Vibration can be:

• Single-axis (most common) sometimes called 3-axis but only one

axis at a time

• Six – Axis or 6–dof (degree of freedom).

(16)

Electrical Testing

• Measure a product’s performance at the system,

sub-system or component level.

• Measurements can include

• Current, voltage and power draw

• Audio performance

• Product functionality

• Temperature rise in system component or location

• Resistance or Impedance changes

• This type of test is often done in conjunction with

(17)

(18)

Lighting Testing

• Light quality, brightness, color, pattern and

durability.

• Automotive, Consumer, Airport

• Only approved lab - Airport Lighting Equipment

Certification Program

• Testing to FAA, ICAO, IEC, NATO, and military

• To ensure that airport lighting equipment meets

the applicable FAA standards for safety,

performance, quality and standardization

(19)

(20)

How do you show that you’re the best choice?

• How do you translate your key differentiators to

your customer as they make their purchase

decision?

• How do you help customers navigate product

features?

• How do you justify pricing for on-the-spot

pricing comparisons?

(21)

In a world of product recalls, feature creep

and supply chain issues, quality is top of

mind.

Intertek’s Quality & Performance Mark has been

created to help our customers

demonstrate their

commitment to quality.

To consumers the mark is third party, validated

proof that a product meets or exceeds key

(22)

What Goes Into the Mark?

Third party verified testing

(23)

What Goes Into the Mark?

Third party verified testing

“Independently tested for Quality and

Performance”

• “Baseline” quality tests

• (1 to 5 tests are performed to

• expert specifications)

• Durability: Evaluates range of conditions

product can handle and continue to function

• Functionality: Performance of product’s

functions & features under normal use

• Life Cycle: Evaluates how long product

lasts in normal operation

• Usability: Ease of use for intended tasks

(24)

What Goes Into the Mark?

• “Above and Beyond” tests

• Manufacturers Claims: (Optional 6

th

_test

highlights manufacturer’s differentiators.

Test results on swing tags, POP,

website)

Third party verified testing

“Independently tested for Quality and

Performance”

• “Baseline” quality tests

• (1 to 5 tests are performed to

• expert specifications)

• Durability: Evaluates range of conditions

product can handle and continue to function

• Functionality: Performance of product’s

functions & features under normal use

• Life Cycle: Evaluates how long product

lasts in normal operation

• Usability: Ease of use for intended tasks

• Workmanship: Verifies product’s physical

(25)

What Goes Into the Mark?

• “Above and Beyond” tests

• Manufacturers Claims: (Optional 6

th

_test

highlights manufacturer’s differentiators.

Test results on swing tags, POP,

Researchable results

• Model & certification #’s

• Intertek website link

Third party verified testing

“Independently tested for Quality and Performance”

• “Baseline” quality tests

• (1 to 5 tests are performed to

• expert specifications)

• Durability: Evaluates range of conditions

product can handle and continue to function

• Functionality: Performance of product’s

functions & features under normal use

• Life Cycle: Evaluates how long product

lasts in normal operation

• Usability: Ease of use for intended tasks

• Workmanship: Verifies product’s physical

(26)

Verification Vs. Validation

• Verification: Proving that the out put of the

design process achieved the desired

parameters: Did we hit the target?

• Validation: Proving that the product is capable

of meeting the requirements for the intended

use. Do we have the right target?

• Example: Tightening Torque

• Parameters:

• Torque on a Fastener

• Verification – Can the device achieve the

correct torque? Does the production process

provide the correct torque?

• Validation – does the product perform as

(27)

Simulation – Life Testing

• Simulation-•

Goal is to simulate end use conditions precisly in

the laboratory setting

• Requires:

• Knowing with a high degree of accuracy what

the end use conditions are.

• Knowing what is ment by failure.

• Knowing what the end usage rate is.

• Life Testing

• Simulate the end use conditions

(28)

End Use Conditions

• What are the end use conditions? What

do you expect the product to see?

• Make sure to ask about conditions in

four areas

• Electrical

• Mechanical

• Environmental

• Chemical

• Quantify:

• Value, range

• Duration, usage

• Modes:

• In Use

• Storage

• Shipping

• Maintenance

• Voltage

• Current

• Pressure

• Velocity

• Flow rate

• Force

• Duty Cycle

• Temperature

• Hot, Cold, Ramp

• RH%

• Sunlight

(29)

Demonstrate Life Vs. Measure Life

Demonstrate

• Beat a target value.

• Typically a truncated

test.

• Shorter and easier

• Reliability and

Confidence only.

• Measure

• Must go to

• End of life

• Measurable point

• Unknown time period

(30)

MTBF – Life Test

• Mean Time Between Failures

• MTBF =

∆

T / (ln ( 1-Nf/Ndut))

• Delta T = Change in Time

• Nf = Number of failed units

• Ndut = Total number of units under test

• OR

• MTBF must be 2000 hrs or more

• Ndut = 20 samples available

• Test for 2000*(ln(1-1/20)) = 102 hrs with no more then 1 failure

(31)

Single Stress Model

• Determine stress to apply

• Determine service levels

• Estimate maximum levels

• Test at maximum levels until half fail

• Choose a lower stress level

• Test until half fail

Spring Force

2 N

(32)

(33)

Acceleration and Shape Coefficients

• The rate at which life is

shortened by the increase in

stress is expressed by a

coefficient in the math model.

• The shape of the distribution is

(34)

Example Math Models

• Arrhenius-Weibull Model

• F(t;T) = 1 -exp{-[t exp[-

γ

₀

-(

γ

₁

/T)]]

β

• Power-Lognormal Model

• F(t,V)=

Φ

{[log(t)-

µ

(x)]/

σ

}

• Cox (Proporational Hazards) Model

• R

₀

(t) = exp[-

∫

₀

t

h

₀

(t)dt]

• All models from “Accelerated Testing”, Wayne Nelson, 1990

(35)

Testing to Failure

• Why?

• Find and fix the root cause of failure

• Faster and easier to get meaningful data

• How?

• Elevated sources of stress

(36)

Typical Procedure in Failure Analysis

• Inspection

• Visual, Optical microscope,

Electronic microscope.

e.g.

Fractography

• Material identification

• Atomic/Molecule, Chemical

composition, Microstructure,

Contamination,

e.g. Infrared

Spectroscopy

• Property evaluation

• Chemical, Physical, Mechanical,

Thermal, Electrical,

e.g Tensile Test

(37)

(38)

Where is Failure Analysis Typically

Utilized?

• Primary process problems:

• Material flows incorrectly through process

• Visual defects observed

• Performance parameters do not meet

expectations (or specifications)

• Transport related failures:

• Breakage

• Contamination from environment

(dirt, transfer of materials from

dunnage, moisture, etc.)

• Heat or vibration damage

• Secondary process problems:

• Breakage or irregularities that interfere

with assembly.

• Visual defects observed

• Adhesion problems with mating

components (blocking, welding, or

adhesion failures depending on desired

assembly behavior)

• Failure due to contact with incompatible

materials

• End-use failures:

• Incompatibilities with end-use

environments

• Abuse

• Slow failures (repeated cycling,

oxidation, fatigue, etc.) from

processes or environments

unanticipated in design

• Other failures observed in

(39)

If all failure modes were intuitive…

• Tests would simulate what we expect.

• Tests would instrument for what we expect.

• The human ability to ignore the unexpected

can be profound.

Le

ad

s to

wa

rra

(40)

Stress

Product

Specs

Margin Discovery Process...

(41)

Table 4. Hot Survey

7xiv sample reads 52.74 ohms. Soft Failure

Vpdiag function check.

Boot Script error. Observation.

2. XXXXXXX

Sample 1 30 40 TSDSP function check.

Functioned properly

3. XXXXXXX

Functioned properly

4. XXXXXXX

Functioned properly

5. XXXXXXX

Functioned properly

6. XXXXXXX

Functioned properly

7. XXXXXXX

Functioned properly

DSP error code 707. Observation. Boot Script error. Observation.

8. XXXXXXX

Sample 1 30 100

TSDSP function check.

Functioned properly

9. XXXXXXX

Sample 1 30 110

Functioned properly

10. XXXXXXX

Sample 1 30 120

Functioned properly

11. XXXXXXX

Functioned properly

12. XXXXXXX

Sample 1 30 140

Mounted Sample in chamber to start Step 12. Sample would not turn on. Removed sample from chamber and made several

(42)

SUMMARY OF THE HOT SURVEY

• After completing the function checks for

(43)

Table 5. Thermal Cycle (Transition)

Step

Sample

Time in

minutes

Temperature

(

o

C)

Observations

1A

30 -80

Vpdiag function check.

DSP error code 707. Observation.

Boot Script error. Observation.

1B

XXXXXXX

Sample 2

30

100 TSDSP function check.

Functioned properly

2A

30 -80

Vpdiag function check.

Boot Script error. Observation.

2B

XXXXXXX

Sample 2

30

100 TSDSP function check.

Functioned properly

3A

30 -80

Vpdiag function check.

Boot Script error. Observation.

3B

XXXXXXX

Sample 2

30

100 TSDSP function check.

Functioned properly

4A

30 -80

Vpdiag function check.

Boot Script error. Observation.

4B

XXXXXXX

Sample 2

30

100 TSDSP function check.

(44)

SUMMARY OF THE THERMAL

TRANSITION SURVEY

• Sample 2 only exhibited one (1) Soft

(45)

Table 6. Vibration

Step Samples Time in minutes

Vibration

(G’s) Observations

Boot Script error. Observation. 1. XXXXXXX

DSP error code 707. Observation. Boot Script error. Observation. 2. XXXXXXX

Sample 2 30 10

DSP error code 707. Observation. Boot Script error. Observation. 3 XXXXXXX

Sample 2 30 15

Functioned properly

7xiv sample reads 47.46 ohms. Hard Failure

7xiv sample reads 47.46 ohms. Hard Failure Following step 7 component C904 was separated from the

PCB. Hard Failure. Reference Appendix A Figure 3 for photograph.

DSP error code 705. Hard Failure Boot script error. Observation. 7. XXXXXXX

Sample 2 30 35

DSP error code 705. Hard failure Boot Script error. Observation.

8. XXXXXXX

Sample 2 30 40

After selecting the TSDSP icon to launch the program a window popped up displaying “DSP is not present”. Hard

Failure.

(46)

Table 6. Vibration Cont.:

Step Samples Time in minutes

Vibration

(G’s) Observations

After completing Step 9 both CF card were dislodged

Vpdiag function check

DSP error code 705. Hard Failure Boot script error. Observation.

.

9. XXXXXXX

Sample 2 30 45

The display is solid blue could not perform function checks. After completing Step 10 both CF card were dislodged

Vpdiag function check

DSP error code 705. Hard Failure Boot script error. Observation. CF2 error code 703. Hard Failure

10. XXXXXXX

Sample 2 30 50

(47)

SUMMARY OF THE VIBRATION SURVEY

• During the Vibration Survey, sample 2 had compact flash cards installed in

both Slot 1, and Slot 2 bays.

• Sample 2 exhibited the same Hard Failure multiple times during the TSDSP

function check 7xiv. The sample was out of tolerance.

• Sample 2 exhibited a Hard Failure following Step 7 component C904

separated from the circuit board. Reference Appendix A Figure 3.

• Sample 2 exhibited a Hard Failure after completing Step 8. After selecting

the TSDSP icon for the TSDSP function check a window popped up

displaying an error message “DSP is not present”. The error window was

closed by selecting “ok” and the functional checks were continued. During

TSDSP 5iii, another window popped up displaying an error message

“EEPROM Read Failure”. This message showed up every time the “Select

Show ADC Counts” was selected. The Vibration Survey was continued and

the sample was removed from testing after completing the Vibration Survey.

(48)

How to design an FMVT

• Hypothesis: A good design accumulates damage

(wears out) uniformly throughout the product

(49)

How to design an FMVT

• Hypothesis: A good design accumulates

damage (wears out) uniformly throughout

the product

• To test the hypothesis all of the sources

(50)

How to design an FMVT

•

What can break (wear out)

the product?

Operation

(51)

How to design an FMVT

• Hypothesis: A good design accumulates

damage (wears out) uniformly throughout the

product

• To test the hypothesis all of the sources of

damage (stress sources) should be identified

• Service conditions of each stress source

(52)

S

tr

e

s

A

m

p

li

tu

d

e

S

tr

e

s

A

m

p

li

tu

d

e

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

1

10 FMVT Test Level

(

C

,

C

)

0

5

10

15

20

25 (

g

R

M

S

,

V

)

C (hot)

C (cold)

other(s)

gRMS

V

Expected

Maximum

Service

Conditions

Expected

Maximum

Test Conditions

(maximum design

or test equipment

capability)

(53)

Example Test Plan

Random Target Test Conditions:

Relative Humidity Slam Inducing Random Vibration Door Assembly Slams units = C C C/minute % grms Maximum Service = -30 80 10 75 1.5 36,000 Maximum Test = -60 115 10 95 2.5 360,000 Number of Steps = 10 10 10 10 10 10

EVENT LOG TEST PLAN:

fixed level length

fixed dwell

length Minimum Maximum Ramp Rate

C C C/minute % RH g g

Op-0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

1 120 88.3 -30 80 10 75 1.5 36,000

Op-1 45 45 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

2 120 88.3 -30 80 10 77 1.6 72,000

Op-2 45 45 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

3 120 88.8 -33.3 83.9 10.0 79 1.7 108,000

Op-3 45 45 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

4 120 89.3 -36.7 87.8 10.0 81 1.8 144,000

Op-4 45 45 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

5 120 89.8 -40.0 91.7 10.0 83 1.9 180,000

Op-5 45 45 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

6 120 90.3 -43.3 95.6 10.0 85 2.1 216,000

Op-6 45 45 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

7 120 90.8 -46.7 99.4 10.0 87 2.2 252,000

Op-7 45 45 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

8 120 91.3 -50.0 103.3 10.0 89 2.3 288,000

Op-8 45 45 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

9 120 91.8 -53.3 107.2 10.0 91 2.4 324,000 Slam Inducing Random Vibration Estimated Number of 5 /2 0 /0 2 5 /2 1 /0 2

Environmental Chamber Temperature

5 /2 2 /0 2 5 /2 3 /0 2 Event Number

(54)

(55)

Parameter/Feature Testing

• Tests to check on particular parameters

(56)

Design Failure Modes and Effects Analysis

(57)

DFMEA

What are the Functions, Features or Requirements? What are the Effect's)? What can go wrong? No Function Partial/Over/ Degradation Function Unintended Function How Bad is it? What are the Cause's)? How often does it happen ?

How can this be

prevented and detected?

How good is this method at preventing and/or detecting

(58)

What are the Functions, Features or Requirements? What are the Effect's)? What can go wrong? No Function Partial/Over/ Degradation Function Unintended Function How Bad is it? What are the Cause's)? How often does it happen ?

How can this be

prevented and detected?

How good is this method at preventing and/or detecting

(59)

Function Item Potential Failure Mode Potential Effect(s) of failure S e v e ri ty C ri tic a lit y Potential Causes(s) / Mechanism(s) of Failure O c c u rr e n c e D e te c ta b ili ty R P

N Recommended _Action Respons-_ibility _{Target Date}

steam

generator plug

diminished steam

production 10 10 calium build up 8

Inspection periodicly during operation 7 5 6 0 0 _n/a

Current Design Controls Prevention Detection

With permission from:

(60)

Function Item Potential Failure Mode Potential Effect(s) of failure S e v e ri ty C ri tic a lit y Potential Causes(s) / Mechanism(s) of Failure O c c u rr e n c e D e te c ta b il ity RP N Recommended Action Respons-ibility Target Date

Handle split in grip insert area

Loss of rubber grip 3 3 impact 8 Impact resistant plastic FEA model of impact from 3 likely directions 3 216 3 3 thermal cycle 8

thermal set plastic with stable material properties from -30 deg C to 100 deg C Thermal cycle testing 3 216 3 3 chemical attack/material incompatibility 8 chemically inert plastic to mild alkali's and acids

chemical exposures 2 144 3 3 fatigue 8 FEA model of maximum loading: stress must be below 1/3 material yield. load testing to verify models 1 72 3 3 Sharp radius 5

All design radius must be greater

then 1 mm 2 90

(61)

Potential Failure Vibration High Temperature Cold Temperature Temperature Ramp Humidity Salt air Torque Filiment loss of continuity

Vibration will not cause Filiment loss of continuity

High Temperature will not cause Filiment loss of continuity

Cold Temperature will not cause Filiment loss of continuity

Temperature Ramp will not cause Filiment loss of continuity

Humidity will not cause Filiment loss of continuity

Salt air will not cause Filiment loss of continuity

Torque will not cause Filiment loss of continuity FMVT HALT ST ST CM FC

Propritary life durability test FMVT HALT ST ST CM FC

Propritary life durability test N/A N/a

Corrosion

Vibration will not cause Corrosion

High Temperature will not cause Corrosion

Cold Temperature will not cause Corrosion

Temperature Ramp will not cause Corrosion

Humidity will not cause Corrosion

Salt air will not cause Corrosion

Torque will not cause Corrosion N/A FMVT HALT ST ST FC

ASTM cyclic Corrosion Propritary life durability test

FMVT HALT ST ST FC

ASTM cyclic Corrosion Propritary life durability test N/a

Seal loss between glass and base

Vibration will not cause Seal loss between glass and base

High Temperature will not cause Seal loss between glass and base

Cold Temperature will not cause Seal loss between glass and base

Temperature Ramp will not cause Seal loss between glass and base

Humidity will not cause Seal loss between glass and base

Salt air will not cause Seal loss between glass and base

Torque will not cause Seal loss between glass and base

FMVT HALT ST ST CM FC

Propritary life durability test FMVT HALT ST ST FC

Propritary life durability test

Base Thread does not match receptical

Vibration will not cause Base Thread does not match receptical

High Temperature will not cause Base Thread does not match receptical

Cold Temperature will not cause Base Thread does not match receptical

Temperature Ramp will not cause Base Thread does not match receptical

Humidity will not cause Base Thread does not match receptical

Salt air will not cause Base Thread does not match receptical

Torque will not cause Base Thread does not match receptical

Functional Test N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Base di-electric allows current flow

Vibration will not cause Base di-electric allows current flow

High Temperature will not cause Base di-electric allows current flow

Cold Temperature will not cause Base di-electric allows current flow

Temperature Ramp will not cause Base di-electric allows current flow

Humidity will not cause Base di-electric allows current flow

Salt air will not cause Base di-electric allows current flow

Torque will not cause Base di-electric allows current flow

Mechanism of Failure

Hypothesis Matrix

(62)

Function Item Potential Failure Mode Potential Effect(s) of failure S e v e ri ty C ri tic a lit y Potential Causes(s) / Mechanism(s) of Failure O c c u rr e n c e D e te c ta b ili ty R P N Recommended Action

Respons-ibility Target Date Current Design Controls

Prevention Detection

Functional Item: The

functional feature or

design feature from the

BOM (Bill of Material)

Potential Failure Mode:

Key word is POTENTIAL.

What failure modes could

the feature experience.

Source for this is

engineering experience,

warranty data and pure

imagination.

Potential Effect(s) of failure: What are the results

of the failure on the function or behavior of the

product. Often the failure itself is not visible but

the functional effect will be apparent. For

example a sealed bearing may have excessive

wear, but the failure is not visible externally. The

effect of increased fiction is a slowing of the

motor or an increase in the power draw. The

effects are key to designing instrumentation and

operational checks for tests to verify the

existence of failure modes.

Potential Causes: Key

word here is mechanism.

What can break the

product.

Current Design Controls:

What is the current

design effort to prevent

the design from failing,

and how will the success

be detected.

Recommended Action:

What action should be

taken to improve the

PRN.

Responsibility: Who will

take responsibility for

implementing the

recommended action.

Target Date: When will

the recommended action

(63)

(64)

Traceability:

(Drop dead rule)

Can a reasonably educated engineer,

regardless of experience, read what is written

and apply the knowledge?

Traceability:

(Drop dead rule)

Can a reasonably educated engineer,

regardless of experience, read what is written

and apply the knowledge?

Traceability:

(Drop dead rule)

Can a reasonably educated engineer,

regardless of experience, read what is written

and apply the knowledge?

Traceability:

(Drop dead rule)

Can a reasonably educated engineer,

(65)

Severity: How bad are the

consequences of the

failure.

Criticality: How critical to

the function of the device

is the failure mode.

Occurrence: What is the

likelihood of failure.

Detectability: How well

can the failure mode be

detected if it exists.

RPN: Risk Priority

Number is the multiple of

(66)

www.intertek.com

1 No discernible effect

None

2 Aesthetics, workmanship – defect noticed by less

then 25% of users.

Very Minor

3 Aesthetics, workmanship – defect noticed by more

then 50% of users.

Minor

4 Aesthetics, workmanship – defect noticed by more

then 75% of users.

Very Low

5 Operational – but convenience or ease of use has

reduced function

Low

6 Operational – but convenience or ease of use is not

functional.

Moderate

7 Reduced level of performance

High

8 Loss of primary function

Very High

9 Very high severity ranking when a potential failure

mode effects desired function and/or

noncompliance with regulations without warning

Hazardous with warning

10 Very high severity ranking when a potential failure

mode effects desired function and/or

noncompliance with regulations without warning

Hazardous without warning

Ranking

Criteria: Severity of Effect

Effect

(67)

• Classification: This column may be used

to classify any special product

characteristics:

• Examples: Regulated, Europe Only,

(68)

Ranking

Likely Failure

Rates over

Design Life

Probability of

Failure

1 <0.01 per

Thousand

Remote: Failure is

Unlikely

3

2 0.5 per Thousand

0.1 per Thousand

Low: Relatively

Few Failures

6

5

4 5 per Thousand

2 per Thousand

1 per Thousand

Moderate:

Occasional

Failures

8

7 20 per Thousand

10 per Thousand

High: Frequent

Failures

10

9 >100 per thousand

50 per thousand

Very High:

Persistent Failures

(69)

1 Almost Certain chance the control will detect a potential

cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode.

Almost Certain

2 Very High chance the control will detect a potential

cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode.

Very High

3 High chance the control will detect a potential cause/mechanism

and subsequent failure mode.

High

4 Moderately High chance the control will detect a potential

cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode.

Moderately High

5 Moderate chance the control will detect a potential

cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode.

Moderate

6 Low chance the control will detect a potential cause/mechanism

and subsequent failure mode.

Low

7 Very low chance the control will detect a potential

cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode.

Very Low

8 Remote chance the control will detect a potential cause/mechanism

and subsequent failure mode.

Remote

9 Very remote chance the control will detect a potential

cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode.

Very Remote

10 Controls will not and/or can not detect a potential cause/mechanism

and subsequent failure mode; or there is no control

Absolute Uncertainty

Ranking

Criteria: Likelihood of Detection by Design Control or

Detection Method

Detection

(70)

Synthesis a Performanc Test Plan

(71)

Function Item Potential Failure Mode Potential Effect(s) of failure S e v e ri ty C ri tic a lit y Potential Causes(s) / Mechanism(s) of Failure O c c u rr e n c e D e te c ta b il ity RP N Recommended Action Respons-ibility Target Date

Handle split in grip insert area

Loss of rubber grip 3 3 impact 8 Impact resistant plastic FEA model of impact from 3 likely directions 3 216 3 3 thermal cycle 8

thermal set plastic with stable material properties from -30 deg C to 100 deg C Thermal cycle testing 3 216 3 3 chemical attack/material incompatibility 8 chemically inert plastic to mild alkali's and acids

chemical exposures 2 144 3 3 fatigue 8 FEA model of maximum loading: stress must be below 1/3 material yield. load testing to verify models 1 72

All design radius

(72)

www.intertek.com

Potential Failure Vibration High Temperature Cold Temperature Temperature Ramp Humidity Salt air Torque Filiment loss of continuity

Vibration will not cause Filiment loss of continuity

High Temperature will not cause Filiment loss of continuity

Cold Temperature will not cause Filiment loss of continuity

Temperature Ramp will not cause Filiment loss of continuity

Humidity will not cause Filiment loss of continuity

Salt air will not cause Filiment loss of continuity

Torque will not cause Filiment loss of continuity FMVT HALT ST ST CM FC

Propritary life durability test N/A N/a

Corrosion

Vibration will not cause Corrosion

High Temperature will not cause Corrosion

Cold Temperature will not cause Corrosion

Temperature Ramp will not cause Corrosion

Humidity will not cause Corrosion

Salt air will not cause Corrosion

Torque will not cause Corrosion N/A FMVT HALT ST ST FC

FMVT HALT ST ST FC

ASTM cyclic Corrosion Propritary life durability test N/a

Seal loss between glass and base

Vibration will not cause Seal loss between glass and base

High Temperature will not cause Seal loss between glass and base

Cold Temperature will not cause Seal loss between glass and base

Temperature Ramp will not cause Seal loss between glass and base

Humidity will not cause Seal loss between glass and base

Salt air will not cause Seal loss between glass and base

Torque will not cause Seal loss between glass and base

FMVT HALT ST ST CM FC

Propritary life durability test FMVT HALT ST ST FC

Propritary life durability test

Base Thread does not match receptical

Vibration will not cause Base Thread does not match receptical

High Temperature will not cause Base Thread does not match receptical

Cold Temperature will not cause Base Thread does not match receptical

Temperature Ramp will not cause Base Thread does not match receptical

Humidity will not cause Base Thread does not match receptical

Salt air will not cause Base Thread does not match receptical

Torque will not cause Base Thread does not match receptical

Functional Test N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Vibration will not cause Base di-electric

High Temperature will not cause Base di-electric allows current

Cold Temperature will not cause Base di-electric allows current

Temperature Ramp will not cause Base di-electric allows current

Humidity will not cause Base di-electric

Salt air will not cause Base di-electric allows

Torque will not cause Base di-electric allows

Mechanism of Failure

Hypothesis Matrix

(73)

R

es

ea

rc

h

F

ea

si

b

il

it

y

D

ev

el

o

pm

e

n

t/

d

es

ig

n

D

es

ig

n

v

al

id

at

io

n

P

ro

d

uc

ti

o

n

ra

m

p

P

ro

d

uc

ti

o

n

v

al

id

at

io

n

P

ro

d

uc

ti

o

n

S

er

v

ic

e

Material Sample Compatibility Test- Low Dectability

Cost 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Risk 1 1 2 3 4 5 8 10

Cost 10 9 8 5 3 2 2 2

Risk 1 1 2 3 4 5 8 10

Material Sample Compatibility Test- Low Dectability

FMVT on Production intent with all stresses that could cause elctrolytic reaction - High Detectability

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Research Feasibility Development/ design Design validation Production ramp Production validation Production Service

Material Sample Compatibility Test- Low Dectability Risk

Sweet Spots

Information Timing vs Accuracy

from ACCELERATED TESTING AND VALIDATION with permission

Risk, Cost and Benefit

Mitigate

(74)

Hypothesis Matrix

Three Benefits of HM

1)

Double-check on the brainstorming in the

DFMEA – DFMEA is a left-to-right thought

process while the HM cross-references all

potential mechanisms with all potential

failures

2)

Cross-check of current validation plan tests

with the complete hypothesis – exposing

duplicate tests and holes

3)

Provides for identification of the most

(75)

Accelerated Validation

hot cold ramp cycle basket dust hardwater rh%

cleaning solution coffe ground level forign in grounds valve stuck

hot will not cause valve stuck

cold will not cause valve stuck

ramp will not cause valve stuck

cycle basket will not cause valve stuck

dust will not cause valve stuck

hardwater will not cause valve stuck

rh% will not cause valve stuck

cleaning solution will not cause valve stuck

coffe ground level will not cause valve stuck

forign

in grounds will not cause valve stuck transportaion test FLST HALT ASTM thermal exposure FMVT hardwater test transportation test TCO

hot will not cause TCO

cold will not cause TCO

ramp will not cause TCO

cycle basket will not cause TCO

dust will not cause TCO

hardwater will not cause TCO

rh% will not cause TCO

cleaning solution will not cause TCO

coffe ground level will not cause TCO

forign

in grounds will not cause TCO

hardwater test

transportation test

Basket overflow

hot will not cause Basket overflow

cold will not cause Basket overflow

ramp will not cause Basket overflow

cycle basket will not cause Basket overflow

dust will not cause Basket overflow hardwater will not cause Basket overflow rh% will not cause Basket overflow cleaning solution will not cause Basket overflow

coffe ground level will not cause Basket overflow forign in grounds will not cause Basket overflow rust

hot will not cause rust

cold will not cause rust

ramp will not cause rust

cycle basket will not cause rust

dust will not cause rust

hardwater will not cause rust

rh% will not cause rust

cleaning solution will not cause rust

coffe ground level will not cause rust

forign

in grounds will not cause rust

ASTM cyclic ASTM cyclic ASTM cyclic

basket cycle

-ASTM cyclic ASTM cyclic ASTM cyclic ASTM cyclic

circuit failure

hot will not cause circuit failure

cold will not cause circuit failure

ramp will not cause circuit failure

cycle basket will not cause circuit failure

dust will not cause circuit failure hardwater will not cause circuit failure rh% will not cause circuit failure cleaning solution will not cause circuit failure

coffe ground level will not cause circuit failure forign in grounds will not cause circuit failure

auto start failed

hot will not cause auto start failed

cold will not cause auto start failed

ramp will not cause auto start failed

cycle basket will not cause auto start failed

dust will not cause auto start failed

hardwater will not cause auto start failed

rh% will not cause auto start failed

cleaning solution will not cause auto start failed

coffe ground level will not cause auto start failed

forign

(76)

www.intertek.com