177,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
- Serie: Performability Engineering Series
- Sprache: Englisch
The book presents highly technical approaches to the probabilistic physics of failure analysis and applications to accelerated life and degradation testing to reliability prediction and assessment. Beside reviewing a select set of important failure mechanisms, the book covers basic and advanced methods of performing accelerated life test and accelerated degradation tests and analyzing the test data. The book includes a large number of very useful examples to help readers understand complicated methods described. Finally, MATLAB, R and OpenBUGS computer scripts are provided and discussed to support complex computational probabilistic analyses introduced.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 419
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2017
Ähnliche
Contents
Cover
Title page
Copyright page
Preface
Chapter 1: Overview of Probabilistic Physics-of-Failure Approach to Reliability
1.1. Introduction
1.2. Overview of Physics-of-Failure Modeling
1.3. Important Forms of PoF Models
1.4. PPoF Approach to Life Assessment
1.5. Accelerated Testing in PPoF Model Development
1.6. Organization of the Book
References
Chapter 2: Summary of Mechanisms of Failure and Associated PoF Models
2.1. Introduction
2.2. Fatigue
2.3. Wear
2.4. Creep
2.5. Corrosion
References
Chapter 3: Types of Accelerated Testing and Modeling Concepts
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Types of Accelerated Testing – Qualitative and Quantitative
3.3. Qualitative Accelerated Tests
3.4. Quantitative Accelerated Tests
References
Chapter 4: Analysis of Accelerated Life Testing Data and Physics-Based Reliability Model Development
4.1. Introduction
4.2. Accelerated Life Data Analysis Methods
4.3. Basics of ALT Data Analysis
4.4. Types of Collected Accelerated Life Test Data
4.5. Life-Stress Models
4.6. Probability Plotting Method for ALT Model Estimation
4.7. Maximum Likelihood Estimation Approach to ALT Data Analysis
4.8. Confidence Intervals for MLE
4.9. MLE Approach to Estimating Parameters of Common Distributions
4.10. MLE-Based Parameter Estimation for Different Life-Stress Models
4.11. Proportional Hazards (PH) Model
4.12. Bayesian Estimation Approach to ALT Model Parameter Estimation
4.13. Determining Stress Dependencies
4.14. Summary of the ALT Steps and Common Problems in Practice
4.15. Time Varying Stress Tests
4.16. Step-Stress Analysis and Model Development
References
Chapter 5: Analysis of Accelerated Degradation Data and Reliability Model Development
5.1. Introduction
5.2. Degradation Models
References
Chapter 6: Accelerated Test Planning
6.1. Introduction
6.2. Issues to Consider Prior to Accelerated Testing
6.3. Planning for Accelerated Life Tests
6.4. Planning for Accelerated Degradation Tests
References
Chapter 7: Accounting for Uncertainties and Model Validation
7.1. Introduction
7.2. Uncertainties in Evidence
7.3. PPoF Model Uncertainties, Errors, and Validation
7.4. Applications of Model Validation in ADT
References
Index
Guide
Cover
Copyright
Contents
Begin Reading
List of Illustrations
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1: System hierarchy used in PoF analysis
Figure 1.2: Stress-strength modeling
Figure 1.3: Damage-endurance model
Figure 1.4: Performance-requirement model
Figure 1.5: System hierarchy in probabilistic-mechanistic reliability life model
Figure 1.6: Conceptual acceleration of stress agents at two overstress conditions and corresponding data points generated from ALT
Figure 1.7: Conceptual PPoF model development and extrapolation in ALT
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1: Classification of material degradation
Figure 2.2: Nomenclature for constant amplitude cyclic loading
Figure 2.3: Idealized S-N diagram
Figure 2.4: Effect of mean stress on fatigue life
Figure 2.5: S-N diagram for example problem
Figure 2.6: Biaxial stress state in thin-walled pressure vessel
Figure 2.7: State of stress at a point represented by stress element
Figure 2.8: Cylindrical specimen under monotonic load
Figure 2.9: Typical monotonic and cyclic load stress-strain curves
Figure 2.10: Cyclic stress-strain behavior
Figure 2.11: Massing’s hypothesis showing how stabilized hysteresis loop is obtained
Figure 2.12: Bauschinger effect
Figure 2.13: Typical strain-life curve
Figure 2.14: Morrow’s mean stress correction to the strain-life curve for a tensile mean stress (Bannantine, et al., 1997)
Figure 2.15: Strain history
Figure 2.16: Stress-strain response for given example
Figure 2.17: Strain reading: a) zero mean stress, b) tensile mean stress
Figure 2.18: Variable amplitude loading consisting of constant amplitude “blocks”
Figure 2.19: S-N plot showing spectrum of loading where n, cycles are accrued at each of the different corresponding stress levels S
i
, and the N
i
are cycles to failure at each S
i
Figure 2.20: Juvinall method for modification for the S-N curve for notched components
Figure 2.21: Notched bar configuration for Example 2.7
Figure 2.22: S-N design curve for Example 2.7
Figure 2.23: Nominal and local stress-strain regions
Figure 2.24: Crack initiation and propagation portions of fatigue life
Figure 2.25: Fatigue crack length vs. applied cycles (x marks the fracture)
Figure 2.26: Typical curve for crack growth rate vs range of stress intensity factor
Figure 2.27: Effect of initial crack size on fatigue life
Figure 2.28: Diagram for Example 2.10
Figure 2.29: A shallow notch
Figure 2.30: A deep notch
Figure 2.31: Effect of frequency, f on low-cycle fatigue life, a) crack growth b) fatigue life
Figure 2.32: Fatigue life reduction due to harsh environment and/or elevated temperature
Figure 2.33: Different modes of wear: (a) adhesive wear by adhesive shear and transfer (b) abrasive wear by microcutting of ductile bulk surface (c) flow wear by accumulated plastic shear flow (d) fatigue wear by crack initiation and propagation (e) corrosive wear by shear fracture of ductile tribofilm (f) corrosive wear by shaving of soft tribofilm; (g) corrosive wear by accumulated plastic shear flow of soft tribofilm (h) corrosive wear by delamination of brittle tribofilm (i) melt wear by local melting and transfer or scattering (Kato, 2000; with permission)
Figure 2.34: Transient and steady-state wear regime for adhesive wear mechanism
Figure 2.35: Change of wear coefficient with PV (Bayer, 2004)
Figure 2.36: Pin-on-disk tribosystem
Figure 2.37: Schematic of a hard cone plows a groove in a soft material (Adopted form Engel, 1993)
Figure 2.38: Impact wear regimes (adapted from Wear Control Handbook, 1980)
Figure 2.39: Two parallel cylinders in rolling-sliding contact
Figure 2.40: Effect of slide-to-roll ratio on life curves
Figure 2.41: Schematic of a ball bearing with a contact angle between ball and its race
Figure 2.42: Bearing life multiplying factors, a) load factor b) lubricant factor c) water contamination factor
Figure 2.43: Static and dynamic seals (source: Handbook of Reliability Prediction Procedures for Mechanical Equipment, 1994)
Figure 2.44: Wear rate vs. PV factor in seal tests (Adopted form Wear Control Handbook, 1980)
Figure 2.45: Schematic for the definition of viscosity
Figure 2.46: Stribeck curve
Figure 2.47: Expected useful life of hydraulic and turbine oils as a function of temperature
Figure 2.48: Schematic of creep curves for different stress levels or temperatures
Figure 2.49: Thermal acceleration method for creep testing, Collins (1993)
Figure 2.50: Creep rupture curves for Cr-Mo-V steel
Figure 2.51: Creep curves for three materials plotted on log-log coordinates (From Collins, 1993, with permission-original from Sturm, et. al, 1936)
Figure 2.52: Various forms of corrosion (Jones, 1996; with permission)
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1: Types of accelerated testing
Figure 3.2: Areas of life where HALT and HASS are useful
Figure 3.3: Stress vs. life relationship
Figure 3.4: Impact of aging over time as described by damage-endurance modeling
Figure 3.5: Cumulative damage as a truncated normal pdf overlapping the endurance limit described as a Gaussian probability density function
Figure 3.6: Histogram of the time-to-failure distribution
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1: Simple linear extrapolation for eliciting use-level information from ALT data
Figure 4.2: Complete data
Figure 4.3: Censored data (multiply censored)
Figure 4.4: Singly censored data
Figure 4.5: Interval or grouped censored data
Figure 4.6: Wear (damage) life-stress modeling concept
Figure 4.7: Lognormal data plotting at each stress level
Figure 4.8: Weibull data plotting at each stress level
Figure 4.9: Least squares regression for Arrhenius model
Figure 4.10: Example of rudimentary approach to estimating confidence interval using graphical method for data analysis
Figure 4.11: Weibull multi plot for Arrhenius-Weibull life-stress model
Figure 4.12: Multi plot for exponential life-stress with Weibull life
Figure 4.13: Extrapolation for exponential life-stress with Weibull time to failure
Figure 4.15: Schematic of Bayesian approach to estimation of ALT model parameters
Figure 4.16: Marginal posterior distributions of the parameters
Figure 4.17: Normal Use Weibull Plots from Example 4.12 & Example 4.14, showing the effect of the interaction term.
Figure 4.18: Step-stress profile and corresponding life distributions
Figure 4.19: Example stress profile for a step-stress test
Figure 4.20: Weibull multi plot for step 2 of example
Figure 4.21: Final Weibull plots for the corrected data of step-stress test example
Figure 4.22: Weibull multi plot for step 2 of example
Figure 4.23: Step stress profile and corresponding life distributions
Figure 4.24: A conceptual step-stress test
Chapter 5
Figure 5.1: Example of a degradation path
Figure 5.2: Example of degradation paths from an accelerated degradation test for three stress levels
Figure 5.3: Possible shapes for univariate cumulative degradation vs. time
Figure 5.4: A linear degradation model
Figure 5.5: General degradation path model for unit i
Figure 5.6: Weibull probability plot for calculated failure times
Figure 5.7: Lognormal probability plot for calculated failure times
Figure 5.8: Plot of weight loss in micrograms vs. hundreds of cycles
Figure 5.9: Reconstruction of trendline data and best fit line using MATLAB and MLE
Figure 5.10: The original data along with the best fit lines without and with assumption of 10% measurement error correction
Figure 5.11: Square root to linear plot
Figure 5.12: Reconstruction of Figure 5.11 with trend lines for each degradation path (using Matlab)
Figure 5.13: Weibull distribution fit for the pseudotimes given in Table 5.5
Figure 5.14: Life-stress plot (top), and estimated life distribution at the use temperature of 50 °C (323 °K) (bottom)
Figure 5.15: Performance degradation data from Table 5.7.
Figure 5.16: Trendlines of performance degradation obtained through MATLAB and Excel.
Figure 5.17: Weibull distribution fit with characteristics at the given conditions and the use conditions of 30 °C and 400 mA
Figure 5.18: Mean and 80% confidence bounds of the performance degradation at the use conditions of 30 °C and 400 mA
Figure 5.19: Relative luminosity of initial luminosity data
Figure 5.21: Temperature vs. time to failure relationship plot
Figure 5.20: Trendlines of relative luminosity based on parameter estimates obtained from the Matlab Bayesian estimation routine
Figure 5.22: Weibull distribution fit with characteristics at the given conditions and the use conditions of 20°C
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1: Possible results for a typical temperature-accelerated failure mode on an IC device (Meeker, 1998)
Figure 6.2: Failure mode 2 with lower activation energy, masked at high temperature and unmasked at lower temperature (Meeker, 1998)
Figure 6.3: Well-behaved comparison of two items (Meeker, 1998)
Figure 6.4: Log-variance vs. stress changing time
Chapter 7
Figure 7.1: Degradation model prediction
D
m
vs. degradation measurement
D
e
Figure 7.2: Comparison of AE model prediction and experimental results
Figure 7.3: Model prediction with multiplicative error
List of Tables
Chapter 2
Table 2.1: Summary of common failure modes (Collins (1993), Arunajadai, Stone and Tumer (2002) and Khonsari and Amiri (2012))
Table 2.2: Some values of wear coefficient (from Engel (1993))
Table 2.3: Parameters used in development of wear models
Table 2.4: Typical bearing failure mechanisms (adopted from the Handbook of Reliability Prediction Procedures for Mechanical Equipment, 1994)
Table 2.5: Values of
f
c
for radial and angular ball bearings (adopted from Handbook of Reliability Prediction Procedures for Mechanical Equipment, 1994)
Table 2.6: Typical bearing failure mechanisms (adopted from Wear Control Handbook, 1980)
Table 2.7: Coefficient of friction for various seal materials (adopted from Wear Control Handbook, 1980)
Table 2.8: Fluid viscosity multiplying factor (adopted from Handbook of Reliability Prediction Procedures for Mechanical Equipment, 1994)
Table 2.9: Contaminant multiplying factor (adopted from Handbook of Reliability Prediction Procedures for Mechanical Equipment, 1994)
Table 2.10: Typical values for k
1
in oxidation life prediction of industrial mineral oils (adopted from Booser, 1997)
Table 2.11: Equivalent conditions based on Larson-Miller parameter
Table 2.12: Various constants for the Manson-Haferd equation
Table 2.13: Creep rupture data for Cr-Mo-V steel
Table 2.14: Constants for log-log stress-time creep law
Chapter 4
Table 4.1: Times to failure observed in an ALT
Table 4.2: Plotting points using rank adjustment method
Table 4.3: Time to failures observed in an ALT
Table 4.4: CDF by rank adjustment method
Table 4.5: Stress levels and failure times
Table 4.6: Data from fatigue test of material (prior data) and component ALT data
Table 4.7: Time to failure
Table 4.8: Details of the step-stress example and failures observed
Table 4.9: Estimate of the parameters of Weibull distribution
Table 4.10: Acceleration factor between all steps
Table 4.11: Computation of equivalent time that produces the same amount of damage
Table 4.12: Adjusted acceleration factor
Table 4.13: Final results of equivalent time computation after a few iterations
Table 4.14: Final acceleration factors and estimation of the parameters of life-stress model
Table 4.15: Step stress equivalent times for Weibull plot
Table 4.16: Comparisons of original estimates and final estimates after correcting for cumulative damage
Table 4.17: Tentative step-stress test plan
Table 4.18: Hypothetical results summary
Table 4.19: Detail of testing result 2
Table 4.20: Estimate of the parameters of Weibull distribution
Table 4.21: Acceleration factor between all steps
Table 4.22: Computation of equivalent time that produces the same amount of damage
Table 4.23: Adjusted acceleration factor
Table 4.24: Step-stress test data on cable 1 (* Before step 1, each specimen was held 10 minutes each at 5, 10, 15, and 20 kV; + denotes a right censored)
Table 4.25: Prior distribution results of cable 2
Table 4.26: Posterior distribution results from data of cable 1 and priors of cable 2
Chapter 5
Table 5.1: Times-to-failure corresponding to the recorded weight losses
Table 5.2: Accelerated degradation test data
Table 5.3: Pseudo failure times corresponding to the recorded weight
Table 5.4: Resistance over time of carbon-film resistors tested at three different levels of temperature
Table 5.5: Pseudo failure times corresponding to the recorded weight
Table 5.6: Three condition values as well as their corresponding temperature, forward current, and number of LEDs
Table 5.7: Temperature and current at four given time periods for 36 units
Table 5.8: Failure times corresponding to the recorded temperature and current and the failure conditions of 70% degradation
Table 5.9: Confidence intervals for degradation parameters
Table 5.10: LED luminosity data of Unit 1 at 25 °C, 65 °C, and 105 °C
Table 5.11: Posterior degradation parameters
Table 5.12: Failure times corresponding to the recorded temperature and the failure conditions of 50% degradation of luminosity
Chapter 6
Table 6.1: Expected variance of each plan
Chapter 7
Table 7.1: Jeffreys’ Guideline for Bayes factor of Model M
1
vs. Model M
2
Pages
ii
iii
iv
ix
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
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
Scrivener Publishing100 Cummings Center, Suite 541JBeverly, MA 01915-6106
Performability Engineering SeriesSeries Editors: Krishna B. Misra ([email protected])and John Andrews ([email protected])
Scope: A true performance of a product, or system, or service must be judged over the entire life cycle activities connected with design, manufacture, use and disposal in relation to the economics of maximization of dependability, and minimizing its impact on the environment. The concept of performability allows us to take a holistic assessment of performance and provides an aggregate attribute that reflects an entire engineering effort of a product, system, or service designer in achieving dependability and sustainability. Performance should not just be indicative of achieving quality, reliability, maintainability and safety for a product, system, or service, but achieving sustainability as well. The conventional perspective of dependability ignores the environmental impact considerations that accompany the development of products, systems, and services. However, any industrial activity in creating a product, system, or service is always associated with certain environmentalimpacts that follow at each phase of development. These considerations have become all the more necessary in the 21st century as the world resources continue to become scarce and the cost of materials and energy keep rising. It is not difficult to visualize that by employing the strategy of dematerialization, minimum energy and minimum waste, while maximizing the yield and developing economically viable and safe processes (clean production and clean technologies), we will create minimal adverse effect on the environment during production and disposal at the end of the life. This is basically the goal of performability engineering.
It may be observed that the above-mentioned performance attributes are interrelated and should not be considered in isolation for optimization of performance. Each book in the series should endeavor to include most, if not all, of the attributes of this web of interrelationship and have the objective to help create optimal and sustainable products, systems, and services.
Publishers at ScrivenerMartin Scrivener ([email protected])Phillip Carmical ([email protected])
Probabilistic Physics of Failure Approach to Reliability
Modeling, Accelerated Testing, Prognosis and Reliability Assessment
Mohammad Modarres
Center for Risk and Reliability, University of Maryland, College Park, U.S.A.
Mehdi Amiri
Department of Mechanical Engineering, George Mason University, Fairfax, U.S.A.
Christopher Jackson
Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of California, Los Angeles, U.S.A.
This edition first published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA and Scrivener Publishing LLC, 100 Cummings Center, Suite 541J, Beverly, MA 01915, USA © 2015 and 2017 Center for Risk and Reliability (CRR), University of Maryland, U.S.A.For more information about Scrivener publications please visit www.scrivenerpublishing.com.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
Edition HistoryFirst published 2015; reissued in 2017
Wiley Global Headquarters111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of WarrantyWhile the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials, or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataISBN 978-1-119-38863-0
Preface
This book is result of the compilation of class notes from several years of teaching a graduate course on physics-of-failure and accelerated testing to the graduate students pursuing Master of Science, Master of Engineering and PhD degrees in Reliability Engineering at the University of Maryland. The book provides probabilistic and highly technical approaches to the physics-of-failure and mechanistic based reliability prediction and assessment. It relies on various methods and techniques published in the open literature regarding the development and practice of physics-of-failure analysis, accelerated life testing and accelerated degradation testing. The authors first discuss the overall concepts, objectives and framework for accelerated life assessment through the use of formal probabilistic physics-of-failure models. They review important failure mechanisms to demonstrate the process of examining and developing appropriate physics and mechanistic models that describe the degradation and failure phenomena in accompanying accelerated testing and accelerated degradation testing methods, including step-stress testing. The book presents data analysis methods to evaluate the probabilistic physics-of-failure models based on the observed data obtained from accelerated reliability tests. Further, it discusses the steps and methods of probabilistic life assessment and integrity of structures, components and systems based on the probabilistic physics-of-failure models. Since the book is intended for graduate-level students and for highly trained reliability engineers, it provides supplementary solved examples to clarify complex technical topics within each chapter. Some of these examples are benefitted directly or with some modifications from other sources, including Bannantine, et al. (1997), Collins (1993), Stephens, et al. (2003), Meeker & Escobar (1998), Nelson (2004), and Dowling (1998), which are referenced extensively in the book. Although qualitative accelerated tests such as the Highly Accelerated Life Test (HALT) and Environmental Stress Screening (ESS) have been briefly reviewed, the book is mainly about the quantitative methods in probabilistic physics-based and accelerated testing life assessment of structures, components and systems. A companion website under the auspices of the Center for Risk and Reliability at the University of Maryland (www.crr.umd.edu) provides downloadable support files for additional information and computational tools in form of MATLAB, R and OpenBUGS scripts to perform some of the more involved computational analyses discussed in the book. These files will be updated and conformed to the most recent versions of these tools. The companion website also includes a section on testing equipment and resources needed for accelerated testing. This book benefitted from contributions of many students who enrolled in the accelerated testing courses over many years at the University of Maryland. Particularly, inputs and solved example from Wendell Fox, Jonathan DeJesus, Reuel Smith, Reza Azarkhail, Andrew Bradshaw, and Taotao Zhou have been significant and are much appreciated.
Mohammad ModarresMehdi AmiriChristopher Jackson
Chapter 1Overview of Probabilistic Physics-of-Failure Approach to Reliability
1.1. INTRODUCTION
To address risk and reliability challenges in design, manufacturing and operation, reliability engineering has gone through a number of transformations over the past few decades. Reliability methods have progressively become more realistic by incorporating both data and information from real causes, and the modeling of failure phenomena. The evolution of reliability modeling from constant hazard rates to more representative life distributions (such as the Weibull and lognormal) was the first step towards better addressing wear-out and aging failure mechanisms in structures, systems and components. This trend was followed by the use of physics and mechanistic principles, as well as thermodynamic laws. Accelerated testing has borrowed concepts from materials degradation and fracture mechanics, through which the aggregate effects of operational and environmental conditions were formally accounted for in the life models.
The formal consideration of physics and mechanistic methods in reliability engineering is referred to as a “physics of failure” (PoF) approach. The PoF approach is a science-based means to reliability engineering and prediction as well as prognosis and health management, in contrast to the traditional statistical approach that relies on historical data. It uses physics-based modeling and simulations to assess design and reliability. The approach can be used to evaluate and predict system performance while reducing subjectivities in reliability assessments by modeling failure mechanisms such as fatigue, fracture, wear, and corrosion. The PoF approach is a comprehensive representation of wear out and aging, and is capable of bringing relevant physical factors into the life assessment and reliability models of the structures, components and systems.
The development of PoF models is still typically based on limited information. The uncertainties associated with this limitation have led to a Probabilistic Physics of Failure (PPoF) approach that formally addresses and incorporates uncertainties about the PoF models and their outputs.
Physics and mechanistic-based failure models can be categorized into three core frameworks: stress-strength, damage-endurance, and performance-requirements. In all these PoF modeling frameworks, metrics representing failure-inducing agents such as applied loads and environmental attack properties should be identified. Mechanical, thermal, electrical, chemical, and radiation-induced forces can cause stresses on an item. The passage of time drives the accumulation of damage. Both load and time may either be analyzed deterministically (e.g., identifying and studying the sources of stresses) or probabilistically (e.g., treating stress variation as a random variable). Substantial uncertainties associated with failure-inducing agents can emanate from environmental and operating (use) conditions and from the emergence of failure mechanisms that were not considered or well understood at the time of design.
Because of cost and time limitations, great emphasis has been placed on capturing reliability information from field data with minimal effort. As a result, design and assessment methodologies that address failures mechanistically have emerged as popular and powerful cost saving techniques. Accelerated life testing (ALT), an approach to mechanistic modeling of wear-out, damage process and failure, is a direct outcome of this movement. Unlike the reliability models developed on the basis of field data that suffer from wide variation in operating conditions and practices, reliability models based on PoF, developed using accelerated life or degradation tests, take into account operational conditions (applied stresses) that permit flexibility in applied stresses, leading to more relevant models.
Before performing the accelerated test, a stress agent, which could be an aggregate effect of a single or multiple physical and operational conditions, should be identified. The next step involves accelerating this stress agent and applying it to samples of the structure, system or component in a test environment. Models of failure, damage and degradation are developed by using accelerated test data for a more flexible and representative description of the damage, failure phenomena, performance and life as compared to the traditional probabilistic approach to failure modeling.
Failure interdependency can also be a critical factor in reliability modeling of mechanical systems and components. In the study of system behavior, there are situations in which progressive failure of one component may activate or accelerate other failure mechanisms or the failure of other components. There are usually many links between different components by means of their properties and common environmental conditions. The PoF approach properly incorporates these interdependencies in complex structures, systems and components.
1.2. OVERVIEW OF PHYSICS-OF-FAILURE MODELING
Physics of failure modeling initially evolved out of examination of fatigue and fracture of materials. Reliability work related to fatigue and fracture of materials showed significant progress through the 1950s and early 1960s. In 1957, George R. Irwin proved that the fracture of materials was due to plastic deformation at the crack tip and generalized Griffith’s Theory (Irwin 1957) that described the relationship between applied nominal stress and crack length at fracture. Between 1955 and 1963, Waloddi Weibull produced several publications related to modeling of fatigue and creep mechanisms that also discussed evaluating associated data (Weibull 1959). In 1961, Weibull published a book on materials and fatigue testing while working as a consultant for the U.S. Air Force Materials Laboratory (Weibull 1961). Building on Irwin’s work on stress intensity factor, Paris et al. (Paris, Gomez and Anderson 1961) introduced methods for predicting the rate of fatigue crack growth.
Given this background in mechanistic-based life models (particularly to assess fatigue and fracture failures), Rome Air Development Center (RADC—the predecessor to the U.S. Air Force Rome Laboratory) introduced a PoF program in 1961 to address the growing complexity of military equipment and the consequent increase in number of failures observed. In 1962, researchers from Bell Labs published a paper on “High Stress Aging to Failure of Semiconductor Devices” that justified using the kinetic theory’s interpretation of the Arrhenius equation: a simple yet accurate formula for the temperature dependence of the reaction rate constant as a basis for assessment of temperature-induced aging of semiconductor devices (Dodson and Howard 1961). Later, the RADC and Armor Research Foundation of the Illinois Institute of Technology (now IIT Research Institute) organized the first PoF symposium in electronics in Chicago in September 1962. This symposium laid the groundwork for future research and development activities related to PoF by RADC and several other organizations. Numerous original papers and ideas introducing and explaining the PoF concepts and methods were presented in these symposia, which continue today in IEEE International Reliability Physics symposia and Reliability and Maintainability Symposia (RAMS).
The PoF approach to reliability utilized scientific knowledge of damage and degradation processes and the load profile applied to an item, its structure, material properties and environmental conditions to identify potential failure mechanisms that individually or in combination lead to the item’s failure. The PoF models would then be used to assess reliability, expended life and remaining life. Using PoF diminishes the need for enormous amounts of use-level life data and uses smaller sets of accelerated test data and other relevant data to present a more representative model. The PoF approach employs the available well-developed knowledge about the mechanisms of failure. The PoF models show how and why items fail, reducing the need for large (and expensive) quantities of life data.
The most critical step in a PoF approach is to understand failure mechanisms (such as corrosion or fatigue) in order to appropriately model degradation and time that a failure occurs. Accelerated life testing based on PoF models is an approach that can reduce long and costly life testing. In this approach, one seeks to relate the fundamental physical and chemical properties of materials to reliability metrics (such as degradation, life or cycles-to-failure). To eliminate (or reduce) the occurrence of failures, one must eliminate (or reduce) their root causes. To do that, one must also understand the physics of the material and failure mechanisms involved (Vaccaro 1962). Sometimes it is impossible to build several identical units or prototypes for reliability testing. Cases in point include large-scale systems (like buildings and space vehicles), one-of-a-kind or highly expensive systems, and units that must work properly at the first time. In these cases, performance and field data are not available, and a PoF approach to degradation and life assessment is the most appropriate. As such, the PoF approach is particularly useful in the design stage when there are limited prototypes or test facilities. Finally, the PoF approach has great utility when dealing with highly reliable units, when there is very little failure data to analyze.
PoF techniques can be used to interpret and extrapolate field data for failure prediction for in-service components. This field data might include parameters that are related to traditional physical measures but can only be used as a loose model for failure prediction. A good example of this is vibration of a bearing. The vibration is suggestive of a flaw, but since the flaw itself cannot be tracked, the vibration can be used to estimate failure. This obviously presents potential for high uncertainty because changes in the model cannot be easily detected; for example, there is no assurance that if a new flaw develops it would expedite the failure, so that it can be detected and incorporated into the model. However, this method at least presents some means of tracking the degradation of the component. This is useful for maintenance practitioners, as it provides a means of failure estimation when traditional methods cannot be used due to the lack of measurable PoF model parameters.
There is no single methodology for performing PoF-based reliability analysis. Chapter 2 discusses in more detail the steps involved in developing a PoF model of an item. If an item involves multiple subassemblies (parts and components), each subject to different failure mechanisms, then the combined effect of applicable failure mechanisms should be modeled. Figure 1.1 depicts the structural and dynamic hierarchy of PoF analysis elements for a multi-component system. The lowest level in this hierarchy is inter- and intra-environmental factors. The intra-environmental factors refer to conditions resultant from unit operation itself. This includes, for example, heat dissipation or vibration caused by an imbalanced rotating shaft. The inter-environmental factors are those imposed externally from its design boundary. Examples include relative humidity and prevalence of dust particles. There may be a causal chain among inter- and intra-environmental factors such that one may lead to another or vice versa in a synergistic manner. For example, a low temperature may cause condensation, leading to accelerated corrosion.
Figure 1.1: System hierarchy used in PoF analysis
All environmental factors potentially lead to various forms of stress. For example, high temperature (as either an inter- or intra-environment factor) leads to thermal expansion, and (if the unit is confined) can cause mechanical stresses. Such stress agents are key actors in activating or accelerating degradation through corresponding failure mechanisms. While one failure mechanism may also accelerate another (such as corrosion accelerating fatigue), failure mechanisms can also produce new stresses. For example, wear in a journal bearing can cause vibration-induced fatigue. The top part of the hierarchy in Figure 1.1, known as the structural hierarchy, depicts the formal organization and topology of the system showing the functional and support relationships among parts, components and the whole systems. On the other hand, the lower part of the figure, the systems dynamics hierarchy, shows the underlying processes (failure mechanisms) and conditions that lead to the occurrence or acceleration of such mechanisms.
1.3. IMPORTANT FORMS OF POF MODELS
As noted above, there are three possible PoF modeling frameworks subject to the nature of underlying failure and degradation mechanism. Each is described briefly below.
Stress-Strength Model. In this model, the item (e.g., a structure, system or component) fails if the applied stresses caused by design, operation and the external environment exceed its strength (see Figure 1.2). This failure model may depend on environmental conditions, applied operating loads and the occurrence of critical events, rather than the passage of time or cycles. Stress and strength are treated as a random variable encompassing variability in all conditions. Two examples of this model include a steel bar under a mean tensile stress lower than its yielding point but which will be randomly subjected to load that exceeds the yielding point over time.
Figure 1.2: Stress-strength modeling
The second is a transistor with a mean voltage applied across the emitter-collector remaining below a failed level but which may randomly exceed the limit. In the case of the steel bar, the likelihood of failure is estimated from the probability that the stress random variable exceeds the strength random variable, which is obtained from a convolution of the two respective distributions.
Damage-Endurance Model. This model differs from the stress-strength model in that the stress (load) causes degradation in the form of irreversible cumulative damage through, for example, corrosion, wear, embrittlement, creep, or fatigue. The stress (load) aggregate drives the cumulative damage metric. Cumulative damage may not degrade performance; however, the item fails when the cumulative damage exceeds its endurance limit. For example, a crack grows on a structure until it reaches a critical length beyond which the growth will be catastrophically rapid. Accumulated damage does not disappear when the stresses are removed, although sometimes treatments such as annealing can repair cumulative damage. Variables representing damage and endurance may be treated as random and represented by probability density functions to capture distributions of initial damage, model parameter uncertainties, and model errors. Therefore, at any time or cycle (see Figure 1.3) the likelihood of failure may be represented by the exceedance of the damage distribution from the endurance probability density functions. If endurance is not a random variable and remains constant, then the distribution of the time to failure may be obtained when cumulative damage values randomly exceed the constant value of the endurance (see Figure 1.3). The distribution of the time-to failure shown in Figure 1.3 is based on the assumption of a constant endurance limit around the median of the distribution of the endurance. Clearly, at a given time or cycle, N, the probability that the damage distribution exceeds endurance level (or distribution of endurance), would be equal to the probability that the random variable, time to failure (as represented by the time to failure distribution) is lower than N.
Figure 1.3: Damage-endurance model
Performance-Requirements Model. In this modeling approach, a system performance characteristic (such as system output capability, efficiency or availability) is satisfactory if it remains within acceptable tolerance limits. Examples include rotating machinery efficiency and printer print quality (such as one that is based on a level of efficiency or output at the pump head). Systems start with a positive margin of performance that cumulatively and irreversibly degrades due to the underlying failure mechanisms. These mechanisms cause degradation and damage until performance falls below the minimum requirement level (i.e. fails). As the stress applied to the unit increases the rate of performance degradation, the time to failure (the point at which the system reaches minimum or acceptable performance limit) is reduced. The concept is depicted in Figure 1.4.
Figure 1.4: Performance-requirement model
1.4. PPOF APPROACH TO LIFE ASSESSMENT
Due to the inevitable stochastic variations of the many factors involved in degradation and failure processes described by PoF models, probabilistic physics-of-failure (PPoF) models can be used to formally account for the uncertainties and model errors. Factor variations include uncertainties in environmental and operational stresses, mission profile and variability in materials properties, and stress agents. The earliest effort in PPoF modeling was by Haggag, et al. (Haggag, McMahon, Hess, Cheng, Lee, & Lyding, 2000) who presented a PPoF approach to reliability assurance of high-performance chips by considering common defect activation energy distribution. Hall and Strutt (Hall & Strutt, 2003) have presented PPoF models for component reliabilities by considering parameter and model uncertainties. Azarkhail and Modarres (Azarkhail & Modarres, 2007) have presented a Bayesian framework for uncertainty management in physics-based reliability models. Matik and Sruk (Matik & Sruk, 2008) highlighted the need for PoF to be probabilistic in order to include inevitable variations of variables involved in processes contributing to the occurrence of failures in the analysis. Finally, Chatterjee and Modarres (Chatterjee & Modarres, 2012) have presented PPoF modeling of integrated steam generators in small modular reactors. Although substantial research has been done on PPoF modeling for reliability assessment, more research in this area is necessary.
The element of a PPoF model that assesses time-to-failure of a component (such as a ball bearing under fatigue-wear degradation mechanism) is illustrated in Figure 1.5. The lowest element in this figure shows the inter- and intra-environmental factors that produce the stresses that cause degradation and failure. The next three elements are drawn from the PoF models that describe the degradation. The final element (top level) is the probabilistic life assessment that formally accounts for parameter uncertainties in the PoF models and model errors. In Figure 1.5, a probabilistic approach (such as Bayesian inference) is shown to characterize the corresponding PoF model uncertainties. The arrows in Figure 1.5 show the direction of influences, such as how external ambient temperature may affect viscosity. Usually the direction of influences is upward (i.e., sequential causal relationships), but it is possible to have some influences going downward, causing a circular synergy among variables. For example, certain operating conditions, such as high internal temperature generated by poor lubrication during operation, lowers lubricant viscosity, which in turn increases the friction that further exacerbates the high internal temperature.
Figure 1.5: System hierarchy in probabilistic-mechanistic reliability life model
There are two basic types of uncertainties that can be described by a PPoF model of failure mechanisms: aleatory and epistemic uncertainty. Aleatory uncertainty is the inherent randomness of the phenomena that the model attempts to predict. This type of uncertainty is intrinsic and cannot be reduced. Examples of aleatory uncertainty include random environmental variations, random vibration in stress amplitude and certain material properties such size and density of flaws. Epistemic uncertainty is about our lack of knowledge and consists of incomplete description of the modeled phenomena, measurement errors, and a lack of sufficiently accurate measurements to fully capture the phenomena. Incorporating additional PoF model data and information reduces this type of uncertainty: as such this uncertainty is reducible, whereas aleatory uncertainty is not. Since there can be uncertainties associated with failure-inducing agents (i.e., stresses), model parameters and the model itself, the prediction of failures is inherently a probabilistic problem requiring PPoF models for applicable primary failure mechanisms (Modarres, Kaminskiy, & Krivtsov, 2017). Each failure, damage or degradation mechanism should have its own PPoF model. All applicable PPoF models applied to an item need to be combined to find the overall degradation process. Methods for combining multiple PPoF models include the use of the weakest link approach, which assumes that one of such degradation mechanisms causes damage that will exceed the endurance limit before the other applicable mechanisms.
PPoF models are formulated considering all the variables that can initiate and propagate degradation in the item under study. As part of this process, one should identify important degradation causing variables such as (for a rotating tube example) normal loads, displacement amplitudes, and material properties contacting surfaces. In this example, tube degradations may be measured in terms of volume of material lost and then correlated with the stress variables. Experimental degradation data from accelerated testing would be needed to determine the PoF-based correlation between degradation and causal stress variables. In some cases, well-established correlations from the literature are used. In developing PoF models, other important variables (such as geometry) may also be considered. The next step is to characterize all forms of uncertainties associated with the PoF models and data, and estimate model parameters. This step converts the PoF models into PPoF models. A suitable regression approach should be developed to formally characterize all uncertainties. Bayesian regression is a powerful technique for estimating probability distributions of model parameters. In the tube example above, one requires experimental degradation data under prevailing environments experiencing operational conditions corresponding to each degradation mechanism.
Other factors that can lead to uncertainties in the likelihood of failures (such as manufacturing methods and material properties) also need to be considered. Most of these uncertainties should be accounted for when evaluating the stress agents acting on the tubes. Flow-induced vibratory stresses and thermal stresses that propagate tube degradations are two such examples for the tube example above. Each failure mechanism has specific stress agents that cause degradation. Agents like fatigue stress are alternating stresses, whereas stress agents of stress-corrosion-cracking (SSC) involve constant tensile stresses. In order to determine the stress agents, a detailed finite element analysis of the tube geometry and material properties is required, with prevailing operating conditions applied. The input parameters for the finite element analysis, (e.g., geometry, material properties) need to be entered probabilistically—not deterministically—with corresponding stresses estimated as probability distributions.
A Monte Carlo simulation approach complements PPoF models by propagating all the associated uncertainties (such as those associated with the model, its parameters, and initial material flaws) to estimate probability distribution of the unit failure or amount of damage as a function of time under the prevailing stresses. Monte Carlo simulation is the leading method for simulating systems with many coupled input variables. Appropriate failure criteria need to be defined for each failure mechanism considering the operability. For example, a failure criterion for a normal operating condition-induced fatigue mechanism can be defined as the through-wall cracks reaching the wall thickness of tubes.
1.5. ACCELERATED TESTING IN PPOF MODEL DEVELOPMENT
To develop the PoF models and estimate their parameters and model uncertainties, it is imperative to rely on failure and degradation (damage) versus time data. These data can be obtained from life and degradation testing or from valid field data. Many of today’s structures, systems and components are capable of operating under benign environmental stresses for thousands of hours without failure. This makes normal life (non-accelerated) testing of such equipment difficult and costly. Field data in many cases are scarce, and even when they are available it is hard to judge their uniformity and accuracy. Alternatively, accelerated testing provides far more quickly a better understanding of equipment life and degradation processes, and generates data for development of PoF and PPoF models. As such, generating degradation data in the shortest possible time can be achieved by relaying on formal accelerated testing methods.
In essence, accelerated testing gathers more reliability and life information in a shorter span of time by utilizing a more severe test environment than what would otherwise be experienced under normal use conditions. Accelerated testing increases the stressors that are known to dominate the causes of failure of a system in order to test it in a compressed timeframe. Importantly, accelerated testing ensures that failure modes and mechanisms that would not be encountered under normal use are not inadvertently introduced in the test. The trajectory of cumulative degradation shown in Figure 1.3 and Figure 1.4 would by be shifted to the left under an accelerated testing regime, as failures occur faster than under normal (or use) operating conditions.
Accelerated tests are used to develop PPoF models, which in turn can be used to estimate and predict the equipment life or degradation and damage under normal operating conditions. This step in PPoF analysis underlines the importance of formally characterizing all the uncertainties in the PPoF models so as to reflect such uncertainties in the predicted life from such models.
Figure 1.6 illustrates the stress regions of a conceptual accelerated test that generate several failure data points at two stress levels in the “overstress” region. These data are then used to develop the PoF model that best describes them, including the associated uncertainties to extrapolate the resulting PPoF models (associated with each quantile of the life) to the “use” stress level to estimate the corresponding life distribution (see Figure 1.7).
Figure 1.6: Conceptual acceleration of stress agents at two overstress conditions and corresponding data points generated from ALT
Figure 1.7: Conceptual PPoF model development and extrapolation in ALT
There are three fundamental approaches to accelerated testing: (1) field-testing of the unit under higher use frequency or higher operating stresses (loads); (2) laboratory testing of the unit, prototype, material samples or coupons under higher stress or higher use frequency; and (3) computer-based simulated acceleration using previously validated PPoF models. Acceleration of the stress variable is achieved either singly or in combination. Examples include:
More frequent power cycling
Higher vibration levels
Higher humidity
More severe temperature cycling
Higher temperatures
Higher load amplitudes
In addition to developing PoF and PPoF models, there are other motivations for accelerated testing to assure reliability. These motivations stem from, for example:
The need to identify design failures. Results from accelerated tests can help eliminate or reduce design failures through redesign (e.g. intrinsic redundancy).
The need for immediate verification of lifetime statistics (rather than waiting for field data). This is especially important for cases involving the prediction of performance of highly reliable products where access to normal use failure data is not feasible or practical.
The need for shorter life tests due to the fast technological evolution of products.
The need to assess and demonstrate component reliability in the design stage.
The need to certify components and detect failure modes so that they can be corrected.
The need to compare different manufacturers and vendors in a condensed timeframe. Accelerated testing can aid in choosing designs, components, suppliers, rated operating conditions, and test procedures.
