Product Maturity 1 : Theoretical Principles and Industrial Applications 1st Edition Franck Bayle 2024 Scribd Download
Product Maturity 1 : Theoretical Principles and Industrial Applications 1st Edition Franck Bayle 2024 Scribd Download
Product Maturity 1 : Theoretical Principles and Industrial Applications 1st Edition Franck Bayle 2024 Scribd Download
com
https://ebookmeta.com/product/product-
maturity-1-theoretical-principles-and-industrial-
applications-1st-edition-franck-bayle/
OR CLICK HERE
DOWLOAD NOW
https://ebookmeta.com/product/product-maturity-volume-2-principles-
and-illustrations-1st-edition-franck-bayle/
ebookmeta.com
https://ebookmeta.com/product/sustainable-product-design-and-
development-industrial-engineering-1st-edition-anoop-desai/
ebookmeta.com
https://ebookmeta.com/product/ordering-a-wife-steamy-mail-order-bride-
romance-dating-network-service-book-4-1st-edition-scarlett-woods/
ebookmeta.com
https://ebookmeta.com/product/bound-by-fate-atlantic-island-
odyssey-2-1st-edition-skylar-jaymes-fredric-shernoff/
ebookmeta.com
https://ebookmeta.com/product/singapore-unlikely-power-1st-edition-
john-curtis-perry/
ebookmeta.com
https://ebookmeta.com/product/hi-c-data-analysis-1st-edition-silvio-
bicciato/
ebookmeta.com
Tainted Reign 1st Edition Kay Riley
https://ebookmeta.com/product/tainted-reign-1st-edition-kay-riley/
ebookmeta.com
Product Maturity 1
Reliability of Multiphysical Systems Set
coordinated by
Abdelkhalak El Hami
Volume 12
Product Maturity 1
Franck Bayle
First published 2022 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted
under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the
case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the
CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the
undermentioned address:
www.iste.co.uk www.wiley.com
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the
author(s), contributor(s) or editor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of ISTE Group.
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii
Chapter 2. Maturity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Serge ZANINOTTI
2.1. Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2. Normative context and its implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.1. Quality standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.2. Quality management system and product quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.3. Product quality and dependability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2.4. Product dependability and maturity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.2.5. Standards in various domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.2.6. Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.3. Building of maturity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.4. Confirmation of maturity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
vi Product Maturity 1
3.1. Derating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.2. Rules provided by the manufacturers of components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.2.1. CMS resistors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.2.2. Capacitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.2.3. Magnetic circuits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.2.4. Fuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.2.5. Resonators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.2.6. Oscillators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.2.7. Photocouplers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.2.8. Diodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.2.9. Zener diodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.2.10. Tranzorb diodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.2.11. Low power bipolar transistors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.2.12. Power bipolar transistors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.2.13. Low power MOSFET transistors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.2.14. High power MOSFET transistors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.2.15. Integrated circuits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.3. Reference-based approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.4. Creation of derating rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.4.1. Rules for constant temperature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.4.2. Rule for voltage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.5. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.3.8. Potentiometers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.3.9. Quartz oscillators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.3.10. Voltage references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.4. Summary of components with limited service life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
6.1. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
6.2. Objectives of aggravated tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
6.3. Principles of aggravated tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
6.3.1. Choice of physical constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
6.3.2. Principle of HALT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
6.3.3. Specific or additional constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
6.3.4. Number of required samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
6.3.5. Operational test, diagnosis and identification of weaknesses . . . . . . . . 107
6.3.6. Monitoring specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
6.3.7. Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
6.3.8. Root cause analysis, corrective actions and breakdown management . . . 108
6.4. Robustness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
6.4.1. Estimation of robustness margins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
6.4.2. Sufficient margins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Foreword by Laurent Denis
Human beings are plagued by major worries, such as fear of death and fear of
illness. “How long will I live?” is a question that arises even in childhood. “Will I
one day have to deal with a condition similar to my neighbor’s?”. We live in an age
where disease, death, old age and disability are subjects to be avoided in polite
conversation. “How are you?” is a standard greeting to which a different and darker
reply than the traditional, “I’m very well, thank you, and you?” risks embarrassing
or even annoying the other party. Avoiding the problems of others, for fear they may
be contagious, gives us a sense of immortality on a daily basis.
This is a rather recent phenomenon, as many previous generations did not hide
the elderly or sick, although the risk of accidents in everyday life was higher and so
death was a more common occurrence. It was certainly a source of anxiety, but the
Church was there to alleviate it. Today we hide this subject by paying attention to a
society made up of young, healthy people whom we must emulate at all costs so as
to be part of it. Since our days are more or less the same, we succumb to
procrastination at the first opportunity and Seneca’s carpe diem loses its wonderful
charm to give way to flat Platonic reflection.
properly at the design stage, in order that it can withstand any mission profile
assigned to it during operation; this is one way to increase competitiveness.
Many companies still see the reliability study of a system before it becomes
operational as a mandatory step to be overcome, bypassing or minimizing it as soon
as possible. In the design phase, a signed product FMECA will end up in a folder, its
purpose merely to certify that the rules have been followed correctly. The objective
of the test phase is to confirm that the device being tested meets the requirements of
a standard, without taking the opportunity to validate that the mission profiles on the
ground will not unpredictably damage the product. During production, process
control cards are used to verify that tolerance limits are not exceeded, without
establishing forecasting instances that could lead to accidental stops. Hence, only
data in the form of returned products, found to be defective by the end user, are
subjected to a posteriori analyses by customer support. This can incur various costs
and may lead to product recall if a serious defect is found.
Fortunately, however, the reality tends to be a little less bleak than the situation
described above, with the emergence and dissemination of best practices that are
based on theories validated by various industry sectors. These are now adapting to
the challenges that companies face: making increasingly complex products that are
more adaptable and ever-faster, while maintaining quality standards and reducing
costs. This no longer involves applying deterministic models in which a single value
is assigned to an objective to be reached. Instead, it is about drawing up a range of
possible solutions that allow the supplier or integrator to make sure that the worst
case a product might be subjected to on the ground can still be controlled by
statistical modeling. The best way to achieve this is through the combined use of
theoretical and technical resources: an in-depth understanding of the possible
technological problems and solutions given by the manufacturer allows the qualified
reliability engineer to build the most suitable predictive models. Ideally, a single
person would have these two complementary sets of skills.
Franck Bayle is a perfect example of this. Throughout the second part of his
career as an electronics engineer, he relentlessly addressed challenges that no one
had previously openly solved, and he developed algorithmic solutions based on
cutting edge theories. He was nevertheless confronted with the ills that plague most
large groups: habit and fear of change. When he proposed significant advances
across the whole company, only his more informed colleagues considered these to
be opportunities for improvement. Sometimes his work was considered useless by
those whose feeling was: “Why consider risks when there are no problems on the
ground?”. This is reminiscent of: “Why would I get sick when I am fit and
healthy?”. We have to be forward thinkers to be able to act before any problem
arises, and Franck Bayle is such a person. His book presents all the best practices he
Foreword by Laurent Denis xi
has managed to implement within his department, as well as all the advances that
I have had the chance to see implemented, which he continues to improve.
This book is essential reading for any passionate reliability engineer, and it is a
real pleasure and an honor to write this foreword to accompany it.
Laurent DENIS
STATXPERT
November 2021
Foreword by Serge Zaninotti
When Franck invited me to work with him on his second book on system
maturity, I immediately accepted. My interest in the subject has grown largely as a
result of the rich technical exchanges we have had over the last 15 years, and
strengthened after reading his first book, published in 2019, on the reliability of
maintained systems under aging mechanisms.
Franck would tell me of his progress in the field of reliability, his field of
expertise, and I – having always wanted to maintain the link between quality and
reliability – would try to establish a connection with the standards.
Serge ZANINOTTI
Thales
Quality Expert
November 2021
Acknowledgements
This book would certainly not have been possible without the contribution of
certain persons. I therefore want to thank, first, my main supervisors throughout my
career with Thales: Jean Riaillon, Laurent Portrait and Claude Sarno, who gave me
the means to gain this experience.
For everything related to maturity, a special thank you goes to Serge Zaninotti,
quality expert with Thales, and also the author of Chapter 2 on the notion of
maturity and the “quality” aspects, and Serge Parbaud of Thales for his advice and
always appropriate corrections. I would also want to extend my warmest thanks to
Patrick Carton from Thales Global Service for the passionate technical exchanges
we have had in recent years, his always apt remarks, his support and his listening.
Furthermore, I wish to thank Franck Davenel from DGA for our exchanges
during PISTIS upstream study related to accelerated tests and burn-in, and to give
my warmest thanks to Léo Gerville Réache for his valuable help.
Finally, I wish to thank my entire family, and particularly my wife, not only for
bearing with me, but also for encouraging me while writing this book.
Introduction
Reliability, availability, safety and so on are now major qualities that a product
must have, irrespective of the industrial application field (automobile, avionics, rail,
etc.) of its use. A significant literature related to these fields can be readily accessed,
and is generally grouped under the umbrella concept of “dependability”.
The maturity of a product is therefore its capacity to reach the desired reliability
level, from its launch into service until the end of its operation. Due to technical and
economic challenges, it is very difficult to reach product maturity. Indeed, defects
are very often generated during various phases of the lifecycle, reflected by failures
that occur very early on in product operation (a manufacturing defect, for example),
or during its operation (design flaw, integration flaw, etc.). This is particularly true
for products whose service life is becoming longer (e.g. 30 years for components in
the rail industry). It is important to note that this activity makes sense for maintained
products, which are predominantly in industrial applications.
The main objective of this book is to fill this knowledge gap, which is often
detrimental to many manufacturers.
1
Reliability Review
First, it is important to determine the various types of failures. There are three
main categories, namely:
– “youth failures”, which generally occur very early on in the lifecycle of a
product. Youth failures are generally the result of manufacturing defects. Therefore,
they concern only a small part of the population. They can be partially eradicated by
specific tests, such as burn-in;
– “catastrophic failures”, which are unexpected, sudden and independent of the
time previously elapsed. These types of failures can therefore be observed at any
point in the lifecycle of a product. They are generally the result of accidental
overloads (heat, mechanical, electrical). They typically do not concern the entire
product population and can be reduced by robustness tests, derating rules, etc.;
– “aging” failures, which are observed across all the products in operation. These
failures are generally not observed during the lifecycle of a product, with the
Let us briefly analyze this equation and the following conventions. The term P
denotes the “probability” and the symbol “/” stands for “knowing that”. The limit
“lim” represents the instantaneous character of the failure rate. Therefore, equation
[1.1] can be interpreted as follows:
Probability that the product will fail between “t and t+dt” knowing that it was
operational (non-defective) at instant “t”.
The three failure categories can thus be symbolically represented using the concept
of failure rate using the famous bathtub curve, as illustrated in the following figure.
The most commonly used mathematical object for modeling failure rate is the
Weibull distribution. According to this hypothesis, the latter is defined by:
ℎ = . [1.2]
This figure clearly shows that all of the components – in this case, the leaves –
are subject to aging, yet not all of them fail at the same time (not all the leaves have
fallen at the instant shown).
The following figures are obtained, with time on the ordinate (horizontal) axis
and the number of components on the abscissa (vertical) axis.
It can be noted that failure instants are more dispersed for β = 3 (on the left) than
for β = 10 (on the right). On the other hand, for β = 1, equation [1.2] is written as:
= or, more frequently, as:
=λ [1.3]
property). Indeed, returning to the analogy with human beings, a catastrophic failure
is, for example, a car accident occurring when a driver cuts off another driver. This
“failure” does not depend on the distance traveled, but is due solely to the
recklessness of another person. This is entirely different from an aging failure, for
which the failure instant directly depends on the distance traveled, because this
relates to driver fatigue.
It is important to note that the concept of maturity has no qualitative meaning for
non-maintained products. Indeed, the objective of reliability is a probability of
success; the mission is achieved by the survival function, which for a Weibull
distribution is defined as:
= exp − [1.4]
This survival function – and this is the case regardless of the law used – is a
strictly decreasing function of time. Therefore, the concept of constant reliability is
not applicable. For most non-maintained industrial applications, exponential
distribution is preferred to Weibull distribution; this is because the reliability
objective is a probability of achieving the mission, whose value is obviously high
(generally such that R ∈[90% ; 99%].
ζ= [1.5]
ζ≃ [1.6]
6 Product Maturity 1
Since Tm/η is greater than , the numerator is smaller than the denominator
and therefore ζ < 1. Hence, the exponential survival function is lower than that of
Weibull, which proves that it is conservative.
Another, more physical way to view this result is to remember that the shape
parameter β represents the dispersion of time until failure. The greater β is, the less
dispersed the time until failure. Since the Weibull shape parameter is > 1, the
corresponding failure instants are less dispersed around the scale parameter η.
, = . [1.7]
with η θ = C. exp
.
Figure 1.4. Example of a car that has not been maintained. For a color
version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/bayle/maturity1.zip
For further details on the effect of maintenance on reliability and its (rather
difficult) modeling, the reader is invited to refer to Rigdon and Basu (2000),
Gaudoin and Ledoux (2007) and Bayle (2019).
1.4. MTBF
In this case, failure instants were observed on “n” components (or products)
assumed to be identical. This is equivalent to MTTF (Mean Time To Failure), as
there are no maintenance actions. This can be illustrated by Figure 1.5.
8 Product Maturity 1
This refers to the mean time between two consecutive failures. If there are two
failures, this means there was a maintenance action, as illustrated in the following
figure.
When there are maintenance actions, the concept of failure rate has no meaning
after the first failure. Hence, time between failures (TBF) and time to repair (TTR)
are used. MTBF is therefore defined here by:
NOTE.– In practice, the TTR is often very short compared to the TBF; thus, the
numerical expression of equation [1.8] can be written as:
≈ MTTF [1.9]
Reliability Review 9
Moreover, if the product is mature (no youth or aging failure), then MTTF = .
≈ . [1.10]
This equation is often found in the literature but is only numerically true under
certain hypotheses (exponential distribution), which must be verified.
Product specifications always include a reliability objective. There are two main
industrial applications:
– The first is less common, requiring a probability of success. This probability,
which is a function of the product use time, is therefore generally provided after the
product becomes operational. The unilateral lower bound of this probability is
generally used as the reliability objective. This is due to the fact that it applies to one
or several products for which operational failure is to be excluded (e.g. Ariane
rockets or certain military weapons).
– The second covers all other applications (avionics, motor vehicles, rail, etc.)
where the mean number of failures is examined. This is the well-known MTBF.
2
Maturity
2.1. Context
Any product goes through a number of industrial phases throughout its lifetime;
this is known as the product lifecycle. Chronologically, these phases can be listed as
follows:
– product specification, conducted by the system manufacturer or the end user;
– product design, conducted by the equipment manufacturer;
– product manufacturing, conducted by the equipment manufacturer;
– product integration, conducted by the system manufacturer;
– product operation, conducted by the end user.
All of these stages have the potential to produce defects that are often specific to
each of them. These defects will potentially generate failures during the operational
life of the product with the end user.
Finally, the integration stage runs the risk of generating catastrophic failures due
to product handling errors when undergoing stress (ESD, for example), etc. All of
these potential defects will affect the operational reliability of the product, having a
direct impact on its maturity. But they also impact the brand image of the equipment
manufacturer as perceived by the system manufacturer or the end user. They can
also generate significant costs for the equipment manufacturer.
This led to the creation of the world’s largest standardization system in 1947,
known as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Nowadays, to
ensure their continued existence, organizations must have a certified quality
management system.
ISO 9001 (ISO 2015), an international standard with worldwide coverage for
several decades, sets out the criteria related to the processes that are part of the
quality management systems. Having products or services offering, since the very
start of operation, the ability expected by the clients is part of the objectives set
through the project management process. Making sure that the project management
process reaches its objectives throughout the lifecycle of the products or service is at
the core of quality assurance management.
ISO 31000 (ISO 2018) defines the guidelines of risk management and states that
it improves performance in reaching objectives. The PR-NF-EN 31010 (ISO 2018)
standard supports this standard by providing recommendations concerning risk
management and various techniques for taking uncertainty into account. Moreover,
the ISO 9000 (ISO 2015) standard related to quality management systems, essential
principles and terminology, defines the concepts used.
Results
Efficiency Effectiveness
Performance
The project objective concerns the expected product quality and meeting the cost
and deadlines.
The project result concerns product quality performance, costs and deadlines.
uncertainties are the causes that are susceptible to gaps with respect to the expected
results.
The Ishikawa method with the “5 whys” technique is used to identify causes
based on the adverse effects of a risk. The FMECA method (failure modes, effects
and criticality analysis) can be used to deduce, based on the identification of risk
causes, the consequences for the products in order to achieve the required
improvement.