PQD 3 (2016/2017)

AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERING
Mario Vianello
vianello.clm@tin.it
PRODUCT
QUALITY DESIGN
01OFHLO
These slides can not be reproduced or distributed without permission in writing from the author.
COURSE CONTENTS
1. Design for Quality considering customer needs and pro-

duct targets
2. Freshen up of Applied Statistics Fundamentals
3. Fundamentals of Reliability and of Robust Design
4. Measure and prevention methodological instruments for
Reliability
5. Criteria and methods to plan reliability experimental verifi-
cations
6. Managerial considerations: mention about Problem solving,
Lessons learned, Experience accumulation, Technical memory,
Global approaches like Six Sigma
These slides can not be reproduced or distributed without permission in writing from the author. 2
PRODUCT QUALITY DESIGN
3
FUNDAMENTALS OF RELIABILITY
AND ROBUST DESIGN
CHAPTER CONTENTS
 Reliability and Robust Design Definitions (related to Quality)

- Probabilistic Design (short mention)
- Detailed definitions of Reliability
- Grading of failures according to “severity”
- Mission profile
- Remarks on Reliability practical measurements: design, process and Cu-
stomer Service reliability; “mission” and “measured” reliability
- The concept of "robustness" (Robust Design)
- Concept, Parameter and Tolerance Design
- Taguchi’s Loss Function
- Practical recommendations
 Series system and parallel system
 Sources of information from the field
 Multi-target optimizations
- Tha basic problem
- Logical and mathematical tools
- “Weights” method
- “Constraints” method
- Comparison of two methods and their integrated use
CHAPTER CONTENTS
 Reliability targets deployment

 Main indicators of the reached reliability level
- R(t), F(t) and M(t) functions and hazard rate h(t)
- Weibull Chart and “failure law”
- Weibull knee
- Bx = n [km, hours, cycles]
- Minimum number of “failed" to draw a straight line on a Weibull Chart
- 3-parameters Weibull distribution
- The most common Reliability indicators (MTTF, MTBF, Bx, etc.)
3. Fundamentals of Reliability and Robust Design
3.1
RELIABILITY AND ROBUST
DESIGN DEFINITIONS
(related to the Quality)
3.1. Reliability and Robust Design definitions
3.1.1
Probabilistic Design
(short mention)
3.1.1. Probabilistic Design (short mention)
PROBABILISTIC DESIGN
The safety factor h = S/L is replaced by the Failure Probability Pf = f (S-L).
S = strength; L = load; zD = S - L = difference between strength and load
0,40
L = load
(mL =12.50 kg/mm2,
sL = 1.05 kg/mm2)
0,35
Area proportional to the 0,005

Failure Probability Pf
0,30 “Load peaks”
( where it is: L  S ) 0,004
distribution
PROBABILITY DENSITY
0,003
0,002
0,25 zD = S - L
0,001 mD = mS - mL S = strength
sDzD= =sSS2 +- sL2 (mS =19.00 kg/mm2,
0,000
2
-2,50 -2,25 -2,00 -1,75 -1,50 -1,25 -1,00 -0,75 -0,50 -0,25 0,00
0,20 ( mDD =6.50
(m = 6.50kg/mm
kg/mm2,, sS = 2.25 kg/mm2)
ssDD = 2.48 kg/mm
kg/mm22)
0,15
strength
0,10 distribution
0,05 Area in which

Overlapping area
it mayit be
in which may be
LL≥SS S, s, z
0,00
-3 -2 -1 0 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
Note that, if the strength distribution (keeping constant its mean) widens or narrows as its
variability increases or decreases, the failure probability varies (even dramatically), while
the safety factor remains unchanged.
The stress distribution refers to the stress peaks, which are the critical factor
able to compromise the strength. Think, as an example, to a strut of the landing
gear of an airplane. The first impact at the landing (involving the greatest stress) is the
one that can produce an immediate break or a "cumulative damage" that will reduce
the strength at the next loads. Other shocks beyond the first are certainly less impor-
tant.
The intersection area or overlapping area of the two normal distributions
that represent strength and stress (highlighted in yellow in the previous
slide) contains both:
 pairs of points where the strength exceeds the stress (and therefore
without problems),
 pairs of points where the stress exceeds the strength (with breaking
or at least a permanent damage)
and therefore the area of this intersection is not proportional to the failu-
re probability Pf.
Instead, the negative area of the difference normal distribution (highlighted
in red on the previous slide) is proportional to the failure probability Pf
and is obviously smaller than the yellow one above.
independent random variables, normally distributed
generic real deterministic constant
ALGEBRAIC
FUNCTION
Mean Standard deviation Useful expressions
to evaluate means
and standard deviations
of random variables
normally distributed
These expressions can be applied
to algebraic variables
in the individual steps
of the usual mathematical expressions
(maybe with the help of EXCEL).
Obviously, for complex cases, it is
preferable to use appropriate software
commercially available.
VARIABILITY IN MATERIALS PROPERTIES STATISTICAL VALUES FOR THE M
Coefficient of
Property and material variation
Example of Tables
s/m assessing
Tensile Ultimate Strength of Metallic Materials 0.05 the dispersion
Tensile Yield Strength of Metallic Materials 0.07 of material properties
Endurance Limit for Steel 0.08
through
Coefficient of Variation
Brinnell Hardness of Steel 0.05
s/m
Fracture Toughness of Metallic Materials 0.07
STATISTICAL VALUES FOR THE MODULUS OF ELASTICITY OF METALS

Coefficient of
Mean
M e t a l [ kgf/mm2 ]
variation
s/m
Steel 21.1 ≈ 0.03
Aluminum 7.0 ≈ 0.03
Titanium 10.3 ≈ 0.09
Nodular Iron Cast 16.2 ≈ 0.04
3.1.2
Detailed definitions
of Reliability
3.1.2. Detailed definitions of Reliability
Concise definition of RELIABILITY
The Reliability R
of a product (system or component)(1)
is its ability
to successfully fulfill its mission

for a specific period of time.
(1) or even a “service”.

In other words, that implies that all products

made:
 must meet all the customers expected fun-

ctions, and each “response” always remains
within the planned specific “tolerability ran-
ge” (“compliance with specifications”),
 without performance decay over time, if not
within predetermined acceptability limits
(“reliability”).
Expected functions: meaning

Expected - What the customers like (not only need) about the
performances of the examined system; expecta-
tions may be both explicit (i.e. expressed by the
customers) or implicit (i.e. unspoken).
Functions - A variable (generally expressed in physical units)
suitable for measuring a specific performance of
the examined system.
Expected functions - Each measured performance (of the

examined system) related to the corre-
sponding customer satisfaction. The
whole customer satisfaction may be
attained only when the system meets
all the expected functions.
The previous definition implies the need to manage two

distinct aspects:
 components must be substantially equal to each
other in that they must satisfy the expected fun-
ctions without substantial differences: this implies
a minimal dispersion in the volume (compliance
with specifications);
 performances related to every expected function
should not be affected by decay related to the use
and/or to the time and therefore any decay in the
time should be negligible or at least acceptable
(classical reliability).
General definition of the measure of RELIABILITY
The measure of Reliability is defined, by D. Kececiuglu

(University of Arizona - Tucson), as the probability
 that the equipment will perform its intended functions
satisfactorily or without failure and within specified per-
formance limits;
 at a given confidence level;
 at a given age;
 for a specified length of time or mileage (mission time);
 when used in the manner and for the purpose intended
while operating under the specified application and o-
peration environment stress levels.
In this definition we find 4 main concepts.

 The probability that the product fulfills its mission. The
estimate of this probability is affected by some degree of
uncertainty, quantified by the confidence level (and the
confidence interval).
 Function: the defining of the function implies to set out
clearly the level of performance below which the device is
considered failed: grading of failures and definition of
“tolerability ranges” from the customer point of view.
 Given conditions: the stresses on the device due to its
macro or micro environment: mission profile.
 Time: it can be any quantity which expresses a duration

(e.g.: km or operating hours or number of cycles, etc.).
For all the previous reasons, the reliability targets must

specify:
 mission profile;
 a complete list of the expected functions and

their tolerability range (from the customer point
of view);
 product durability (period within which the repair
is technically feasible and economically useful);
 maximum number of failures (up to a certain
time/mileage) which customers accept without
loosing their fundamental satisfaction for the pro-
duct, preferably separated by severity.
Reliability, unreliability, failure
Specially to improve the accuracy
of calculations by computer,
we prefer to use the unreliability
i.e. the probability of failure Pf = 1 - R,
because the use of the Reliability
fill in 9 the mantissa of the stored value.
We have a “failure”
when a system does not satisfy any more
one or more of its expected functions:
i.e. a system response
goes out of its tolerability range
(established by customers).
3.1.3
Grading of failures
according to “severity”
3.1.3. Grading of failures according to “severity”
Classification of the failure severity in automotive
(examples for main categories)
Request for repair
SEVERITY DEFINITION E X A M P L E S (to assess the severity
in the course of telephone
interviews with customers)
SAFETY The safety of the driver - Braking inefficient; immediate
- Deceleration sensor (pretensioners)
and/or passengers and/or failure;
others is compromised. - Stop lights switch failure;
- Beam headlamps not working.
CRITICAL These failures force to su- - The engine will not start; immediate
- You can not insert any gear;
(broke down) spend the mission (e.g. - Doors blocked: we do not enter.
vehicle can not start or re-
start).
SERIOUS Functional failures that - Inability to lock the vehicle; as soon as possible:
- Engine: irregular operation; certainly without waiting
need to be repaired within - km/mileometer: failure; another occasion (e.g.
a short time to avoid com- - Door mechanical window not working; scheduled maintenance).
promising the use of the - Dents on the body (e.g. at the delivery).
vehicle or aesthetic failu-
res of particular relevance.
MARGINAL These failures are detec- - Door panel: noise; added to another oc-
- Gear lever boot: detachment/tear;
ted by the customer, but - Small imperfections in the finish or in
casion (e.g. expiry of sche-
not perceived as serious. duled maintenance).
the body.
3.1.3. Grading of failures according to “severity”
Detailed classification (by the Fiat Standard about FMEA)
3.1.4
Mission profile
3.1.4. Mission profile
A.M.O.A. project and black box
A.M.O.A. = Automobile Mode of Operation Achievement
The “black box”
A.M.O.A.: Automobile Mode of Operation Achievement
M A I N F U N C T I O N S D E T E C T E D
ENGINE  rpm depending on gear and depression upstream of
the combustion chamber;
 water temperature with the number of presences
and the time spent in predefined classes;
 temperature of the engine compartment.
CLUTCH  number of operations;

 insertion time.
GEAR BOX  number of insertion of the different gears;

 kilometers traveled in different gears.
BRAKES  number of operations in function of:

 start braking speed
 average deceleration
A.M.O.A. Project
 amount of dissipated energy.
Automobile Mode
ELECTRICAL  numebr of operations; of Operation Achievement
DEVICES  total time
USE AND  number of missions;

ENVIRON- (a mission is always between two successive waitings)
MENTAL  number of waitings (parking over 20 minutes) ;
PARAMETERS  speeds;
 number of stops (e.g. at the traffic lights) and number of
prolonged stops (e.g. by the newsagent) ;
 sheet temperature;
 outside temperature.
Mission profile for a class C gasoline car (Italian Market)

with an average yearly mileage of 15,000 km/year; overall average speed = 35.5 km/h
MISSIONS Average yearly Average

% of total average yearly Average
distance classes driving length of a
driving distance speed
[km] distance mission
[km]
[km/h]
from to details overview [km]
0 5 1,350 9% 2 18
~ 30%
6 10 2,100 14% downtown
7 23
11 25 3,150 21% 15 28
26 50 2,100 14% 32 41
~ 30%
51 100 1,500 10% highway
58 53
over 100 km 4,800 32% 175 78
TOTAL 15,000 100%
Mission profile for a class C gasoline car (Italian Market)
(average yearly mileage = 15,000 km; overall average speed = 35.5 km/h).
BAR CHART with the breakdown of average annual driving distance in the classes of journey length
6.000
30% downtown 30% highway
5.000 4.800 (32%)

AVERAGE YEARLY MILEAGE
IN EACH CLASS [km]
4.000
3.150 (21%)
3.000
2.100 (14%) 2.100 (14%)

2.000
1.500 (10%)
1.350 (9%)
1.000
0
A B C D E F
(0÷5 km) (6÷10 km) (11÷25 km) (26÷50 km) (51÷100 km) (oltre 100 km)
MISSION MILEAGE CLASSES [km]
Average yearly mileage = 15,000 km
Example of COMPLETE
Average number of missions per year = 1,250 missions/year
MISSION PROFILE Average number of missions in 10,000 km = 833 missions/(10,000 km)
for a whole vehicle
(TIPO gasoline, Averge mission mileage = 12 km/mission
class C, 1987) Average speed (waitings not included) = 35.5 km/h
OCCUPATIONS OF THE MAIN CUSTOMERS [Doxa]

R O A D T Y P E S Entrepreneur
WHERE Regular Irregular Dirt TOTAL Manager
Downtown 22% 8% 30% Professional
Main road 22% 3% 25% Soldier
Mountain/Hill 11% 2% 2% 15% Clerk 30.4%
Highway 30% 30% Worker 33.5%
100.00% Dealer
Commercial agent )
Craftsman (with company)
L O A D I N G S (weights) Others work for themselves (without company)
Driver 1 person + 10 kg luggage 25% Tenant farmer (not employee)
Medium loading 2 persons + 20 kg luggage 50% Farmer employee
Full loading 4 persons + 40 kg luggage 25% Family helper
100.00% Other job
Student
Housewife
A M O U N T O F R A I N D U R I N G 1 Y E A R Retired from wo 11.7%
Average hours Average mileage
Vehicle with rain
Unemployed
of rainfall
With moving car 35 hours 1,000 km Owner, rentier
With parked car - - Other condition unprofessional
TOTAL (*) 1,000 km Total of considered percentage 75.6%
3.1.5
Remarks on Reliability
practical measurements
3.1.5. Remarks on Reliability practical measurements
Design intrinsic
Rd DESIGN reliability
Reliability reduction into

Rp PRODUCTION PROCESS the production process
Actual (or apparent )

Rcs CUSTOMER SERVICE reliability, as perceived
by the customer
What we want to measure is: Roverall = Rd . Rp. Rcs .

Practical measure of Reliability

Reliability,
or, more properly, unreliability,
in many companies (FIAT, GM, etc.),
is measured
by the frequency of the repairs
carried out at the Customer Service
(during the warranty period),
expressed (for example) by the
number of repairs per 100 vehicles
or by the
number of Incidents Per Thousand Vehicles (IPTV)
“Mission” and “measured” reliability
mission reliability
(improves with redundancies)
RELIABILITY
measured reliability
by the number of repairs
per 100 vehicles
at the Customer Service
(worsens with redundancies)
What does not exist can not break

For example, an airplane engine
has a failure probability P and a reliability R = 1 - P.
Let us imagine that a twin-engined plane (equipped with two engines of the
kind described above), to be able to take off and land, needs that at least
one of the engines does work.
As to prevent the airplane to fly, it is necessary that both engines fail, the
probability that the plane crashes (mission unreliability) is equal to P2,
but the probability of a request for repair (measured unreliability ) is ap-
proximately equal to 2.P.
Let us consider now a four-engined aircraft (4 motors of the kind mentio-
ned above), which likewise, in order to take off and land, needs that at least
one of the engines does work.
As it is necessary that all four engines will fail to prevent the aircraft to fly,
the probability that the aircraft crashes (mission unreliability) is now
equal to P4 (much less than the previous one), but the probability of a
request for repair (measured unreliability) is now roughly equal to 4.P
(twice the previous one !).
We must remember 3 concepts:

 we must take account of the reliability of the 3 following
aspects: design, production process and repairs in
Customer Service;
 redundancies improve mission reliability, but not mea-
sured reliability (i.e. that measured by the number of re-
pairs during the warranty period);
 the more complex the design (e.g. for the presence of a large
number of components), the harder the achievement of pre-
determined reliability targets.
3.1.6. “Robustness” concept (Robust Design)
For possible responses to each identified expected function can
be defined:
The ideal value = nominal dimension
A first range, very narrow, within which
virtually no customer is able to percei-
ve the difference between the respon-
ses (this range is of poor importance
from an operational standpoint).
The tolerability range, rather wide. A
annoying zones
response out of it is so unsatisfactory
for the customer to induce him to se-
riously consider the opportunity to chan-
ge supplier. For this reason, the zones
outside it are called annoying zones.
It is appropriate that Quality & Reliability targets refer to the tolerability range
(the wide one) associated with an extremely low probability (typically 3.4 ppm)
of "breached", in order that there are no doubt that, in case of overruns, analysis
and corrective actions will be promptly undertaken.
In the modern concept of reliability,

we say that there has been a failure
when a response(*) to one of the expected functions
comes out of the respective tolerability range
(*) At least one response.

B A S I C I N F O R M A T I O N
 EXPECTED FUNCTIONS (expected by customers)
 MISSION PROFILES (different for different Markets)
 List of NOISE FACTORS (discussed immediately below)
CRITICAL ISSUES SPECIFICATIONS
3.1.6
“Robustness” concept
(Robust Design)
One of the most important

target for companies
today is to offer
“ robust ” products/services
i.e. ”always working”
A product is robust if it’s little affected
by causes of performance variability,
generated both by:
 design and/or process parameters named control
factors,
 environmental factors and mission characteristics
or process parameters whose control has been
judged difficult or too expensive to be controlled: all
are named noise factors.
Noise factors examples :
 environment: pressure, temperature, humidity, vibrations, pollution,
electromagnetic fields, etc.;
 items: dimensions, roughness, hardness, strength, etc.;
 usage: wear-out, overstress, etc.;
 dust ...
So ROBUSTNESS is a requirement for RELIABILITY

For example, a component may not be satisfactory
from the standpoint of Reliability …
 … because, despite being used in a single well-defined
mission profile, it was poorly designed (material not quite
adequate, undersize, over-concentration of stress lines at some
points, etc.),
 … or because not all the most unfavorable use-condi-
tions (those defined by the noise factors in the mission
profile) have been considered: in this case, where the essen-
tial aspect is the acquisition of all the worst situations in which
the component operates, we say that the corrective actions, ai-
med to remedy these situations, make the component "robust".
Of course, in both cases, is involved the component RELIABILITY

Example of “weak” design ( i.e. not “robust” design)
Turning off the engine of a car with the turn signal still running, so-
mething remains polarized in the engine control unit, so that the
next restarting the engine can take several attempts with a loss of
time very annoying.
Turn off the engine with the turn signal “on” is a maneuver rare
but allowed, so the design of this control unit is “weak” and must
be improved.
This example illustrates how the “robustness” (or the “weakness”)

of a design is linked to the full knowledge
(or to an insufficient knowledge) of the mission profile,
which is confirmed as essential for the Reliability.
Basically Robust Design means:

 choosing nominal values of controllable quantities
 so that, all together (“systemic” approach), the
control factors are able to absorb:
 a deviation of one of them,
 or the negative influence of noise factors.
Only if results obtained by varying nominal values are

unsatisfactory, tolerances are allowed to be redu-
ced, but this is a more expensive solution.
Of course, the product robustness is generated by:
 design robustness (aimed to avoid noise factor effects)
 process robustness (aimed to reduce variability)
The Robust Design basic block diagram
Unwanted input  Uncontrollable

X = noise factors  Too expensive to be controlled
Output
Input SYSTEM Y = system response
M = signal factors (product or process) (quality characteristic)
 Control factors not affecting pro-

Z = control & tolerance factors duction costs (Parameter Design)
(defined by the Designer)
 Tolerance factors affecting pro-
duction costs (Tolerance Design)
Signal factors [M]

Input parameters whose values may be selected by the User to obtain
the desired responses.
Control factors [Z] not involving tolerance reduction.

Parameters stated by the Designe without a significant increase in the
production costs.
Tolerance factors [Z] involving tolerance reduction.

Parameters stated by the Designer with a significant increase in the
production costs.
Noise factors [X]

Uncontrollable parameters (also for cost reasons); examples:
 environmental or mission factors;
 production parameters variation;
 accidental decay.
Structure of “influencing factors”
INFLUENCING FACTORS
GOVERNED BY GENERATED BY “EXTERNAL”

GOVERNED BY FACTORS
DESIGNER
DRIVER AND/OR
BY PASSENGERS
(nominal values & • ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
tolerances) • PRODUCTION CONDITIONS
SIGNAL (*) CONTROL NOISE (*)

FACTORS FACTORS FACTORS
UNACCEPTABILITY
TOLERANCE
CUSTOMER'S
EXPECTED
FUNCTION
RESPONSE
ON THE
INPUT PRODUCT TOLERABILITY
RANGE
(borrowed from 6 s )
(*) Signal factors and noise factors are always characterized by a UNACCEPTABILITY
predefined range of variability, outside of which is not generally
guaranteed a satisfactory functioning of the system.
3.1.7
Concept, Parameter and
Tolerance Design
3.1.7. Concept, Parameter and Tolerance Design
The 3 phases
Selects among architectural and technological al-
CONCEPT ternatives, in order to satisfy customer functional
requirements and minimize variability.
DESIGN Main tools:
(or System Design)  Norms;
 Preventive reliability analysis;
 Diagnosis of failures in field;
 Results of problem solving activities (especially D.O.E.).
The CONCEPT phase is often mentioned in Literature,
but without underlying its fundamental importance.
Optimizes the nominal values of control factors,
PARAMETER without tolerance reduction (and related extra
costs).
DESIGN
This phase is used only if the previous one could
TOLERANCE not reach the stated targets. Starting from Parame-
ter Design results, the Tolerance Design reduces
DESIGN tolerances mostly for the control factors with the
best cost/benefits ratios.
Of course these activities are much more expen-
sive than the previous ones.
Robust, Parameter & Tolerance Design

Parameter Design aims to achieve the best possible result
without tightening tolerances,
and therefore without significant cost increases.
Its basic principle is to choose the values of control factors
(design parameters and/or process settings)
so that, taken together, are able of absorbing the effects
of any malfunction of one of them or the negative influence of noise factors.
This is, in essence, to identify the best conditions for the stability of response and it is
amazing the increasing of “robustness” that can be obtained in this way, very little expensive.
This happens especially when the experimental investigations clearly disclose the existence of
interactions, of which the former company’s tradition had not been able to take into account.
Of course, if all this does not produce results sufficiently close to the targets,
we need to accept to narrow tolerances and use the Tolerance Design.
But the preliminary study mentioned above has already produced
a sensitivity analysis that, together with assessments of cost,
will enable us to act optimally with respect to the costs/benefits analysis.
Development and set-up of a solution

THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF RISK
error consequences
To overlook the
Useless attempts to set-up a solution too
CONCEPT DESIGN
much far from customer requirements.
phase
a) Adoption of a design solu-
is the best way

To manage the tion much more expensive
like D.O.E.
A rational
approach
than necessary (concept
PARAMETER DESIGN jump);
phase
without any method b) Adoption of a poor solution
from the customer’s point
of view.
3.1.8
Taguchi’s Loss Function
3.1.8. Taguchi’s Loss Function
Tolerances
represent only a “test”
to accept or to reject,
but it is not true
that all the values within them
satisfy the customers
in the same manner.
Discrete logic Continuous logic

costs are considered Taguchi’s costs are considered
only outside innovation within tolerances
tolerances too
COSTS (SOCIAL LOSSES) = Loss Function
( nomial value )
Target value
Nominal value
TOLERANCE LIMITS
TOLERANCE LIMITS
INSPECTION LOGIC IMPROVEMENT LOGIC

deterministic approach statistical approach
“go / not go” “continuous improvement”
Example of calculating warranty-costs
(incurred in Customer Office)
( nomial value )
Target value
TOLERANCE LIMITS
Let us suppose that, if the value of the characteristic is as shown in the figure,
there is a 1% risk that this component, when assembled with another, gene-
rates a failure (complained by the customer), and its repair costs 100.00 €.
Therefore the cost incurred by the Customer Office can be calculated as:
1
--------- . 100,00 = 1,00 €/component
100
The Loss Function ordinates could be expressed by war-

ranty-costs, estimated as the product of the cost of a repair
multiplied by its frequency (which varies depending on the po-
sition of the characteristic’s value within the tolerance ).
Taguchi recommends to refer to the social costs, which are

the warranty-costs increased by the monetary value of the ti-
me that the customer is forced to lose to get the failure repai-
red.
Social costs represent the upper limit for investments aimed

to improve quality and reliability. In fact, if we spend more, no
one would benefit (except perhaps the manufacturer, but only
in terms of improvement of image).
LOSS FUNCTION
UPPER TOLERANCE LIMIT

LOW TOLERANCE LIMIT
NOMINAL VALUE
We must try to reduce

these yellow tails of poor value
The public showed a strong preference for color Sony television sets produced in Japan, com-
pared to the corresponding produced in the U.S., although both comply with the same specifica-
tions for color intensity.
In fact, the color intensity di-

stribution of the U.S. televi-
sion sets was almost rectan-
gular (i.e. uniform), while that
of Japanese television sets
was centered around the
conditions of greater va-lue,
exhibiting a symmetrical bell-
shaped distribution with a
greater number of devices
with color depth of quality
level A and a proportionately
smaller amount of devices of
quality levels (B and) C.
COLOR
INTENSITY
Quality
levels
COLOR INTENSITY DISTRIBUTION IN TELEVISION SETS

( m = nominal value (target); m ± 5 = tolerance limits ) [ source: The Asahi, April the 17th 1979 ]
AVERAGE LOSS OF QUALITY related to the quality characteristic, y

(expression useful to calculate each ordinate point as a function of m, assuming that s cremains constant) :
L = K [ (m - m)2 + s2]
( nominal value )
Distribution of quality
Target value
characteristic, y,
with mean m and variance s2
Loss Function
m m = process mean
TIPO DI FUNZIONE RAPPRESENTAZIONE CARATTERISTICHE
L(y)
A0
NOMINALE É IL L(y) = k (y-y0) 

- y = valore di target  0 (y0)
k = A0 / (D
Nominal
MIGLIORE - L(y) = simmetrica
the best
(Nominal the best)
y0 - D y0 y0 + D y
L(y) - valore ideale = 0

- non può assumere valori
TANTO PIÙ PICCOLO negativi
A 0 L(y) = k y SPECIAL
- all’aumentare di y peggiora
TANTO MIGLIORE k = A0 / (D
Smaller APPLICATIONS
la prestazione del processo/
(Smaller the better)
the better prodotto in termini di
qualità
D y
L(y)
- valore ideale =  (L(y) = 0)
- non può assumere valori
TANTO PIÙ GRANDE L(y) = k (1/y  negativi

TANTO MIGLIORE A k = A0 / (D - all’aumentare di y la perdita

Larger 0
di qualità diventa via via più
(Larger
the the better)
better piccola
D y
In FCA (Fiat Chrysler Automobiles), the concepts

of Loss Function are use with the name of
QuadSum.
 n n- 1 2 
Q  k m  y 0  
ACCEPTANCE
s 
REJECTION REJECTION 2
AREA AREA AREA
 n-1
n 
Lower
tolerance limit Nominal value Upper
tolerance limit

Q  k DX  S 2 2

QS
To summarize
 Different values of a characteristic, even within the prescribed

tolerance, satisfy the customer at different levels.
 The Loss Function relates the ”social costs” (i.e. warranty
costs added to the monetization of the time lost by the custo-
mer) with the values of the product characteristic, both insi-
de and outside the tolerance.
 The Loss Function is used (e.g. QUADSUM) to quantify the
production process quality regardless of the prescribed to-
lerances (this further information is added to the classical defective
percentage, estimated taking into account the tolerances and ex-
pressed by Cpk).
3.1.9
Practical recommendations
3.1.9. Practical recommendations
• The customer is usually achieved through the

perceived quality on the delivery, rather than
through the reliability, although the reliability may
also play a role through car magazines, opinions
of friends, etc..
• But surely reliability is essential to maintain cu-
stomer's fidelity.
None of the world automobile industry
would be able to achieve reliability targets
as demanding as those currently imposed by the market,
if it should set
the task of preventing and checking for reliability
(for each setting of a new car model)
each time from scratch on all components/systems,
as if for the first time.
The key to actually get products of high reliability,

is to memorize over time "things" certainly valid,
ready for use
(components/systems, specifications, design criteria,
verification methods, experimental tests),
so that being able to concentrate our efforts,
from time to time, on a limited number of new things.
Consequently, it is essential to organize themselves in order to
"do things only once, at the right time"
The main activities to PRACTICALLY GET RELIABILITY
TARGETS can be summarized as follows:
 To standardize “good“ things, so they are easily transferable from one
car model to another, although of different market-classes;
 use as much as possible full carry-over of components/systems reco-
gnized as valid (with savings on subsequent experimental tests);
 never implement any change, without having first validated it in terms of
Reliability;
 begin far upstream the design of components/systems innovative/new
or simply to be improved, and focus their design verifications and experi-
mental tests mainly on these aspects;
 highlight, as soon as possible, all possible criticalities and govern them
along the product development process;
 heavily invest on the consolidation of experience and make available
Standards believable (and therefore followed), easily accessible and up-
dated in real time.
But the crucial point

for achieving excellence
is the ...
… r i g o r ...
… in following the rules that we imposed.
Only after having applied and internalized them,

we can think of improving them,
on the basis of obtained results.
Only in this way a company can meet

the challenges of competition...
… a n d w i n !
3.2
SERIES SYSTEM
AND PARALLEL SYSTEM
3.2. Series system and parallel system
Definition of COMPONENT and SYSTEM
COMPONENT SYSTEM
Object, Set of connected
also complex, components designed
whose reliability to satisfy a function,
can be assessed by whose reliability can not
directly using be assessed by
the statistical data directly using available
from the field. experimental data.
SERIES SYSTEM: basic concept
A B N
The system works only if every component works;

and therefore the system reliability is the product
of the reliabilities of all components:
Rs = P Ri
If all Ri are equal, we can indicate them by Ru and we can write:

Rs = Run
where n is the number of series elements.
SERIES SYSTEM: evaluation of Fs
A B N
Being Rs = P Ri,
the system failure probability is immediately obtained as:
Fs = 1 - Rs = 1 - P Ri = 1 - P (1 - Fi)
If all Fi are equal, we can indicate them by Fu and we can write:

Fs = 1 - (1 - Fu)n
where n is the number of series elements.
SERIES SYSTEM: case of only two elements (with different reliability)
A B
Rs = RA . RB,
Rs = (1 - FA) . (1 - FB) = 1 - FA - FB + FA . FB
Fs = 1 - Rs = FA + FB - FA . FB
This expression is the same as the sum of probabilities

(“union” event) for mutually independent events:
P(AB) = P(A) + P(B) - P(A) . P(B) .
NOT TO BE USED IN THE WRITTEN TEST

SERIES SYSTEM: sensitivity
A B N
The most frequent cause of failure is always

the element with the highest failure frequency:
so, to improve the system, is the weakest element that we must improve.
The sensitivity S of the system reliability, Rs, to the values Ri of the reliability of every element
is given by the derivative of the Rs with respect to the reliability of the specific element i.
The derivative of: Rs = R1 . R2 . … . Ri . … . Rn with respect to Ri,

can be written as:
d Rs d Ri Rs
--------- = R1 . R2 . … . Ri-1 . Ri+1 . Rn . --------- = -------
d Ri d Ri Ri
because, being dRi / dRi = 1 , the derivative is given by the product of all Rj except Ri ,
i.e. by Rs/Ri: therefore the sensitivity S is maximized when Ri is minimal.
This can be confirmed by observing that the reliability of a whole series-system is always lower than the reliabili-
ty of its individual elements (and also of that one less reliable). Thus, if we want to improve the system reliability,
the most convenient thing to do is to improve the reliability of the component currently less reliable, i.e. the
worst (which, having the higher failure frequency, is the main cause of the unreliability of the whole system).
PARALLEL SYSTEM: basic concept

A
B
The system does not work only if

N
every component does not work;
and therefore the system failure probability
is the product of the failure probabilities of all components:
Fs = P Fi
If all Fi are equal, we can indicate them by Fu and we can write:

Fs = F u n
where n is the number of parallel elements.
PARALLEL SYSTEM: evaluation of Rs

A
B
Being Fs = P Fi,
the system reliability is immediately obtained as:
Rs = 1 - Fs = 1 - P Fi = 1 - P (1 - Ri)
If all Ri are equal, we can indicate them by Ru and we can write:

Rs = 1 - (1 - Ru)n
where n is the number of parallel elements.
PARALLEL SYSTEM: case of only two elements (with different reliability)
A
B
Fs = FA . FB,
Fs = (1 - RA) . (1 - RB) = 1 - RA - RB + RA . RB
Rs = 1 - Fs = RA + RB - RA . RB
This expression is the same as the sum of probabilities
(“union” event) for mutually independent events:
P(AB) = P(A) + P(B) - P(A) . P(B) .
NOT TO BE USED IN THE WRITTEN TEST

PARALLEL SYSTEM: sensitivity
A The system continues to operate
until its better element does work,
B regardless of the other elements:
so, to improve the system,
N is the better element that we must improve.
The sensitivity S of the system reliability, Rs, to the values, Ri, of the reliability of every element
is given by the derivative of the Rs with respect to the reliability of the specific element i.
The derivative of: Rs = 1 - [(1 - R1) . (1 - R2) . … . (1 - Ri ) . … . (1 - Rn)] ith respect to Ri,
can be written as:
d Rs d (1-Ri)
--------- = 0 - [(1-R1) . (1-R2) . … . (1-Ri-1) . (1-Ri+1) . (1-Rn) . ------------- =
d Ri d Ri
= - (1-R1) . (1-R2) . … . (1-Ri-1) . (1-Ri+1) . (1-Rn) . (0 - 1) =
1 - Rs
= (1-R1) . (1-R2) . … . (1-Ri-1) . (1-Ri+1) . (1-Rn) = -------------
1 - Ri
PARALLEL SYSTEM: sensitivity
A
B
We see that the searched derivative is given by the product of all (1 - Rj)
except (1 - Ri).
As the product of all (1 - Rj) is (1 - Rs), the derivative can be written as:
(1 - Rs) / (1 - Ri) .
This can be confirmed by observing that the reliability of a whole parallel-system is always higher
than the reliability of its individual elements (and also of that one more reliable). Thus, if we want
to improve the system reliability, the most convenient thing to do is to improve the reliability of
the component currently more reliable, i.e. the best, because, as long as it works, the whole
system continues to operate.
SERIES & PARALLEL SYSTEMS: summary
A B N
Rs = P Ri Fs = 1 - Rs = 1 - P Ri = 1 - P (1 - Fi)
d Rs Rs
--------- = -------
Ri Ri
A Fs = P Fi
B Rs = 1 - Fs = 1 - P Fi = 1 - P (1 - Ri)
d Rs 1 - Rs
N --------- = -----------
d Ri 1 - Ri
STAND-BY SYSTEM: basic concept

A If the element A works correctly,
the element B does not work;
but if the element A fails,
B immediately starts to work.
B
Supposing that A fails at the time tx

within the initial time 0 and the estimation time t,
then the system reliability Rs(t) at the time t is given by:
the A-reliability until the time t
added to
the integral of the B-reliability (from tx to t)
multiplied by the the failure probability density fA of A:
t
Rs(t) = RA(t) +  fA(tx) . RB(t - tx) dtx
0
Source:
A. Birolini
RELIABILITY ENGINEERING:
Theory and Practice
Fourth Edition
Springer, 2004
EXERCISE - Of the system represented below, we want to know:
1. the overall system’s failure frequency (at 500 hours), FS;
2. the component (among A, B and C) that is more suitable to improve in order to reduce
the overall system’s failure frequncy, FS, supposing we can improve only one component.
FAILURE FREQUENCIES
A = 0.03
FA = 0.03 repairs/500 hours
C = 0.0005 FB = 0.02 repairs/500 hours
B = 0.02 FC = 0.0005 repairs/500 hours
X C = 0.0005
FX = P Fi = FA . FB = 0.03 . 0.02 = 0.0006 repairs/500 hours Parallel system X
RS = P Ri = RX . RC = (1 - FX) . (1 - FC) =
= (1 - 0.0006) . (1 - 0.0005) = 0.9994 . 0.9995 = 0.9989 Series system X-C
FS = 1 - RS = 1 - 0.9989 = 0.0011 repairs/500 hours

In order to improve a series-system, we must act on the worst element. Since FX=0.0006 is
greater than FC=0.0005, we must act on the element X (the worse of the two). But X consists of
two elements in parallel. To improve a parallel-system, we must act on the better element. Since
FA=0.03 is greater than FB=0.02, we must improve the element B (the best between A and B).
LEARN MORE ABOUT THE PREVIOUS EXAMPLE
The previous exercise provides an opportunity for a number of very interesting observations, due
to JIAJIE Xu, student of the academic year 2011-2012. From the expression of the previous slide:
RS = RX . RC = (1 - FX) . (1 - FC)
we can easily obtain:
RS = (1 - FA . FB) . RC = (RA + RB - RA . RB) . RC
since it is: 1 - FA . FB = 1 - (1 - RA) . (1 - RB) = 1 - (1- RB - RA + RA . RB) = RB + RA - RA . RB.
If, on the last expression above (in bold), we perform a sensitivity analysis by partial derivati-
ves, using the values of reliability obtainable from the previous slide (RA = 1 - FA = 1,00 - 0,03 =
0,97; RB = 1 - FB = 1,00 - 0,02 = 0,98; RC = 1 - FC = 1,0000 - 0,0005 = 0,9995), we obtain:
d RS
---------- = (1 - RB) . RC = 0.02 . 0.9995 = 0.01999
d RA
d RS
---------- = (1 - RA) . RC = 0.03 . 0.9995 = 0.02989
d RB
d RS
---------- = (RA + RB - RA . RB) = 0.97 + 0.98 - 0.97 . 0.98 = 0.9994
d RC
As the partial derivative with the highest value is by far the one with respect to the ele-
ment C (0,9994), the sensitivity analysis would indicate the opportunity to act on the
element C, instead of the element B, as shown in the previous slide!
To clarify the issue, in the table below, the reliability of the system was recalculated as
a result of improvements (small and large), implemented on the elements in runoff, B
and C, but established by two different criteria.
EQUAL IMPROVEMENT (IN ABSOLUTE VALUE) FOR THE ELEMENTS A AND C IMPROVEMENTS PROPORTIONAL TO THE INITIAL FAILURE FREQUENCY OF EACH ELEMENT
SMALL IMPROVEMENT = 0,00002 It is better to act on element C SMALL IMPROVEMENT = 1,50% It is better to act on element B
FA = 0,030000 FB = 0,019980 FC = 0,000500 FS = 0,001099 FA = 0,030000 FB = 0,019700 FC = 0,000500 FS = 0,001091

 
Improvement = constant Improvement = constant
of B RA = 0,970000 = constant RB = 0,980020 RC = 0,999500 RS = 0,998901 of B RA = 0,970000 = constant RB = 0,980300 RC = 0,999500 RS = 0,998909

 
of C RA = 0,970000 = constant RB = 0,980000 RC = 0,999520 RS = 0,998920 of C RA = 0,970000 = constant RB = 0,980000 RC = 0,999508 RS = 0,998908
BIG IMPROVEMENT = 0,0004 Even more, in this case, it is better to act on element C BIG IMPROVEMENT = 20,00% Even more, in this case, it is better to act on element B

 
of B RA = 0,970000 = constant RB = 0,980400 RC = 0,999500 RS = 0,998912 of B RA = 0,970000 = constant RB = 0,984000 RC = 0,999500 RS = 0,999020

 
of C RA = 0,970000 = constant RB = 0,980000 RC = 0,999900 RS = 0,999300 of C RA = 0,970000 = constant RB = 0,980000 RC = 0,999600 RS = 0,999000
CONCLUSIONS - The above comparisons indicate that, with improvements of the

same absolute value (left column in Figure), it is better to act on element C, because,
having a nominal value much lower than those of elements A and B, it is more sensiti-
ve to corrective actions (as detected by partial derivatives!). On the opposite, with im-
provements in proportion to the initial nominal values (right column in Figure), it is
better to act on element B, in agreement with the general rules provided above.
In fact, partial derivatives express the angular coefficient of the benefits obtainable on the
system reliability. The value of the angular coefficient represents also the order of impor-
tance of the individual elements of the system if we assume an equal increase in reliability
for each element. But, in production, the reliability improvements are generally proportional
to the failure frequency of the element, since it is easier to improve an unreliable element
than a very reliable one!
Rs versus B Rs versus C
0,0015 0,0013
0,0014 0,0012
Failure frequency Rs of the whole system

Failure frequency Rs of the whole system
0,0013
0,0011
0,0012
0,0010
0,0011
0,0009
0,0010
0,0008
y = 0,9994x + 0,0006
0,0009
0,0008 0,0007
0,0007 0,0006
0,0006
0,0005
0,0005
y = 0,03x + 0,0005
0,0004
0,0004
0,0003
0,0003
0,0002
0,0002
0,0001 0,0001
0,0000 0,0000
0,0000 0,0025 0,0050 0,0075 0,0100 0,0125 0,0150 0,0175 0,0200 0,0225 0,0250 0,0275 0,0300 0,00025 0,00030 0,00035 0,00040 0,00045 0,00050 0,00055 0,00060
Failure frequency of B Failure frequency of C
The angular coefficient of the element C (0,9934) is obviously much higher than that of the
element B (0.03): but, clearly, improving C, which already has a very high reliability, is con-
siderably more difficult than improve B.
Therefore, in presence of mixed systems (and not all series or all parallel), we must use
great caution in adopting the results of the partial derivatives.
We have seen that the Reliability function, R(F1, F2, F3, …, Fn), can be differentiated with respect
to each Fi, writing:
dR
dR = ------- dFi
dFi
However dFi expresses here the infinitesimal variation of failure frequency, Fi, in absolute terms.
The same infinitesimal variation of failure frequency, Fi, could be expressed, as a fraction (or si-
milarly as a percentage) of Fi, in the form (dFi/Fi). At this point, we can develop the previous ex-
pression and write:
dR dR dFi
dR = ------- dFi = Fi ------- -------
dFi dFi Fi
Thus we see that the effect of improvements in terms of fraction (or percentage) of the initial
nominal failure frequency is proportional not only to the differential term, but also to the initial
nominal value of the failure frequency, Fi.
With reference to the system of the exercise (where it was: R = (1 - FA . FB) . (1 - FC); FA = 0,03;
FB = 0,02; FC = 0,0005), we obtain the following angular coefficients:
In absolute terms In percentage terms
dR dR
------- = FB . (1 - FC) = 0,019990 FA . ------- = FA . FB . (1 - FC) = 0,0005997 In percentage terms,
dFA dFA the elements A and B
dR dR have equal
------- = FA . (1 - FC) = 0,029985 FB . ------- = FB . FA . (1 - FC) = 0,0005997 partial derivatives.
dFB dFB
dR dR
------- = (1 - FA . FB) = 0,999400 FC . ------- = FC . (1 - FA . FB) = 0,0004997
dFC dFC
3.3
SOURCES
OF INFORMATION
FROM THE FIELD
3.3. Sources of information from the field
A systematic and integrated set of information sources from the field

is needed for the following purposes:
 monitor the product already marketed, especially that of the
latest commercial launch, in order to know:
 frequencies in the field of the most recurrent/important problems
(not only those that have been repaired, but also those who, while
complaining by customers, could not be repaired);
 any other reasons for dissatisfaction by customers;
 Customer Service costs (especially those related to the warrantee);
in order to schedule (if necessary) a plan of action, able to get the
customer satisfaction and to restore the company's good image.
 make available sufficient information to ensure that the new

models under development are devoid of the causes of dis-
satisfaction found on models on the market.
3.3. Sources of information from the field
Essential characteristics
of information sources from the field
1) Acquisition time
2) Types and quality of information
3) Availability in different markets
4) Possibility of (homogeneous) com-

parisons with competitors
3.4
MULTI-TARGET
OPTIMIZATIONS
3.4. Multi-target optimizations
3.4.1
The basic problem
3.4.1. Multi-target optimizations: the basic problem
OPTIMIZATION METHODS
have the purpose of:
 finding the conditions, i.e. the values
xi of independent variables, which
make so that the responses yi (de-
pendent variables) of expected func-
tions are very close to their assigned
targets,
 taking into account of possible con-
straints.
For example, who is looking for home …

 wants to buy, at the lowest possible price,
 a house as large as possible,
 but he also has preferences, which are all
constraints, e.g. on the following:
 maximum sustainable spending
 area of the city
 number of rooms
 floor
 etc..
This problem can be addressed with the following

mathematical approach:
 minimizing price
 maximizing the size of house,
 under the following constraints:
 maximum available amount
 area of the city
 number of rooms
 floor
PROBLEMS CLASSIFICATION
The problems and their solution approaches can be

classified in several ways, depending on your point of view:
 single-target: only one goal to be achieved;

Optimization  multi-target: several targes to be achieved si-
multaneously, often at odds together.
 single-variable: functions are definied by a single

variable;
Problem
 multi-variables: functions are definied by two or
more variables.
Properties of
target  linear;
functions and
of constraint  nonlinear.
functions
3.4.2
Logical and mathematical
tools
3.4.2. Multi-target optimizations: logical & math. tools
Principles
In general, a point is a minimum of the (not

bound(1)) target function if …
 the first derivative becomes zero at that
point
 and if the second derivative is positive.
At this point, the problem is reduced to the

search of the zeros of the function.
(1) “not bound” means “without constraints”.

Therefore, the choice of optimization methods depends

on all the above, and also from information available on
the first and second derivatives:
1. methods of order 0: derivatives are not available;

2. methods of order 1: available information only on
the first derivative;
3. methods of order 2: information is available on both
the first and the second derivative, and then we can
use the information on the function curvature provi-
ded by the second derivative.
Conflict between the targets
Each multi-target problem may be associated with so

many single-target problems as are the targets of the
target function, and this is done preserving all the rela-
tions constraining the global problem.
We define individual optimal point the optimal solu-

tion of each associated single-target problem.
Usually a single solution optimal for all targets

(subject to the same constraints) can not be found.
Such a point, if it exists, is called

IDEAL POINT or UTOPIA POINT.
The idea is then to find solutions that represent the best

compromise between the individual optimal points
of the associated single-target problems.
The choice between several feasible solutions is made
on the basis of the trade-off ratio, which allows a com-
parison between pairs of alternative solutions.
Definitions:
Trade-off: it represents the amount of a target that must

be sacrificed to achieve an improvement in the approach
to another target.
Best trade-off solution: it is the solution to be consi-

dered as the best alternative.
Priority rule in the selection of solutions
One solution is better than another

if it improves at least one target,
without causing any degradation of the other ones.
Transformation of a multi-target problem

It can be mathematically shown that if f(X) and P(f(X))
are compact sets, i.e. closed and bounded, then there
exists a scalar representation of the initial vector
problem, so that a multi-target problem may be tackled
by
the single-target optimization techniques.
This means that, in certain circumstances,
multi-target problems can be "replaced“
by single-target problems.
The compactness of f(X) and P(f(X)) is guaranteed, for
example, if f is a continuous function and X is a bounded set.
“Replacement” techniques
of a multi-target problem
The most widely used “replacement” techniques

are the following two :
 Weights method;
 Constraints method.
3.4.3
“Weights” method
3.4.3. Multi-target optimizations: “weights” method
 It is the oldest, the most simple and the most widely

used “replacement” technique of a vectorial optimiza-
tion problem.
 It is independent from the individual minimum points;
 The target function is determined as a linear combina-
tion of the individual functions f1,...fm multiplied by
coefficients w1,...,wm, called "weights“, which establish
a preference among targets.
3.4.3. Multi-target optimizations: “weights” method
From a general point of view, mathematical aspects are not a big deal,
but the main difficulty is to assign to the "weights" values consistent with
the physical reality of the phenomenon to be optimized.
The typical reference tool in order to assign to the weights

values consistent with the customer’s point of view
is the Quality Function Deployment (QFD),
which has already been discussed.
But even with its support, it is not easy to determine the values of weights,
with sufficient accuracy, so that the mathematical processing of data
is able to provide the best trade-off from the customer’s point of view.
For example, in an engine, what are the correct values of the  performances
weights (for each of the features listed on the right) that allow  fuel economy
the subsequent mathematical processing to identify the best  pollution
configuration capable of inducing the customer to purchase ?  costs
If the assignment of "weights" is not consistent with the values that induce custo-
mers to purchase, the mathematical solution will certainly result in low efficiency.
3.4.4
“Constraints” method
3.4.4. Multi-target optimizations: “constraints” method
 The transformation of the vector problem in a scalar pro-

blem is obtained by optimizing only one at the time of
the target functions, and using the other as constraints.
 The decision maker expresses their preferences among
the various targets by setting specific acceptability li-
mits for each target.
In this way, the problem becomes the following:

 minimizing f1,
 and preventing the other functions y1,...,ym, of
exceeding the values assumed as a predeter-
mined acceptability limit.
Usually f1 is a function of which,

a priori, we do not know the limit value y1.
If we assume, for all the constraint conditions,

values that reflect the ideal expectations,
it is quite likely that the problem does not admit solutions.
Therefore the main difficulty

lies in establishing, a priori and for each constraint,
what can we "waive“
respect to the ideal conditions.
So the choice of the final solution depends,
ultimately, on the acceptability
of all the assumed constraint conditions,
without any certainty
of having discovered the best solution in absolute.
3.4.5
Comparison of two methods
and their integrated use
3.4.5. Multi-target optimizations: comparison of 2 methods
Both the weights method and the constraints method

would work automatically, from the mathematical point
of view, once all the weights or all of the constraints (re-
spectively) have been assigned correctly.
But this their strong point is also their limit, because:

• on the one hand, it is very difficult to accurately assign
weights a priori: and weights, approximately evaluated, can
alter the order of priority and consequently distort the results;
• on the other hand, it is typical to plan, when we work a
priori, so narrow constraints as to preclude any possible
solution.
It is therefore preferable a less automated approach

using both methods in a more or less integrated arrangement.
The procedure is easier to manage if we proceed step by step.
a) It is preferable to start with the constraints method, listing all the con-
straints “we ideally want“.
b) If, as happens in most cases, this way will not get to any solution, we
have to establish an order of importance (from the customer’s point of
view) of each constraint: somehow, this relates to the weights method.
c) In parallel, we can define, for each considered constraint, a softening,
changing “ideally desired" values in "acceptable“ values.
d) It begins to take on, for each constraint (one at a time starting from the
less important ones) "acceptable“ values: if a solution is found we stop,
otherwise we proceed, "softening" the subsequent constraint in order of
importance.
e) If not even this gives us a viable solution, we must replace, for each
constraint, the above "acceptable“ values with some "minimum accep-
table" values less demanding than the previous ones and re-start again
from step d.
f) If even this will not provide an acceptable trade-off, we must give up so-
mething else, perhaps with a minimum of importance.
Usually, however, things are successful, and, in this way, we

combine the benefits of the two methods, with the added (not
negligible!) advantage of being able to "follow" step by step
the evolution of the solutions gradually assumed.
3.5
RELIABILITY TARGETS
DEPLOYMENT
3.5. Reliability targets deployment
In the case of systems consisting of multiple subsystems, the con-

gruence between the overall targets at the whole-vehicle level and
the targets of individual components, can be achieved, depending
on the situation, through two basic approaches:
 definition of the overall target of strategic value (for
Deployment
Targets
example by comparisons with the best competitors) and
subsequent allocation of targets at the component le-
vel, based on results from the field and detailed compa-
rison with the best competitors: TOP-DOWN approach;
fying technical fea-
people from various

defined after veri-
 targeting at the component level, by analyzing all
sibility and budget

(at meetings with
Reachability
departments)
the improvements that can be implemented in the de-
sign and/or in the production process, and subsequent
evaluation of the achievable target at the whole
vehicle level: BOTTOM-UP approach.
EXAMPLE OF Archetype
TARGETS 200
DEPLOYMENT:
Group 1 Group n
TOP-DOWN
Steering
Engines Brake
system Painting
"Fire" system
APPROACH
"Sulmona"
11,575 4,500 7,475 3,025
Carry-over from Carry-over from

Specific parts
UNO TIPO
1,350 2,225 0,925
Steering
Steering
Steering shaft Steering
Others shafts and Others
wheel support box
couplings
bushings
0,925 0,425 1,200 1,025 0,625 0,300
80/200 = 0,4
Archetype's values New car
multiplied by 0,4
model
80
Group 1 Group n
Steering
Engines Brake
system Painting
"Fire" system
"Sulmona"
4.63 1.80 2.99 1.21
Carry-over from Carry-over from

Specific parts
UNO TIPO
0.54 0.89 0.37
Steering
Steering
Steering shaft Steering
Others shafts and Others
wheel support box
couplings
bushings
0.37 0.17 0.48 0.41 0.25 0.12
BLOCK DIAGRAM OF DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUE
I N P U T S AA CT T TI V I TI I TE À
I V S OUT P U T S
OBIETTIVO
Whole
avehicle
livello
TARGETS
totale veicolo
Distinction between
Suddivisione
carry-over and specific
carry-over e specifici
COMPUTER DEPLOYMENT
components
INFORMATIZZATA
OBIETTIVI
TARGETS
Some component sì
Failure frequencies Reliability has a more demanding
più severo
yes ALLOCATION
Frequenze di guasto DEPLOYMENT ASSEGNAZIONE
(from targets targetobiettivo
than OF
DI AFFIDABILITÀ
rispetto
da Rete Assistenziale
Customer Service)
obiettivi di affidabilità
the archetype? OBIETTIVI
DEPLOYMENT precedente ? RELIABILITY
PROCEDURE
DI AFFIDABILITÀ
TARGETS
A LIVELLO
FOR DI
DEPLOYMENT
no
OF RELIABILITY
no COMPONENTE
Warranty costs INDIVIDUAL
Costi COMPONENTS
(from
da Rete Assistenziale
Customer Service)
PROCEDURA
Average Failure
Gravità Targets
Severity
THE
RITARATURA
da Tabelle di
(for each component) TUNING
FORDI
Competitors data
Dati concorrenza
(if available)
(dove disponibili)
3.6
MAIN INDICATORS
OF THE REACHED
RELIABILITY LEVEL
3.6. Main indicators of the reached reliability level
3.6.1
R(t), F(t) and M(t)
functions
3.6.1. R(t), F(t) and M(t) functions
Non-repairable systems: basic functions
R(t)Curve F(t)functions
and F(t) e R(t)
1,0
0,9
Failure probability
Probabilità F(t) == 11 -- R(t)
di guasto F(t) R(t)
PROBABILITÀPROBABILITY
0,8
CUMULATA
0,7
0,6
0,5
CUMULATIVE
0,4
0,3
0,2
Affidabilità
Reliability R(t)
R(t) == 11 -- F(t)
F(t)
0,1
0,0
0 50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000 250.000 300.000 350.000
MILEAGE, km (or
PERCORRENZA, kmhours
(o tempo o cicli)
or cycles)
Function R(t) always starts from the value 1 and becomes equal to zero when all tested items are bro-
ken (in this case outside the right side of the graph). Function F(t) always starts from zero and becomes
equal to 1 when all tested items are broken (in this case outside the right side of the graph).
“Non-repairable” systems
and F(t) e R(t)
1,0
0,9
Failure probability
di guasto F(t) R(t)
0,8
CUMULATA
0,7
0,6
0,5
CUMULATIVE
0,4
0,3
0,2
Affidabilità
Reliability R(t)
R(t) == 11 -- F(t)
F(t)
0,1
0,0
0 50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000 250.000 300.000 350.000
MILEAGE, km (or
(o tempo o cicli)
or cycles)
f(t)CURVE
& h(t) f(t)
functions
e h(t)
Both functions are often
GUASTO RATE
1,2E-05
denoted by l,
1,1E-05 which creates confusion.
DIHAZARD
1,0E-05
9,0E-06
e TASSO&
h(t) della sola componente esponenziale (inconvenienti casuali )

8,0E-06
FUCNTION
7,0E-06 Hazard rate(1) = h(t) = 1/R(t) * dF(t)/dt

DI PROBABILITÀ
6,0E-06
DENSITÀDENSITY
5,0E-06 Probability density function = f(t) = dF(t)/dt

4,0E-06
3,0E-06
PROBABILITY
2,0E-06
1,0E-06
0,0E+00
0 25.000 50.000 75.000 100.000 125.000 150.000 175.000 200.000 225.000 250.000
MILEAGE, km (or (o tempo o cicli)
or cycles)
These slides can not be reproduced or distributed without permission in writing from the author. (1) o “failure rate” . 125
Instead of “hazard rate”,

it is used (even more often) the term “failure rate”,
with the same meaning.
To obtain the hazard rate, we divide the Probability Density
Function f(t) by the Reliability R(t). This means to refer the
failure probability to the “surviving” at the time t (rather
than to the total number of tested components).
Concept of constant hazard rate - Assuming that the fai-
lure-free operating time is exponentially distributed and
knowing that the item is functioning at the present time, its
behavior in the future will not depend on how long it has
already been operating(1) .
(1) Alessandro Birolini - RELIABILITY ENGINEERING: Theory and Practice, Fourth Edition, Springer, 2004
As we have just seen, both

the f(t), derivative of F(t),
and the hazard rate function, h(t),
have a characteristic shape called “bathtub curve”.
But, strictly speaking,
only the hazard rate function, h(t),
entitled to be called bathtub curve,
while, both the derivative of F(t)
and the derivative of M(t)
which will be discussed early on,
can be said, at most,
“pseudo-bathtub curves”.
When we refer to only one failure mode (component/de-

fect), the F(t) distribution can be well represented by a
Weibull distribution, which, just by this application, is cal-
led the "failure law“.
In particular, if the considered failure mode concerns ran-

dom failures, its distribution is, by definition, exponential,
or, which is the same, a Weibull distribution with b = 1.
In Paragraph 2.3.4.9 [of Chap. 2 - Fundamentals Of Ap-

plied Statistics], we showed that, in this last case, hazard
rate h(t) is constant for any value of t.
f(t) & h(t) functions for random

CURVE failures
f(t) e h(t)(which are exponentially distributed)
esponenziali
1,2E-05
1,1E-05
1,0E-05
h(t) = constant
9,0E-06
DI PROBABILITÀ
8,0E-06
rate
7,0E-06
Hazard
6,0E-06
5,0E-06
DENSITÀ
4,0E-06
f(t)
3,0E-06
2,0E-06
1,0E-06
0,0E+00
0 25.000 50.000 75.000 100.000 125.000 150.000 175.000 200.000 225.000 250.000
or cycles)
Usually a Weibull distribution is used to characterize the

specific "failure law“ of every “component/defect combine”
of a more or less complex system.
But sometimes we may want the diagram of the functions

F(t), f(t) and h(t) related to the total of all possible failu-
res of the investigated system.
To this aim, a model of easy implementation may consist

of 3 Weibull, each with their own shape parameter b and
characteristic life h, in order to represent the overall trend
of infant-mortality, random and wear-out failures.
Weights =
Each of the 3 Weibull must
be “weighted” according to
the proportion of different
kind of failures (infant morta-
lity, random and wear-out) on
the considered system.
An EXCEL spreadsheet was

used to define the functions
above and an excerpt of it is
shown here.
Abscissa
All the 3 Weibull are always

present for any value of t,
although with different impact
due to the different values of
characteristic life h (the ef-
fect of which is added to that
of "weights" mentioned abo-
ve).
Composition of an actual bathtub curve

0,000020
infant mortality (weighted)

useful life = random failures (weighted)
wear-out (weighted)
0,000015
RESULTING CURVE
Hazard rate, h(t)
0,000010
0,000005
0,000000
0 50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000 250.000 300.000 350.000
Covered distance [km]
The simultaneous presence of all three Weibull, which distinguishes this model, has
the result that the bottom of the function h(t) can not generally be perfectly flat, as in
the case of a single exponential distribution (only random failures). We can also
observe that a horizontal stroke of the function h(t) = f(t)/R(t) usually excludes a
corresponding horizontal stroke of the function f(t), since it should remain constant
R(t), which is impossible.
2,5E-5
2,0E-5
h(t)
GUASTO
Wear-out
TASSO DIRATE,
1,5E-5
Infant mortality
HAZARD
1,0E-5
Useful life
5,0E-6
(constant)
0,0E+0
0 25.000 50.000 75.000 100.000 125.000 150.000 175.000 200.000
PERCORRENZA,
MILEAGE,km km
km( o (or (o tempo
tempo
hours o cicli)
oorcicli )
cycles)
A graph like that above can not arise from the model with the three Weibull discus-
sed before. Nevertheless it is the most commonly mentioned in Literature. It is not
unreasonable, but implies that, between the end of the area of infant mortality
and the beginning of that of wear-out, there are only random failures. That is to
say that the model is composed of three Weibull juxtaposed and truncated at the
end of each zone, with no overlap between them. In the central zone, the Weibull
would present b = 1, becoming an exponential distribution.
From a technical point of view, the previous hypothesis about the horizontal
stroke of the hazard rate means to assume that, in the useful life zone,
can never happen a “late” failure of infant mortality, nor an “early”
failure of wear-out.
We can not exclude that the practice presents situations of this kind, but it
seems not to be the more general case. Thus the graph of Literature is
mainly important from a conceptual point of view.
“Non-repairable” systems “Repairable” systems

and F(t) e R(t)
1,0
0,9
Failure probability
di guasto F(t) R(t)
0,8
CUMULATA
0,7
0,6
0,5
CUMULATIVE
0,4
0,3
0,2
Affidabilità
Reliability R(t)
R(t) == 11 -- F(t)
F(t)
0,1
0,0
0 50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000 250.000 300.000 350.000
MILEAGE, km (or
(o tempo o cicli)
or cycles)
f(t)CURVE
& h(t) f(t)
functions
e h(t)
GUASTO RATE
1,2E-05
1,1E-05
DIHAZARD
1,0E-05
9,0E-06
e TASSO&
8,0E-06
FUCNTION
7,0E-06
DI PROBABILITÀ
6,0E-06
DENSITÀDENSITY
5,0E-06
4,0E-06
3,0E-06
PROBABILITY
2,0E-06
1,0E-06
0,0E+00
0 25.000 50.000 75.000 100.000 125.000 150.000 175.000 200.000 225.000 250.000
or cycles)
Repairable systems: basic function
M(t) function
Curva M(t)
8
Wear-out
UNIT
UNITÀ
7
M(t) values
may exceed
t
PER
al tempo
unity
FAILURES PER
6
/ unità]
at the time t
Useful life
GUASTI
]
cumulato
[repairs / unit
5
[inconvenienti
Presence of
MEDIO DIOF
failures also
cumulated
4
AVERAGE NUMBER
at 0 km [FCA]
mediamente
3 M(t) estimation
at 24 months of use
l = constant slope of the linear stroke
Infant NUMERO
1
Average warranty
mortality
driving distance
0
0 25.000 50.000 75.000 100.000 125.000 150.000 175.000 200.000 225.000 250.000
or cycles)

and F(t) e R(t) M(t) function
Curva M(t)
1,0
8
UNIT
0,9
UNITÀ
Failure probability
di guasto F(t) R(t) 7
t
PER
0,8
al tempo
CUMULATA
FAILURESPER
6
[inconvenienti / unità]
t
0,7
at the time
GUASTI
]
cumulato
unit
0,6 5
/
MEDIO DIOF
[repairs
0,5
cumulated
CUMULATIVE
NUMERO NUMBER
mediamente
0,4
3
0,3
AVERAGE
2
0,2
Affidabilità
Reliability R(t)
R(t) == 11 -- F(t)
F(t) 1
0,1
0
0,0
0 25.000 50.000 75.000 100.000 125.000 150.000 175.000 200.000 225.000 250.000
0 50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000 250.000 300.000 350.000
or cycles)
MILEAGE, km (or
(o tempo o cicli)
or cycles)
f(t)CURVE
& h(t) f(t)
functions
e h(t)
GUASTO RATE
1,2E-05
1,1E-05
DIHAZARD
1,0E-05
9,0E-06
e TASSO&
8,0E-06
FUCNTION
7,0E-06
DI PROBABILITÀ
6,0E-06
DENSITÀDENSITY
5,0E-06
4,0E-06
3,0E-06
PROBABILITY
2,0E-06
1,0E-06
0,0E+00
0 25.000 50.000 75.000 100.000 125.000 150.000 175.000 200.000 225.000 250.000
or cycles)
Repairable systems: derivative
l function
Curva = = dM(t)/dt
dM(t)/dt
8,0E-05
FUNCTION
7,0E-05
ZA DI GUASTO
x km)]
6,0E-05
DENSITY
x km)
/ (unità ]
5,0E-05
DI FREQUEN
[ repairs / (unit
PROBABILITY
4,0E-05
[inconvenienti
3,0E-05
INTENSITÀ
2,0E-05
FAILURE
1,0E-05
0,0E+00
0 25.000 50.000 75.000 100.000 125.000 150.000 175.000 200.000 225.000 250.000
or cycles)

and F(t) e R(t) M(t) function
Curva M(t)
1,0
8
UNIT
0,9
UNITÀ
Failure probability
di guasto F(t) R(t) 7
t
PER
0,8
al tempo
CUMULATA
FAILURESPER
6
[inconvenienti / unità]
t
0,7
at the time
GUASTI
]
cumulato
unit
0,6 5
/
MEDIO DIOF
[repairs
0,5
cumulated
CUMULATIVE
NUMERO NUMBER
mediamente
0,4
3
0,3
AVERAGE
2
0,2
Affidabilità
Reliability R(t)
R(t) == 11 -- F(t)
F(t) 1
0,1
0
0,0
0 25.000 50.000 75.000 100.000 125.000 150.000 175.000 200.000 225.000 250.000
0 50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000 250.000 300.000 350.000
or cycles)
MILEAGE, km (or
(o tempo o cicli)
or cycles)
f(t)CURVE
& h(t) f(t)
functions
e h(t) l function
Curva = = dM(t)/dt
dM(t)/dt
GUASTO RATE
1,2E-05 8,0E-05
FUNCTION
1,1E-05
DIHAZARD
7,0E-05
GUASTO
DI GUASTO
1,0E-05
km)]
6,0E-05
xx km)]
9,0E-06
DENSITY
x km) ]
e TASSO&
ZA DI
8,0E-06
FUCNTION
ZA
(unità
5,0E-05
// (unità
7,0E-06 FREQUEN
[ repairs / (unit
DI FREQUEN
PROBABILITY
DI PROBABILITÀ
6,0E-06 4,0E-05
[inconvenienti
[inconvenienti
DENSITÀDENSITY
5,0E-06
3,0E-05
4,0E-06
INTENSITÀ
3,0E-06 2,0E-05
PROBABILITY
FAILURE
2,0E-06
1,0E-05
1,0E-06
0,0E+00
0,0E+00
0 25.000 50.000 75.000 100.000 125.000 150.000 175.000 200.000 225.000 250.000
0 25.000 50.000 75.000 100.000 125.000 150.000 175.000 200.000 225.000 250.000
(o tempo o cicli) PERCORRENZA, km
kmhours
cicli)
or cycles)
MILEAGE, km (or or cycles)
Construction of the M(t) function

from experimental data
If all tested vehicles have covered the same distance, the con-
struction of the M(t) function does not present any problem.
Remembering that it represents the average number of failu-
res per vehicle cumulated at a given mileage, we see that it
is enough to detect the number of failures up to the assigned
mileage and divide it by the total number of tested vehicles.
The value so calculated is a point on the diagram. This calcula-
tion is then repeated at specified mileages and the points so
determined can then be connected by a curve, which is the M(t)
function.
On the contrary, if the vehicles cover different distances (e.g.
because they are needed for other tests, or because they had an ac-
cident, or simply because we accept a lower confidence at highest
mileage in order to progressively reduce the sample and thus the
costs), then the calculation is a little more complicated and we
have two alternatives depending on the situation.
 If we operate manually (without computer), we must develop
the calculation by mileage classes (see next slides).
 If we use a computer, we can make a calculation quite similar
to that described above, except to evaluate a new point on the
diagram each time the number of tested vehicles changes
(= mostly decreases), rather than at the end of every mileage
class. In this way, the number of calculations to be performed
considerably increases compared to the manual method (but
this is irrelevant because it is the computer that makes them)
and the accuracy of results is significantly improved.
0,5 3.6.1. R(t), F(t) and M(t) functions
0 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 km
Let us imagine to perform a reliability test over 25,000 km on 8

5
cars, but only 3 cars actually exceed this distance, for example
4
because someone is stopped for an accident or has been taken
3
3
for other uses during the test. The diagram below shows mileage
2
2
classes of 5,000 km and visually summarizes the final situation.

1
1 1 1
0 0
0 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 km

depending on the covered distance
N° vetture oltre
le varie soglie di 8 7 7 6 4 3 0
percorrenza 
NUMBER OF CARS
0 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 km
At the conclusion of the test, we can distribute the total failures detected in
the same mileage classes of the previous diagram, as shown in the
histogram below:
4
3
3
2
2
1 1 1
1
0 0
0 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 km
Of course, a cumulative curve as the dotted one above would be misleading, be-
cause it does not take into account that the number of cars (= denominator) becomes
progressively smaller and smaller with the progress of the test and it is therefore ex-
pected a slope much steeper than the almost linear one, shown in the Figure.
 The calculation must be performed class by class.

 The class of 0 km (failures “on delivery” = static test aimed to detect
"non-compliances", which can also be considered as reliability in a enlar-
ged meaning) may or may not be present, depending on the job procedu-
res and on the detected data. To complete the example, from now on, we
will assume to have found, at the beginning of the test, 1 failure at 0 km
(not recorded in the previous histogram, which only reports failures de-
tected in the dinamic test and therefore of reliability in the strict sense).
 We divide the total number of failures detected in a class by the avera-
ge number of cars present in that class (within its low and upper limits).
 Except for the first class, we have to add to this value the M(t) value
calculated at the preceding class.
 This sum (or value, if it is the first class) will will have the abscissa of the
upper limit of the considered class (because we have to wait until the
end of the class for collecting all the failures present in it).
 The following slides graphically shows the procedure.
2,0
1,5
3 / 7.5 =1,00.400
0.125 + 0.400 = 0.525
0,5
0 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 km

[not everybody includes them in M(t)]
Failures at“a0 km”
5
1 / 8 = 0,125
4
3
3
2
2
1 1 1
1
0 0
0 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 km

N° vetture oltre
le varie soglie di 8 7.5 7 7 6 4 3 0
NUMBER OF CARS
percorrenza 
These slides can not be

0 reproduced or distributed
5.000without permission in writing from the author.
10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 km 145
2,0
1,5
1,0
The last segment may be
less reliable
0,5
for the small number
of cars remaining in test.
0 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 km
km Incrementi
Increments Cumul.
5 A nuovo : 0 1/8,0 = 0,125 0,125
4 5.000 3/7,5 = 0,400 0,525
10.000 1/7,0 = 0,143 0,668
3
3 15.000 2/6,5 = 0,308 0,976
2 20.000 1/5,0 = 0,200 1,176
2
25.000 0/3,5 = 0,000 1,176
1 1 1
1
30.000 1/1,5 = 0,667 1,842
0 0
0 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 km

N° vetture oltre
le varie soglie di 8 7.5 7 7.0 7 6.5 6 5.0 4 3.5 3 1.5 0
NUMBER OF CARS
percorrenza 
These slides can not be

0 reproduced or distributed
5.000without permission in writing from the author.
10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 km 146
EXAMPLE OF SPREADSHEET FOR AUTOMATIC CALCULATIONS
No. of No. of VEHICLES FAILURES/VEHICLES

MILEAGE FAILURES at the average M(t)
at the increments
at the end detected in low limit upper in the function
the class limit in the class ordinates
of class of the class
of the (a/b) (cumulated
[ km ] (a) class
class (b)
increments)
On delivery : 0 1 8 8 8,0 0,125 0,125
5.000 3 8 7 7,5 0,400 0,525
10.000 1 7 7 7,0 0,143 0,668
15.000 2 7 6 6,5 0,308 0,976
20.000 1 6 4 5,0 0,200 1,176
25.000 0 4 3 3,5 0,000 1,176
30.000 1 3 0 1,5 0,667 1,842
Points so calculated may then be interpolated, for example with a cubic
2,0
1,8
1,6
1,4
Failures/vehicles
1,2
1,0
0,8
0,6
0,4
y = 1 . 10-13 . x3 - 5 . 10-09 . x2 + 0,0001 . x + 0,1118
R2 = 0,9721; r = 98,6%
0,2
0,0
0 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000
Mileage [km]
CONFIDENCE INTERVAL (CONFIDENCE BAND)
FOR M(t) CURVES
Point by point, the Confidence Interval of an M(t) curve:

 is proportional to the failure frequency in each point;
 and, within this context, it is inversely proportional to
the number of detected failures up to that time.
In other words: the larger the number of detected failures,

the greater the knowledge of the investigated component!
Connecting the points that constitute the confidence limits (upper or lower),
for each of the points of the curve M(t) for which the calculation has been carried out,
we obtain the so-called “confidence band“
(“band” because previous and following Confidence Intervals confirm the middle ones)
CONFIDENCE INTERVAL (BAND) FOR M(t) CURVES
Denoting by:
n = the total number of tested units until time t
T = n.t = the equivalent total test time
r = the total number of failures detected at time t
M(t) = the average number of failures per unit cumulated at time t
1-a = the one sided (= unilateral) Confidence Level (a = significance)
c2 = the inverse chi-square function,
the Confidence Interval Lower and Upper Limits for a test (which may be truncated
at whatever time t) are given by the following expressions:
M(t) M(t)
M(t)L = ---------- ; M(t)U = ----------
KU KL
where KU and KL may be found in specific Tables or calculated as shown in the next
slide.
CONFIDENCE INTERVAL (BAND) FOR M(t) CURVES: calculation of KU and KL
2.r 2.r
KU = ------------- ; KL = -------------
c2{2r; 1-a} c2{2r+2; a}
The previous expressions are easily understood by remembering that the c2 values of
the denominators represent respectively the Lower and Upper Limit of the Confidence
Interval for the expected number of failures in the specific conditions.
These two expressions become meaningless when no failures have been detected,
i.e. when r = 0.
In this case, only the Confidence Interval Upper Limit is meaningful and it can be
calculated by the following expression:
c2{2; a}
M(t)U = ---------- for r = 0
2.T
CONFIDENCE INTERVAL (BAND) FOR M(t) CURVES: final discussion
From the previous expressions (with r ≠ 0), we obtain the following expression for the
Confidence Interval Upper Limit:
M(t) c2{2r+2; a}
M(t)U = -------- = -------------- . M(t)
KL 2.r
It’s evident that the factor which multiplies M(t) is not (directly) related to the sam-
ple size, but only to the number of failures (and, of course, to the assigned Con-
fidence Level). Therefore the Confidence Interval is proportional to:
 to the mean value, M(t), of the cumulative failure frequency, which de-
pends on both the number of detected failures and the number of tested units(1)
(as it is their ratio) …
 … and to a coefficient, which only depends on the number of detected failu-
res (through r and c2) and on the required Confidence Level (through a).
The number of detected failures may be calculated as the product of the mean
value M(t) by the number of units in the sample (= sample size)(2): therefore, when
the sample size is the same (i.e. constant), smaller values of M(t) have propor-
tionally larger Confidence Intervals.
(1) Of course, the number of tested units affects the accuracy of the M(t) estimate, but not directly its value.
(2) This product is equal to the product of the Probability Density Function, l, multiplied by the time t (e.g.: km, hours, cycles)
and then multiplied by the number of tested units.
From M(t) function we can obtain an

“extended” bathtub curve
(“extended”, because, strictly speaking, failures at t = 0 are
not part of Reliability under a “scientific” point of view)
expresses the
number of failure
per unit (e.g. car) and per km
perceived by the customer,
regardless of whether they are
of “true” reliability or not.
Usefulness of the pseudo bathtub curve
infant useful life wear-out
mortality
FAILURE FREQUENCY DENSITY l
Failures
[repairs / (cars x 100 km)]
mainly attributable to the

production process wear-out failures
(strictly) infant mortality

failures
early
failures
random failures
in infant mortality period
Part of them are present also in

the infant mortality period
random failures ( l = constant )
They are called random because their probability of occurrence does not change with mileage
0 and they are mainly
0 M I L E A G E [km] attributable to the design
3.6.2
Weibull Chart
and “failure law”
3.6.2. Weibull Chart and “failure law”
We remember (see Chapter 2.3.4.8) that the mathematical expression of

the cumulative Weibull distribution is è :
b
t
- (-----)
h
F(t) = 1 - e
where:
b = shape parameter
h = scale parameter: it enlarges or tightens the curve without modifying its shape;
it is the abscissa value which leaves on its left il 63,2% of data and it is
called “characteristic life”.
One of the strong points of Weibull distribution is the variety of shapes that it
can assume as a function of different values of b.
In the automotive field, the dif-

ferent shapes of Weibull distri-
bution, describeb by the value of
the exponent or shape parame-
ter b, are used to represent spe-
cific categories of failures:
b = 0.5
INFANT MORTALITY
b = 1.0
RANDOM
b = 2.0
WEAR-OUT b < 1  infant mortality failures
failures failures failures
b = 1  random failures
b > 1  wear-out failures
Truncated sample
Having a software
program, it is easy to
estimate the
“confidence band”.
Note that
the more reliable
points are
the central ones,
because they are
confirmed
by the preceding and
by the following points.
Weibull Chart
sheet
3.6.2.1
Weibull knee
Sometimes it may be convenient to represent two laws of failure
on a single graph: this is known as a Weibull with a knee.
Each Weibull straight line

should refer
only to one
component/defect
combine.
ProbabilitàPROBABILITY
In the graph on the right, at

cumulata
the beginning there is an

infant mortality problem,
followed by a wear-out
problem.
CUMULATIVE
In the first km, wear-out is

hidden and hardly
perceptible, so that infant
mortality prevails, but, after
a certain mileage, wear-out
becomes predominant and
overshadows the effect of
infant mortality: the
ordinate is
double logarithmic!
Percorrenza [km]
MILEAGE [km]
3.6.2.1. Weibull knee
In fact, each straight line segment of the knee,
refers to a single component/defect combine.
In the example, initially there is a defect of infant mortality,
followed by a second defect of wear-out, as clearly seen from the Cartesian graphs.
CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTIONS
CUMULATE OF THE
DELLE DUE LEGGI DI TWO FAILURE LAWS
GUASTO PROBABILITY
DENSITÀ DENSITY
DI PROBABILITÀ OF THE
DELLE DUETWO FAILURE
LEGGI LAWS
DI GUASTO
1,00 0,000007
0,90
0,000006
0,80
DENSITY
CUMULATA
DENSITÀ DI PROBABILITÀ
0,000005
0,70
0,60
0,000004
PROBABILITY
0,50
CUMULATIVE
0,000003
0,40
0,30
0,000002
0,20
0,000001
0,10
0,00 0,000000
0 25.000 50.000 75.000 100.000 125.000 150.000 175.000 200.000 225.000 250.000 275.000 300.000 0 25.000 50.000 75.000 100.000 125.000 150.000 175.000 200.000 225.000 250.000 275.000 300.000
PERCORRENZA
COVERED [km][km]
DISTANCES PERCORRENZA
COVERED [km] [km]
DISTANCES
In the first few kilometers, the wear-out is “latent” and does not produce perceptible manifestations,
so that the infant mortality failure mode (red curve) is dominant,
but after a certain distance (about 110,000 km), is clearly predominant
the wear-out failure mode (blue curve), overwhelming the effect of infant mortality,
now completely negligible: remember that the ordinate is double-logarithmic!
Cover gasket
Source: A. Garro, Progettazione strutturale

Cam cover
del motore, Levrotto & Bella, Turin, 1992

An example of these situations
can be represented by
the cylinder head gasket
Cylinder head gasket
It can give rise to leaks:

 or because badly positioned (or folded): it is an infant mortality failure due
to the production process;
 or because it has been “burned" because of excessively high temperatures of
the cylinder head during the customer’s use; the “burning" involves the
transition from elastic state to plastic state, with the consequent loss of sealing:
it is a wear-out failure, due to the design (not suitable gasket material or weak
design of the gasket).
CONCLUSIONS ABOUT WEIBULL’s KNEE

For convenience, we can also put together two distinct failure laws
in the same Weibull Chart (with a knee),
but we have to remember that the failure modes are two different
and therefore also the corrective actions must be (at least) two.
It is also possible to use more than one knee (e.g. 2 knees)
in the same graph.
We underline that:
 the classical (and correct) use of the Weibull straight line
is with only one failure mode (component/defect);
 for this reason, we say that it represents the “failure law”
by means of its slope (or exponent) b.
3.6.2.2
Bx = n [km, hours, cycles]
3.6.2.2. Bx = n [km, hours, cycles]
We often highlight some values of special interest,

identified by:
Bx = n km/hours/cycles
as points of specific relevance for results or targets.
For example, “ B2 = 100,000 km “ means that

not more than 2% of examined components
has failed (result)
or is accepted that fails (target)
before 100,000 km of use.
3.6.2.3
Minimum number of “failed”
components
to draw a straight line
on a Weibull Chart
3.6.2.3. Min. of “failed” components to draw a line on a Weibull Chart
A thumb rule,
based on common sense and almost universally recognized,
is that, to draw a straight line on Weibull Chart, it is essential
to have at least 5 points, i.e. 5 “failed” components.
Working with only 4 “failed” components
poses some risks not to be underestimated,
while a smaller number is absolutely unadvisable.
Although not explicitly mentioned,
this rule is broadly followed in Literature,
where most of Manuals rarely provide
Tables or Diagrams with less than 5 failed components.
Therefore, in designing the tests,
we must plan
a number of components great enough
to generate the required 5 failed components,
in an acceptable time.
3.6.2.4
3-parameters
Weibull distribution
3.6.2.4. 3-parameters Weibull distribution
Some components need to be stressed for a certain period of

time (which might be called "incubation period") before the ef-
fects of wear-out start to ripen. In other words, it is as if failu-
res began to occur only after a certain period of use (without
incident), which is usually denoted by t0, called “location para-
meter”.
In statistical terms, t0 is the smallest value of the random varia-
ble, after which the probability density function is positive (ra-
ther than zero).
For example, failures of the ultimate degradation (of compo-

nents such as: brake linings inoperative, exhaust system com-
pletely corroded, tires totally worn out, etc.) start to happen only
after a certain amount of “usual wear-out“.
In these cases, the expression of the cumulative Weibull

distribution becomes:
b
t - t0
- (----------)
h
F(t) = 1 - e
where it was highlighted with red font the variant t0 respect
the previous expression of the 2-parameters Weibull.
Generally t0 is always positive

(or zero: in which case it would fall into the 2-parameters Weibull).
For the 3-parameters Weibull distribution the expressions

of mean and standard deviation are respectively:
m = t0 + h . G(1 + 1/b)
s2 = h2 . G(1 + 2/b) - m2 (as for the 2-parameters Weibull)
Graphical construction
There are situations where, if we use the expression of
2-parameter Weibull, the points in the Weibull Chart are
no longer arranged along a straight line, but along a
curve with the concavity downwards.
In these cases, the value of t0 represents

an “incubation” period
needed to the examined components
before starting to wear-out.
When this happens, we must try to estimate a proper value

for t0, through successive approximations until we get an
acceptable alignment of the points, using the 3-parameters
Weibull expression.
This example shows the mileages [km] of the 20 failed components and their typical
trend with the concavity downwards on the Weibull Chart.
To easily obtain an estimate of the value to be taken for t0,

there are two possibilities:
 a very simple graphical method,
 or an analytical procedure.
Both are explained below,

based on the example just presented.
The graphical method (rather rough but easy and straightforward) simply determines
the vertical asymptote of the curve interpolating points whose intersection with the time
axis identifies the value of t0. In this case, t0 is estimated at around 2,300 km.
It is simply
to draw a curve!
t0
To obtain an estimate of t0 and thus be able to use the 3-parameters Weibul, we can
employ an analytical procedure, as follows.
1. We choose the two extreme points,
A and B, on the Weibull Chart and
B recognize the corresponding values
of abscissa: tA  2,500 km and
tB  35,000 km.
D/2
2. We determine the midpoint M of the
M distance in mm between A and B,
D/2
i.e. of the segment A’ — B, regar-
dless of the double-logarithmic scale
of the ordinates and we find its ab-
A A’ scissa value equal to tM  4,500 km.
3. We can now apply the expression:
(tB - tM) . (tM - tA)
t0 = tM - ---------------------------
tA tM tB
(tB - tM) - (tM - tA)
4. Once obtained t0 = 2,360, we can
use the expression of the 3-para-
meters Weibull, obtaining a shape
parameter b = 0.933.
The preceding Weibull Chart, on the left, is compared with that obtained by the 3-pa-
rameters expression, where it is evident the best alignment of the data.
These values of x-axis have

been purged of t0. Therefore we
have to add t0 to them in order
to obtain the true values.
3.6.3
The most common
Reliability indicators
(MTTF, MTBF, Bx, etc.)
3.6.3. The most common Reliability indicators
As before,
it is appropriate to distinguish between
non-repairable and repairable
systems/components.
R(t)  reliability, intended or as the probability(1) of not having failed

parts up to time t, or as the fraction(1) of survivors at time t:
where the time t can be represented by hours, km, cycles, etc..
F(t)  cumulative probability(1) of having failed parts up to time t,
or also total fraction(1) of failed parts, up to time t.
f(t) = dF(t)/dt  density of failure probability at time t, or increa-
se/decrease in the number of failed parts (around a
certain value of time t) or also fraction of parts (with
reference to the total number of parts that have star-
ted the test) failing (= broken) during an unit of time
(its value can change over time).
h(t) = f(t)/R(t) = dF(t)/[R(t) dt]  hazard rate (or failure rate): it is the
fraction of parts that fails during an
unit of time; as before, but with refe-
rence to parts operating at time t
(that is, the so-called "survivors“).
(1) The fractions of failed parts are inferred from experimental results (Descriptive Statistics), but, in their
place, it can also be used a probability estimate (Statistical Inference), especially in the forecast.
2,50E-05
Exponential (beta = 1,0); MTTF
Esponenziale distribution MTTFkm
≈ 43.611
(b=1,0); ≈ 43.611 km
1,0
h
h ==constant = 50.000
cost. = 50.000 kmkm
First
Primi failed parts with exponential distribution
rotti esponenziale
Non-expon. distr. (b=0,6): infantinfant.; MTTF≈ ≈35.147
mort.;MTTF 35.147kmkm
f(t)==dF(t)/dt
Non-espon. (beta = 0,6): mortalità
dF(t)/dt
0,9
(for all
(per tutte 3 curves)
e tre le curve) First
Primi failed parts with non-exponential
rotti non-esponenziale distr. (inf. mort.)
di mortalità infantile
F(t)
2,00E-05 Non-expon. distr.(beta

Non-esponenziale (b=3,0): usura; MTTF
= 3):wear-out; MTTF ≈ 50.250
≈ 50.250 km km
cumulata, F(t)
0,8 First
Primi failed parts with non-exponential
rotti non-esponenziale di usura distr. (wear-out)
Probabilitàprobability,
0,7
density, f(t)
1,50E-05
Densità di probabilità,
0,6
0,5
Cumulative
1,00E-05
0,4
Probability
Esponenzialedistribution
Exponential (beta = 1,0); MTTFMTTF
(b=1,0); ≈ 43.611
≈ 43.611 km km
0,3
First
Primifailed parts with exponential distribution
rotti esponenziale
Non-espon. distr.
Non-expon. (beta = 0,6): mortalità
(b=0,6): infant.;
infant mort.; MTTF ≈ 35.147
MTTF ≈ 35.147
km km 5,00E-06
0,2
First
Primifailed parts with non-exponential
rotti non-esponenziale distr.
di mortalità (inf. mort.)
infantile
0,1 Non-espon. distr.

Non-expon. (beta = 3,0): usura;
(b=3,0): MTTF
wear-out; ≈ 50.250
≈ 50.250
MTTF kmkm hh= =
constant = 50.000
cost. = 50.000 kmkm
Primifailed
First rotti non-esponenziale di usura distr. (wear-out)
parts with non-exponential (per (for
tutteall
e3 trecurves)
le curve)
0,0 0,00E+00
10.000
20.000
30.000
40.000
50.000
60.000
70.000
80.000
90.000
100.000
110.000
120.000
0
10.000
20.000
30.000
40.000
50.000
60.000
70.000
80.000
90.000
100.000
110.000
120.000
Percorrenza [km]
Mileage [km] Percorrenza [km]
Mileage [km]
1,0E-04
Esponenziale (beta = 1);
Exponential distribution MTTFMTTF
(b=1,0); ≈ 43.611
≈ 43.611
km km
GRAPHIC EXAMPLES 9,0E-05

Primi rotti parts
First failed
Non-espon.
esponenziale
with exponential distribution
(beta(b=0,6):
Non-expon. distr. = 0,6):infant
mortalità MTTF ≈ MTTF
mort.;infant.; 35.147≈km
35.147 km
Primi rotti parts
First failed non-esponenziale di mortalità
with non-exponential infantile
distr. (inf. mort.)
= f(t)/R(t)
If failures (whose times correspond to the 8,0E-05
= f(t)/R(t)
Non-esponenziale = 3); MTTF
(beta wear-out;
Non-expon. distr. (b=3,0): ≈ 50.250
MTTF ≈ 50.250
kmkm
Primi rotti parts
First failed non-esponenziale di usura
with non-exponential distr. (wear-out)
h =hconstant
= cost. == 50.000 km
durability, because we are dealing with non- 7,0E-05
(fortutte
(per all 3e curves)
tre le curve)
repairable parts) are exponentially distri-

h(t)
6,0E-05
h(t)
buted ( b=1: "random“ failures), the ha-

guasto,
5,0E-05
di rate,
zard rate is constant. When this does 4,0E-05

Hazard
not happen, the hazard rate is not con- 3,0E-05

Tasso
costante = 1/h = 1/50.000 = 2 . 10-5

h(t) = constant
stant (see graph at right) and the failu- 2,0E-05
res are caused by infant mortality or 1,0E-05
wear-out. 0,0E+00
0
10.000
20.000
30.000
40.000
50.000
60.000
70.000
80.000
90.000
These slides can not be reproduced or distributed without permission in writing from the author. Percorrenza [km]
Mileage [km] 182
Bq = n [km, hours, cycles]  time corresponding to a percentage of relia-

bility failures (as a result of a test, or as a
target: see NOTE at the bottom) not excee-
ding q (%).
BEq = n [km, ore, cicli]  time corresponding to a percentage of durabili-

ty failures (as a result of a test, or as a target:
see NOTE at the bottom) not exceeding q (%).
The “E” of BEq stands for Endurance (the same
as durability). Remember that durability failures
are replacements due to breakage (not repaira-
ble) or due to general overhaul.
NOTE - As we are dealing with non-repairable systems, we should talk only ever about dura-
bility. In fact, the indicator Bq can also be applied to reliability failures, especially if they are
of a single type (defined by the coupled “component-fault”), provided that we accept to count
always only the first failure of each test unit. If the unit is then repaired and can be considered
"like new", it can be put on test again, but as if it were a new (additional) unit, which is added
to those still being tested, starting again from t = 0.
“Repairable” systems
M(t)  average number of failures per unit cumulated up to time t

(hours, miles, cycles). The “M” stands for Mean.
m(t) = dM(t)/dt = l(t)  density of the number of failures per unit

at the considered time. It is measurable, for
example, in:
failures / (units x km) .
The symbol m(t) is mentioned in the Literature,
but it is not very common. Usually the symbol l(t)
is preferred: however l(t) is too often misused,
assuming different meanings and creating confu-
sion.
MTTF(t)  Mean Time To Failure, which MTBF(t)  Mean Time Between Failures,
is the mean time to the first which is the mean time be-
(and single) failure (the mean tween two successive failu-
is calculated with reference to res. It is used only for repaira-
all tested parts). MTTF coinci- ble systems and varies along
des with the average durabi- the time axis, due to the chan-
lity, since here we are within ge of the nature of the failures,
the non-repairable systems which pass from those of infant
and of course, in this case, it mortality to the random ones
is not time dependent: but it and finally to those of wear-out.
varies over time if it is referred MTBF(t) is widely used in the
to the "survivors" at time t. It is United States as the y-axis in
mainly used for non-repaira- the diagrams of Reliability
ble systems (or similar: e.g. Growth Testing (see Par. 5.3);
car-stops), but also with repai- while Italians prefer to use its
rable systems, when the time reciprocal, l(t): see next slide.
to the first failure (on compo-
nents assembled in the facto-
ry) is different from that be-
tween the successive failu-
res (repaired by the work-
shops of Customer Care).
MTTF(t)  Mean Time To Failure, which is the

mean time to the first (and single)
failure (the mean is calculated with
reference to all tested parts). MTTF
coincides with the average durability,
since here we are within the non-
repairable systems and of course, in this
case, it is not time dependent: but it
varies over time if it is referred to the
"survivors" at time t. It is mainly used for
non-repairable systems (or similar: e.g.
but also with re-
car-stops), For example, it happens quite often, that
pairable systems, when the welding of “box-type" is executed by:
the time to the first fai-  spot weld: in the plant;
lure (on components  bead weld: in the workshops of
assembled in the facto- Customer Care (e.g. after a colli-
ry) is different from sion).
that between the suc- This is the reason why it may be useful
cessive failures (repai- to consider MTTF for the "delivery" of the
red by the workshops of vehicle and MTBF for repairs made in
Customer Care). the workshops of Customer Care.
1 1
l(t) = ------------- general expression lR(t) = m(t) = -------------
MTTF(t) R=
MTBF(t)
repairable
If the failures distribution follows the exponen- which represents the density of the number of
tial law (Weibull with b = 1), l coincides with failures per unit, at the examined time. Of
the constant value of the hazard rate h(t): course, in a given time interval, the reciprocal of
the mean value of MTBF(t) represents the num-
1 1 ber of failures per unit, lR(t), on average found
l(t) = ------------- = h(t) = ---- = cost. (or detectable) in the interval. The limits of
MTTF(t) h MTBF(t) and of lR(t) when the interval width
tends to zero, around an assigned value of t,
where h is the characteristic life. Hence the represent the corresponding “instantaneous”
expression of the cumulative failure distribution values. This is the l that will be used in the
may be written in the following most common Reliability Growth Testing (see Par. 5.3).
form, which uses l in place of 1/h:
Note that, in these situations (in contrast with the "non
F(t) = 1 - e- l t repairable systems"), both MTBF(t) and lR(t) vary with
time, even according to distributions other than
exponential. It no longer makes sense to talk of ha-
zard rate, because each tested unit may have more
than one failure and then we no longer speak of frac-
tions of "broken" units (which gradually conclude the
test, as already mentioned with regard to the M(t) cur-
ve in Par 4.1.1).
Constant hazard rate at system level - If a system without redundancy

consists of the elements E1, E2, …, En and the failure-free operating times
t1, t2, …, tn of these elements are independent and exponentially distributed
with parameters l1, l2, …, ln, then the system hazard rate is also constant
(= time-independent) and equal to the sum of the hazard rates of its elements:
-l1 t -l2 t -ln t -lS t
RS(t) = e …e …e = e with: lS = l1 + l2 + … + ln .
These few words, taken from the wonderful book by prof. Birolini(1), reveal the
existence of a sort of overlapping-area between repairable and non-repairable
systems. For further details, please refer to the mentioned book.
(1) Alessandro Birolini - RELIABILITY ENGINEERING: Theory and Practice, Fourth Edition, Springer, 2004

PQD 3 (2016/2017)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PQD 3 (2016/2017)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERING

1. Design for Quality considering customer needs and pro-

 Reliability and Robust Design Definitions (related to Quality)

 Reliability targets deployment

Area proportional to the 0,005

0,05 Area in which

STATISTICAL VALUES FOR THE MODULUS OF ELASTICITY OF METALS

Concise definition of RELIABILITY

to successfully fulfill its mission

(1) or even a “service”.

In other words, that implies that all products

 must meet all the customers expected fun-

Expected functions: meaning

Expected functions - Each measured performance (of the

The previous definition implies the need to manage two

General definition of the measure of RELIABILITY

The measure of Reliability is defined, by D. Kececiuglu

In this definition we find 4 main concepts.

 Time: it can be any quantity which expresses a duration

For all the previous reasons, the reliability targets must

 a complete list of the expected functions and

The “black box”

CLUTCH  number of operations;

GEAR BOX  number of insertion of the different gears;

BRAKES  number of operations in function of:

USE AND  number of missions;

Mission profile for a class C gasoline car (Italian Market)

MISSIONS Average yearly Average

5.000 4.800 (32%)

2.100 (14%) 2.100 (14%)

MISSION MILEAGE CLASSES [km]

OCCUPATIONS OF THE MAIN CUSTOMERS [Doxa]

Reliability reduction into

Actual (or apparent )

What we want to measure is: Roverall = Rd . Rp. Rcs .

Practical measure of Reliability

“Mission” and “measured” reliability

What does not exist can not break

We must remember 3 concepts:

In the modern concept of reliability,

(*) At least one response.

 EXPECTED FUNCTIONS (expected by customers)

 MISSION PROFILES (different for different Markets)

 List of NOISE FACTORS (discussed immediately below)

CRITICAL ISSUES SPECIFICATIONS

One of the most important

So ROBUSTNESS is a requirement for RELIABILITY

Of course, in both cases, is involved the component RELIABILITY

Example of “weak” design ( i.e. not “robust” design)

This example illustrates how the “robustness” (or the “weakness”)

Basically Robust Design means:

Only if results obtained by varying nominal values are

Of course, the product robustness is generated by:

 design robustness (aimed to avoid noise factor effects)

 process robustness (aimed to reduce variability)

The Robust Design basic block diagram

Unwanted input  Uncontrollable

 Control factors not affecting pro-

Signal factors [M]

Control factors [Z] not involving tolerance reduction.

Tolerance factors [Z] involving tolerance reduction.

Noise factors [X]

GOVERNED BY GENERATED BY “EXTERNAL”

SIGNAL (*) CONTROL NOISE (*)

SIGNAL () CONTROL NOISE ()