Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • Home
  • About
    • Contributors
    • About Us
    • Colophon
    • Survey
  • Reliability.fm
  • Articles
    • CRE Preparation Notes
    • NoMTBF
    • on Leadership & Career
      • Advanced Engineering Culture
      • ASQR&R
      • Engineering Leadership
      • Managing in the 2000s
      • Product Development and Process Improvement
    • on Maintenance Reliability
      • Aasan Asset Management
      • AI & Predictive Maintenance
      • Asset Management in the Mining Industry
      • CMMS and Maintenance Management
      • CMMS and Reliability
      • Conscious Asset
      • EAM & CMMS
      • Everyday RCM
      • History of Maintenance Management
      • Life Cycle Asset Management
      • Maintenance and Reliability
      • Maintenance Management
      • Plant Maintenance
      • Process Plant Reliability Engineering
      • RCM Blitz®
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
      • The People Side of Maintenance
      • The Reliability Mindset
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Field Reliability Data Analysis
      • Metals Engineering and Product Reliability
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Product Validation
      • Reliability by Design
      • Reliability Competence
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
      • Reliability Knowledge
    • on Risk & Safety
      • CERM® Risk Insights
      • Equipment Risk and Reliability in Downhole Applications
      • Operational Risk Process Safety
    • on Systems Thinking
      • Communicating with FINESSE
      • The RCA
    • on Tools & Techniques
      • Big Data & Analytics
      • Experimental Design for NPD
      • Innovative Thinking in Reliability and Durability
      • Inside and Beyond HALT
      • Inside FMEA
      • Institute of Quality & Reliability
      • Integral Concepts
      • Learning from Failures
      • Progress in Field Reliability?
      • R for Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Using Python
      • Reliability Reflections
      • Statistical Methods for Failure-Time Data
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Manufacturing Academy
  • eBooks
  • Resources
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Glossary
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinar Sources
    • Podcasts
  • Courses
    • Your Courses
    • Live Courses
      • Introduction to Reliability Engineering & Accelerated Testings Course Landing Page
      • Advanced Accelerated Testing Course Landing Page
    • Integral Concepts Courses
      • Reliability Analysis Methods Course Landing Page
      • Applied Reliability Analysis Course Landing Page
      • Statistics, Hypothesis Testing, & Regression Modeling Course Landing Page
      • Measurement System Assessment Course Landing Page
      • SPC & Process Capability Course Landing Page
      • Design of Experiments Course Landing Page
    • The Manufacturing Academy Courses
      • An Introduction to Reliability Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Statistics
      • An Introduction to Quality Engineering
      • Quality Engineering Statistics
      • FMEA in Practice
      • Process Capability Analysis course
      • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
      • Return on Investment online course
    • Industrial Metallurgist Courses
    • FMEA courses Powered by The Luminous Group
    • Foundations of RCM online course
    • Reliability Engineering for Heavy Industry
    • How to be an Online Student
    • Quondam Courses
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home
  • Barringer Process Reliability Introduction Course Landing Page
  • Upcoming Live Events
You are here: Home / Articles / Derating Value

by Fred Schenkelberg 3 Comments

Derating Value

Derating Value

This example is based on a real situation. After a class on design for reliability, a senior manager declared that every component would be fully derated in every product (electronic test & measurement devices). Within a year the design team redesigned all new and existing products, with strict adherence to the derating guidelines provided in the class. A year after the class the product line enjoyed a 50% reduction in warranty claims. They learned about derating and a manager saw the potential value.

We often do not have a manager with such foresight, so we need to provide justification for the investment. Here is a case that provides a way to view reliability investments and determine the return.

Derating and field failure rate

The specialized test and measurement industry creates very complex electronic equipment, expensive tools with total production of maybe 50 per year over a four year period. And, like other high cost/low volume products the cost of failure is very high.

Because the unit costs are very high, the ability to test sufficient numbers of units to failure is severely limited. It is not uncommon to have only one or two units for all qualification testing. Furthermore, the complexity of the units provides multiple possible failure mechanisms and only rarely does the design provide a clearly dominant failure mechanism to focus reliability evaluations.

Given the barriers to conducting physical testing, the reliability team recommends implementing detailed derating analysis for the selection of every electronic component. The design team does use some derating concepts, yet only based on a 50% guideline and without detailed analysis. Therefore, the project manager has requested more information about the process, costs, and value.

Derating and Field Failures Discussion

Derating is the selection of components that have ratings (power, voltage, etc) above the expected stress [1] . Selecting a capacitor that bridges a 5-volt potential that has a voltage rating of 10 volts would be considered a 50% derating. Selecting components that match the expected stress and rating generally lead to premature failure of the components. The ratings vendors provide only imply that the component can experience the stress at the rated value for a very short time. Derating provides a margin to minimize the accumulation of damage or the chance exposure of high enough stress to cause a failure. The same concept  can be applied for mechanical designs, using safety margins.

At Hewlett-Packard, a study of the effects of various design for reliability tools found a very high correlation between well-executed derating programs and low field failure rates. This contributed to the 50% fewer field failures experienced [1]. In one particular division where the design team embarked on a full implementation of derating on all products, the project realized a 50% reduction in field failures in the first year, and continued to reduce failure rates over subsequent years as more fully derated product designs shipped.

Derating Cost

Components that are rated higher cost more and are generally larger in size. Assuming the current bill of material cost is $100k, the implementation of detailed and thorough derating the bill of material costs can rise to  $200,000, or double. For a production run of 50 units, the cost increases to $5m.

The additional engineering time for training, circuit analysis, and procurement may add an additional $1m to the project cost. The total cost is an estimated additional $6m to the program.

 Derating Value

The primary value of component derating is the increase in circuit robustness of the product leads to fewer field failures [1]. The cost of a field failure is expensive, due to the replacement cost, failure analysis, and possible redesign and qualification costs. Let’s assume that each field failure has an average cost of $2m, or four times the sales price.

Reducing a 10% annual failure rate (a low estimate for such complex products) to 5% would results in 2.5 fewer $2m failures per year for an annual savings of $5m.

Derating ROI

The ROI is the ratio of the expected return over the cost. With a cost of $6 million and return of only $5m, the ROI is less than one at 0.83.

If the starting failure rate or cost of failure is low, then this ROI may not exceed the breakeven point. Also, consider the market and impact on competition. If the high failure rate caused a loss of market share, that may further increase the cost of failure. Still, implementing derating may not make sense in this situation.

 

See also Reliability, HALT and ALT Value articles.


  1. Ireson, William Grant, Clyde F Coombs, and Richard Y Moss. Handbook of Reliability Engineering and Management. New York: McGraw Hill, 1995., pg. 16.9.
  2.  Ireson, William Grant, Clyde F Coombs, and Richard Y Moss. Handbook of Reliability Engineering and Management. New York: McGraw Hill, 1995, pg. 5.4.

Filed Under: Articles, Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics, on Product Reliability Tagged With: Derating, Failure Rate

About Fred Schenkelberg

I am the reliability expert at FMS Reliability, a reliability engineering and management consulting firm I founded in 2004. I left Hewlett Packard (HP)’s Reliability Team, where I helped create a culture of reliability across the corporation, to assist other organizations.

« Program Elements Part 2
Types of Risk »

Comments

  1. Hilaire Perera says

    April 14, 2019 at 8:09 AM

    If a product is expected to operate reliably, one of the contributing factors must be a conservative design approach incorporating realistic Derating (Uprating although controversial is possible for special cases) of parts to reduce stress levels and increase life.

    A part’s strength varies from lot to lot and from manufacturer to manufacturer. Part strength is a random variable. Likewise the stress applied to a part is random, changing with temperature (Case Hot Spot; Junction; Ambient), vibration, electrical transients, shock and other factors. Part strength must exceed part stress in order for a part to operate properly. However, since strength and stress are both random, there is always a chance that stress applied to a part will exceed the strength of the part

    Derating enhance reliability by decreasing failure rates. It can be said that derating is to an electric design what a safety factor is to a mechanical design. Each part will contain slight variations even when manufactured on the same production line. Larger variations occur after the part is integrated into a higher assembly. As a part ages, the environment (mostly temperature) can cause physical and material changes. These changes vary with part types and the particular materials used, but they nearly always result in some performance degradation.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Article by Fred Schenkelberg
in the Musings series

Join Accendo

Receive information and updates about articles and many other resources offered by Accendo Reliability by becoming a member.

It’s free and only takes a minute.

Join Today

Recent Articles

  • Gremlins today
  • The Power of Vision in Leadership and Organizational Success
  • 3 Types of MTBF Stories
  • ALT: An in Depth Description
  • Project Email Economics

© 2025 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy