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 / Being In The Flat Part of the Curve

by nomtbf Leave a Comment

Being In The Flat Part of the Curve

Being In The Flat Part of the Curve

To me it means very little, as it rarely occurs. Products fail for a wide range of reasons and each failure follows it’s own path to failure.

As you may understand, some failures tend to occur early, some later. Some we call early life failures, out-of-box failures, etc. Some we deem end-of-life or wear-out failures. There are a few that are truly random in nature, just as a drop or accident causing an overstress fracture, for example.

What we Call the Flat Part of the Curve

Given the classic bathtub curve, the cross-section of a bathtub, with a steeply declining failure rate on one side and a steep rise in failure rate on the other side. The middle is flat and often drawn much as a bathtub with a long flat section between the two bounding curves.

Let’s not consider the failure mechanisms and what causes product failures for a moment. When someone says ‘we are in the flat part,’ they are saying we are not enjoying early life failures anymore, and wear-out mechanisms haven’t begun as of yet.

It also may imply that we have sorted out the supply chain, assembly, and transportation-related causes of failure such that they have little chance of occurring for customers. And it may imply that the design, materials, assembly, and understanding of the use conditions suggest that no element of the product should wear out, leading to failure for a suitably long time.

From a customer’s perspective, it means there is little chance or an acceptably low chance of failure over the duration of intended use. The relative change in failure rate from one month to the next is small and in many ways could be considered flat.

What Makes Up the Flat Failures

All of the possible ways your product can fail still exist. The chance of an assembly error is very small, yet it does exist. The chance of a material or contamination defect leading to rapid wearout is very small, yet it does exist.

In fact, for a well-designed and assembled product, the chance of any failure is small, yet something will cause the product to fail eventually. It may be dropped on the loading dock, initiating a crack that leads to an overheating failure. It may operate on a structure with just the wrong natural frequency, which excites excessive vibration, leading to accelerated solder joint fatigue.

Each individual failure mechanism has it’s own curve and each mechanism either has a decreasing or increasing failure rate. Some units have latent defects which lead to early failures while remaining units do not have similar defects that ever manifest into a failure, thus for the population there is a decreasing failure rate pattern.

Some units have slightly different surface finishes such that the wear rate is slightly higher or lower for individual units, yet all by design wear till deemed a failure. This is characteristic of wear-out failure – the applied stress or use leads to degradation of functional performance for an item till it fails.

It is the mixture of the many failure mechanisms if no one mechanism dominates the possibilities that creates a low rumble of potential failures. Each is competing to cause a failure. Looking for that opportunity to expose a loss of function. Combining dozens, if not hundreds, of likely yet rare failure mechanisms leads to a relatively flat or stead chance of failure.

Here’s the rub. In my experience, there are one or two failure mechanisms that dominate the early failures. A part that has a low Cpk, a design that is not robust to use conditions or very high chance of handling damage. There typically is one or two mechanisms that dominate the wear out. For industrial electric motors, for example, bearing failures account for 50% or more of all failures.

It is the shape of these dominant failure mechanisms that define the product’s probability of failure, and its lack of a flat section. In my experience, it is more like a V than a U. With good design and processes, the V may be rather squat with relatively shallow slopes, yet the flat section is not recognizable.

Achieving a Low Failure Rate Over a Long Duration

Remember that we cannot simply wish or assume to be in the flat part of the curve. It’s not magic, and it rarely occurs.

It is the deliberate consideration of the potential failure mechanisms, not the mix. It is the assessment of environmental and use conditions on the materials, design, maintenance, and assembly to understand the long list of potential causes of failure. Then, designing and building a product that minimizes the possibilities.

Deliberate, proactive, careful, detailed study, exploration and experimentation leads to a product with a misshapen bathtub with a very shallow or nearly flat chance of failure over an extended duration.

Then, a new customer application, a cost reduction, and an additional feature come along to expose yet more potential failure mechanisms.

Does your product operate in the flat part of the curve? If so, how do you know? Is it assumed or do you have data and knowledge to support that claim?

Filed Under: Articles, NoMTBF

« t-Test Introduction
Collaboration & Questions: Remember Facilitating Reliability is a Long Game »

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

The NoMTBF logo

Devoted to the eradication of the misuse of MTBF.

Photo of Fred SchenkelbergArticles by Fred Schenkelberg and guest authors

in the NoMTBF article series

Recent Posts

  • Leadership Values in Maintenance and Operations
  • Today’s Gremlin – It’ll never work here
  • How a Mission Statement Drives Behavioral Change in Organizations
  • Gremlins today
  • The Power of Vision in Leadership and Organizational Success

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

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