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 / HALT Value

by Fred Schenkelberg 2 Comments

HALT Value

HALT Value

It’s always necessary to estimate the value of specific reliability activities. It is needed to justify the investment required to accomplish the task. Prototypes, diagnostics equipment, and environmental chambers are expensive. The difficulty is an inability to know what will be found, before conducting the experiment.

Not doing the test means the certainty of not finding anything. That is often not enough motivation to invest, to learn something about the reliability performance. The following scenario is just one situation, along with a few ideas to help you estimate the value of investments in reliability work.

HALT and time to market

Consider the development of a new game controller. The product is high volume, with the majority of sales expected immediately after product launch, during the holiday sales period.  It’s a new design, there’s an emphasis on time to market, the majority of product will be manufactured before the start of sales, there are no repairs, and the controller is an enabling part of a larger system. The controller’s reliability goal is 98% reliable over the first year of ownership when used as part of the game system.

HALT vs. ALT Discussion

One of the basic questions facing the team is, “Will the product meet the 98% reliability goal?” An ALT may help answer this question if we know which failure mechanism(s) will lead to failure during the first year 1.

This is a new product without any field history. Other controllers designed for this environment have experienced a range of failure causes, but are often dominated by shock and vibration damage from dropping.

The risk analysis done by the design team suspects that drop damage would be the most significant contributor to product failures. The new controller is different enough that using the field data is likely not to apply. Also, it is unknown which specific element of the design would experience failure first or at all over one year of use. Therefore, understanding the most likely failure mechanisms that are to occur is important to discover.

The initial project plan did not include HALT testing on the first set of prototypes, rather it would sample from the second set of prototypes, eight weeks later, just before the transfer of the design to manufacturing to conduct design verification testing (DVT), including life testing. The drop testing portion of the DVT is expected to take a week to accomplish.

The reliability engineer on this program recommends performing HALT on the first available prototypes. The suggestion is to use high loads of random vibration and high shock loads in the HALT plan, to quickly assess the design weakness related to product drop damage. The project manager requests more information on timing, cost, and benefits (value).

HALT Cost

There isn’t time to procure a HALT chamber within the development schedule; therefore let’s collect quotes from HALT labs to conduct the testing. Let’s assume a quote of $10k for one round of testing 2. Of course, if there were HALT facilities internally available this cost would be less. Also, consider that the cost of the prototypes is about five times more expensive than second round prototype units.

The first round of prototypes is a small run, specialized tooling, quick turn production, costing approximately $1k for each unit. Let’s request five units, at an increased cost of 5 times over later prototypes: at an $800 price increase, or $4k. Rounding out the expected costs of engineering support, testing equipment support, and failure analysis support, we can estimate an additional cost of approximately $20k. Therefore, the total cost to the program to add HALT testing is approximately $24k.

HALT Value

One of the primary benefits of HALT is the potential to uncover new failure mechanisms in the design 3. By conducting the HALT on the first available prototypes, the design team increases the time available to resolve design errors or make design improvements. Designers tend to design away from failures; HALT is a tool to discover previously unknown (or unsuspected) failure mechanisms.

Let’s assume (for the purpose of this example) the design before any testing has a 25% chance of a failure mechanism that will lead to an unacceptably high first-year failure rate. In discussions with the program manager, the team learns that they would delay the start of production if there were a 10% or higher expected field failure rate.

Moreover, the cost of the delay was estimated at $500k per day in lost sales. With an assumed 30 days to design and implement an improvement to resolve a major reliability issue, the losses would amount to $500k/day for 30 days, or $15 million.

There is a good chance that the design is fine and will meet the reliability objectives. Let’s assume 75% of the time the design has an overall failure rate of less than 10% over the first year.

25% of the time, the underlying design has at least one major failure mechanism that may be detected and resolved before the start of sales. Also, consider that no testing program will uncover all faults – yet let’s assume that only 10% of the time will HALT and DVT not find a major (>10% failure rate) issue.

Also, HALT may not find the issue while DVT does detect the fault, let’s say 50% of the time. And, let’s assume HALT finds the fault only 40% of the time.

Note: this low rate is pessimistic for an estimate of the ability of a well-executed HALT and in my experience HALT is much more effective.

For the value calculation, 25% chance of an unacceptable failure rate exists in the design, times a 40% chance of HALT finding the issue, times the cost avoided by having time to solve the issue without a 30 day program delay, results in an expected savings of 0.25 x 0.40 x $15m = $1.5 million.

HALT ROI

The ROI is the ratio of the expected return over the cost. $1.5 million divided by $24k: the ROI is over 60. This is only part of the value as it only considered the detection of major issues, thus avoiding a schedule slip.

The HALT will also find less significant issues that wouldn’t have resulted in a schedule slip, yet the earlier detection would reduce the cost of implementing design changes. Plus, HALT may have found unique failure mechanisms beyond what the DVT would find, then leading to an incremental reduction in achieved field failure rate. See also

Reliability, ALT, and Derating Value articles.


  1. Silverman, Mike. How Reliable Is Your Product? Cupertino, CA: Super Star Press, December 2010, pg. 193.
  2. Personal Communication with Mike Silverman, June 18th, 2011.
  3. Hobbs, Gregg K. Accelerated Reliability Engineering: HALT and HASS. Chichester; New York: Wiley, 2000, pg. 43.

Filed Under: Articles, Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics, on Product Reliability Tagged With: Highly Accelerated Life Testing (HALT), Value

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.

« Design of Experiments
K Out of N »

Comments

  1. SPYROS VRACHNAS says

    August 25, 2019 at 1:06 PM

    The link to “HALT Value Calculations” does not appear to work.

    Reply
    • Fred Schenkelberg says

      August 25, 2019 at 2:35 PM

      thanks for the note of the broken link – I believe I have them sorted out now – cheers, Fred

      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