Reliability Engineering & Life Qualification
Measured impact on enclosure protection
Reliability work needs measurable evidence. We evaluate predicted MTBF or MTTF against specifications, track FMEA/FMECA risk treatment, verify corrective actions through testing processes, and compare field data after product defects. The result shows what changed and whether expected performance improved.
How we predict, test and improve hardware reliability
Reliability work combines engineering analysis with physical testing. Analysis identifies likely weaknesses and design margins before testing begins; testing then checks those assumptions under defined operating and environmental conditions and feeds failure evidence back into the design.
Predict and prevent failures
- MTBF / MTTF prediction: Estimates expected reliability using component failure-rate data, stress assumptions, duty cycle, temperature, electrical load, and environmental factors. IEC 61709 provides models for adjusting failure-rate data to use conditions, but does not provide base failure rates.
- FMEA / FMECA: Identifies potential failure modes, their causes and effects, and the risks that require mitigation. IEC 60812 provides a systematic framework for this analysis.
- Derating analysis: Checks whether components operate within selected electrical and thermal margins rather than close to their rated limits.
- Worst-case circuit analysis: Verifies circuit performance under combined tolerance, aging, temperature, supply variation, and defined operational scenarios.
Test, analyze and improve
- Accelerated life testing: Applies controlled stress to expose degradation mechanisms and time-dependent weaknesses earlier in development.
- Burn-in: Screens for early-life failures that may result from component defects or manufacturing variation.
- Environmental stress screening (ESS): Uses defined environmental stresses to identify latent workmanship and manufacturing process defects.
- Failure analysis: Combines inspection, measurement, troubleshooting, materials evidence, and data analysis to determine why a failure occurs. Findings are used to correct the design, manufacturing process, or test strategy and verify the fix.
.avif)
What defines a reliability case you can defend
A defensible reliability case connects design assumptions, test evidence, and production controls. It shows that the device has been evaluated under relevant conditions, that compliance risks have been addressed before formal certification, and that manufacturing can reproduce the qualified design consistently.
Testing reproduces relevant temperature, humidity, vibration, shock, power, load, and use conditions so engineers can assess functional integrity against device requirements and the expected environment.
Pre-compliance checks whether a design is likely to meet quality standards, industry standards, and certification requirements. It allows targeted fixes before external testing is conducted.
Production readiness connects design margins, component selection, supplier variation, inspection, justified screening, and acceptance criteria so manufacturers can verify that production hardware matches qualified design intent.
In-house scope vs. accredited laboratory
Reliability engineering does not always require an accredited laboratory. Much of the analysis, test planning, troubleshooting, and design correction can happen during development, while accredited testing is used when formal, independent evidence is required for qualification, compliance, or certification.
What InTechHouse does in-house
The team also defines test scenarios, pass/fail criteria, instrumentation needs, and the evidence required for the product. Pre-compliance work and failure analysis help engineers address the physical cause before the next design revision.
What an accredited laboratory does
It can also provide independent evidence for qualification, compliance, or certification when this is required by a contract, customer, regulator, or applicable standard.
Reliability activities and what each one produces
Each reliability activity should produce a clear engineering output, not just a test result. The value comes from turning analysis and test data into documented evidence, design decisions, corrective actions, or acceptance criteria that can be used later in development and qualification.
Estimate with assumptions, data sources, use conditions, and limitations.
Prioritized failure modes, effects, causes, controls, and actions.
Evidence that electrical and thermal stresses stay within selected margins.
Circuit behavior under combined tolerance, aging, temperature, and supply extremes.
Life-test data and observed degradation or failure mechanisms.
Screening evidence focused on early-life failures.
Screening results for latent workmanship or process defects.
Root-cause evidence, corrective action, and verification plan.
Typical failure modes and the design fixes that prevent them
Reliability testing is most useful when it connects an observed symptom with a physical failure mechanism and a specific design response. The examples below show how common hardware failures can be traced to their causes and translated into corrective action.
Symptom on test: drift, resets, reduced output, or damage at high temperature.
Physical mechanism: excessive junction temperature, poor heat spreading, or insufficient derating.
Design fix: improve thermal paths, airflow, power dissipation, component rating, or control logic, then retest.
Symptom on test: intermittent opens after thermal cycling or vibration.
Physical mechanism: repeated strain at solder joints, connectors, vias, or rigid-flex interfaces.
Design fix: reduce strain, improve support or PCB layout, review materials, and retest.
Symptom on test: a product fails during startup, brownout, load change, surge, or a peripheral state.
Physical mechanism: insufficient margin, transient response, sequencing, or protection thresholds.
Design fix: revise power architecture, filtering, sequencing, protection, or component choice, then verify defined scenarios.
Symptom on test: failures appear shortly after assembly.
Physical mechanism: solder defects, contamination, damaged components, process variation, or handling.
Design fix: correct the manufacturing process, inspection criteria, handling controls, test coverage, or screening strategy.
Symptom on test: the returned device passes a basic functional check.
Physical mechanism: intermittent connection, temperature dependence, timing margin, power quality, moisture, vibration, or a missing use condition.
Design fix: reproduce the event sequence, correlate logs with physical evidence, isolate the cause, develop the fix, and verify it.
Use Cases
We design and develop embedded systems for UAV platforms, integrating sensors, communication modules, and control logic for real-time operation. Our solutions are engineered for mission-critical environments, ensuring reliable performance, low latency, and seamless system integration. Each design supports stable operation under dynamic conditions while maintaining data integrity and operational efficiency.
We design and develop firmware for industrial equipment, enabling reliable communication, data acquisition, and system control under real operating conditions. We focus on robustness, real-time performance, and seamless integration with hardware and higher-level systems. Each implementation provides stability, scalability, and long-term maintainability in demanding industrial environments. We als optimize for resource efficiency and compliance with industry protocols.
We design and develop firmware for subsea systems focusing on predictable real-time operation, fault tolerance, and robust communication in harsh underwater environments. Each implementation allows consistent performance under pressure, limited accessibility, and long-term deployment conditions. We also support integration with monitoring and diagnostic systems to enable remote operation and maintenance.
We design and implement advanced embedded software for imaging systems, including real-time processing, camera control, and data integration. Our solutions are optimized for high performance, low latency, and seamless interaction with hardware components. Each implementation ensures stable operation, high data throughput, and reliable system behavior. We also support integration with higher-level systems and data pipelines for end-to-end functionality.
Industries We Serve
Our engineering capabilities are deployed across regulated, mission-critical and industrial sectors.
Subsea electronics, downhole systems and harsh-environment hardware for offshore and onshore operations.
Mission-critical embedded systems and real-time firmware for UAV platforms and defence electronics.
Real-time embedded firmware for gas detection, environmental sensing and worker alert systems.
Embedded systems and real-time firmware for industrial automation,
machine control and IoT data acquisition.
Technologies we use
The reliability engineering disciplines applied on every HALT and HASS program, from prototype stress testing through the production screen it produces.
FAQs
If you have additional questions or would like to discuss your requirements, feel free to get in touch with our team.
A reliability engineer identifies failure risks, estimates reliability, defines tests, analyzes failures, and converts evidence into design or production actions across electronics, mechanics, components, materials, quality, systems, and development.
MTBF is mean time between failures for a repairable system. It is commonly calculated as total operating time divided by observed failures. Its meaning depends on the population, failure definition, duty cycle, conditions, model, component data, and assumptions.
There is no universal good MTBF. A suitable value meets product specifications, contractual requirements, safety and availability needs, maintenance strategy, use profile, and cost constraints.
A practical five-part workflow is: define scope and functions; identify failure modes and effects; identify causes and controls; evaluate and prioritize risk; assign actions and verify residual risk. This is a concise project grouping, not a universal five-step standard. IEC 60812 and ASQ describe more detailed FMEA workflows.
Qualification testing demonstrates that a design can meet functional and performance requirements under specified environmental conditions and required margins. NASA distinguishes qualification, which addresses design capability, and acceptance, which checks produced units against the qualified design and workmanship criteria.
Qualification testing evaluates the design. Acceptance testing evaluates produced hardware to confirm that materials, workmanship, configuration, and performance conform to the qualified design.
Preserve evidence, define and reproduce the fault, collect measurements, inspect hardware, isolate the failing function, test candidate causes, identify the physical root cause, apply a corrective action, and verify the fix. Failure analysis is complete when evidence explains why the failure occurred and confirms the correction.
There is no single standards-defined four-stage model for every hardware product. A useful planning model is reliability analysis and test planning; engineering stress and accelerated testing; qualification or formal compliance testing; and production acceptance or screening with field feedback.
The sequence depends on the device, industry, risk, and use conditions. NASA treats development, qualification, and acceptance as distinct hardware test purposes.
Discuss your product with our expert
This initial conversation is focused on understanding your product, technical challenges, and constraints.
No sales pitch - just a practical discussion with experienced engineers.
Share a few details about your product and context. We’ll review the information and suggest the most appropriate next step.