By Topic

Is MIL-STD-781B A Good Reliability Test Specification? Part II

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$31 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

1 Author(s)
Stovall, Frank A. ; Dept. 72-46, Zone 79; Lockheed-Georgia Co.; Marietta, GA 30063 USA

Conspicuous by its absence in Part I was any reference to the field-laboratory numerical reliability relationship. This subject was intentionally avoided, since it is complex enough to be discussed separately. This paper provides further support to Part I, and finds that MIL-STD-781B is a good reliability test specification; it ought not to be replaced by the proposed MIL-STD-781C. Minor changes to MIL-STD-781B are desirable, particularly those which will make the laboratory definition of relevant failure include hardware discrepancies that are now excluded. For example, selected failures during unofficial test time ought to be counted. This paper also provides further support to the Part I conclusion that the Air Force laboratory definition of failure is not compatible with the Air Force field definition of failure.

Published in:

Reliability, IEEE Transactions on  (Volume:R-26 ,  Issue: 2 )