Why is failure analysis not testing?
“Failure analysis” and “testing” are related but distinct processes in the context of engineering, quality assurance, and various scientific fields. Here’s a breakdown of how they differ:
- Purpose:
- Testing: This is generally conducted to ensure that a product, component, or system meets specified requirements before it is put into service. Tests are performed under controlled conditions and aim to evaluate performance, durability, and safety.
- Failure Analysis: This comes into play after a product or system has already failed. The primary goal is to determine why the failure occurred, which can involve identifying the root causes of failure and the conditions that led to it.
- Process:
- Testing: Involves applying pre-determined stresses or operational loads to a product to simulate actual or accelerated operating conditions. This could include stress tests, performance tests, and endurance tests.
- Failure Analysis: Involves a detailed examination and analysis of the failed component. This might include visual inspections, microscopic examination, chemical analysis, and mechanical testing to understand the failure mechanism.
- Outcome:
- Testing: Aims to confirm that the design and manufacturing meet the expected standards. It’s predictive and preventive, helping to catch potential failures before products reach the market or are used in critical applications.
- Failure Analysis: Aims to learn from a failure after it has occurred. The insights gained can lead to design improvements, changes in manufacturing processes, or updates in maintenance procedures to prevent future failures.
Thus, while testing is about prevention and verification before failure, failure analysis is about diagnosis and correction after a failure has occurred. Both are crucial but serve different phases of a product’s life cycle and quality management.