Downloaded from https://www.everyspec.com AMCP 706-18 formed, and the general purpose uquip- ing, the use of automated test equipment ment use factor is too high to permit tying should be considered, Substantial savings it up in a permanent set-up, often can be realized from the automation of cyclic vibration testing, 4.
Test time with general purpose equipment is excessive, and the frequency The form of the output from automated of the test performance is high enough to tests should be compatible with the existing warrant the cost of designing and building computer facilities in the plant to permit special equipment, rapid data analysis or a separate minicom- puter should be used, Equipment to pro- Usually, general purpose equipment pro- vid, almost any kind of output is coin- vides greater flexibility than special pur- marcially available, A printed or visual dis- pose equipment, but at a reduced testing play can provide an immediate record of efficiency.
In large projects the sheer results for on-the-spot analysis, This equip- numbers of instruments and test equip- ment also can show the acceptelject limits ments that must be used make it possible simultaneously withthe observed values, to choose special test equipment whenever and csn be programmed to identify an out- the economics of a particular test dictate, of-tolerance condition, since the large pool of standard equipment usually available provides all the fluxibillty With automatic test equipment, the soft- required, In small laboratories, problems ware can be extremely expensive.
Up-to- arise because the supply of standard equip- date knowledge of computer trade-offs is ment is limited, It is frequently (though needed, and computer programmers will be not always wisely) docided to use standard a vital part of the project. Flexibility in equipment, which is more costly than allowing the program to change with neec,% special test equipment, in order to force the should be considered as important as the purchase of additional standard equipment, initial program. Test equipment also can be classified 9-3 STANDARDIZATION OF TEST according to the way in which it is con- EQUIPMENT trolled or programmed, either manually or automatically.
As a general rule, initial When the product is tested for the same and maintenance costs of manual control attributes as it passes from vendor to pur- are lower, but it is more expensive to op- chaser or user; or when it is tested in erate because manual control requires con- several different locations or at multiple stant operator attention. In most repeti- field-assembly sites; or when the same tests tive testing, the additional costs of auto- ate used for acceptance testing, field evalu- mation can be recovered if the testing con- ation testing, and repair-depot testing, each tinues for a sufficient length of time.
An- at a different location; then, the test results other Important saving provided by auto- must be compatible. In these situations, the , matic testing results from the elimination testing and test conditions must be as Iden- of operator error.
Automated test equip- tical as possible to prevent testing errors and A ment usually provides more repeatable re- differences from different test locations from suits, permitting easier understanding and affecting the results, diagnosis of test failures or anomalies (which represents additional cost savings), more- The errors and differences introduced by uniform testing, and more-consistent quality test equipment at different locations can be of product. Therefore, for repetitive test- important. The test equipment should be , Y'- ,' . .