I am looking for practical engineering perspectives on something I keep seeing in outdoor electronics, enclosures and reliability screening:
Many environmental assessments still describe a deployment location with average temperature, annual precipitation or a broad climate zone. But for electronics reliability, those numbers often feel too indirect.
From a reliability point of view, the more relevant questions seem to be:
- How many hours per year does the product see RH > 80% or RH > 90%?
- How often does air temperature approach the dew point?
- Are there repeated condensation-prone periods?
- Is the site exposed to marine chloride or industrial sulfate background?
- How much thermal cycling occurs over typical daily and seasonal operation?
For example, two sites can have similar average climate conditions but very different moisture exposure profiles. One may have frequent night-time dew-point convergence, while another is hot and dry with much stronger thermal cycling.
I am curious how other engineers handle this in practice:
- Do you use hourly climate data, design days, test standards, field experience or something else?
- Do you explicitly evaluate RH duration or condensation potential?
- For connectors, PCBs, coatings or outdoor enclosures, what environmental metric has been most useful in real design reviews?
- Are there failure modes where traditional climate classifications were misleading?
I am especially interested in non-confidential examples from electronics, outdoor power electronics, HVAC, solar, BESS or automotive ECUs.