Reliability Program Planning

A GOAL WITHOUT A PLAN…
IS JUST A WISH
RELIABILITY AND MAINTENANCE

PROGRAM 02 - Reliability Program
FOR DESIGN AND Plan (RPP)
MANUFACTURING
RELIABILITY PROGRAM PLAN
INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

RELIABILITY PROGRAM
§2.2

RELIABILITY PROGRAM
§2.3

RELIABILITY PROGRAM PLAN
Achieving reliability is a long-term process. This process encompass

several tools and practices and describe the order of their
deployment in order to achieve the reliability targets. Proper
implementation requires:
 Strategic vision
 Proper planning (e.g. reliability program plan)
 Sufficient organizational resource allocation
 Proper execution
 Integration and institutionalization of reliability into the Company
A reliability program plan is used to document exactly what tasks,

methods, tools, analyses, and tests are required for a particular
system. For complex systems, the reliability program plan is a separate
document, for simple systems, it may be combined with the system
engineering management plan. The reliability program plan is
essential for a successful reliability program and is developed early
during system development. It specifies not only what the reliability
engineer does, but also the tasks performed by others
Reference: Z. Klim

SUPPLIER
§1.8

PHASES OF A PROGRAM (FOR RELIABILITY)
 Definition
Known as Programs’ Concept phase, defines the reliability
requirements
 Design
First round verification: assesses the reliability
 Validation
Known as Programs' Development phase, analyses and improves the
reliability
 Manufacturing
Assures the reliability
 Operation
Monitors and controls reliability

RELIABILITY PROGRAM PLAN (EXTRA)
What has been the past performance of the product ? For past
performance, we can use data from
 Field analysis
 HALT testing
 Any other reliability studies
 Predictions
 If this is the first product, we can benchmark the product against
competitors in the industry and use their data
The gap analysis is a key part of the plan because it
 sets the expectation on how much improvement is necessary from
the previous generation
 it helps dictate the tools that will be needed to reach the new
reliability goals
 it helps dictate the schedule / how long it will take to achieve these
goals
To make this task more manageable, we must break down by Assembly
 What are the results for the current product by Assembly ?
 What are the goals for the new product by Assembly ?
 What is the Gap by Assembly ?
Now that we understand the size of our Gap by Assembly, we must

understand what is driving this Gap
 Was it a particular design issue on the previous product ?
 Were the returns largely DOA's ?
Once we understand this, we are in a better position to choose the
appropriate reliability tool to overcome this gap
Constraints:
 Time Constraints: We don't have enough time to properly execute
the program. Perhaps we may need to increase the sample size in our
testing to accelerate the test results. Or perhaps we push some of the
testing back onto the suppliers.
 Money or Budget Constraint: Here we face the opposite problem as
with a Time Constraint. Now we have a constraint on money so we
may need to stretch out the testing and get more test information with
fewer samples. Or we may elect to spend more time in the design
before jumping into prototype testing, using lesser expensive design
analysis tools than the prototype tools.
 Resource Constraint: This may require that we go outside and look
for help from consultants or contractors. There are always resources
that can help, even if we don't have within the company.

What reliability elements/tools will be used ? Based on the size of the

gap AND what is driving this gap, we will choose which reliability
tools to implement
 If the gap is large, we will need to invest a lot of resources in the
design tools prior to prototyping and testing the new product, such as:
✓ Design of experiments
✓ FMECA's
✓ Tolerance analyses
 If the gap is small, we may decide to invest more resources in the
prototype tools such as:
✓ HALT
✓ Reliability Demonstration / Life Tests
 If the gap is largely a result of DOA's and production escapes, we
may want to invest more effort into the developing good
manufacturing reliability tools such as HASS and HASA.

As with most programs, the gap will likely fall somewhere in between.
So, we must develop a well-balanced program that has selected tools
from each of the phases
 Design tools
 Prototype tools
 Manufacturing tools
The implementation and integration of each tool is perhaps the most
difficult to plan. Here we must estimate the effects each tool will have
on the overall reliability to understand how we are closing the gap
For this, we must look at specific issues that occurred on previous
products and understand how a specific tool will help mitigate this
issue on this next generation
If we can quantify the effect an issue had and we can quantify the
reduction as a results, then we have evaluated how we are going to
close the gap.

Example
Our current product is running at a 0.25% DOA (dead on arrival) rate per
month and our goal is to reduce this by 50%. The DOAs tend to focus
around solder issues. For this next generation, we decide to choose HASS as
our tool to solve this. Through research, we determine that HASS is 90%
effective in finding and preventing solder defects from escaping into the
field. We write in our plan that we expect to meet and exceed our 50%
reduction.
But we’re not done yet. What did we forget?
How we will implement and integrate? To say that we will use HASS and
that it is possible is one thing, but how will we do it. In our Reliability
Program Plan, we need to:
 determine what level HASS will be performed (assembly or system)
 outline functional and environmental equipment needed
 determine production needs and throughput
 understand manpower needs
Are we done there ? Not quite...
Next we must explain the integration. What tools will feed into HASS in
order to make it successful ? And how will they be used ?
 FMECA — understand technology limiting devices
 HALT — develop margins
What tools will HASS feed into?
 Field Failure Tracking System — monitor DOA's
 Repair Depot — how to reduce NFF's

What is our schedule for meeting these goals ?
The last piece of our Reliability Program Plan is the schedule. With an
infinite amount of time (and money) we can achieve any reliability. But
we do not have the luxury !
We must schedule our reliability activities and assure that they are
aligned with the schedule for the overall program.
First, we determine the order of occurrence of the tools. If we did a
good job describing the tools and the integration of each, then this
should be straightforward.
Next we estimate a length of time for each tool.
Then, we put on an integration timeline along with dependencies.
Finally, we must compare with the master project schedule and make
adjustments as necessary.

Design for reliability
DFR Influence on the final

reliability gain vs. cost

DF IS A MASTER PROCESS
Specifically, DFR describes the entire set of tools that support product
and process design (typically from early in the concept stage all the
way through to product obsolescence) to ensure that customer
expectations for reliability are fully met throughout the life of the
product with low overall life-cycle costs.
In other words, DFR is a systematic, streamlined, concurrent
engineering program in which reliability engineering is weaved into
the total development cycle. It relies on an array of reliability
engineering tools along with a proper understanding of when and
how to use these tools throughout the design cycle.
This process encompasses a variety of tools and practices and
describes the overall order of deployment that an organization needs
to follow in order to design reliability into its products.
DFR statements
1) Reliability must be designed into products and processes using the
best available science-based methods.
2) Knowing how to calculate reliability is important, but knowing how
to achieve reliability is equally, if not more, important.
3) Reliability practices must begin early in the design process and
must be well integrated into the overall product development cycle.

DFR KEY ACTIVITIES FLOW

GOALS AND METRICS

CASE STUDY

Read the chapter.
Table 5.1 in the reference a is an example (do not learn it by heart).
For INDU 691/4 WW, use the matrix provided in this PDF at page 35.

EXAMPLE

OPS A LA CARTE RELIABILITY MATRIX



1.1 Understanding & Attitude
1.2 Status
5. Prevailing sentiment 5
4
1.3 Measured cost
of Unreliability
4.3 Reliability
3
Improvement Process
2
2.1 Requirement
4.2 Validation & and Planning
Verification
2.2 Training
and development
4.1 Failure data &
tracking analysis
3.3 Supply Chain Management 3.1 Analysis
3.2 Testing
DFR PHILOSOPHY (REMINDER)
Reliability must be designed into products and processes, using the

best available science-based methods
Design for Reliability practices must begin early in the design process
and be well integrated into the overall product development cycle
Reducing reliability analysis and testing is not the best place to cut the
development cost
Knowing how to calculate reliability is important, but knowing how to
achieve reliability is more important
Not all techniques need or can be used within a program / project

Whatever method or technique is used, one needs metrics to
measure where he is at a given time in the process and program
should produce positive results.

FIELD EXPERIENCE

RISK IN RELIABILITY
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

RISK IN RELIABILITY DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM
In the front-end phase the target value for product reliability is

determined through a trade-off between cost and risk. Like any
development program, the outcome of the reliability development
program is uncertain. The assessed reliability is based on limited
testing on component or analysis. As a result, the assessed reliability
can differ significantly from the actual reliability, an unknown quantity.
Figure below shows four scenarios related to the risk in reliability:
Scenario A: Both the actual and the assessed reliabilities are below the
target value and hence, further development is needed. Note that if
any of the constraints (e.g., development cost and/or development
time) are violated the development programme might be terminated.
Reference: Z. Klim

RISK IN RELIABILITY DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM
Scenario B: The assessed reliability indicates that the target value is

achieved, but in reality this is not the case. If the actual reliability is
well below the target value, then releasing the product on to the
market can result in high warranty costs, customer dissatisfaction, and
in the worst case, a product recall.
Scenario C: The actual reliability is greater then the target value, but
the assessed reliability indicates that this is not so. As a result, the
development programme is continued, incurring additional costs that
could have been avoided.
Scenario D: In this case the assessed and actual reliabilities exceed
the target value and the termination of the programme does not
entail any risks.
The risks in scenarios B and C need to be understood and taken into
account during the reliability design phase. In addition, there are
other kinds of project risks as cost and time overruns, losing critical
staff, etc.
Most of the reliability models do not take into account the trade-offs
between cost and risk and the focus is usually on estimation and
prediction of product reliability from test data. The reliability growth
model must incorporate financial costs associated with product
unreliability. The model can be used to carry out cost-benefit analysis
during product development.
Reference: Z. Klim

BUILD – TEST – FIX
VS.
ANALYTICAL APPROACH
CHALLENGES WITH IMPLEMENTING DFR

IN-HOUSE VS. OUTSIDE
SUPPORT

Risk management is the process
of identifying risk, assessing
risk, and taking steps to reduce
risk to an acceptable level. The
risk management approach
RISK MANAGEMENT
determines the processes,
techniques, tools, and team roles
and responsibilities for a specific
project. The risk management
plan describes how risk
management will be structured
and performed on the project.

RISK MANAGEMENT APPROACH AND
PLAN
Definition: Risk management is the process of identifying risk, assessing

risk, and taking steps to reduce risk to an acceptable level.
The risk management approach determines the processes, techniques,
tools, and team roles and responsibilities for a specific project. The risk
management plan describes how risk management will be structured and
performed on the project.
As a management process, risk management is used to identify and
avoid the potential cost, schedule, and performance/technical risks to
a system, take a proactive and structured approach to manage
negative outcomes, respond to them if they occur, and identify
potential opportunities that may be hidden in the situation. The risk
management approach and plan operationalize these management
goals.
System-level risk management is predominantly the responsibility of
the team working to provide capabilities for a particular
development effort. Within a system-level risk area, the primary
responsibility falls to the system program manager and SE for
working risk management, and the developers and integrators for
helping identify and create approaches to reduce risk. In addition, a
key responsibility is with the user community's decision maker on when
to accept residual risk after it and its consequences have been
identified.
https://www.mitre.org/publications/systems-engineering-guide/acquisition-systems-
Reference:
engineering/risk-management/risk-management-approach-and-plan
IDENTIFYING RISKS IN THE SYSTEMS
ENGINEERING PROGRAM - RELIABILITY
As reliability needs to be embedded into the product and cannot be

measured instantly (not like weight, power consumption, etc.),
achieving reliability at the end of the program is a risk.
As engineering designs are most often improvements of previously
existing designs (not always), the first natural step is to compare the
previous (legacy) design and the new design and to use the already
field performance results of the legacy into the new design expected
reliability performance.
A similarity for reliability analysis needs to be carried.

SIMILARITY
INDU 691/4 - Winter 2017 (Lecture 06, February 15een, 2017) DR. SORIN VOICULESCU 55
SIMILARITY
As part of reliability validation activities using legacy field data,

below is a tool to support justification for an LRU / component /
system MTBF compliance to agreed requirements.
This tool can be used to justify/explain expected performance of the
current design based on the field performance of a legacy design.
Field performance of the legacy design has to available before
employing this method.
The analysis based on field data can be an acceptable mean to
validate the reliability guarantees for the equipment with
existing/proven design. The field data can be used only after
evaluating the component similarity from reliability point of view.
The similarity should refer to the design, operational and
environmental parameters as shown in the table on the next page. For
each entry line, user is requested to enter I (identical), S (Similar) or D
(different). Each section is then evaluated as the lowest grade of its
parameters (D is the lowest, S is lower than I).
The entire design is labeled as 3 letters, each letter representing a
section. The order is design, operational and environmental.
Based on the similarity classification, possible outcomes are:
 similarity can be accepted as a mean to validate the reliability,
 similarity might be accepted but action needs to be taken
 similarity approach is rejected
SIMILARITY ASSESMENT Identical (I) Similar (S) Different (D) Details
A. Design Parameters
1. Function
2. Specification/
Performances
3. Parts (based on bill of
materials)
4. Structure (for
mechanical components)
5. Material (for
6. Shape/geometry (for
7. Schematic/Circuit/
Boards/Packing etc.
8. Software
9. Components/Parts/
LRU/material supplier
10. Product Assembly
11. Development and
manufacturing Processing
12. Other
__________________
B. Operational Conditions
1. Duty Cycle
2. Voltage
3. Power
4. Pressure
5. Mechanical stress
6. Other
__________________
C. Environmental Conditions
1. Temperature
2. Vibration
3. Moisture
4. Electromagnetic
radiation
5. Humidity
6. Shock
7. Icing
8. Altitude
(pressurized/unpressurize
d)
9. Acceleration
10. Chemicals
11. Other
_____________________
Value
Design parameters
Operational Conditions
Environmental Conditions
TOTAL
SIMILARITY ASSESSMENT - OUTCOME
I S D
Identical to equipment
Similar to equipment
with sufficient field Different to equipment
with sufficient field data.
data or minor with sufficient field data.
Minor differences, on
Design Similarity differences, on Major difference in
characteristics that has a
characteristics that has design for at least one
major impact on
a demonstrated minor reliability driver.
component reliability.
impact on reliability.
Similar, minor Different, major
differences (differences differences (differences
not more than 15%) for more than 15%) for
Operational Conditions Identical
major operational major operational
reliability factors except reliability factors except
duty cycle. duty cycle.
Identical or the
environments, both Different, the
Similar, the environments,
amplitude and environments, both
both amplitude and
duration, encountered amplitude and duration,
duration, encountered by
by the unit providing encountered by unit
Environmental Conditions unit
field data have been with field data < 90%
with field data > 90%
more severe than the less severe than the
than the environments
environments intended environments intended
intended for new unit.
for new design. for new unit.
The next pages present an MTTF/MTBF approach.
BREAK-DOWN SIMILAR INTO IDENTICAL
& DIFFERENT
For any result « similar », the item under study needs to be broken-
down further.
E.g.: similar design of a power supply because the connecters are new
but the electronic board is identical. Action: consider electrical
connectors as one item (different) and electronic board as a separate
item (identical)
E.g.: similar environmental conditions for an electronic board installed

in the electronic bay of a train as the ON phase is identical
(temperature, vibration, humidity, etc.) and the OFF phase is different
because the legacy train operates in Brazil while the new design
operates in Montreal. Action: break-down the environmental
conditions in operating conditions (identical) and stand-by conditions
(different).

SIMILARITY – 3 ITERATIONS
Conceptual - high level

 design parameters,
 system operating & environmental conditions,
 standard mission profile
Early design - unit level

 unit operational & environmental conditions,
 standard unit mission profile,
 user variability assessment
Detailed design – component level

 standard component mission profile,
 component operational & environmental conditions

Pump design comparison
EXAMPLE 1: CONCEPTUAL PHASE

EXAMPLE 1: CONCEPTUAL PHASE

EXAMPLE 2: EARLY DESIGN

EXAMPLE 2: EARLY DESIGN

EXAMPLE 3: DETAILED DESIGN

EXAMPLE 3: DETAILED DESIGN

THE RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN
Reference:
RELIABILITY AND THE PROGRAM PLAN –
A RISK BASED APPROACH
The concept is simple: everything is at risk until proven otherwise.
The program plan shall be accompanied by a matrix risk. The matrix

should include any potential risk, as presented in next slides.
The user should consider even the ones which seem not to be at risk
due to what might seem obvious reasons.

RELIABILITY AND THE PROGRAM PLAN –
In the conceptual phase, the main tasks should be :

 to identify these risks
 to label as RISK LEVEL 1 the most ones which obviously is not a risk
and to provide a mean of validation.
 to carry the labeling of RISK LEVEL 1 over the other phases of the
program and ensure that the level is correctly assigned.
 Anything else will be marked as RISK LEVEL 2 or RISK LEVEL 3
 to carry the labeling of RISK LEVEL 2 over the other phases of the
program and ensure that the validation method is part of the
program in any of the design, validation or manufacturing phases
RISK LEVEL 2: any risk that cannot yet be fully justified and needs
extra validation but there are high chances that the validation will
reduce the risk to level 1
RISK LEVEL 3: new items (different from the similarity analysis)
NOTE: it is acceptable to enter the early design phase with RISK

LEVEL 3 levels. Actually, a concern should be raised if, for a new
project, no RISK LEVEL 3 is identified. This generally shows a poor risk
analysis.
NOTE 2: Analytical analysis is a necessary but not sufficient mean to
extinct a risk.

RESULT I I I
As all the elements of comparison have been proved to be identical to

the existing pump in the field and as the field performance of the
legacy design has proved sufficient reliability, all the elements can be
labeled as RISK LEVEL 1.
A RISK LEVEL 2 item has to be entered, marking the possibility of any

change during the design phase. The natural action for this risk (and
gate exit) is to re-evaluate the similarity of the pump design at the
end of both the early and detailed design phases.

RESULT D I I - EARLY DESIGN
From a reliability point of view, the pump is composed by 2 elements:

the new bearing and the rest of the pump (old design).
A RISK LEVEL 3 item has to created on the design change that
implements the new bearing. Obviously, a tailored reliability program
needs to be developed for the bearing.
For the rest of the pump, except bearing, as all the elements of
comparison have been proved to be identical to the existing pump in
the field and as the field performance of the legacy design has
proved sufficient reliability, all the elements can be labeled as RISK
LEVEL 1.
A RISK LEVEL 2 item has to be entered, marking the possibility of any
change during the design phase. The natural action for this risk (and
gate exit) is to re-evaluate the similarity of the pump design at the
end of the detailed design phases.

RESULT D D I – DETAILED DESIGN
From a reliability point of view, the pump is composed by 2 elements:

the new bearing and the rest of the pump (old design).
Also, the operational conditions show a major difference, as the new
design will be used 100% of the duty cycle.
A RISK LEVEL 3 item has to created on the design change that
implements the new bearing. Obviously, a tailored reliability program
needs to be developed for the bearing.
For the rest of the pump, except bearing, as all the elements of
comparison have been proved to be identical to the existing pump in
the field, except for the duty cycle, all the elements can be labeled as
RISK LEVEL 3. A detailed study in the design phase is required to
evaluate the impact of the new duty cycle.
Note: generally, for a simple case like this, the reliability is expected to
decrease by 5 times. This statement is true under some specific
assumptions
1. The dormant phase (80% of the duty cycle has a much lower
impact on the reliability than the operating phase), and
2. The dormant phase does not imply any action (e.g. bearing is
auto lubricated during the off phase) and, by eliminating it,
there is no impact on the operational phase.

RELIABILITY AND THE PROGRAM
PLAN – A RISK BASED APPROACH
E.g. humidity impact on conformal coated electronic
Conformal coating material is a thin polymeric film which
‘conforms’ to the contours of a printed circuit board to protect the
board's components. Typically applied at 25-250
μm[1](micrometers) it is applied to electronic circuitry to act as
protection against moisture, dust, chemicals, and temperature
extremes that, if uncoated (non-protected), could result in
damage or failure of the electronics to function
As the final electronic circuit (in this case) is conformal coated, the
natural temptation is not to list the humidity among the risks. Still,
the humidity should be listed and the risk carried over the
program (see next slides).

RELIABILITY OVER THE PROGRAM
PLAN – A RISK BASED APPROACH
For the conformal coating example, the RISK LEVEL 1 can be
assigned to the humidity in all phases of the program if one of the
following means to validate can be used:
1. Previous experience: applicable if the conformal coating
process has been used before and proved in the field by
sufficient amount of data (e.g. no corrosion on legacy
electronic boards due humidity used in identical conditions)
and no process changes will be made for the production of
the current design, or
2. Electronic board will be used in an environmentally
controlled application 100% of the time (storage, transport,
installation, operation) , ensuring thus the board will never
be exposed to humidity.

RELIABILITY OVER THE PROGRAM PLAN –
For the previous example of conformal coating, the RISK LEVEL 2

can be assigned to the humidity in conceptual phase, early and
advanced design phases if the process or the coating needs to be
validated during the validation phase:
Testing: applicable if the previous mean cannot be used. E.g. build
a test to simulate ageing of the conformal coating applicable to
the current design and check if an aged conformal coating is still
capable of meeting the initial requirements when exposed to
humidity.
At the end of the validation phase, for this example, the humidity
will become either a RISK LEVEL 1 if the test is passed or a RISK
LEVEL 3 if the test is failed.
3 methods to apply conformal coating
Conformal coating crack (failure to protect)

RISK IMPACT ASSESSMENT IN THE
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING PROGRAM
Build the risk matrix

What to include (pretty much everything):
 New design, new operational conditions, new environmental conditions
 changes or unknowns in the supply chain, production, transport,
installation, etc.
 sensitivity to environmental conditions
 list of generic risks
 5 (or 7) WHY results
 lessons learned input
Conceptual phase KPI: a minimum of X risks to be identified

Early design & detailed design phase: no RISK LEVEL 3
Validation phase: no RISK LEVEL 2
Note: X value depends on the project and on the results of the reliability
matrix (see assess you assets chapter)
Risk identification is an iterative process. As the program progresses, more

information will be gained about the program (e.g., specific design), and
the risk statement will be adjusted to reflect the current understanding.
New risks will be identified as the project progresses through the life cycle.
Reference:
RISK IMPACT ASSESSMENT IN THE
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING PROGRAM
Generic risks example for electronics
- high temperature
- temperature variation
- humidity
- hot spots
- vibration (heavy components)
- icing
- dust / pollution / corrosion
- connectors
- static electricity
- lead-free / soldering technology
- unused pins
- voltage / current derating
- power / current spikes
- on/off cycling
- thermal / humidity / mechanical shock
- ventilation (temperature & dust)
- heat dissipation
- particular risks (e.g. acid from batteries)
- solar / cosmic radiation
- packaging / transport / installation
ETC

Reliability Program Planning

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Reliability Program Planning

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A GOAL WITHOUT A PLAN…

RELIABILITY AND MAINTENANCE

FOR DESIGN AND Plan (RPP)

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

Achieving reliability is a long-term process. This process encompass

A reliability program plan is used to document exactly what tasks,

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

Now that we understand the size of our Gap by Assembly, we must

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

What reliability elements/tools will be used ? Based on the size of the

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

DFR Influence on the final

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

3.3 Supply Chain Management 3.1 Analysis

Reliability must be designed into products and processes, using the

Not all techniques need or can be used within a program / project

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

In the front-end phase the target value for product reliability is

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

Scenario B: The assessed reliability indicates that the target value is

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

Definition: Risk management is the process of identifying risk, assessing

As reliability needs to be embedded into the product and cannot be

A similarity for reliability analysis needs to be carried.

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

As part of reliability validation activities using legacy field data,

The next pages present an MTTF/MTBF approach.

E.g.: similar environmental conditions for an electronic board installed

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

Conceptual - high level

Early design - unit level

Detailed design – component level

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

EXAMPLE 1: CONCEPTUAL PHASE

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

EXAMPLE 1: CONCEPTUAL PHASE

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

EXAMPLE 2: EARLY DESIGN

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

EXAMPLE 2: EARLY DESIGN

INDU 691/4 - Winter 2018 DR. SORIN VOICULESCU

EXAMPLE 3: DETAILED DESIGN