MULTIPLE FAILURE MODES ANALYSIS AND WEIGHTED RISK PRIORITY NUMBER EVALUATION IN FMEA

Traditionally, failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) only considers the impact of single failure on the system. For large and complex systems, since multiple failures of components exist, assessing multiple failure modes with all possible combinations is impractical. Pickard et al. [1] introduced a useful method to simultaneously analyze multiple failures for complex systems. However, they did not indicate which failures need to be considered and how to combine them appropriately. This paper extends Pickard’s work by proposing a minimum cut set based method for assessing the impact of multiple failure modes. In addition, traditional FMEA is made by addressing problems in an order from the biggest risk priority number (RPN) to the smallest ones. However, one disadvantage of this approach is that it ignores the fact that three factors (Severity (S), Occurrence (O), Detection (D)) (S, O, D) have the different weights in system rather than equality. For examples, reasonable weights for factors S, O are higher than the weight of D for some non-repairable systems. In this paper, we extended the definition of RPN by multiplying it with a weight parameter, which characterize the importance of the failure causes within the system. Finally, the effectiveness of the method is demonstrated with numerical examples.

[1]  Ajit Srividya,et al.  Dynamic fault tree analysis using Monte Carlo simulation in probabilistic safety assessment , 2009, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[2]  P. Muller,et al.  Multiple failure mode and effects analysis-an approach to risk assessment of multiple failures with FMEA , 2005, Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, 2005. Proceedings..

[3]  P. O'Connor,et al.  Practical Reliability Engineering , 1981 .

[4]  George Q. Huang,et al.  Web-based failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) , 1999 .

[5]  Chia-Wei Hsu,et al.  Using FMEA and FAHP to risk evaluation of green components , 2008, 2008 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment.

[6]  Jih Kuang Chen Utility Priority Number Evaluation for FMEA , 2007 .

[7]  K. Onodera,et al.  Effective techniques of FMEA at each life-cycle stage , 1997, Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium.

[8]  Borut Mavko,et al.  A dynamic fault tree , 2002, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[9]  Jean-Jacques Lesage,et al.  Probabilistic Algebraic Analysis of Fault Trees With Priority Dynamic Gates and Repeated Events , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Reliability.

[10]  Daniel R. Eno Practical Reliability Engineering, 4th Ed. , 2003 .

[11]  Z. Blivband,et al.  Expanded FMEA (EFMEA) , 2004, Annual Symposium Reliability and Maintainability, 2004 - RAMS.

[12]  Shigeru Yanagi,et al.  Quantitative analysis of a fault tree with priority AND gates , 2008, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[13]  Yung-Ruei Chang,et al.  An improved decomposition scheme for assessing the reliability of embedded systems by using dynamic fault trees , 2007, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[14]  Ralf Fritzsche Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA): A Comparison Between VDA-Approach Versus QS-9000 , 2011 .

[15]  Hong-Zhong Huang,et al.  Posbist fault tree analysis of coherent systems , 2004, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..