12.10.2018 Views

My Reading on ASQ CQA HB Part V Part 2

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Part</strong> VH<br />

Indicati<strong>on</strong><br />

If the undetected failure allows the system to remain in a safe / working state, a sec<strong>on</strong>d failure situati<strong>on</strong> should<br />

be explored to determine whether or not an indicati<strong>on</strong> will be evident to all operators and what corrective acti<strong>on</strong><br />

they may or should take.<br />

Indicati<strong>on</strong>s to the operator should be described as follows:<br />

• Normal. An indicati<strong>on</strong> that is evident to an operator when the system or equipment is operating normally.<br />

• Abnormal. An indicati<strong>on</strong> that is evident to an operator when the system has malfuncti<strong>on</strong>ed or failed.<br />

• Incorrect. An err<strong>on</strong>eous indicati<strong>on</strong> to an operator due to the malfuncti<strong>on</strong> or failure of an indicator (i.e.,<br />

instruments, sensing devices, visual or audible warning devices, etc.).<br />

PERFORM DETECTION COVERAGE ANALYSIS FOR TEST PROCESSES AND MONITORING (From<br />

ARP4761 Standard):<br />

This type of analysis is useful to determine how effective various test processes are at the detecti<strong>on</strong> of latent<br />

and dormant faults. The method used to accomplish this involves an examinati<strong>on</strong> of the applicable failure<br />

modes to determine whether or not their effects are detected, and to determine the percentage of failure rate<br />

applicable to the failure modes which are detected. The possibility that the detecti<strong>on</strong> means may itself fail<br />

latently should be accounted for in the coverage analysis as a limiting factor (i.e., coverage cannot be more<br />

reliable than the detecti<strong>on</strong> means availability). Inclusi<strong>on</strong> of the detecti<strong>on</strong> coverage in the FMEA can lead to each<br />

individual failure that would have been <strong>on</strong>e effect category now being a separate effect category due to the<br />

detecti<strong>on</strong> coverage possibilities. Another way to include detecti<strong>on</strong> coverage is for the FTA to c<strong>on</strong>servatively<br />

assume that no holes in coverage due to latent failure in the detecti<strong>on</strong> method affect detecti<strong>on</strong> of all failures<br />

assigned to the failure effect category of c<strong>on</strong>cern. The FMEA can be revised if necessary for those cases where<br />

this c<strong>on</strong>servative assumpti<strong>on</strong> does not allow the top event probability requirements to be met.<br />

After these three basic steps the Risk level may be provided.<br />

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_mode_and_effects_analysis<br />

Charlie Ch<strong>on</strong>g/ Fi<strong>on</strong> Zhang

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!