Volume 3: 9th International Design Theory and Methodology Conference 1997
DOI: 10.1115/detc97/dtm-3872
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Advanced Failure Modes and Effects Analysis Using Behavior Modeling

Abstract: This paper presents a systematic method applicable at the early stages of design to enhance life-cycle quality of ownership: Advanced Failure Modes and Effect Analysis (AFMEA). The proposed method uses behavior modeling to simulate device operations and helps identify failure and customer dissatisfaction modes beyond component failures. The behavior model reasons about conditions that cause departures from normal operation and provides a framework for analyzing the consequences of failures. The paper shows how… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2003
2003
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The failure mode, effects, and criticality analysis (Apollo Reliability and Quality Assurance Office 1966) and advanced failure modes and effects analysis (Eubank, Kmenta & Ishii 1997) could include variation considerations as an input to the estimation of the probability of failure, but they do not describe how to evaluate the product in this perspective. This aspect was introduced in the variation mode and effect analysis (VMEA) proposed by Chakhunashvili, Johansson & Bergman (2004), which evaluates the variation risk on the key product characteristics and focuses on the variation impact on the important functions.…”
Section: Evaluation Of Variationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The failure mode, effects, and criticality analysis (Apollo Reliability and Quality Assurance Office 1966) and advanced failure modes and effects analysis (Eubank, Kmenta & Ishii 1997) could include variation considerations as an input to the estimation of the probability of failure, but they do not describe how to evaluate the product in this perspective. This aspect was introduced in the variation mode and effect analysis (VMEA) proposed by Chakhunashvili, Johansson & Bergman (2004), which evaluates the variation risk on the key product characteristics and focuses on the variation impact on the important functions.…”
Section: Evaluation Of Variationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The most serious drawback of FMEA method is its incapability to address a tradeoff between cost of failure and performance of a system. Enhancements to address this trade off have been developed, such as using behavior models, Advanced FMEA, and qualitative simulation models (Eubank et al , 1996, 1997; Kmenta and Ishii, 1998; Rhee and Ishii, 2003; Snooke, 1999). Russomanno (1999) integrated a qualitative simulation with behavior model to analyze FMEA into a knowledge system for an organization.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bouti et al [9] and Price et al [10] suggested methods for process FMEA application. Eubanks et al [11,12] proposed a more generic approach for both design and process FMEA. However, most of the methods require a considerable amount of modelling e ort to be used e ectively.…”
Section: Motivationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The relationships between functions and artefacts are represented by the mapping between a functional and a structural model (Fig. 1), as de®ned by Eubanks et al [12].…”
Section: Modelling In Fmea Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%