How does ReliaSofts Criticality Analysis calculation method differ from the original MIL-STD-1629A and why?
The original MIL-STD-1629A approach to quantitative criticality analysis assumes that the failure behavior of each item follows an exponential distribution and can therefore be defined with a failure rate (l) that does not vary with time. However, in reality, the constant failure rate assumption is not valid for many types of components that will be analyzed with the FMECA methodology, including components that exhibit infant mortality, wearout or other types of non-random failure behavior. See Technical Support document # RS40008 for a discussion of the quantitative criticality analysis method used in ReliaSoft’s Xfmea and RCM++ software. [top] Q: Why don’t Xfmea and RCM++ record a separate Detection rating for each Control? A: There is no benefit to calculating a separate RPN for each Control, since there is no need to prioritize Controls for corrective action. If there are multiple Controls in place for a single Cause then even if each Control is rated separately, there must be some
Related Questions
- Does the gate-counting method for Virtex-E differ from the method used to calculate the original Virtex series?
- How does ReliaSofts Criticality Analysis calculation method differ from the original MIL-STD-1629A and why?
- Why does the construction method for the line differ from the "reference project"?
