Error combined

In the case of a latent human error the consequences of the error may only become apparent after a period of time when the condition caused by the error combines with other errors or particular operational conditions. Two types of latent error can be distinguished. One category originates at the operational level and leads to some required system function being degraded or unavailable. Maintenance and inspection operations are a frequent source of this type of latent failure. 

Strategy We know that hydrogen forms one covalent bond, carbon forms four, and oxygen forms two. Trial and error, combined with intuition., is needed to fit the atoms together. 

Precision %RSD< 15 % at>3 levels n>5 at each level %RSD<20 % at LLOQ %RSD<20% n=4-7 CV<2.2 % Uncertainty evaluation Coefficient of variation (CV) 1 % Uncertainty of volumetric error 0.3 % Uncertainty of reference standard 0.1 % Uncertainty of weighing 0.5 % Uncertainty of other systematic errors Combined standard uncertainty Coverage factor Expanded uncertainty Relative expanded uncertainty (%) Intraassay CV=2-9 % Interassay CV=4-12%... 

Trial and error combined with application trials and stability tests. The flavour industry has a vast experience concerning the performance of their flavourings and guessing is in many cases the best approach for a new flavour composition in a known food application. 

Charge Balance Errors Combined with Line Structure... 

We can get a qualitative idea of the way small undetectable uncertainties produce a detectable random error in the following way. Imagine a situation in which just four small random errors combine to give an overall error. We will assume that each error has an equal probability of occurring and that each can cause the final result to be high or low by a fixed amount U. 

Statistics can be used to determine the probable error due to random errors if the measurements can be repeated. The probable error due to systematic errors can be estimated by apparatus modification or by guesswork. These errors combine in the same way as the errors in Eq. (11.20). If Sr is the probable error due to random errors and Ss is the probable error due to systematic errors, the total probable error is given by... 

Notice that if two sources of error combine additively and if one is much larger than the other, the smaller error makes a much smaller contribution after the errors are squared. If the error from one source is five times as large as the other, its contribution is 25 times as large, and the smaller error source can be neglected. 

In the Error Approach, where the reference quantity value is known, the aim of the measurement is to determine an estimate of the true value that is as close as possible to that single true value. The deviations from the true value consist of random and systematic errors that have to be treated differently. There are no rules, how systematic and random errors combine to form the total error of any measurement result. Usually, the total error is estimated as an upper limit of the absolute value. This upper limit is sometimes loosely named uncertainty. ... 

System versus isolated event. An accident does not just happen. An accident evolves from latent failures or weaknesses in a system. These failures or weaknesses are cumulative and interactive. Nearly always, a single error is insufficient to create an accident, but the same error combined with others will be cumulatively successful in creating an accident. Research has revealed that at least four errors must align to produce an accident. A recent analysis of a catastrophic medical accident revealed over fifty latent system failures contributing to the... 

Months later, the same error occurred, and again the trajectory was set in motion. This time, the error combined in a lethal combination with other variables, and the error reached the patient. 

The above factors contribute a local error at each step of the calculation. As we move from point to point, the local errors combine to produce a global error. Good integration packages estimate the amount of error as the calculation moves along. The user specifies a tolerance that defines the magnitude of local error that... 

With the use of this MDFEA framework, nonlinearities are accounted for in the individual computational modules, such as in ZEUS-NL and VecTorl. The different features of these modules, including finite element model resolutions, theoretical algorithms and numerical techniques, will lead to different accuracy levels and different deviations of strain and stress resultants. Hence, the actual movements and reaction feedbacks at control points will contain errors combined from multiple modules that are difficult to eliminate. Another error source originates from the interface modeling, such as in this case study example in which either rigid or flexible slab assumptions were used. 

Are there continuous diagnostics which will allow the operator to recognize errors, combinations of accidents or time evolving accidents ... 

The Markov analysis is primarily used to assess the transition from one condition to another. The formula for the safety architectures in the informative part 6 of lEC 61508 was derived from such models. Those formulas are gladly used for the EE safety architectures. However, the basic principles and assumptions, under which the models were designed and the formulas derived, are often not known or not applicable for the realized automotive architectures. Often only one failure at the time is assumed, therefore ageing affects, error combinations, dependent, transient or latent failures are not derivable from this formula. For approximations or as help for the quantification these formulas are applicable if corresponding further analyses are applied. 

For this example, feedforward control with dynamic compensation provides a better response to the mea jci disturbance than does combined feedforward-fee control. However, feedback control is essential to cop unmeasured disturbances and modeling errors, combined feedforward-feedback control system is preferred in practice. 

The elements sketched above will give an indication for the choice of the penalty points and the required minimum x,. Finding a good choice will now be a question of trial-and-error combined with some intuition. Now we will describe the extended (x,7>-rule for a given set of penalty points, with fj, i=l,..,M, j=l,..,N, the penalty points for an order of type i with a residual lead time of J periods. We also assume that the values for T,-, i=l,2,..,M are determined according to the uncapacitated (x,7>-nile according to the method described in 4.2.4.4. 

---