Severity rates

A combination of several rate constants affecting the rate of an enzyme-substrate reaction. 

The latter kind of formulation is described at length in Sec. 7. The assumed mechanism is comprised of adsorption and desorption rates of the several participants and of the reaction rates of adsorbed species. In order to minimize the complexity of the resulting rate equation, one of the several rates in series may be assumed controlling. With several controlling steps the rate equation usually is not exphcit but can be used with some extra effort. 

For a eatastrophie failure in the aerospaee industry with a high probability of loss of life, whieh relates to an FMEA Severity Rating (S) = 10, a business eould quite possibly need insuranee eover well in exeess of 100 million. This will allow for eosts due to failure investigations, legal aetions, produet reeall and possible loss of... 

While 30 ppm may be acceptable as a maximum probability of occurrence for a failure of low severity, it is not acceptable as severity increases. An example table of FMEA Severity Ratings was shown in Figure 2.20. In the definite return to manufacturer (a warranty return) or violation of statutory requirement region (S = 5 or S = 6), the designer would seek ways to enhance the process capability or else utilize some inspection or test process. Reducing d will reduce occurrence, as indicated by equation 2.11, but inspection or test is of limited efficiency. 

Components/eharaeteristies in the unaeeeptable design zone are virtually eertain to eause expensive failures unless redesigned to an oeeurrenee level aeeeptable for their failure severity rating (minimum Cpi = 1.33). In the intermediate zone, if aeeeptable design eonformability eannot be aehieved, then speeial eontrol aetion will be required. If speeial aetion is needed then the eomponent/eharaeteristie is eritieal. However, it is the designer s responsibility to ensure that every effort is made to improve the design to eliminate the need for speeial eontrol aetion. 

The Conformability Matrix (see later for an example) primarily drives assessment of the variability effeets. The Conformability Matrix requires the deelaration of FMEA Severity Ratings and deseriptions of the likely failure mode(s). It is helpful in this respeet to have the results from a design FMEA for the produet. 

For each q and q risk value and the Severity Rating (S), a level of design acceptability is determined from where these values intersect on the Conformability Map. The symbols, relating to the levels of design acceptability, are then placed in the nodes of the Conformability Matrix for each variability risk which the failure mode is directly dependent on for the failure to occur. Once the level of design acceptability has been determined, it can then be written on the Conformability Matrix in the Comments section. Cpi values predicted or comments for suppliers can be added too, although predicted Cp values can also be written in the variability risks results table. 

E 7) r — S. i E Garnpcrcrij 3SS-c-nMv Failufe Descriptt n FMEA Severity Rating CS) Con-irner its jnciLcdlrig action Tor suppliers)... 

For example, the characteristic dimension A on the cover support leg was critical to the success of the automated assembly process, the potential failure mode being a major disruption to the production line. An FMEA Severity Rating (S) = 8 is allocated. See a Process FMEA Severity Ratings table as provided in Chrysler Corporation et al. (1995) for guidance on process orientated failures. The component cost, Pc = 5.93 and the number planned to be produced per annum, N = 50000. 

This case study concerns the initial design and redesign of a security cover assembly for a solenoid. The analysis only focuses on those critical aspects of the assembly of the product that must be addressed to meet the requirement that the electronics inside the unit are sealed from the outside environment. An FMEA Severity Rating (S) for the assembly was determined as S = 5, a warranty return if failure is experienced. 

Figure 2.42 shows the variability risks analysis based on the toleranees assigned to meet the 0.2 mm toleranee for the assembly. Given that an FMEA Severity Rating (S) = 5 has been determined, whieh relates to a definite return to manufaeturer , both impaet extruded eomponents are in the unaeeeptable design region, as well as the bobbin and plunger end seal as shown on the Conformability Matrix in Figure 2.43. The toleranee for the brass tube base thiekness has no risk and is an aeeeptable design.

From an FMEA of the system design, a Severity Rating S) = 1 was allocated, relating to a safety critical failure in service. It is required to find the optimum unequal angle section size from the standard sizes available. It is assumed that the load is carried at the section s centre of gravity, G, and only stresses due to bending of the section are considered, that is, the torsional effects are minimal. The combined weight of the beam and tie rod are not to be taken into account. 

---