2009
DOI: 10.1109/rams.2009.4914678
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reliability analysis techniques: How they relate to aircraft certification

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is a highly recognized standard in military and commercial industries. It is also most likely the most internationally accepted empirical reliability prediction method [34]. This is due to its simple method of determining the failure rate of most integrated circuits.…”
Section: Mil-std-217mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is a highly recognized standard in military and commercial industries. It is also most likely the most internationally accepted empirical reliability prediction method [34]. This is due to its simple method of determining the failure rate of most integrated circuits.…”
Section: Mil-std-217mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…System development and safety assessment are intimately linked and crossing each other (see Figure 7). With the growing of aviation industry, safety assessment goes through "safety experiment"-"FMEA"-"FHA, FMEA, and FTA" and puts forward examination of software [40]. Moreover, FAA and EASA suggest safety analysis including FHA, PSSA, SSA, FMEA, and CCA.…”
Section: E System Safety Assessment Guides Aircraft Designmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The body of a module is effectively created by Rule 5. After that, basic declaration instructions (Rules 6-8), commands (Rules 9-11) and repair transitions (12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22) are created. To complete the translation strategy, formula expressions are created (Rules 23-28) using a set of rules that decomposes all logic expressions (Rules 29-35).…”
Section: Translation Rulesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This can introduce errors in the analysis. Moreover, they are not cost-effective, because the probability of each failure condition (top event) must be evaluated singly (just one failure condition at a time), requiring more effort to undertake the analysis of the whole system [1,17].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%