Combined Analyses Procedure of Failure Modes and Risk Phenomena Using the Concept of Normal State Conditions

Yuichi Otsuka, Takeshi Ishizaki, Yukio Miyashita, Yoshiharu Mutoh

Top Runner Incubation Center for Academia-Industry Fusion, Nagaoka University of Technology, 1603-1 Kamitomioka-cho, Nagaoka-shi, Niigata, Japan.

DOI: 10.4236/ojsst.2012.23011                

Abstract

Normal failure or risk analyses procedure contains the following steps; 1) modeing process, 2) assessment process of its hazardous extent. 1) Modeling process is the considering procedure that sets the sequence of happening failures or risks. 2) Assessment process is the evaluation procedure that express its hazardous extent quantitatively or qualitatively (probability, seriousness of injury etc.). According to ISO14120 (Risk assessment process), ranking procedure of risks are established. However, there is no logical procedure for 1. Modeling process and these steps still highly depends on designer’s knowledge or experiences of failures and accidents. It is necessary to establish a logical guideline of failure modeling process for fresh designers in order to effectively conduct failure and risk analyses with their acceptable workloads. This study aims at proposing the logical failure modeling process based on the SSM (Stress-strength model) and the normal-state conditions. In the beginning, designers make a stress-strength model of considering components and its “normal condition”. Introducing “deviations” in normal conditions of stress-strength state and surrounding environmental conditions can lead the designers to easily predict failure modes caused by the proposed deviations. Similar steps are applied in the process of considering risk phenomena caused by failure modes. A case study of assessing the safety of micro windmill demonstrated the effectiveness of our proposed procedures.

Keywords

Failure Modes and Effects Analyses (FMEA); Risk Assessment; Design Review; System Safety

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	M. G. Stewart and R. E. Melchers, “Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Engineering Systems,” Morikita Publishing Inc., Tokyo, 2003, pp. 190-227.
[2]	K. Suzuki, “Principle of Preventive Solutions and Its System,” Nikkagiren Publishing, Tokyo, 2004, pp. 89-96.
[3]	T. Yoshimura, “Toyota-Style Preventive Solutions GD3,” Nikkagiren Publishing, 2000, pp. 52-91.
[4]	H. Shimizu and T. Yoshimura, “Reliability Problem Prevention Method of Stimulating Creativity Needed to Notice Problems,” Transactions of the Japan Society of Mechanical Enginees Series C, 2004, Vol. 71, No. 706, pp. 230-237.
[5]	H. Shimizu, Y. Otsuka and H. Noguchi, “Design Review Based on Failure Mode to Visualize Reliability Problems in the Development Stage of Mechanical Products,” International Journal of Vehicle Design, 2009, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 149-165.
[6]	Y. Otsuka, H. Shimizu and H. Noguchi, “Efficacious Design Review Process Including on the Job Training in Finding Misunderstand Errors,” International Journal of Reliability, Quality and Safety Engineering, 2009, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 281-302. doi:10.1142/S021853930900340X
[7]	Y. Otsuka and H. Noguchi, “Noise-Adaptive System Modeling Procedure Based on the Heuristic Method Stimulated by Comparison,” Transactions of the Japan Society of Mechanical Enginees Series C, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 761, pp. 207-216.
[8]	Y. Otsuka, T. Yukawa and Y. Mutoh, “Development of Web-Based Design Review System for Reliability and Safety Knowledge Management,” International Journal of Safety, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2010, pp. 22-28.