可靠性强化试验技术在全压智能探头研制中的应用

目的研究可靠性强化试验技术在全压智能探头研制过程中的应用。方法通过对受试产品施加单一或综合的环境应力,快速激发出产品的潜在故障,并对故障现象进行原因分析、失效模式分析,进而提出改进措施以提高产品的可靠性。以某型机载全压智能探头的可靠性强化试验为例,通过制定相应的试验方案,并阐述了试验实施的整个过程,最后对试验结果进行了评价,并提出了改进方案以提高产品的可靠性,在回归验证试验中证明了改进意见以及改进措施的有效性。结果通过强化试验,在短时间内获得了产品高低温及振动的工作极限应力值,并发现了在其他可靠性环境试验中无法发现的潜在故障,向产品研制单位提供了针对薄弱环节的改进意见,使产品的可靠性得到定性地增长。结论通过对典型产品进行系统级可靠性强化试验的实施与试验结果分析,给出了同类产品进行可靠性强化试验的典型案例和实施步骤。     

基于多试验信息的可靠性综合评估方法

针对在长寿命高可靠产品的样本及数据极少的情况下,同一个样本由于经历了不同环境下的试验而无法进行寿命及可靠性评估的问题,通过对产品进行可靠性建模,并在此基础上进行失效率预计,由预计结果计算获取了各种试验环境下的环境折合因子,由此得到不同环境下的试验所对应规定环境下的试验信息,可对产品的寿命及可靠性进行评估。     

基于储存寿命的战储器材轮换方法研究

针对传统轮换方法在战储器材轮换上的缺陷和不足,结合长储器材失效数据较少、无法实时检测等特点,提出了一种利用定期检测数据分析小子样储存可靠度,并估计其储存寿命来确定轮换期的方法。在求解寿命分布参数时,为克服迭代法运算时间较长、初始值选取对迭代结果收敛性影响较大等不足,利用粒子群算法求解。通过实例分析表明,该方法得到的结果与工程实际相吻合,能为战储器材的轮换提供有效的决策支持。     

国内耦合协调度模型的误区及修正

随着对科学发展观认识的深入,耦合协调度模型成为研究区域整体均衡发展程度的有效评价与研究工具。但在该模型使用中,存在书写错误、丢失系数、错用权重和模型不成立四类误区,已经显著影响到学术研究的科学性。因此首先明确传统耦合协调度模型的规范公式,在探讨该传统模型在社会科学领域研究中效度问题基础上,进一步提出耦合度的修正模型。此外耦合协调度模型还存在指标构建的主观性、耦合结果的波动性和无可比性的信度问题。以京津冀生态与经济系统为例,验证修正后的耦合协调度模型具有较好的效度,研究对象的时空变化会显著影响耦合协调度模型的信度。     

加速试验在新型弹药可靠性研究上的应用

介绍了新型弹药和加速试验的相关理论,并分析了加速试验在新型弹药方面研究的国内外现状.对新型弹药全寿命周期各阶段进行了划分,概述了加速试验在不同阶段的应用状况.区分了加速寿命试验和加速退化试验两种类型,对加速试验数据的处理流程进行了阐述.分别对寿命分布模型、加速模型及参数估计三个内容进行了简要概括,指出了常见模型的种类、假设检验和参数估计的一般方法.最后指出了加速试验的现状及下一步的研究方向.     

某型滑油温度传感器的可靠性强化试验

针对诱发滑油温度传感器故障模式的主要环境因素进行了分析,确定了影响滑油温度传感器可靠性的敏感环境应力。根据滑油温度传感器结构间的逻辑关系和可靠性框图,建立其故障树,找出了潜在薄弱环节作为可靠性强化试验的主要关注点。依据可靠性强化试验理论设计了试验方案,并制定了试验剖面。     

RANDAP: An integrated framework for reliability analysis of detailed action plans of combined automatic-operator emergency response taking into account control room operator errors

Automatic process control and control room operators supervision/intervention in an emergency are of critical importance in major hazard industries. These combined operator and automatic actions are defined in Detailed Action Plans (DAP). A framework has been proposed for analyzing the reliability, and hence the likelihood of success, of DAPs. The Reliability Block Diagram technique is utilized for modeling the reliability of integrated automatic-operator emergency actions. The focus is on incorporating operator's operational and cognitive errors in the process/equipment reliability analysis. For this purpose, the human reliability analysis method SPAR-H is utilized. The proposed framework was used for analyzing emergency response DAPs of a real process plant in order to check and improve its applicability. It is argued that the presented framework facilitates the DAP assessment process by performing Task Analysis, modeling the detailed tasks as well as reliability analysis, thereby uncovering the shortcomings of the designed DAPs. Besides, it provides a very effective, transparent tool with insight into improvement areas and directions for improving the reliability of DAPs.     

Issues of the Human Reliability Analysis in the Context of Probabilistic Safety Studies

This article addresses methodological issues of the human reliability analysis (HRA) in the context of probabilistic safety studies. Several conventional HRA techniques, more often used for the evaluation of the human error probabilities (HEPs), have been classified. A taxonomy of human actions, failure events, and related factors is outlined in order to distinguish action phases, human behavior types and incorrect outputs (errors of omission or commission), error types (slips, lapses, and mistakes), and performance-shaping factors (PSFs) influencing the human performance. A tree is proposed to facilitate the selection of a specific method for the evaluation of human reliability with regard to attributes of the situation analyzed. A software system based on the expert system technology to facilitate and document PSA and HRA is outlined. At the end of the article some research challenges in the domain are discussed.     

An Investigation of Stress Level and Human Reliability Analysis of Two Security Companies in Taiwan

This article presents the results of an evaluation and comparison study of three subjective techniques for determining human reliability under stress for work performed at two Taiwanese security companies. Stress levels at security companies were estimated by using the Unified Tri-service Cognitive Performance Assessment Battery and 40 participants from two similar-sized companies. Experiment results (memory searching task and mathematical processing task) indicated that the participants were under high levels of stress. Three subjective techniques (Success Likelihood Index Method, Technique for Human Error Rate Prediction, and Human Error Assessment and Reduction Technique) for estimating human error probability were evaluated and compared by using 20 experts for six tasks. The comparison criteria are interjudge consistency and accuracy. Of the three human error probability tests studied, the Technique for Human Error Rate Prediction and Success Likelihood Index Method were more consistent than the Human Error Assessment and Reduction Technique. The same relationship occurred in the comparison of accuracy. Thus, the Human Error Assessment and Reduction Technique may need to be modified in some way if it is to be useful. It was already known that this technique required modifications in error-producing conditions and nominal human unreliability. Our work presents additional evidence to substantiate this.     

Reliability of a Questionnaire and an Ergonomic Checklist for Assessing Working Conditions and Health at Call Centres

Background. The purpose was to study the test-retest reliability and internal consistency of questions in aquestionnaire concerning working conditions and health and the inter-rater reliability of observations andmeasurements according to an ergonomic checklist. Method. Fifty-seven operators participated in a retestquestionnaire and 58 operators participated in an inter-observer test. Results. The questions had fair to good or higher reliability in 142 of the total of 312. Twenty-seven of the total of 44 variables in the ergonomicchecklist were classified as having fair to good or higher reliability. Conclusions. About half of the questionshad fair to good or higher reliability and can be recommended for further analyses. The majority of variablesin the ergonomic checklist were classified as having fair to good or higher reliability. Low reliability does notnecessarily indicate that the reliability of the test, per se, is low but may signify that the conditions measuredvary over time or that the answers are aggregated in one part of the scale.