Browse Topic: Quality, Reliability, and Durability
In 1994, the SAE G-11 Reliability, Maintainability, Supportability and Logistics (RMSL) Division chartered a software committee, G-11SW, to create several software standards and guidance documents across the RMSL spectrum, including a software reliability program standard and implementation guidelines. The committee was formed as a cross section of international representatives from commercial industries and governments. The G-11SW committee has developed a standard (JA1002) and these implementation guidelines (JA1003) that are consistent with a SAE G-11 system level reliability program standard (JA1000) and guidelines (JA1000-1), augmented by necessary software-specific information. The G-11SW committee believes these documents reflect the best current commercial practices, and meet the objectives of the United States Department of Defense Acquisition Reform initiative and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Reliability Program. The JA1002 program standard is intended to be
The importance of reliability in design engineering has significantly grown since the early Sixties. Competition has been a primary driver in this growth. The three realities of competition today are: world class quality and reliability, cost-effectiveness, and fast time-to-market. Formerly, companies could effectively compete if they could achieve at least two of these features in their products and product development processes, often at the expense of the third. However, customers today, whether military, aerospace, or commercial, have been sensitized to a higher level of expectation and demand products that are highly reliable, yet affordable. Product development practices are shifting in response to this higher level of expectation. Today, there is seldom time, or necessary resources to extensively test, analyze, and fix to achieve high quality and reliability. It is also true that the rapid growth in technology prevents the accumulation of historical data on the field performance
This SAE standard establishes the requirement for suppliers to plan a reliability program that satisfies the following three requirements: a. The supplier shall ascertain customer requirements b. The supplier shall meet customer requirements c. The supplier shall assure that customer requirements have been met
This SAE Standard establishes the requirement for suppliers to plan a reliability program that satisfies the following three requirements: a. The supplier shall ascertain customer requirements; b. The supplier shall meet customer requirements; c. The supplier shall assure that customer requirements have been met. This document applies to the specification, design and development, and assurance of any product. This document does not specify the method to be included in the program. Rather, the content of each program must be tailored to satisfy customer requirements using the most appropriate means.
This SAE Standard provides a framework for the management of software reliability within system reliability requirements. It is based around the Software Reliability Plan and Software Reliability Case and emphasizes the importance of evaluating progress towards meeting software reliability requirements throughout the project life-cycle.
This standard establishes the common requirements for training of DPRV personnel for use at all levels of the aerospace engine supply chain. This standard shall apply when an organization elects to delegate product release verification by contractual flow down to its suppliers (reference 9100 and 9110 standards) and to perform product acceptance on its behalf. It is intended that organizations specify their DPRV requirements through the application of AS9117. While the delegating organization will use the AS13001 standard as the baseline for establishing DPRV process and product training, it may include additional contractual training requirements to meet its specific needs. The DPRV training material was primarily developed for aerospace engine supply chain requirements. However, this standard may also be used in other aerospace industry sectors where a DPRV process requiring specific training can be of benefit.
This FMEA standard describes potential failure mode and effects analysis in design (DFMEA), supplemental FMEA-MSR, and potential failure mode and effects analysis in manufacturing and assembly processes (PFMEA). It assists users in the identification and mitigation of risk by providing appropriate terms, requirements, rating charts, and worksheets. As a standard, this document contains requirements—”must”—and recommendations—”should”—to guide the user through the FMEA process. The FMEA process and documentation must comply with this standard as well as any corporate policy concerning this standard. Documented rationale and agreement with the customer are necessary for deviations in order to justify new work or changed methods during customer or third-party audit reviews.
This document applies to the development of Plans for integrating and managing COTS assemblies in electronic equipment and Systems for the commercial, military, and space markets, as well as other ADHP markets that wish to use this document. For purposes of this document, COTS assemblies are viewed as electronic assemblies such as printed wiring assemblies, disk drives, servers, printers, laptop computers, etc. There are many ways to categorize COTS assemblies1, including the following spectrum: At one end of the spectrum are COTS assemblies whose design, internal parts2, materials, configuration control, traceability, reliability, and qualification methods are at least partially controlled, or influenced, by ADHP customers (either individually or collectively) or by industry standards. An example at this end of the spectrum is a VME circuit card assembly. At the other end of the spectrum are COTS assemblies whose design, internal parts, materials, configuration control, and
Patching vulnerabilities in safety-critical domains such as automotive and aerospace is costly and complex. A small code modification can trigger a complete rebuild, producing a binary with widespread changes. This inflates patch size, complicates regression testing, and makes over-the-air (OTA) updates inefficient, as traditional binary patches often replace large portions of the executable. We present a binary rewriting–based experiment that shows the feasibility of a patch that updates only the affected bytes by computing the impact of a code change at the binary level. This produces minimal, localized patches rather than regenerated executables. The preliminary experiment shows that a single source change, which leads to thousands of modified bytes after recompilation, can be captured with only a few bytes using our method. For automotive and aerospace systems, this technique reduces patch size, conserves bandwidth, and minimizes disruption to certified software, offering a
Oil churning and windage power losses in dip-lubricated gearboxes can significantly affect overall transmission efficiency, particularly at high rotational speeds. As modern gearbox systems are pushed toward higher efficiency and reliability, understanding and predicting these losses becomes increasingly important. In addition to energy dissipation, the associated multiphase flow phenomena—such as oil splashing, thin film formation along gear surfaces, and aeration of the sump—strongly influence lubrication effectiveness, heat transfer, and component durability. Capturing these effects requires a robust numerical strategy that can resolve both power loss mechanisms and multiphase flow dynamics with sufficient accuracy. In this study, a single spur gear is numerically analyzed under varying oil depths and rotational speeds to quantify total power loss and investigate oil flow patterns. The computational approach employs a volume-of-fluid multiphase framework, and the predictions are
With the growth of energy demand, fuel cells as efficient and clean energy devices, have attracted increasing attention. However, the high cost of membrane electrode assembly (MEA) restricts their large-scale application. Therefore, reducing the platinum usage and improving performance have become key research point. In this work, MEA was prepared and excellent performance of 1.52 W·cm-2 was achieved at a low platinum loading. The influence of different ionomer/carbon (I/C) ratio on the performance of fuel cells was systematically investigated. It was found that the performance of the MEA was the highest when the I/C ratio is 0.6. Quantifying hydrophilic and hydrophobic characteristics of catalyst layers with varying ionomer contents revealed that the proton conduction efficiency is optimal when the I/C ratio is 0.6. This balance established efficient proton conduction pathways, from the results of proton conduction impedance testing. SEM analysis demonstrated that pore structure
This specification covers quality assurance sampling and testing procedures used to determine conformance to applicable material specifications of corrosion- and heat-resistant steel and alloy forgings.
Gasoline direct injection (GDI) engines are the most common technology on American roadways in 2025, and soon, an industrywide gasoline quality standard will better reflect their unique operational needs. Here's why that's important. It's no secret that fuel economy has been one of the greatest driving forces of automotive evolution over the past several decades. As corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards have grown increasingly lofty, OEMs eke out new efficiencies from every area of the vehicle. One of those areas, of course, is the engine, and many OEMs have deployed gasoline direct injection (GDI) technology, which is becoming the most common engine technology on American roadways. But while GDI engines proliferate, varying fuel additization throughout North America has not necessarily kept pace with their unique needs and can, in fact, hinder those engines from meeting and sustaining their full fuel economy potential.
Items per page:
50
1 – 50 of 10141