Failure rate data

[simtech_gr]

i am interested in finding failure rates for several parts of the sim i use.is anybody aware of a database-or something like one-which contains parts and failure rates, or MTBFs?

[mayp]

Some brief points only, the correct assessment of failure rates is quite a science, and can be effected by many factors.

Failure rate data for hardware is typically retrived from published data sources such as Mil-217F or NPRD handbooks. These sources deal with component level data.

For COTS produts, vendor data is the best source, if this cannot be obtained, then data for similar equipment may be available, of the reliability engineer can estimate the FR.

To assess the FR of a circuit card, then the individual FR's of the components can be fed into a model that will allow the full FR of the card to be estimated

[The Pirate]

when i worked at ford aerospace(anybody remember them?) we used an industrial type system called life cycle support, ie; throughout the industy, including vendors, the predicted versus actual amount of hour/days/cycles etc., any particular part that either moved, rotated,or flowed any liquid, current,etc. had to be benchmarked by the manufacturer/vendor to operate a certain amount of time. our part, actually one of our program managers collected the data from our maint. action forms when we had to replace a tracked part, and would database the life cycle. at one point, a few manufacturer's supplies the range of sound/noise/vibration etc. that a particular part made new, 1/4,1/2,3/4 and end of life cycle that each part of a machine made, as some company's, like TVA, Bonneville Power, and the US Navy(this was one way we kept them things quiet) had computers that listened to it's machines, and prompted replacement of parts,etc., when each landmark of the life cycle was felt/heard/seen/recorded by the system, and major replacements could be scheduled better. back in the day when things were actually made to last, this was how some company's did it. this could be done with almost any type of maint., but this was why MIL-SPEC parts cost more, they were tested/burned in and warrentee'd to work for a certain amount of time. it also costs extra to get certified life cycle certification from manufacturers/suppliers/vendors, as it takes more money to test, certify, verify/track, etc. these were the original reasons for ISO type programs, so manufacturer's could all meet the same requirements for the particular industries they worked with/for, including uncle sam. now ISO is mostly a dog and pony show done on paper and a blurb a company can put on their letter head. life cycle support still exists, just doesn't work well with parts that are mass produced, no data from what manufacturer and what country the part originated, testing and /or certification process was used.
o.k. got that out of my system, maybe i can go back to sleep.