...

Military Standard MIL-STD-2155(AS), Failure Reporting, Analysis and Corrective Action System, 1986.

by user

on
Category: Documents
1

views

Report

Comments

Transcript

Military Standard MIL-STD-2155(AS), Failure Reporting, Analysis and Corrective Action System, 1986.
..’
.,.
” :. :-.,
.,-
. . . ..... . ;.
.,.
WL-S~2155([email protected]
24 JULY 1085
MILITARY STANDARD
FAILURE
,,
/
w
o
REPORTING,
ANALYSIS
AND
CORRECTIVE
ACTION SYSTEM
,m,
,/.(
~“
,’
...-.0
“/
AMSC
td3637
DISTRIBUTIOII
STATEMEliT A:
-\
\
“/’
RELI
Approved
for
publ ic
release;
distribution
is
unlimited.
i41L-STD~2
155(AS)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Washington,
D. C.
20301
Failure
Report\ng,
Analysls,
and Gxrectlve
Act\on
System
liIL-STO-2155(AS)
1.
This Hi 1 i tary Standard
!s approved
for use by the Naval Air Systems
Gnmnand, Department
of the Navy, and is aval labl e for use by al 1 Departments and Agencies
of the Department
of Defense.
2.
Beneficial
con’enents (reccmmsandations,
addi tions,
deletlons)
and any
pertinent
data which may be of use in improving
this document should be
addressed
to:
Cossmanding Officer,
Engineering
Specifications
and Standards Department
(Code 93),
Naval Atr Engineering
Center,
Lakehurst,
NJ
08733,
by using the self-addressed
Standardization
Document Improvement
Proposal
(DO Form 1426) appearing
at the end of this document or by letter.
ii
MiL-STO-2155(AS)
FOREHORD
A disclpl!ned
and aggressive
closed
loop failure
Re~’rting,
Analysis,
and
Corrective
ActIon
System (FRACAS) is considered
an essential
element
in the
early
and sustained
achievement
of the reliability
and maintainability
equipment,
and associated
software.
potential
inherent
fn mf Iitary
systems,
The essence of a closed
loop FRACAS is that fai lures
and faults
of both hardware and software
are formal Iy reported,
analysis
1s performed
to the extent
that the fai lure cause is understood,
and positive
corrective
actions
are
identified,
implemented,
and verified
to prevent
further
recurrence
of the
failure.
Corrective
action
options
and flexibi
1 i ty are greatest
during
design
evolution
when even major design
changes can be considered
to el Iminate
or significant
y
These options
and flexibility
reduce susceptibi
lity
to known failure
causes.
become more limited
and expensive
to implement
as a design
beccnnes firm.
The
earlier
a failure
cause is identified
and positive
corrective
action
implemented,
the sooner both the producer
and user real ize the benefits
of reduced
fai lure occurrences
in the factory
and in the fieid.
Early
implementation
of
corrective
action
also has the advantage
of providing
visibi
1ity of the
Early
adequacy
of the corrective
action
In the event more effort
is required.
and detailed
attention
to each failure
or fault
as it occurs
should
limit
the
situation
in which prioritization
of open investigations
causes a backlog
which results
in a number of correctable
deficiencies
being left
to field
service
to resolve
over the years.
It Is recognized
that there are pragmatic
1 imits
to the resources
in time.
money, and engineering
manpower to expend on an analysis
of a particularly
complex fai lure occurrence
or the implementation
of preferred
corrective
These I imi ts are determined
by item priority.
program urgency,
actions.
available
technology,
and engineering
ingenuity.
These 1 imi ts wi 11 vary frc+n
program to program.
The acquiring
activity
has the responsibi
Ilty
of determining
these limits
In light
of accepted
norms established
in successful
programs or even higher
standards
of performance
as warranted
by a particular
program.
iii
MI L-STD-2155(AS)
C13NTENTS
Paragraph
1.
1.1
1.2
1 .2.1
1 .2.2
SCOPE.
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
Purpose.
. . .
. . . . . . . .
Application.
.
. . . . . . . . .
Relationship
to other
requirements
Integration
with other
activities
. I J
2.
2.1
REFERENCED DOCUMENTS
Issues
of documents
3.
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
DEFINITIONS
Terms.
. . . .
Acquiring
activity
Closed
looP faiiure
Contractor
. . .
Corrective
action
Failure.
. . .
Fallureanalysis
Failure
cause.
Failure
Review60ard
Failure
symptom.
Fault
. . . .
Laboratory
analysis
4.
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
GENERAL RECWREMENTS
.
Contractor
responsibility
FRACAS planning
. . .
Failure
Review Board
Failure
documentation
iv
. . . . . . . .
. .
. . . . . .
i
: I I I : J
I
i
i
1
. . . . . . . . . . .
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
1
.
. . .
. . . .
reporting
. . . . .
effectivity
.
. . .
.
. . .
. .
. . .
.
. .
. . . .
. . .
.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . . .
. . . .
system
. . . .
. . .
. . . .
. . . .
. .
. . . .
. . . .
. . .
. . . .
. . .
. . .
. .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
.
.
. . .
. . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
.
. . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
.
,
.
.
. . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
3
3
3
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
MI L-5 TD-2155(AS)
CONTENTS. ([email protected])
Paragraph
5.
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
DETAILED REQJIREHENTS . . . .
Failure
reporting
. . . .
Failure
analysis
. . . .
Failure
verification
. .
Correct ive action
. . . .
Failure
report
C105e-OUt
Identification
and control
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
of
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
failed
. .
. .
..”~
. .
. .
. -
. .
. .
.
. .
. .
. .
items
.
.
.
.
.
.
. ‘. .
. ...4
...-4
. . .
. ...5
. . .
. . .
.
4
-
4
.
5
5
I
APPENDIX
APPLICATION
Paragraph
A
AND TAILORING
GUIDE
10.
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
GENERAL . . . . . . . . . .
Scope . . . . . . . . . .
Tailoring
requirements
.
Duplication
of effort
. .
Relationship
of FRACAS to
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
FMKA
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...-.7
. . . . .
.
. .
. . . . .
.
. .
20.
REFERENCEO EV3CUMENTS
30.
DEFINITIONS
40.
40.1
40.2
GENERAL [email protected]
. . . . . . . . . . . . ...-8
Importance
of FRACAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...8
Oata items
. . . . . . ..-.
. . . . . . . ...8
:::1
50.1.1
50.1.2
50.1.3
50.1.4
50.2
50.2.1
50.2.2
50.2.3
50.2.4
OETAILREOUIREMENTS
. . . . . . .
FRACAS planning
and documentation
Primary
Object ice . . . . . . .
Request of FRACAS plan
. . . .
Requirement
addition
. . .
.
.
Fai lure data
f12A~s data coiliction”
E 1 I .
Effect iveness
of FRAYS . . . .
Fai lures
. . . . . . . . . . .
Failure
analyses
. . . . . . .
Results
of failure
analysis
.
60.
60.1
DATA ITEM DESCRIPTIONS
(OID)
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Oat .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . ..io
.
~
. . . . . . - . .--.....8
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...8
v
. . . . .
. . . .
. . ...-....8
. . . . .
. - . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
..........;
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
8
8
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . . .
. . .
i
9
iO
10
MI L-ST-W2155(AS)
THIS
PAGE INTENTIONALLY
vi
LEFT BLANK
I
MIL-STD-2155(AS)
1.
I
SCOPE
1.1
Purwse.
This standard
establishes
uniform
requirements
and crlterla
for a Fai lure Reporting,
Analysis,
and Corrective
Action
System (FRACAS) to
tmplement
the FRACAS requirement
of MI L-STD-78S.
FRACAS Is intended
to provtde management
visibility
and control
for reliability
and matntainablllty
. .
Improvement
of hardware
and associated
software
by timely
and di sci p 1 I ned
utlllzat!on
of fai lure and maintenance
data to generate
and Implement
effective
corrective
actions
to prevent
fai lure recurrence
and to simplify
or
reduce the maintenance
tasks.
1.2
Application.
This standard
appltes
to acquisitions
for the design,
development,
fabrication,
test,
and operation
of mi 1itary
systems,
equipment,
Thls standard
primarily
applies
to the
and assocl ated computer
programs.
program phases of demonstration
and validation
and ful I scale development.
1 .2.1
Relationship
to other
requirements.
This standard,
in addition
to
implement
ng the FRACAS requirement
of MI L-STD-785,
is intended
to complement
the requirements
of HIL-STO-47D,
141L-STO-781,
MI L-STD-1679.
and MI L-STD-2068.
1 .2.2
Integration
with other
activities.
The FRACAS effort
shail
be
coordinated
and integrated
with other
program efforts
such as reliabi
1ity,
quallty
assurance.
maintainabi
1ity,
human engineering,
system safety,
test,
management,
and
parts,
materials,
and processes
control
, configuration
integrated
logistics
support
to preclude
dupl I cation
of effort
and to produce
integrated
cost effective
results.
..”.
2.
REFERENCED DDCUMENTS
Issue
of documents.
The fol lowing
2.1
on the date of invitation
for bid or request
standard
to the extent
specified
herein.
documents
of
for proposal,
the issue
in effect
form a part of th!s
MILITARY
MI L-STO-280
Oeflnitions
of Item Levels,
Models and Re 1ated Terms
Item
NIL-STO-470
Matntainabi
1 i ty
Systems
000-STD-480
Configuration
Deviations
Control
and Haivers
NIL-STD-721
Definitions
ability
of
Program
Terms
1
for
- Engineering
for
Reliability
Exchangeable
and
i ity,
Equipment
Changes.
and Maintain-
i41L-5TD=215i(AS)
MI L-STD-781
Rel iabi i~ty
tance Tests:
MI L-STD-785
Rel 1abi 11 ty Program
ment and Production
MI L-STD-l
bleapon
679
MI L-STD-2068
bes”lgn Qual if”tcatlon
and Production
Exponential
Di stributton
System
Rel iabi 1 ity
for
Software
Systems
Develop-
Development
Development
(Cop\es
of specifications,
standards,
required
by contractors
in connection
should be obtained
frcnn the contracting
tracting
officer.
)
and Equipment
Accep-
Tests
handbooks,
drawings,
and publ icat!ons
with specific
acquisition
functions
activity
or as directed
by the con-
3.
DEFINITIONS
the
3.1
~.
definitions
Meanl ng of terms not defined
in MI L-STO-280
and MIL-STD-721
herein
.
3.2
Acquiring
contractor)
which
contract
or other
activity.
That activity
levies
FRACAS requirements
document of agreement.
(government,
on another
are
in accordance
contractor,
or
activity
through
with
suba
A control led system assuring
3.3
Ciosed
lmp failure
reportinq
system.
that al 1 fal lures
and faults
are reported,
analyzed
(engineering
or laboratory
anaiysi s), positive
corrective
actions
are identified
to prevent
recurrence,
and that the adequacy
of implemented
corrective
actions
is verified
by test.
The term “contractor”
is defined
as any corporation,
3.4
Contractor.
company, association,
or individual
which undertakes
performance
under the
terms of a contract,
ietter
of intent
or purchase
orders,
project
orders,
and
al Iotment,
in which this document may be 1ncorporated
by reference.
For the
purpose of this standard,
the term “contractor”
also includes
Government
operated
activi
ties undertaking
performance
of a task.
3.5
corrective
fts
Corrective
action
3.6
Fai lure.
requi-ctions
3.7
logical
evidence,
action
effectivity.
wf 11 be or has been
The date
incorporated
An event in which an item does
within
the specified
limits
Fai lure anal ysls.
A determination
reasoning
from examination
of data,
and laboratory
analysis
results.
3.8
Fat lure cause.
niichani sm; e.g. , defective
software
error,
etc.
or i tern serial
number
into the Item.
not perform
one or owe of
under specified
conditions.
of fai lure cause made by use of
symptcens, avai I able physical
The circumstance
that induces
soldering,
design
weakness,
2
when
or activates
a fai lure
assembly
techniques,
,i41L-sTD-2155(As)
I
A group consi sting of representatlves
3.9
Failure
Review lioard.
appropr~ate
contractor
organizations
With the level
of .respons~ bi 1 ity
authority
to assure
that fai lure causes are identified
and corrective
are effected.
with
3.10
the
3.11
detuning,
failure
failure
s vnsptcxn. Any cl rcumstances,
which indicates
!ts existence
A degradation
1n performance
due to
~.
misalignment,
maladjustment,
and so forth.
3.12
Laboratory
anal ysis.
destructive
and nondestructive
t ion, spectrograph!
c anal ysis,
4.
event,
or condition
or occurrence.
The determination
of
laboratory.
techniques
or microphotography.
fal lure
of
from
and
actions
associated
parts,
a failure
mechanism
using
such as x-ray,
dissec-
GENERAL RE~IREMENTS
I
A closed
lcop fal lure reporting,
analy4. I Contractor
responslbil!ty.
sis, and corrective
action
system (FRACAS) shal 1 be implemented
by the contractor
and his subcontractors.
The system shall
be maintained
for reporting,
analysis,
and correction
of hardware
fai lures
and software
errors
that occur
in contractually
specified
levels
of assembly
dur{ng
in-plant
tests
and that
Failures
occurring
in specified
occur at installation
or remote test sites.
levels
of assemblies
in tests
at subcontractors’
facilities
shall
be
integrated
into the contractor’s
data CO1 lection
system for tracking
and
incorporation
in the failure
sumnary and status
reports.
The contractor’s
existing
data collection,
analysis,
and corrective
action
system shall
be used
with modification
only as necessary
to iseet. the. requirements
sPecified
by the
acquiring
activity.
4.2
FRACAS planning.
FRACAS planning
involves
the preparation
of written
procedures
for the initiation
of fai lure reports,
analysis
of fai lures,
and
the feedback
of corrective
actions
into design,
manufacturing,
and test
process.
The contractor’s
procedures
for impl emeriti ng FRACAS and for tracking
and monitoring
fai lure analysis
and corrective
action
status
shal 1 be
Flow diagrams
that depict
fai led hardware
and
described
in the FRACAS plan.
failure
data flow also shall
be documented
in the plan.
A Fai lure Review Board (FRB) shall
be estab4.3
Failure
Review Board.
1 i shed to review
fai lure trends,
corrective
action
status,
and to assure
The personnel
appointed
by the conadequate
corrective
actions
are taken.
tractor
to act on the FRB shal 1 be identified
in the FRACAS procedures
and the
scope or extent
of their
authority
shai 1 be identified.
The FRB shal 1 meet on
a reguiar
basis
to review
fai lure data from appropriate
inspections
and teSt S
including
subcontractor
test fai iures.
The fR6 sha 11 have authort ty to
require
fai lure
investigations
and analyses
by other
contractor
organizations
The acquiring
activity
and to assure
implementation
of corrective
actions.
reserves
the right
to appoint
a representative
to the FRB as an observer.
If
the contractor
can identify
and use an already
existing
function
to perform
the FRB functions,
then a description
of how the existing
function
wi il be
empioyed
to meet acquiring
activity
requirements
shall, be provided
for
acquiring
activity
review.
3“
MIL-STD-Z155(AS)
Records
shal 1 be ma!ntalned
for al 1 r~ported
4.4
Failure
documentation.
fa~lures,
failure
investigations
and analyses,
assignable
failure
causes,
corrective
act!ons
taken,
and effectiveness
of corrective
acttons.
These
records
shall
be organtzed
to permit
efficient
retrieval
for fat lure trending,
fat lure summary and status
reports.
knowledge
of previous
fai lures
and fat lure
Fal lure documentation
shall
analyses,
and corrective
action
nmnitorlng.
include
a uniform
reference
identif
icatlon
to provide
complete
traceabi
llty
of
al I records
and actions
taken for each reported
fat 1ure.
5.
DETAILED
[email protected]
5.1 Failure
reporting.
Fai lures
and faults
that occur during
appropriate
inspections
and tests
shal I be reported.
The failure
report
shall
include
information
that permits
identification
of the failed
Item,
synrptoms of
failure,
test conditions,
bu~lt-in-test
(BIT)
indications,
and item operating
time at time of failure.
Al 1 software
problems
identified
during
the inspections
and tests
shal 1 be reported
in accordance
with the requirements
of
MI L-STD-1 679.
Procedures
for initiating
fal lure reports
shal 1 include
requirements
for verifying
fal lures ustng BIT, when applicable.
and for
COI letting
and recording
corrective
maintenance
information
and times.
All
fai lure reports
and software
problem reports
shal 1 be verified
for accuracy
and correctness
and submitted
on standard
forms.
The format
of the form(s)
used to record
fat lure and associated
data is important
only to the extent
that
i t simpllf
ies the task of the data recorder,
provides
for item and data
traceabi
1 Ity,
and provides
the Information
required
by the acquiring
activity
as It beccoses available
“5.2 Failure
analysis.
Reported
fai lures
shal 1 be evaluated
or analyzed
as appropriate
to determine
the cause of fai lure.
FRACAS procedures
shal 1
include
requirements
for documenting
the results
and conclusions
of fai lure
investigations
and analyses.
Analysis
of government
furnished
material
(GFM)
failures
shall
be limited
to verifying
that the GFhl fa!lure
was not the result
of the contractor’s
hardware,
software,
or procedures.
The verification
of
the GFhl fai lure shall
be documented
for notification
to the acquiring
activi
ty.
The fai lure analysis
of other
than GFM fai lures
sha I 1 be conducted
at the lowest
level
of hardware
or software
necessary
to Identify
the causes,
mechani sins, and potential
effects
of the fai lure and to serve as a basis for
dec! sions on the corrective
action
to be implemented.
The investigations
and
analyses
of failures
shall
consist
of any applicable
method (e.g. , test,
application
study,
dissection,
x-ray
analyses,
microscopic
analysis,
etc. )
that may be necessary
to determine
fai lure cause.
5.3 Failure
verification.
All reported
failures
shall
be verified
as
actual
or an explanation
provided
for lack of verification.
Failure
verification
is determined
either
by repeating
“the fai lure mode on the reported
item
or by evidence
of failure
(leakage
residue,
damaged hardware,
BIT i ndi cation,
etc).
I
kil L-Sl&2155(AS)
5.4 Correctl
ve actlbn.
Hhen th”e” cause of a fal 1ure has been deter!rdned,
a corrective
action
shal 1 be developed,
documented,
and Implemented
to el iml nate or reduce the recurrence
of the fat lure.
Corrective
action
implementation shal I be approved
by responsible
contractor
personnel
(and acquiring
activity
as required).
Unless otherwise
speclfled,
change control
procedures
shal 1 be in accordance
wtth OOD-STD-480.
Each reported
fal lure shal 1 be analyzed
5.5
Failure
report
close-out.
and corrective
action
taken In accordance
with the requirements
of this
standard in a timely
manner so as to obtain
lnanedlate
benefits
of the corrective
action
and to minimize
an unmanageable
backlog
of open failures
from occurring.
Al I open reports,
analyses,
and corrective
action
suspense
dates shal 1
be reviewed
to assure
timely
failure
report
close-outs.
A fai lure report
shal 1 be considered
closed-out
upon completion
of corrective
action
implementation
and verification
or rationale
in those instances
uhere corrective
action
was not implemented.
The rationale
to support
no corrective
action
shal 1 be documented
and approved
by responsible
authority.
5.6
Identification
and control
of failed
Items.
All failed
items shall
be conspl CUOUSIY marked or tagged and control
led to assure disposition
per
Fai led items shal 1 not be opened,
distributed,
or
contract
requirements.
mishandled
to the extent
of obl iterating
facts
which might be pertinent
to an
analysis.
Failed
items shall
be controlled
pending
authorized
disposition
after
completion
of fa{ lure analyses.
5
iIL-&D-21”55(AS)
THIS
PAGE INTENTIONALLY
6
LEFT BLANK
I
)411-S10-2
155(AS)
APPENDIX
.,
I
APPLICATION
10.
A
AND TAILORING
WIOE
GENERAL
10.1 ~.
acquiring
activity
reporting,
analysts,
This appendf x provides
notes for the gut dance of the
in generating
the contractual
requirements
for. fal lure
. .. . .!“:. ‘“
and corrective
action
system (FRACAS).
-”
10.2
Tal loring
reautrements.
Each provi ston of this
standard
should be
reviewed
to determine
the extent
of appl icabi I ity.
Tailoring
of requirements
addition,
or alteration
to the statements
in
may take the form of deletion,
Sections
3, 4, and 5 to adapt the requirements
to spec!ftc
item characteristics,
acquirtng
activity
options,
contractual
structure,
or acquisition
The tailored
FRACAS requirements
are specified
in the contractual
prophase.
visions
to include
input
to the statement
of work, contract
data requirements
1 Ist (CDRL),
and other
contractual
means.
The depth “and detail
of” the FRACAS
effort
WI 11 be def 1ned in appropriate
contractual
and other
program documentation.
10.3
Oupl I cation
of effort.
A review
of the contractual
requirements
is
necessary
to avoid duplication
of effort
between the rel \abi Iity
program and
other
program efforts
such as qual Ity,
maintainable
1 ity,
test,
safety,
and
integrated
logi s“tics support.
Identification
of the coincident
generation
of
FRACAS tasks or use of such tasks by the re 1 iabl 1 i ty program and other
discipl i nary areas
is required
in the rel Iabi 1 i ty program plan or other
appropriate program documentation
to avoid dupl i cation
of effort
by the acquiring
activity
and the contractor.
10.4 Relationship
of FRACAS to FMECA.
Alth&gh
the respective
FRACAS
and Fai lure Mode Effects
and Critical
ity Analysis
(FMECA) effort
are designed
and capable
of being performed
independent
1y of each other,
there
is a
synergistic
effect
when the two efforts
are coupled.
An FMECA is an
analytical
lY derived
ident!f
i cation
of the conceivable
hardware
fai lure modes
of an item and the potential
adverse
effects
of those modes @s the system and
mission.
The FMECA’s primary
purpose
{s to influence
the system and t tern
design
to either
eliminate
or mfnimize
the occurrences
of a hardisare
failure
or the consequences
of the fai lure.
The FRACAS represents
the “real
worl dw
An FMECA benefits
the
experience
of actual
fat lures
and their
consequences.
FRACAS by providing
a source of comprehend i ve fai lure effect
and fai lure
severity
information
for the assessment
of actual
hardware
fal lure
In FW.3S
occurrences.
Actual
fai lure experience
reported
and analyzed
provides
a means of verifying
the completeness
and accuracy
of the FMECA.
There shoui d be agreement
between
the “real
world”
experience
as reported
and
assessed
in the FRACAS and the “analytical
world”
as documented
in an FNECA.
Significant
differences
between
the two worlds
are cause for a reassessment
of
the i tern design
and the differing
fai lure criteria
that separates
the FRACAS
and FHECA.
1
:.;
I
1-
,,
,.20..REFEREN~EP:~ENl$;
.,>.: L.
$,No\::Ap~l
[email protected]
30:
OEF~NITIONS;hi: A~pl i.cab I i)”
.:
40.
GENERAL-RWJIREt4ENTS
The requl rements
for a FRACAS normal 1y WI 11
~0. 1 “Importance
of FRACAS.
apply” to. fhg development
of..systems,
equipment,
and associated
Software
sub. ject .to viTida~ion,or,.ful
1 scale development
(FSD).
This earlY
implementation
,,of a“ FRAC45 IS Important
because
corrective
action “opttons
and flexibility
are
“The earlier
failure’causes
are Identified,
greatest
during
design evolution.
the easier
it 1s to- iaplement
corrective
actions.
As the design
matures,
corrective
actions
st.i 11 can be identified,
but the options
become 1 imlted
and
implementation
is more difficult.
The {mpl ementatlon
of FRACAS requirements
wi 11 Involve
~40.2. .Ciata i terns.
some form ‘of. contractor
prepared
plan.
document.
form, or data.
If any of these
are to lie received
by ;the acquiring
activity,
they are deliverable
items.
Each
separate
data i tern-identified
for del !very must be included
on a DD Form 1423
yhich must be. included
as a ‘part of the request
for proposal
(RFP)
and contract.
Each DD Form ,1423 entry
must refer
to an ,authorized
Data Item
Description
(DID)
and nwst include
a specific
contract
reference
that
specifies
and authorizes
the wrk
to be done for each data i tern.
Refer
to governing
directives
for specific
information
on how to complete
the DD Form 1423.
‘50.:
DETAIL
[email protected]
50~1 . FRACAS ilanning
.,
‘and ‘documentation.
The primary
objective
of a closed-loop
FRACAS
50;1. I Pri&ry
objective.
!s to document fai lures and faults
and to d{ sseminate
the data.
The timely
dissemination
of accurate
fai lure information
is necessary
so remedial
actions
may be taken prcinptly
to prevent
the recurrence
of the fai lure or fault.
50.1.2
Request of FRACAS plan.
If a FRACAS plan is requested
in the. RFP,
the contractor
should be asked to describe
how he pians to implement
“the
FRACAS,
He should be’ asked ‘to identify
and discuss
the procedures
that wi 11 be
used
to control
failure
report
initiation,
fai lure analyses,
and the feedback
of
“corrective
actions
into the des,ign,
manufacturing,
and test process.
The plan
submitted
for
review
should describe
the flow of fai led hardware
and failure
data [email protected][t~the
contractor’s
organization.
The addition
of
.50. 1:3 ‘Requirement
addition.
Review Board (FRB) wi 11 provide
added assurance
that
and corrective
actions
taken on ,jdent ified
fai lures
may be, however,
other
closely
related
functions
or
the FRB that should be closely
coordinated
to assure
is avoided.
by the acquiring
14hen an FRB is r.quired
should be asked to identify
the personnel
appointed
indicate
the scope or extent
of their
authori ty.
8
a requirement
for a Fai lure
the reporting,
analysis,
wi 11 be control
led.
There
efforts
that are simi Iar to
that duplication
of effort
activity,
the contractor
to act on the FRB and to
Fai lure data ,1s, us f~l on Y#llW,a$
50.1.4
Failure
data.
~e$b+ed,!n
.
manageable
aggregates
for purposeful
dial udtio “x’ %y b6 \ h” tHe ‘“con kc or-and
the
$hould be designed to, $ol~:ct...
acqulrlng actfvlty. The fatlure data systeat.
store,
and retrieve
f al lure t nformatlon
and to pio~t de’ the’ means-for
“””
dlsplay!ng
the data tn a meaningful
form.
The outputs
of a failure
data
system should be tailored
to provfde
suesaarles
and spectal’”reports’
for ‘tloth
,A useful output
of .a fa!lure
data
management and engineering
per;onnel.
system is the fat l’ure summary and status
report.
Thl s:report
,.y~l !...provi de
information
about the failure
of Ilke items or slmllar. functions, $$hlch can be
used. to provide
Indications
of fat lure trends, and ‘to evaluate’ hi iced for and
Thd’ contractor.
should
be asked
the extent
of contemplated
corrective
acttons.
to def Ine the scope and content
of h!s fat lure, data’ system,: and to’ Indicate
how
It will
be maintained.
?.
50.2
FRACAS data
collection.
50.2. I Effectiveness
of FRAC4S.
A FAACAS w!]) be effective
wly
If the
Input data in reports
documenting
failures
and faults
.1s “accurate.
Essential
Inputs
should document all conditions
surrounding
a fat Iu~e”or
fati!t
to
The fai lure documentation
must provide
fact I i tate cause determt nation.
Information
on who discovered
the fai lure,
what failed,
where It fa!led,
uhen
It fa{ led, and how future
failures
w!l 1 be prevented.
‘“”
Our{ ng development,
system or equ!pment
fat 1ures
50.2.2
Failures.
typ~cally
occur during
tests
or operation
by the contractor
or the acqulrlng
activity.
Hhen a failure
occurs,
the failed
item should be Identified
and all
pertinent
information
about the failure
should be documented
on a fai lure
The contractor’s
procedure
for failure
report
Initiation
should
report
form.
Identify
and describe
the data that should be recorded
for both hardware
failures
and software
errors
to assure
that fai I ures are adequately
described
and that the proper
hardware
or software
has been reported.
In addi t ion, the
contractor
should have a method for acCounti ng for fat 1ure reports
and should
audit
the completed
forms periodical
1y to verl fy that fat lure reports
are
being submitted
proinptl y.
I
1’
50.2. i ‘Failure
analysts.
Failure
analysis
is’the
determination’of
t~
One of the first
steps tn any failure
analysis
Is the
cause of a fal lure.
review of the fal lure information
by cognizant
personnel.
A failure
analysls
plan then should be developed
to describe
the steps the analysis
wil 1 take and
to preclude
Dre- mature disposal
of fai 1ed i terns prior
to being subjected
to
required
analyses.
Each fai Iure should
be verified
and then analwed
to the
extent
necessary
to identify
the cause of fai lure and any contribute
ng
factors.
[email protected] fal lure analysis
can range from a simple
investigation
of the”
circumstances
$urroundi
ng the failure
to a sophl sticated
laboratory
analysis
The level
of analysis
always
should be sufficient
to
of the failed
parts.
provide
an understanding
of the cause of fai lure so }hat
logically
derived
corrective
actions
can be developed.
9
-MI L-STD~2155(AS)
APPENDIX A
The results
of fal lure analysis
50.2.4
Results
of failure
analysis.
should be fed-back
to cognizant
personnel
so they can decide on an appropriate
Corrective
action
to alleviate
a
course of action
to al Ieviate
the problem.
implemented
in manufacturing
or test
to a
problem may range frcm new controls
change in design or changing
a part to one better
suited
to operational
requirements.
The generated
corrective
action
should be documented
tn detai i
so that i t can be implemented
and verified
at the proper
Ievei.
After
a
corrective
action
is implemented,
it should be monitored
‘to assure
that the
corrective
action
has renmed
the fat lure causes and has not introduced
new
problems.
60.
OATA ITEM DESCRIPTIONS
(010)
60. i Qi&.
Uhen this standard
\s used in an acquisition
that
incorporates
CORL, OD Form 1423, the data requirements
identified
below shai I
be deveioped
as specified
by an approved
010, OD Form 1664, and delivered
In
accordance
wt th the approved
CORL incorporated
into the contract.
Hhen the
provisions
of DAR 7-104.9
(n) (2) are invoked
and DO Form 1423 is not used,
the contractor
shal 1 deliver
the data specified
below in accordance
with the
contract
or purchase
order
requirements.
Oel i verabl e data sourced
to this
standard
are ci ted in the fol lowing paragraphs.
Paragraph
Applicable
Oata
D1O
Requirement
4.2
IX-R-21597
Fai lure Reporting,
Corrective
Action
4.4
DI-R-2
Report,
Fa i 1ure
5.1
DI-R-2 i 598
DI-R-2178
I 599
Development
Sussnary
Analysis,
and
System Plan
and Production
Fai lure Report
Cc4nputer Software
Trouble
Report
0[0s reiated
to this standard
ui 11 be approved
and 1 i steal as such in 000
5000. 19L, VO1. 1[, AMDSL.
Copies of 010s required
by the contractors
in
connection
with specific
acquisition.
functions
should be obtained
from the
Naval Publ i cations
and Forms Center,
or as directed
by the Contracting
Officer.
Preparing
activity:
Navy - AS
Project
No. RELI-N035
io
I
I
.—
..
:r
.i
.,.,
1
❑ AUE
OF
OnOANl?.ATlON
suaull-rtNa
4. TvPC
❑
OF Om-laT1Ou
❑
koomea
(sow,.
[ti
-,
vE”OO”
WE.
cm. sum n? cdl
•1
MaNuFAcrumEn
I
7-
N.”t!
OF
sLJmAltrTE”
(k,.
ml,,
M,,
-
[email protected],
b. WORK
cdl
e. MAILING
AOORQ65
(S,”.1.
Cb.
Shtt,
ZIP Cnd8, - Dmlond
&
DD &OX.1426
?nEVlQU5 EOITIOW IS WOLETE.
T6LEPHONE
NWEM
Il”eluti
- ~
a DATE OF SU9MSIOM
(VYMMDDI
Arm
Fly UP