Abstract
The paper provides further details of the automated failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) program outlined in Part 1. Some of the more difficult development problems are discussed, and solutions are presented. The functionality of the program was tested through application to two experimental rigs, namely a closed-loop hydrostatic transmission with a dynamometer and a regenerative pump test rig. Non-destructive faults, such as abnormally low relief valve settings and excessive loads, were manually inserted into these rigs, and the measured effects were compared with the predictions from the program to validate the software. The difference in complexity and configuration evident in the two examples considered serves to highlight the generality of the approach. The ease of reconfigurability of the software reflects the key aim of producing a program capable of analysing a wide range of hydraulic circuits.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.