Reliability Assessment Clause Samples

Reliability Assessment. The WECC will ensure that interconnected bulk electric system reliability assessments are conducted as needed. The WECC will do this work in conjunction with the Regional Entities to the greatest extent possible. The WECC will also facilitate coordinated reliability assessments among Regional Entities.
View SourceView Similar (2)
Reliability Assessment. The process of ship structural design goes from the primary structure (midship section) to the detail design of substructures and components such as plates and welded joints. Design of primary load- carrying structures is mainly governed by fatigue and ultimate strength. Fatigue analysis is based on different principles than ultimate collapse. Both the environmental loads and the corresponding stress in a structural component vary with time and can be modelled as stochastic processes. Theory and methods of reliability assessment have been developed significantly in the last two decades and now there are two main types of reliability methods. Time-invariant methods consider that both the strength of the components and the loads do not change with time, i.e. they are random variables. Time-dependent formulations are able to model the case when a component is subjected to a random fluctuating loads and its capacity deteriorates with time. The developments of structural reliability theory, which occurred in the late 60's, started being applied to ship structures in the 70's. Since then several improvements have occurred in the theoretical formulations and in the computational methods of structural reliability, some of which have been applied to the analysis of ship structures. Presently the first and second order reliability methods provide a way of evaluating the reliability efficiently with a reasonably good accuracy, which is adequate for practical applications as provided by [95] and [25]. These approaches take into account the information about the type of distribution of the basic variables, and these analytically based methods have been extended to combine their capabilities with ▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇ [68] simulation methods which in turn have been made efficient through different strategies. Non-linear limit state functions are adequately dealt with and the analysis of systems, either in parallel or in series, can be performed with current methods. Furthermore, various interesting formulations for time-varying reliability have been proposed [99],[20]. One problem to study is the behaviour of the whole hull girder of a ship and in particular, the way in which the structural design process is addressed from the point of view of the Regulatory Agencies. Classification Societies have been interested in the subject since the early days, as can be seen in the studies of [2],[5],[90],[108],[82],[29],[36]. The interest of Classification Societies is very important since...
View Source
Reliability Assessment. TCS will assess key components of the current radio system not being addressed in the rebanding process. A complete assessment will be completed in the areas of concern and the risks associated with each component that should be replaced or updated to provide a continual high reliable system. A typical assessment could encompass the following technical elements: • Description of existing system configuration; • Description of key components not addressed in rebanding and no longer supported; • Description of required infrastructure hardware/performance reliability factors; This assessment will be documented with a detailed report noting key components and the risks associated with reliability and the costs to upgrade.
View Source
Reliability Assessment. Beginning three (3) months after commencement of delivery of production units of the specific METROLOGIC Purchasable Product and thereafter throughout the warranty period, the following threshold parameters will be utilized to compare the actual MFR with (i) a target MFR; (ii) a threshold MFR level which will trigger liquidated damages; for failure to achieve the stated reliability goals: Target Reliability Percentage ( % per month): 2% Liquidated Damages Reliability Percentage ( % per month): 6.5% (hereinafter "LDRP") Account credit per unit failure in excess of the LDRP (assessed monthly): $3 The liquidated damages computed by determining the number of Failed Units in excess of the LDRP units, times $3.00 shall be limited to a maximum of 1% of the aggregate value of METROLOGIC Purchasable Product under warranty. Such damages shall be applied as account credits towards SYMBOL's next purchases of METROLOGIC Purchasable Product. In the event that SYMBOL does not utilize the account credit, or portion thereof, within a one (1) year period of issuance, METROLOGIC shall pay SYMBOL a cash amount equal to the unused credit whereupon the balance of the unused credit shall be set to zero.
View Source
Reliability Assessment. 2.5.1 General Reliability numerical evaluation will be performed for components, equipment, subsystems and for the spacecraft to demonstrate compliance with the contractual numerical reliability requirements. The reliability assessments will be updated during the program to include the impact of design changes and more detailed design information as the spacecraft hardware design matures. The results of quantitative reliability assessments will be reported and provided as part of design reviews. Reliability trades will also be used during all phases of the program to identify the relative merits of alternative designs and to assist in problem resolution (i.e., to determine the possible numerical reliability impact resulting from a potential design change). Reliability functional block diagrams will be developed and used to represent the system and subsystem design configurations as they operate over the specified mission phases. These functional block diagrams will in turn be the basis for the reliability block diagrams that indicate the redundancy, cross-strapping, and single thread items of the designs. The reliability block diagrams then become the basis for defining the quantitative reliability of hardware from the unit to the end item spacecraft level. Mathematical models (either discrete or dynamic) will then be used, along with the failure rates calculated for the hardware items, to determine numerical reliability. Quantitative reliability requirements will be specified in the applicable equipment, subsystem, and system performance specifications. USE OR DISCLOSURE OF THE DATA CONTAINED ON THIS SHEET IS SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTION ON THE TITLE PAGE. 2.5.2 Reliability Assessment Assumptions Quantitative reliability assessments will be made assuming the following: o The design assessed is representative of the flight design. o Useful life of a component begins after the satisfactory acceptance test of the component. o Mission phases are independent. Stresses experienced in a phase do not affect the failure rate of succeeding phases. o Part failure rates are usually constant during the useful life period and wearout factors are not operative during the required mission life unless otherwise stated and appropriate models will be used in those cases. o Individual part failures are independent. o Parts and materials are qualified for their application and environment. o Circuit design performance margins are sufficient for the effects of production varianc...
View Source
Reliability Assessment. The Contractor confirms and continuously ensures that its personnel is fully reliable and sufficiently qualified to perform the Contractual Services. Upon the Customer’ request, the Contractor shall describe its verification process, provide any supporting documentation as well as a written confirmation of reliability and qualification to the Customer without undue delay. The Contractor is obliged upon request of the Customer or a competent supervisory authority to evidence reliability and qualification of the personnel who has been assigned overall responsibility for the performance of the Contractual Services.
View Source

Related to Reliability Assessment

  • Joint Assessment If the Premises are not separately assessed, Lessee's liability shall be an equitable proportion of the Real Property Taxes for all of the land and improvements included within the tax parcel assessed, such proportion to be conclusively determined by Lessor from the respective valuations assigned in the assessor's work sheets or such other information as may be reasonably available.

  • Risk Assessment An assessment of any risks inherent in the work requirements and actions to mitigate these risks.

  • Security Assessment If Accenture reasonably determines, or in good faith believes, that Supplier’s security practices or procedures do not meet Supplier’s obligations under the Agreement, then Accenture will notify Supplier of the deficiencies. Supplier will without unreasonable delay: (i) correct such deficiencies at its own expense; (ii) permit Accenture, or its duly authorized representatives, to assess Supplier’s security-related activities that are relevant to the Agreement; and (iii) timely complete a security questionnaire from Accenture on a periodic basis upon Accenture’s request. Security issues identified by Accenture will be assigned risk ratings and an agreed-to timeframe to remediate. Supplier will remediate all the security issues identified within the agreed to timeframes. Upon Supplier’s failure to remediate any high or medium rated security issues within the stated timeframes, Accenture may terminate the Agreement in accordance with Section 8 above.

  • Conformity Assessment Procedures 1. Each Party shall give positive consideration to accepting the results of conformity assessment procedures of other Parties, even where those procedures differ from its own, provided it is satisfied that those procedures offer an assurance of conformity with applicable technical regulations or standards equivalent to its own procedures. 2. Each Party shall seek to enhance the acceptance of the results of conformity assessment procedures conducted in the territories of other Parties with a view to increasing efficiency, avoiding duplication and ensuring cost effectiveness of the conformity assessments. In this regard, each Party may choose, depending on the situation of the Party and the specific sectors involved, a broad range of approaches. These may include but are not limited to: (a) recognition by a Party of the results of conformity assessments performed in the territory of another Party; (b) recognition of co-operative arrangements between accreditation bodies in the territories of the Parties; (c) mutual recognition of conformity assessment procedures conducted by bodies located in the territory of each Party; (d) accreditation of conformity assessment bodies in the territory of another Party; (e) use of existing regional and international multilateral recognition agreements and arrangements; (f) designating conformity assessment bodies located in the territory of another Party to perform conformity assessment; and (g) suppliers’ declaration of conformity. 3. Each Party shall exchange information with other Parties on its experience in the development and application of the approaches in Paragraph 2(a) to (g) and other appropriate approaches with a view to facilitating the acceptance of the results of conformity assessment procedures. 4. A Party shall, upon request of another Party, explain its reasons for not accepting the results of any conformity assessment procedure performed in the territory of that other Party.

  • Performance Assessment 6.1 The Performance Plan (Annexure A) to this Agreement sets out key performance indicators and competencies that needs to be evaluated in terms of – 6.1.1 The standards and procedures for evaluating the Employee’s performance; and 6.1.2 During the intervals for the evaluation of the Employee’s performance. 6.2 Despite the establishment of agreed intervals for evaluation, the Employer may in addition review the Employee’s performance at any stage while the contract of employment remains in force; 6.3 Personal growth and development needs identified during any performance review discussion must be documented in a Personal Development Plan as well as the actions agreed to and implementation must take place within set time frames; 6.4 The Employee’s performance will also be measured in terms of contributions to the goals and strategies set out in the Employer’s Integrated Development Plan (IDP) as described in 6.6 – 6.13 below; 6.5 The Employee will submit quarterly performance reports (SDBIP) and a comprehensive annual performance report at least one week prior to the performance assessment meetings to the Evaluation Panel Chairperson for distribution to the panel members for preparation purposes; 6.6 Assessment of the achievement of results as outlined in the performance plan: 6.6.1 Each KPI or group of KPIs shall be assessed according to the extent to which the specified standards or performance targets have been met (qualitative and quantitative) and with due regard to ad-hoc tasks that had to be performed under the KPI; 6.6.2 A rating on the five-point scale described in 6.9 below shall be provided for each KPI or group of KPIs which will then be multiplied by the weighting to calculate the final score; 6.6.3 The Employee will submit his self-evaluation to the Employer prior to the formal assessment; 6.6.4 In the instance where the employee could not perform due to reasons outside the control of the employer and employee, the KPI will not be considered during the evaluation. The employee should provide sufficient evidence in such instances; and 6.6.5 An overall score will be calculated based on the total of the individual scores calculated above.