A glorious example of engineering...

[UA_Iron]

The Boeing 787 Dreamliner

http://www.newairplane.com/

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/12/07/boeing_787_dreamliner/

Did you know that current Boeing Commercial aircraft boast a reliability of 99.99999% ????

That is an extradordinary number with all the mission critical components of commericial airliners. If an airplane has 10,000 components that are critical and must not fail throughout their useable lifetime do you know what their reliability has to be to ensure a 99.99999% System Reliability!!!!????

 

[Lao Tzu]

I'd guess each part would need to be reliable to the 99.99999.... power all the way out to the 10,000th decimel place.

WHat kind of supercomputer did they use to design this? WIth a new fleet of petaflop supercomputers about to become marketable supposedly this will totally change engineering. You can design an entire car model inside a computer

 

[UA_Iron]

I'd guess each part would need to be reliable to the 99.99999.... power all the way out to the 10,000th decimel place.

WHat kind of supercomputer did they use to design this? WIth a new fleet of petaflop supercomputers about to become marketable supposedly this will totally change engineering. You can design an entire car model inside a computer

I believed they used a CAD program called CATIA. It is a little old school - but it can manage the complex assemblies and the numerous parts better than SolidWorks or ProEngineer.

I wonder what Finite Element programs they used on all the supporting structures. FEA and boeing are like butter and toast.

 

[pintoca]

I'd guess each part would need to be reliable to the 99.99999.... power all the way out to the 10,000th decimel place.

WHat kind of supercomputer did they use to design this? WIth a new fleet of petaflop supercomputers about to become marketable supposedly this will totally change engineering. You can design an entire car model inside a computer

it's not that easy... for components in serie (meaning, one that fails make the other fails and so on) you multiply the reliability of each... if all of them have the same level, by multiplying it you get below the expected one.

IN these cases, you need to add parallel, redundant systems. You then add the reliability of the redundant systems and multiply by the components before and after.

current state of the art reliabiliy is " 5 nines" (99.999%). That is a 5 hours and 15 minutes on a 24x7 system. Going beyond that is REALLY hard to believe. I wonder what availability they used for the calculation and what the MTBF is for critical components. Planes spend time in maintenance as well

 

[UA_Iron]

it's not that easy... for components in serie (meaning, one that fails make the other fails and so on) you multiply the reliability of each... if all of them have the same level, by multiplying it you get below the expected one.

IN these cases, you need to add parallel, redundant systems. You then add the reliability of the redundant systems and multiply by the components before and after.

current state of the art reliabiliy is " 5 nines" (99.999%). That is a 5 hours and 15 minutes on a 24x7 system. Going beyond that is REALLY hard to believe. I wonder what availability they used for the calculation and what the MTBF is for critical components. Planes spend time in maintenance as well

Maybe it was five 9's - my professor told us, I forgot which it was.

The numerous and parallel and series systems and reduncies, switching systems would make such a calculation a bitch.