OK lets work on it this rainy morning and swim in the pells
at lunchtime.
This commit is contained in:
parent
a762c1db5c
commit
1986f5f5ba
@ -91,10 +91,12 @@ behaviour of a non inverting op-amp.
|
|||||||
\paragraph{Current methodologies}
|
\paragraph{Current methodologies}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
We briefly analyse the four current methodologies.
|
We briefly analyse the four current methodologies.
|
||||||
|
Comprehensive overviews of these methodologies maybe found
|
||||||
|
in ~\cite{safeware,sccs}.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\paragraph{Fault Tree Analysis (FTA)}
|
\paragraph{Fault Tree Analysis (FTA)}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
FTA is a top down methodology in which a hierarchical diagram is drawn for
|
FTA~\cite{nucfta,nasafta} is a top down methodology in which a hierarchical diagram is drawn for
|
||||||
each undesirable top level failure, presenting the conditions that must arise to cause
|
each undesirable top level failure, presenting the conditions that must arise to cause
|
||||||
the event.
|
the event.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
@ -113,9 +115,11 @@ support for environmental and operational states.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\paragraph{Fault Mode Effects Analysis FMEA)} is used principally in manufacturing.
|
\paragraph{Fault Mode Effects Analysis FMEA)} is used principally in manufacturing.
|
||||||
Each top level failure is assessed by its cost to repair and its frequency,%, using a
|
It is bottom up and starts with component failure modes, which
|
||||||
|
lead to top level failure/events.
|
||||||
|
Each top level failure is assessed by its cost to repair and its estimated frequency.%, using a
|
||||||
%failure mode ratio.
|
%failure mode ratio.
|
||||||
A list of failures and their cost is then calculated.
|
A list of failures according to their cost to repair~\cite{bfmea}, or effect on system reliability is then calculated.
|
||||||
It is easy to identify single component failure to system failure scenarios
|
It is easy to identify single component failure to system failure scenarios
|
||||||
and an estimate of product reliability can be calculated.
|
and an estimate of product reliability can be calculated.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
@ -126,24 +130,11 @@ or operational states in sub-systems or components. It cannot model
|
|||||||
self-checking safety elements or other in-built safety features or
|
self-checking safety elements or other in-built safety features or
|
||||||
analyse how particular components may fail.
|
analyse how particular components may fail.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\subsection{Fault Mode Effects Analysis FMEA)}
|
|
||||||
FMEA is used principally in manufacturing.
|
|
||||||
Each defect is assessed by its cost to repair and its frequency. %, using a
|
|
||||||
%failure mode ratio.
|
|
||||||
A list of failures and their cost is generated.
|
|
||||||
It is easy to identify single component failure to system failure scenarios,
|
|
||||||
and an estimate of product reliability can be calculated. It cannot focus on
|
|
||||||
component interactions that cause system failure modes or determine potential
|
|
||||||
problems from simultaneous failure modes. It does not consider environmental
|
|
||||||
or operational states in sub-systems or components. It cannot model
|
|
||||||
self-checking safety elements or other in-built safety features or
|
|
||||||
analyse how particular components may fail.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\paragraph{Failure Mode Criticality Analysis (FMECA)} is a refinement of FMEA, using
|
\paragraph{Failure Mode Criticality Analysis (FMECA)} is a refinement of FMEA, using
|
||||||
two extra variables: the probability of a component failure mode occurring
|
three extra variables: the probability of a component failure mode occurring,
|
||||||
and the probability that this will cause a top level failure, and the perceived
|
the probability that this will cause a given top level failure, and the perceived
|
||||||
criticallity. It gives better estimations of product reliability/safety and the
|
critically. It gives better estimations of product reliability/safety and the
|
||||||
occurrence of particular system failure modes than FMEA but has similar deficiencies.
|
occurrence of particular system failure modes than FMEA but has similar deficiencies.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@ -157,7 +148,7 @@ for environmental and operational states in sub-systems or components,
|
|||||||
via self checking statistical mitigation. FMEDA is the methodology associated with
|
via self checking statistical mitigation. FMEDA is the methodology associated with
|
||||||
the safety integrity standards IOC5108 and EN61508~\cite{en61508}.
|
the safety integrity standards IOC5108 and EN61508~\cite{en61508}.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\subsection{Summary of Defeciencies in Current Methods}
|
\subsection{Summary of Deficiencies in Current Methods}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\paragraph{Top Down approach: FTA} The top down technique FTA, introduces the possibility of missing base component
|
\paragraph{Top Down approach: FTA} The top down technique FTA, introduces the possibility of missing base component
|
||||||
level failure modes~\cite{faa}[Ch.9]. Since one FTA tree is drawn for each top level
|
level failure modes~\cite{faa}[Ch.9]. Since one FTA tree is drawn for each top level
|
||||||
@ -226,7 +217,7 @@ a {\bcfm} and not investigate other possibilities.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
%\section{Requirements for a new static failure mode Analysis methodology}
|
%\section{Requirements for a new static failure mode Analysis methodology}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\section{Desireable Criteria for a failure mode methodology}.
|
\section{Desireable Criteria for a failure mode methodology.}
|
||||||
From the deficiencies outlined above, ideally we can form a set of desirable criteria for a better methodology.
|
From the deficiencies outlined above, ideally we can form a set of desirable criteria for a better methodology.
|
||||||
{ \small
|
{ \small
|
||||||
\begin{enumerate}
|
\begin{enumerate}
|
||||||
@ -397,6 +388,8 @@ Alternatively they could be self~checking sub-systems that are either in a norma
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
Operational states are conditions that apply to some functional groups, not individual components.
|
Operational states are conditions that apply to some functional groups, not individual components.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\section{Worked Example: Non-Inverting Operational Amplifier}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
A standard non inverting op amp (from ``The Art of Electronics'' ~\cite{aoe}[pp.234]) is shown in figure \ref{fig:noninvamp}.
|
A standard non inverting op amp (from ``The Art of Electronics'' ~\cite{aoe}[pp.234]) is shown in figure \ref{fig:noninvamp}.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@ -454,7 +447,7 @@ Thus $R1$ has failure modes $\{R1\_OPEN, R1\_SHORT\}$ and $R2$ has failure modes
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
%\clearpage
|
%\clearpage
|
||||||
\section{Failure Mode Analysis of the Potential Divider}
|
\paragraph{Failure Mode Analysis of the Potential Divider}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\ifthenelse {\boolean{pld}}
|
\ifthenelse {\boolean{pld}}
|
||||||
{
|
{
|
||||||
@ -703,13 +696,12 @@ as a building block for other {\fgs} in the same way as we used the resistors $R
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
%\clearpage
|
%\clearpage
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\section{Failure Mode Analysis of the OP-AMP}
|
\paragraph{Failure Mode Analysis of the OP-AMP}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Let use now consider the op-amp. According to
|
Let use now consider the op-amp. According to
|
||||||
FMD-91~\cite{fmd91}[3-116] an op amp may have the following failure modes:
|
FMD-91~\cite{fmd91}[3-116] an op amp may have the following failure modes:
|
||||||
latchup(12.5\%), latchdown(6\%), nooperation(31.3\%), lowslewrate(50\%).
|
latchup(12.5\%), latchdown(6\%), nooperation(31.3\%), lowslewrate(50\%).
|
||||||
|
\nocite{mil1991}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\ifthenelse {\boolean{pld}}
|
\ifthenelse {\boolean{pld}}
|
||||||
{
|
{
|
||||||
@ -762,11 +754,10 @@ We can represent these failure modes on a DAG (see figure~\ref{fig:op1dag}).
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
%\clearpage
|
%\clearpage
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\section{Bringing the OP amp and the potential divider together}
|
\paragraph{Modelling the OP amp with the potential divider.}
|
||||||
|
We can now consider bringing the OP amp and the potential divider components to
|
||||||
We can now consider bringing the OP amp and the potential divider together to
|
form a {\fg} to represent the non inverting amplifier. We have the failure modes of the {\fg} for the potential divider,
|
||||||
model the non inverting amplifier. We have the failure modes of the functional group for the potential divider,
|
so we do not need to go back and consider the individual resistor failure modes that define its behaviour.
|
||||||
so we do not need to consider the individual resistor failure modes that define its behaviour.
|
|
||||||
\ifthenelse {\boolean{pld}}
|
\ifthenelse {\boolean{pld}}
|
||||||
{
|
{
|
||||||
We can make a new functional group to represent the amplifier, by bringing the component \textbf{opamp}
|
We can make a new functional group to represent the amplifier, by bringing the component \textbf{opamp}
|
||||||
@ -799,7 +790,7 @@ regions) see figure~\ref{fig:fgampa}.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
\ifthenelse {\boolean{dag}}
|
\ifthenelse {\boolean{dag}}
|
||||||
{
|
{
|
||||||
We can now crate a {\fg} for the non-inverting amplifier
|
We can now create a {\fg} for the non-inverting amplifier
|
||||||
by bringing together the failure modes from \textbf{opamp} and \textbf{PD}.
|
by bringing together the failure modes from \textbf{opamp} and \textbf{PD}.
|
||||||
Each of these failure modes will be given a test case for analysis,
|
Each of these failure modes will be given a test case for analysis,
|
||||||
and this is represented in table \ref{ampfmea}.
|
and this is represented in table \ref{ampfmea}.
|
||||||
@ -927,7 +918,7 @@ We can now derive a `component' to represent this amplifier configuration (see f
|
|||||||
%failure mode contours).
|
%failure mode contours).
|
||||||
%\clearpage
|
%\clearpage
|
||||||
%\clearpage
|
%\clearpage
|
||||||
\section{Failure Modes from non inverting amplifier as a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG)}
|
\paragraph{Failure Modes from non inverting amplifier as a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG)}
|
||||||
\ifthenelse {\boolean{pld}}
|
\ifthenelse {\boolean{pld}}
|
||||||
{
|
{
|
||||||
We can now represent the FMMD analysis as a directed graph, see figure \ref{fig:noninvdag1}.
|
We can now represent the FMMD analysis as a directed graph, see figure \ref{fig:noninvdag1}.
|
||||||
@ -1070,6 +1061,13 @@ to assist in building models for FTA, FMEA, FMECA and FMEDA failure mode analysi
|
|||||||
\label{fig:noninvdag1}
|
\label{fig:noninvdag1}
|
||||||
\end{figure}
|
\end{figure}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\paragraph{Worked example. Effect on State explosion.}
|
||||||
|
The potential divider {\dc} reduced the number of failures to consider from four to two.
|
||||||
|
The op-amp and potential divider modelled together, reduced the number of
|
||||||
|
failure symptoms from eight to three. Because symptoms are collected, we can state
|
||||||
|
the the number of failure symptoms for a {\fg} will be less then or equal to the number
|
||||||
|
of component failues. In practise the number of symptoms is usually around half the
|
||||||
|
number of component failure modes.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@ -1162,23 +1160,30 @@ It can therefore be used to analyse systems comprised of electrical,
|
|||||||
mechanical and software elements in one integrated model.
|
mechanical and software elements in one integrated model.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
{ \small
|
{ %\tiny
|
||||||
\begin{table}[ht]
|
\begin{table}[ht]
|
||||||
\caption{Features of static Failure Mode analysis methodologies} % title of Table
|
\caption{Features of static Failure Mode analysis methodologies} % title of Table
|
||||||
\centering % used for centering table
|
%\centering % used for centering table
|
||||||
\begin{tabular}{||l|c|c|c|c|c||}
|
\begin{tabular}{||l|c|c|c|c|c||}
|
||||||
\hline \hline
|
\hline \hline
|
||||||
\textbf{Desirable} & \textbf{FTA} & \textbf{FMEA} & \textbf{FMECA} & \textbf{FDEMA} & \textbf{FMMD} \\
|
% \textbf{Des.} & \textbf{FTA} & \textbf{FMEA} & \textbf{FMECA} & \textbf{FDEMA} & \textbf{FMMD} \\
|
||||||
\textbf{Criteria} & \textbf{} & \textbf{} & \textbf{} & \textbf{} & \textbf{} \\
|
\textbf{\tiny Des.} & \textbf{\tiny FTA} & \textbf{\tiny FMEA} & \textbf{\tiny FMECA} & \textbf{\tiny FDEMA} & \textbf{\tiny FMMD} \\
|
||||||
|
\textbf{\tiny Crit.} & \textbf{} & \textbf{} & \textbf{} & \textbf{} & \textbf{} \\
|
||||||
% R & wire & res + & res - & description
|
% R & wire & res + & res - & description
|
||||||
\hline
|
\hline
|
||||||
\hline
|
\hline
|
||||||
C1: state exp & partial & & & & $\tickYES$ \\ \hline
|
C1: % state exp
|
||||||
C2: $\forall$ failures & &$\tickYES$ & $\tickYES$ & $\tickYES$ & $\tickYES$ \\ \hline
|
& partial & & & & $\tickYES$ \\ \hline
|
||||||
C3: mech,elec,s/w & $\tickYES$ & & & & $\tickYES$ \\ \hline
|
C2: % $\forall$ failures
|
||||||
C4: modular & & & & partial & $\tickYES$ \\ \hline
|
& &$\tickYES$ & $\tickYES$ & $\tickYES$ & $\tickYES$ \\ \hline
|
||||||
C5: formal & partial & partial & partial & partial & $\tickYES$ \\ \hline
|
C3: %mech,elec,s/w & $\tickYES$
|
||||||
C6: multiple fm & $\tickYES$ & & & partial & $\tickYES$ \\ \hline
|
& & & & & $\tickYES$ \\ \hline
|
||||||
|
C4: %modular
|
||||||
|
& & & & partial & $\tickYES$ \\ \hline
|
||||||
|
C5: %formal
|
||||||
|
& partial & partial & partial & partial & $\tickYES$ \\ \hline
|
||||||
|
C6: %multiple fm
|
||||||
|
& $\tickYES$ & & & partial & $\tickYES$ \\ \hline
|
||||||
\hline
|
\hline
|
||||||
\hline
|
\hline
|
||||||
\end{tabular}
|
\end{tabular}
|
||||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user