lunch time edit geddit
This commit is contained in:
parent
8c5076362c
commit
1f774d0c33
@ -1294,7 +1294,7 @@ OPTissn = {},
|
|||||||
OPTkey = {},
|
OPTkey = {},
|
||||||
author = {Microchip},
|
author = {Microchip},
|
||||||
OPTorganization = {},
|
OPTorganization = {},
|
||||||
address = {http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/80519d.pdf},
|
address = {http://ww1.microchip.com/ downloads/en/DeviceDoc/80519d.pdf},
|
||||||
OPTedition = {},
|
OPTedition = {},
|
||||||
OPTmonth = {},
|
OPTmonth = {},
|
||||||
year = {2011},
|
year = {2011},
|
||||||
@ -1333,7 +1333,7 @@ OPTissn = {},
|
|||||||
OPTkey = {},
|
OPTkey = {},
|
||||||
author = {Microchip},
|
author = {Microchip},
|
||||||
OPTorganization = {},
|
OPTorganization = {},
|
||||||
address = {http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/39755c.pdf},
|
address = {http://ww1.microchip.com/ downloads/en/DeviceDoc/39755c.pdf},
|
||||||
OPTedition = {},
|
OPTedition = {},
|
||||||
OPTmonth = {},
|
OPTmonth = {},
|
||||||
year = {2009},
|
year = {2009},
|
||||||
|
@ -113,6 +113,7 @@ failure mode of the component or sub-system}}}
|
|||||||
%\nodate
|
%\nodate
|
||||||
\maketitle
|
\maketitle
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\today
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\paragraph{Keywords:} static failure mode modelling; safety-critical; software fmea
|
\paragraph{Keywords:} static failure mode modelling; safety-critical; software fmea
|
||||||
%\small
|
%\small
|
||||||
@ -156,7 +157,7 @@ This paper presents a simple worked example of FMMD applied to an
|
|||||||
integrated electronics/software system, the industry standard
|
integrated electronics/software system, the industry standard
|
||||||
{\ft} signalling loop.
|
{\ft} signalling loop.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
}
|
} % abstract
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@ -212,7 +213,8 @@ the known failure mode behaviour.
|
|||||||
%Presently FMEA, stops at the glass ceiling of the computer program: FMMD seeks to address
|
%Presently FMEA, stops at the glass ceiling of the computer program: FMMD seeks to address
|
||||||
%this, and offers additional test efficiency benefits.
|
%this, and offers additional test efficiency benefits.
|
||||||
This paper is a condensed version of the PhD thesis entitled `failure Mode Modular De-compositon'~\cite{clark}. \today
|
This paper is a condensed version of the PhD thesis entitled `failure Mode Modular De-compositon'~\cite{clark}. \today
|
||||||
}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
%\today
|
%\today
|
||||||
\nocite{en298}
|
\nocite{en298}
|
||||||
@ -485,7 +487,7 @@ it terms `indenture' levels. Indenture levels are arranged from the top down
|
|||||||
and identify finer and finer grained modules. For instance, an aircraft
|
and identify finer and finer grained modules. For instance, an aircraft
|
||||||
may be the first indenture level, and the next may be an identifiable module such as
|
may be the first indenture level, and the next may be an identifiable module such as
|
||||||
an altitude radar: within that finer grained modules may be identified until
|
an altitude radar: within that finer grained modules may be identified until
|
||||||
the base components are listed. Note that this is a top down approach and
|
the base components are listed. Note that this is a top down approach to modularisation and
|
||||||
this can introduce errors into the reliability calculations~\cite{MILSTD1629short}.
|
this can introduce errors into the reliability calculations~\cite{MILSTD1629short}.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
\paragraph{Modularisation in Software}
|
\paragraph{Modularisation in Software}
|
||||||
@ -644,17 +646,25 @@ in an improved FMEA methodology,
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
\section{The proposed Methodology}
|
\section{The proposed Methodology}
|
||||||
\label{fmmdproc}
|
\label{fmmdproc}
|
||||||
In essence, this methodology beginning with low level modules (or {\fgs})
|
%
|
||||||
which are analysed and assigned a failure mode behaviour.
|
%% One line
|
||||||
They are then considered as higher level components with
|
The idea is to modularise from the bottom-up, by choosing groups of components that
|
||||||
their own failure mode behaviour. These higher level components
|
work together to perform a given function: the failure modes of the components
|
||||||
are then collected to form {\fgs} and so on until a hierarchy is built
|
are considered, and a failure mode behaviour for the group determined: this group
|
||||||
representing the entire system.
|
can now be used as a component in its own right with a set of failure modes.
|
||||||
|
%
|
||||||
|
% In essence, this methodology beginning with low level modules (or {\fgs})
|
||||||
|
% which are analysed and assigned a failure mode behaviour.
|
||||||
|
% They are then considered as higher level components with
|
||||||
|
% their own failure mode behaviour. These higher level components
|
||||||
|
% are then collected to form {\fgs} and so on until a hierarchy is built
|
||||||
|
% representing the entire system.
|
||||||
|
%
|
||||||
% Any new static failure mode methodology must ensure that it
|
% Any new static failure mode methodology must ensure that it
|
||||||
% represents all component failure modes and it therefore should be bottom-up,
|
% represents all component failure modes and it therefore should be bottom-up,
|
||||||
% starting with individual component failure modes.
|
% starting with individual component failure modes.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\paragraph{FMMD process.}
|
||||||
To ensure all component failure modes are modelled, the new methodology must be bottom-up.
|
To ensure all component failure modes are modelled, the new methodology must be bottom-up.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
%This seems essential to satisfy criterion 2.
|
%This seems essential to satisfy criterion 2.
|
||||||
@ -663,7 +673,7 @@ A {\em {\fg}}, is defined as a small collection of components
|
|||||||
that interact to provide
|
that interact to provide
|
||||||
a function or task within a system.
|
a function or task within a system.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
Starting with base~components small {\fgs} are chosen and each component failure mode considered in the
|
Starting with {\bcs} small {\fgs} are chosen and each component failure mode considered in the
|
||||||
context of the {\fg}.
|
context of the {\fg}.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
%% GARK
|
%% GARK
|
||||||
@ -692,10 +702,9 @@ The failure modes of this new {\dc} are the symptoms of the {\fg} it was derived
|
|||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
By using {\dcs} in higher level functional groups, a hierarchy can be built representing
|
By using {\dcs} in higher level functional groups, a hierarchy can be built representing
|
||||||
the failure mode behaviour of a system. Because the hierarchy maintains information
|
the failure mode behaviour of a system. Because the hierarchy maintains information
|
||||||
linking the symptoms to component failure modes (via {\fcs}).
|
linking the symptoms to component failure modes (via {\fcs}), reasoning connections from base component failures to top level failures can now be made
|
||||||
|
by tracing cause and effect though the hierarchy of modules~\footnote{This means that an FMMD model can be used to produce traditional FMEA reports where each {\bc} {\fm} is linked to
|
||||||
Reasoning connections from base component failures to top level failures can now be made
|
a system level failure.}.
|
||||||
by tracing cause and effect though the hierarchy of modules.
|
|
||||||
%The traceability should satisfy criterion 5.
|
%The traceability should satisfy criterion 5.
|
||||||
An advantage of performing FMEA in this modular way, is that the
|
An advantage of performing FMEA in this modular way, is that the
|
||||||
{\fgs} are small in terms of the numbers of components. This means the $O(N^2)$ effect
|
{\fgs} are small in terms of the numbers of components. This means the $O(N^2)$ effect
|
||||||
@ -704,7 +713,8 @@ This addresses the state explosion problem of XFMEA.
|
|||||||
It also means that modules are re-usable (analogous to software classes).
|
It also means that modules are re-usable (analogous to software classes).
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
A practical example of a hardware FMEA performed both traditionally and using FMMD may be found in~\cite{syssafe2011}
|
A practical example of a hardware FMEA performed both traditionally and using FMMD may be found in~\cite{syssafe2011}, a hybrid
|
||||||
|
software and hardware hybrid example is analysed in~\cite{syssafe2012}
|
||||||
and examples of `reasoning~distance' efficiency savings can be found in~\cite{clark}[Ch.7].
|
and examples of `reasoning~distance' efficiency savings can be found in~\cite{clark}[Ch.7].
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
\paragraph{Integrating software into the FMMD model}
|
\paragraph{Integrating software into the FMMD model}
|
||||||
@ -774,7 +784,7 @@ applying FMMD means deciding on the members for {\fgs} and the subsequent hierar
|
|||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
\section{Example for analysis} % : How can we apply FMEA}
|
\section{Example for analysis} % : How can we apply FMEA}
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
For the purpose of example, we chose a simple common safety critical industrial circuit
|
For the purpose of example, a simple common safety critical industrial circuit has been chosen
|
||||||
that is nearly always used in conjunction with a programmatic element.
|
that is nearly always used in conjunction with a programmatic element.
|
||||||
A common method for delivering a quantitative value in analogue electronics is
|
A common method for delivering a quantitative value in analogue electronics is
|
||||||
to supply a current signal to represent the value to be sent~\cite{aoe}[p.934].
|
to supply a current signal to represent the value to be sent~\cite{aoe}[p.934].
|
||||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user