Minor corrections --- send to J Howse.
This commit is contained in:
parent
ac72fc9135
commit
3bbb4215a5
64
mybib.bib
64
mybib.bib
@ -388,9 +388,9 @@ doi={10.1109/RAMS.1996.500640},
|
||||
ISSN={0149-144X},}
|
||||
|
||||
@ARTICLE{sfmea,
|
||||
AUTHOR = "Chris Price, Neal Snooke",
|
||||
AUTHOR = "Neal Snooke and Chris Price",
|
||||
TITLE = "An Automated Software FMEA",
|
||||
JOURNAL = "International System Safety conference singapore 2008",
|
||||
JOURNAL = "International System Safety conference Singapore 2008",
|
||||
YEAR = "2008"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@ -544,7 +544,7 @@ ISSN={2166-563X},}
|
||||
% my bib file.
|
||||
|
||||
@ARTICLE{fmd91,
|
||||
AUTHOR = "Reliability Analysis Center",
|
||||
AUTHOR = "Reliability~Analysis~Center US~DOC",
|
||||
TITLE = "Failure Mode/Mechanisms Distributions 1991",
|
||||
JOURNAL = "United States Department of Commerce: F30602-91-C-0002",
|
||||
YEAR = "1991"
|
||||
@ -884,7 +884,7 @@ strength of materials, the causes of boiler explosions",
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@BOOK{bfmea,
|
||||
AUTHOR = "Robin E McDermot et all",
|
||||
AUTHOR = "Robin McDermot",
|
||||
TITLE = "The Basics of FMEA ISBN: 0-527-76320-9",
|
||||
PUBLISHER = "Productivity",
|
||||
YEAR = "1996"
|
||||
@ -899,7 +899,7 @@ strength of materials, the causes of boiler explosions",
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@BOOK{faa,
|
||||
AUTHOR = "Federal Aviation Administration",
|
||||
AUTHOR = "Federal~Aviation~Administration FAA",
|
||||
TITLE = "System Safety Handbook",
|
||||
PUBLISHER = "http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/risk\_management/ss\_handbook/",
|
||||
YEAR = "2008"
|
||||
@ -973,14 +973,14 @@ ISSN={1530-2059},}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@PHDTHESIS{maikowski,
|
||||
AUTHOR = "Leo M Maikowski",
|
||||
TITLE = "Tolreranced Multiple Fault Diagnosis of Analog Circuits",
|
||||
AUTHOR = "Leo~M Maikowski",
|
||||
TITLE = "Tolereranced Multiple Fault Diagnosis of Analog Circuits",
|
||||
SCHOOL = " Brighton University, School of Electrical Engineering",
|
||||
YEAR = "1995"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@BOOK{cbds,
|
||||
AUTHOR = "Chris~Price",
|
||||
AUTHOR = "Chris Price",
|
||||
TITLE = "Computer-Based Diagnostic Systems ISBN 3-540-76198-5",
|
||||
PUBLISHER = "Springer Practitioner series",
|
||||
YEAR = "1999"
|
||||
@ -1013,14 +1013,14 @@ ISSN={1530-2059},}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@BOOK{f77,
|
||||
AUTHOR = "A.~Balfour D.H.~Marwick",
|
||||
AUTHOR = "A. Balfour and D.H. Marwick",
|
||||
TITLE = "Programming in Standard Fortran 77 ISBN 0-435-77486-7",
|
||||
PUBLISHER = "Heinemann Educational Books",
|
||||
YEAR = "1979"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@BOOK{ctw,
|
||||
AUTHOR = "Gregory~J.E.~Rawlins",
|
||||
AUTHOR = "Gregory~J.E. Rawlins",
|
||||
TITLE = "Compared to What ? An introduction to the analysis of algorithms ISBN 0-7167-8243-x",
|
||||
PUBLISHER = "Computer Science Press",
|
||||
YEAR = "1991"
|
||||
@ -1029,14 +1029,14 @@ ISSN={1530-2059},}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@BOOK{alg,
|
||||
AUTHOR = "Alan~Gibbons",
|
||||
AUTHOR = "Alan Gibbons",
|
||||
TITLE = "Algorithmic Graph Theory ISBN 0-521-28881-9",
|
||||
PUBLISHER = "Cambridge University Press",
|
||||
YEAR = "1985"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@BOOK{found,
|
||||
AUTHOR = "Ian~Stewart, David~Tall",
|
||||
AUTHOR = "Ian Stewart and David Tall",
|
||||
TITLE = "The Foundations of Mathematics : ISBN 0-19-853165-6",
|
||||
PUBLISHER = "Oxford University Press",
|
||||
YEAR = "1977"
|
||||
@ -1050,42 +1050,42 @@ ISSN={1530-2059},}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@BOOK{probstatcrash,
|
||||
AUTHOR = " M~R~Spiegel, J~Schiller, A~Srinivasan",
|
||||
AUTHOR = " M~R Spiegel and J Schiller and A Srinivasan",
|
||||
TITLE = "Probability and Statistics Crash Course : SHCAUM'S : ISBN 0-07-138341-7",
|
||||
PUBLISHER = "McGraw Hill",
|
||||
YEAR = "2001"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@BOOK{probstat,
|
||||
AUTHOR = " M~R~Spiegel",
|
||||
AUTHOR = " M~R Spiegel",
|
||||
TITLE = "Probability and Statistics Second edition : SHCAUM'S : ISBN 0-07-135004-7",
|
||||
PUBLISHER = "Oxford University Press",
|
||||
YEAR = "1988"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@BOOK{idmfssz,
|
||||
AUTHOR = " D~C~Ince",
|
||||
AUTHOR = " D~C Ince",
|
||||
TITLE = " An Introduction to Discrete Mathematics, Formal System Specification and Z : Oxford : ISBN 0-19-853836-7",
|
||||
PUBLISHER = "Oxford University Press",
|
||||
YEAR = "1988"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@BOOK{rdh,
|
||||
AUTHOR = "F~Langford-Smith",
|
||||
AUTHOR = "F Langford-Smith",
|
||||
TITLE = "Radio designers Handbook: Fourth Edition",
|
||||
PUBLISHER = "ILIFFE",
|
||||
YEAR = "1953"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@BOOK{wdycwopt,
|
||||
AUTHOR = " Richard~P~Feynman",
|
||||
AUTHOR = " Richard~P Feynman",
|
||||
TITLE = " What do you care what other people think: Harper Collins : ISBN 0-586-21855-6",
|
||||
PUBLISHER = " harpercollins",
|
||||
YEAR = "1988"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@BOOK{joyofsets,
|
||||
AUTHOR = " Keith~devlin",
|
||||
AUTHOR = " Keith Devlin",
|
||||
TITLE = " The Joy of Sets: 2nd edition: ISBN 978-0-387-94094-6",
|
||||
PUBLISHER = " Springer",
|
||||
YEAR = "1993"
|
||||
@ -1133,61 +1133,61 @@ ISSN={0098-5589},}
|
||||
address = {Greenwich, CT, USA},
|
||||
}
|
||||
@MISC{eulerviz,
|
||||
author = "Peter~Rodgers, John~Howse, Andrew~Fish",
|
||||
author = "Peter Rodgers and John~Howse and Andrew~Fish",
|
||||
title = "Visualization of Euler Diagrams",
|
||||
howpublished = "http://www.cmis.bton.ac.uk/research/vmg/papers/EulerViz.pdf",
|
||||
year = "2005"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@MISC{eulerprop,
|
||||
author = "Peter~Rodgers, John~Howse, Gem~Stapleton",
|
||||
author = "Gem~Stapleton and Peter~Rodgers and John~Howse, ",
|
||||
title = "Properties of Euler Diagrams",
|
||||
howpublished = "http://www.cmis.bton.ac.uk/research/vmg/papers/",
|
||||
year = "2007"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@MISC{en161,
|
||||
author = "E N Standard",
|
||||
author = "EN~Standard BSI",
|
||||
title = "EN161:2007 Automatic shutoff valves for gas burners and gas appliances",
|
||||
howpublished = "British standards Institution http://www.bsigroup.com/",
|
||||
year = "2003"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@MISC{en298,
|
||||
author = "E N Standard",
|
||||
author = "EN~Standard BSI",
|
||||
title = "EN298:2003 Gas Burner Controllers with forced draft",
|
||||
howpublished = "British standards Institution http://www.bsigroup.com/",
|
||||
year = "2003"
|
||||
}
|
||||
@MISC{en230,
|
||||
author = "E N Standard",
|
||||
author = "EN~Standard BSI",
|
||||
title = "EN230:2005 Automatic burner control systems for oil burners",
|
||||
howpublished = "British standards Institution http://www.bsigroup.com/",
|
||||
year = "2005"
|
||||
}
|
||||
@MISC{en60730,
|
||||
author = "E N Standard",
|
||||
author = "EN~Standard BSI",
|
||||
title = "EN60730: Automatic Electrical controls for household and similar use",
|
||||
howpublished = "British standards Institution http://www.bsigroup.com/",
|
||||
year = "1994"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@MISC{tisallenkey,
|
||||
author="Texas Instruments",
|
||||
author="Texas~Instruments TI",
|
||||
title = "Analysis of the Sallen Key architecture: Application report",
|
||||
howpublished = "Available from http://www.ti.com/lit/an/sloa024b/sloa024b.pdf",
|
||||
year="2002"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@MISC{challenger,
|
||||
author = "U.S. Presidential Commission",
|
||||
author = "US~Presidential~Commission US-PCOM",
|
||||
title = "Report of the SpaceShuttle Challanger Accident",
|
||||
howpublished = "Available from http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/table-of-contents.html",
|
||||
year = "1986"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@MISC{iec60812,
|
||||
author = "IEC Standard",
|
||||
author = "IEC~Standard BSI",
|
||||
title = "IEC 60812:1985 Analysis Techniques for system reliability - Procedure for failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA)",
|
||||
howpublished = "British standards Institution http://www.bsigroup.com/",
|
||||
year = "1985"
|
||||
@ -1237,7 +1237,7 @@ OPTissn = {},
|
||||
@Manual{tlp181,
|
||||
title = {TLP 181 Datasheet},
|
||||
key = {TOSHIBA Photocoupler GaAs Ired and Photo−Transistor},
|
||||
author = {Toshiba inc.},
|
||||
author = {Toshiba},
|
||||
OPTorganization = {},
|
||||
address = {http://www.toshiba.com/taec/components2/Datasheet\_Sync//206/4191.pdf},
|
||||
OPTedition = {},
|
||||
@ -1265,7 +1265,7 @@ OPTissn = {},
|
||||
@Manual{pic18f25k80erratta,
|
||||
title = {Datasheet Erratta: PIC18F66K80 Family Silicon Errata and Data Sheet Clarification DS805119D},
|
||||
OPTkey = {},
|
||||
author = {Microchip inc},
|
||||
author = {Microchip},
|
||||
OPTorganization = {},
|
||||
address = {http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/80519d.pdf},
|
||||
OPTedition = {},
|
||||
@ -1285,7 +1285,7 @@ OPTissn = {},
|
||||
@Manual{pic18f2523,
|
||||
title = {PIC18F2523 Datasheet},
|
||||
OPTkey = {},
|
||||
author = {Microchip inc},
|
||||
author = {Microchip},
|
||||
OPTorganization = {},
|
||||
address = {http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/39755c.pdf},
|
||||
OPTedition = {},
|
||||
@ -1404,9 +1404,9 @@ OPTissn = {},
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@TechReport{eurothermtables,
|
||||
author = {Eurotherm Ltd.},
|
||||
author = {Eurotherm},
|
||||
title = {Thermocouple Emf TABLES and PLATINUM 100 RESISTANCE THERMOMETER TABLES},
|
||||
institution = {Eurotherm, UK},
|
||||
institution = {Eurotherm Ltd, UK},
|
||||
year = {1973},
|
||||
OPTkey = {},
|
||||
OPTtype = {},
|
||||
|
@ -1134,11 +1134,13 @@ must be made where appropriate.
|
||||
An example of component tolerance considered for FMEA
|
||||
is given in section~\ref{sec:resistortolerance}.
|
||||
|
||||
\section{FMEA in current usage: Five variants}
|
||||
%\section{FMEA in current usage: Five variants}
|
||||
\section{FMEA in current usage: Four variants}
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Five main Variants of FMEA}
|
||||
%\paragraph{Five main Variants of FMEA}
|
||||
\paragraph{Four main Variants of FMEA}
|
||||
\begin{itemize}
|
||||
\item \textbf{PFMEA - Production} Emphasis on cost reduction and product improvement;
|
||||
%\item \textbf{PFMEA - Production} Emphasis on cost reduction and product improvement;
|
||||
\item \textbf{FMECA - Criticality} Emphasis on minimising the effect of critical systems failing; % Military/Space
|
||||
\item \textbf{FMEDA - Statistical Safety} Statistical analysis giving Safety Integrity Levels;
|
||||
\item \textbf{DFMEA - Design or Static/Theoretical} Approval of safety critical systems using FMEA and single or double failure prevention;% EN298/EN230/UL1998
|
||||
@ -1147,39 +1149,41 @@ is given in section~\ref{sec:resistortolerance}.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\section{PFMEA - Production FMEA : 1940's to present}
|
||||
\fmmdglossPFMEA
|
||||
%
|
||||
Production FMEA (or PFMEA), is FMEA used to prioritise, in terms of
|
||||
cost, problems to be addressed in product production.
|
||||
%
|
||||
It generally focuses on known problems and using their
|
||||
statistical frequency %they occur
|
||||
and their cost to fix multiplied gives a Risk Priority Number (RPN)
|
||||
for the germane component {\fm}.
|
||||
%
|
||||
Fixing problems with the highest RPN number
|
||||
will return most cost benefit~\cite{bfmea}.
|
||||
%
|
||||
An example PFMEA report is presented in table~\ref{tbl:pfmeareport}.
|
||||
|
||||
% benign example of PFMEA in CARS - make something up.
|
||||
\subsection{PFMEA Example}
|
||||
\begin{table}[ht]
|
||||
\label{tbl:pfmeareport}
|
||||
\caption{FMEA Calculations} % title of Table
|
||||
\centering % used for centering table
|
||||
\begin{tabular}{|| l | l | c | c | l ||} \hline
|
||||
\textbf{Failure Mode} & \textbf{P} & \textbf{Cost} & \textbf{Symptom} & \textbf{RPN} \\ \hline \hline
|
||||
relay 1 n/c & $1*10^{-5}$ & 38.0 & indicators fail & 0.00038 \\ \hline
|
||||
relay 2 n/c & $1*10^{-5}$ & 98.0 & doorlocks fail & 0.00098 \\ \hline
|
||||
% rear end crash & $14.4*10^{-6}$ & 267,700 & fatal fire & 3.855 \\
|
||||
% ruptured f.tank & & & & \\ \hline
|
||||
\hline
|
||||
\end{tabular}
|
||||
\end{table}
|
||||
% Viva Voce: Chris Price said that production FMEA was FMEA for the production process not
|
||||
% FMEA applied a s a cost saving strategy for mass produced items.
|
||||
% I disagree slightly, but am removing it as it is explicitly mentioned as a minor correction. 21DEC2013
|
||||
%
|
||||
% \section{PFMEA - Production FMEA : 1940's to present}
|
||||
% \fmmdglossPFMEA
|
||||
% %
|
||||
% Production FMEA (or PFMEA), is FMEA used to prioritise, in terms of
|
||||
% cost, problems to be addressed in product production.
|
||||
% %
|
||||
% It generally focuses on known problems and using their
|
||||
% statistical frequency %they occur
|
||||
% and their cost to fix multiplied gives a Risk Priority Number (RPN)
|
||||
% for the germane component {\fm}.
|
||||
% %
|
||||
% Fixing problems with the highest RPN number
|
||||
% will return most cost benefit~\cite{bfmea}.
|
||||
% %
|
||||
% An example PFMEA report is presented in table~\ref{tbl:pfmeareport}.
|
||||
%
|
||||
% % benign example of PFMEA in CARS - make something up.
|
||||
% \subsection{PFMEA Example}
|
||||
% \begin{table}[ht]
|
||||
% \label{tbl:pfmeareport}
|
||||
% \caption{FMEA Calculations} % title of Table
|
||||
% \centering % used for centering table
|
||||
% \begin{tabular}{|| l | l | c | c | l ||} \hline
|
||||
% \textbf{Failure Mode} & \textbf{P} & \textbf{Cost} & \textbf{Symptom} & \textbf{RPN} \\ \hline \hline
|
||||
% relay 1 n/c & $1*10^{-5}$ & 38.0 & indicators fail & 0.00038 \\ \hline
|
||||
% relay 2 n/c & $1*10^{-5}$ & 98.0 & doorlocks fail & 0.00098 \\ \hline
|
||||
% % rear end crash & $14.4*10^{-6}$ & 267,700 & fatal fire & 3.855 \\
|
||||
% % ruptured f.tank & & & & \\ \hline
|
||||
% \hline
|
||||
% \end{tabular}
|
||||
% \end{table}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\section{FMECA - Failure Modes Effects and Criticality Analysis}
|
||||
@ -1231,10 +1235,15 @@ A history of the usage and development of FMECA may be found in~\cite{FMECAresea
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{FMECA - Statistical variables.}
|
||||
%
|
||||
FMECA extends PFMEA, but instead of cost, a criticality or
|
||||
seriousness factor is ascribed to putative top level incidents.
|
||||
%Viva Voce: remove
|
||||
% FMECA extends PFMEA, but instead of cost, a criticality or
|
||||
% seriousness factor is ascribed to putative top level incidents.
|
||||
% FMECA has three probability factors for component failures, a system operational time and a severity factor.
|
||||
FMECA refines FMEA, but instead of a simple top level failure as a result, a criticality or
|
||||
seriousness factor is also ascribed. %ascribed to putative top level incidents.
|
||||
FMECA has three probability factors for component failures, a system operational time and a severity factor.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\textbf{FMECA ${\lambda}_{p}$ value.}
|
||||
This is the overall failure rate of a base component.
|
||||
This will typically be the failure rate per million ($10^6$) or
|
||||
|
@ -406,7 +406,8 @@ utterly anachronistic in the distributed real time system environment.
|
||||
A summary of deficiencies in current FMEA methodologies is listed below:
|
||||
\begin{itemize}
|
||||
%\item FMEA type methodologies were designed for simple electro-mechanical systems of the 1940's to 1960's,
|
||||
\item State explosion - impossible to perform FMEA exhaustively, %rigorously
|
||||
\item State explosion - %impossible
|
||||
very difficult/time consuming to perform FMEA exhaustively, %rigorously
|
||||
\item Difficult to re-use previous analysis work,
|
||||
\item Very difficult to model simultaneous/multiple failures,
|
||||
\item Software and hardware models are separate (if the software is modelled at all) meaning the software interface may not be correctly modelled,
|
||||
@ -555,7 +556,7 @@ A wish list is presented, stating the features that should exist
|
||||
in an improved FMEA methodology,
|
||||
\begin{itemize}
|
||||
\item Must be able to analyse hybrid software/hardware systems,
|
||||
\item no state explosion (i.e. XFMEA is impractical),
|
||||
\item avoid state explosion (i.e. XFMEA is impractical by hand~\cite{cbds}),
|
||||
\item exhaustive checking at a modular level, %(total failure coverage within {\fgs} all interacting component and failure modes checked),
|
||||
\item traceable reasoning inherent in system failure models,% to aid repeatability and checking,
|
||||
\item re-usable i.e. it should be possible to re-use analysis,
|
||||
|
@ -661,6 +661,9 @@ from base component level to the top and vice versa.
|
||||
\fmmdglossDC
|
||||
\fmmdglossSYMPTOM
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Defining terms}
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{A discussion on the terms Parts, Components and Base Components.}
|
||||
@ -690,6 +693,13 @@ as a separate building block for a circuit.
|
||||
For FMMD each of these four op-amps
|
||||
in the chip would be considered to be a separate {\bc}.
|
||||
% CAN WE FIND SUPPORT FOR THIS IN LITERATURE???
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\fmmdglossBC
|
||||
%
|
||||
The above definition of a part, needs further refinement, i.e. to be defined as % defining
|
||||
@ -710,12 +720,19 @@ In fact any lowest level building block with published failure modes could be co
|
||||
but this determination is the choice of the analyst, which may be influenced by the particular
|
||||
standard~\cite{en298}~\cite{en61508} %~\cite{en230}
|
||||
to which the system is being approved/analysed.
|
||||
|
||||
To summarise, the terms, part, component, module and sub-system may have subtly different
|
||||
interpretations for different methodologies.
|
||||
%
|
||||
FMMD considers two types of components, these are:
|
||||
\begin{itemize}
|
||||
\item A {\bc} --- A starting or building block entity with given failure modes,
|
||||
\item A {\dc} --- An entity determined from failure mode analysis.
|
||||
\end{itemize}
|
||||
%a lowest level of assembly `part' or an atomic entity, which ever is the smaller
|
||||
%and component to mean either a part or a sub-assembly.
|
||||
%Definitions used in FMMD are lisfuckup mode or not?????ted in table~\ref{tbl:fmmd_defs} and discussed below.
|
||||
|
||||
%% FIDDLINGING STEREO SUB_SYSTEM EXAMPLE, THE FIDDLINGING CHILDRENS SECTION
|
||||
%%
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Definition of terms: sound system example.}
|
||||
\label{sec:cdplayer}
|
||||
@ -775,7 +792,9 @@ to illuminate the CD might contain a handful of components, and as such would ma
|
||||
as one of the base level {\fgs}. It is a good candidate because
|
||||
it performs a well defined function and it could be considered a design module.
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Functional grouping to {\dc} process outline.}
|
||||
\subsubsection{Functional grouping to {\dc} process outline.}
|
||||
\label{fmmdguide}
|
||||
%\paragraph{Functional grouping to {\dc} process outline.}
|
||||
%In choosing the lowest level (base component) sub-systems we would look
|
||||
%for the smallest `functional~groups' of components within a system.
|
||||
%piss %can
|
||||
@ -811,16 +830,24 @@ An outline of the FMMD process is itemised below:
|
||||
\fmmdglossBC
|
||||
%
|
||||
The FMMD process is described using formal definitions and algorithms in section~\ref{sec:symptomabs}.
|
||||
}
|
||||
% 21DEC2013 What is this bracket doing ?}
|
||||
|
||||
%What components all have in common is that they can fail, and fail in a
|
||||
% number of well defined ways.
|
||||
\paragraph{Functional grouping determination.}
|
||||
Determining which components to include in a {\fg} is a decision
|
||||
made by the analyst. The analyst must look at the system schematics/design~documentation and identify
|
||||
potential {\fgs}. This would typically involve recognising configurations
|
||||
of components performing specific functions.
|
||||
To choose appropriate {\fgs} involves a good understanding of the sub-system in hand and an initial top down
|
||||
perspective. % of it.
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Failure modes used for {\bcs}.}
|
||||
For common {\bcs}
|
||||
there is established literature for the failure modes for the system designer to consider
|
||||
(often with accompanying statistical
|
||||
failure rates)~\cite{mil1991,en298,fmd91}.
|
||||
%
|
||||
\fmmdglossBC
|
||||
\fmmdglossDC
|
||||
%
|
||||
For instance, a simple resistor is generally considered
|
||||
to fail in two ways, it can go open circuit or it can short.
|
||||
@ -1100,7 +1127,7 @@ the failure causation logic can be followed and thus the DAG's derived (see figu
|
||||
|
||||
%
|
||||
\paragraph{Traceability and quality of FMMD analysis.}
|
||||
By having an analysis report report for each analysis stage, %i.e. {\fg} to {\dc},
|
||||
By having an analysis report for each analysis stage, %i.e. {\fg} to {\dc},
|
||||
we add traceability to the reasoning applied to the FMMD process.
|
||||
%
|
||||
Consider that traditional FMEA has one large reasoning stage, that of component failure mode
|
||||
@ -1164,7 +1191,7 @@ Because {\fgs} may include components at varying levels
|
||||
of $\abslev$, having it quickly available as an attribute
|
||||
will be required in practical implementations
|
||||
to order the tree, and assist in preventing recursion in the hierarchy (i.e. where
|
||||
a {\fg} could erroneously include a component above its-self in the hierarchy).
|
||||
a {\fg} could erroneously include a component above its~self in the hierarchy).
|
||||
%
|
||||
The abstraction level concept is formally defined in appendix~\ref{sec:abstractionlevel}.
|
||||
|
||||
@ -1188,7 +1215,7 @@ are naturally mutually exclusive.
|
||||
%
|
||||
This also applies to {\dcs} produced in the FMMD process.
|
||||
%
|
||||
In the FMMD process common symptoms are are collected, i.e no component failure modes may be %shared
|
||||
In the FMMD process common symptoms are collected, i.e no component failure modes may be %shared
|
||||
linked to more than one symptom and therefore the failure modes of a {\dc} are mutually exclusive.
|
||||
%
|
||||
Thus FMMD naturally produces {\dcs} with failure modes that are mutually exclusive.
|
||||
@ -1208,7 +1235,8 @@ we can have a final stage where we consider the subjective or contextual effects
|
||||
With traditional FMEA methodologies this decision (the contextual effects)
|
||||
has to be made for each component {\fm} in the system.
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{State explosion problem of FMEA solved by FMMD.}
|
||||
\paragraph{State explosion problem of FMEA mitigated by FMMD.}
|
||||
%\paragraph{State explosion problem of FMEA solved by FMMD.}
|
||||
%
|
||||
Because FMMD considers failure modes within functional groups;
|
||||
the traditional state explosion problem in FMEA--which lead to the ideal of XFMEA---disappears.
|
||||
|
@ -84,6 +84,8 @@ output voltage above or equal to zero would be erroneous i.e. an `$AMP_{HIGH}$'
|
||||
A threshold would be determined for an `$AMP_{LOW}$' failure symptom (i.e. the output voltage more negative than expected). % error given the expected input range.
|
||||
%
|
||||
%This configuration is interesting from methodology pers.
|
||||
Following the guidelines for the FMMD process (see section~\ref{fmmdguide}), initially potential {\fgs} are identified.
|
||||
%
|
||||
There are two obvious ways in which this circuit can be modelled.
|
||||
%
|
||||
One is to do this in two stages, firstly by considering the gain resistors to be a potential divider
|
||||
@ -321,8 +323,112 @@ this amplifier (see figure~\ref{fig:invdag1}).
|
||||
%
|
||||
Note that this allows failure symptoms to be traced back to causes, i.e.
|
||||
to traverse from system level or top failure modes to base component failure modes.
|
||||
%
|
||||
For the one stage analysis, a DAG showing the failure mode behaviour
|
||||
is presented in figure~\ref{fig:invdag11}.
|
||||
%%%%% 12DEC 2012 UP to here in notes from AF email.
|
||||
%
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{figure}[h+]
|
||||
\centering
|
||||
\begin{tikzpicture}[shorten >=1pt,->,draw=black!50, node distance=\layersep]
|
||||
\tikzstyle{every pin edge}=[<-,shorten <=1pt]
|
||||
\tikzstyle{fmmde}=[circle,fill=black!25,minimum size=30pt,inner sep=0pt]
|
||||
\tikzstyle{component}=[fmmde, fill=green!50];
|
||||
\tikzstyle{failure}=[fmmde, fill=red!50];
|
||||
\tikzstyle{symptom}=[fmmde, fill=blue!50];
|
||||
\tikzstyle{annot} = [text width=4em, text centered]
|
||||
|
||||
% Draw the input layer nodes
|
||||
%\foreach \name / \y in {1,...,4}
|
||||
% This is the same as writing \foreach \name / \y in {1/1,2/2,3/3,4/4}
|
||||
% \node[component, pin=left:Input \#\y] (I-\name) at (0,-\y) {};
|
||||
|
||||
\node[component] (OPAMP) at (0,-1.8) {$OPAMP$};
|
||||
\node[component] (R1) at (0,-6) {$R_1$};
|
||||
\node[component] (R2) at (0,-7.6) {$R_2$};
|
||||
|
||||
%\node[component] (C-3) at (0,-5) {$C^0_3$};
|
||||
%\node[component] (K-4) at (0,-8) {$K^0_4$};
|
||||
%\node[component] (C-5) at (0,-10) {$C^0_5$};
|
||||
%\node[component] (C-6) at (0,-12) {$C^0_6$};
|
||||
%\node[component] (K-7) at (0,-15) {$K^0_7$};
|
||||
|
||||
% Draw the hidden layer nodes
|
||||
%\foreach \name / \y in {1,...,5}
|
||||
% \path[yshift=0.5cm]
|
||||
|
||||
\node[failure] (OPAMPLU) at (\layersep,-0) {l-up};
|
||||
\node[failure] (OPAMPLD) at (\layersep,-1.2) {l-dn};
|
||||
\node[failure] (OPAMPNP) at (\layersep,-2.5) {noop};
|
||||
\node[failure] (OPAMPLS) at (\layersep,-3.8) {lowslew};
|
||||
|
||||
\node[failure] (R1SHORT) at (\layersep,-5.1) {$R1_{Sh}$};
|
||||
\node[failure] (R1OPEN) at (\layersep,-6.4) {$R1_{Op}$};
|
||||
|
||||
\node[failure] (R2SHORT) at (\layersep,-7.7) {$R2_{Sh}$};
|
||||
\node[failure] (R2OPEN) at (\layersep,-9.0) {$R2_{Op}$};
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
% Draw the output layer node
|
||||
|
||||
% % Connect every node in the input layer with every node in the
|
||||
% % hidden layer.
|
||||
% %\foreach \source in {1,...,4}
|
||||
% % \foreach \dest in {1,...,5}
|
||||
\path (OPAMP) edge (OPAMPLU);
|
||||
\path (OPAMP) edge (OPAMPLD);
|
||||
\path (OPAMP) edge (OPAMPNP);
|
||||
\path (OPAMP) edge (OPAMPLS);
|
||||
|
||||
\path (R1) edge (R1SHORT);
|
||||
\path (R1) edge (R1OPEN);
|
||||
|
||||
\path (R2) edge (R2SHORT);
|
||||
\path (R2) edge (R2OPEN);
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
% Potential divider failure modes
|
||||
%
|
||||
%\node[symptom] (PDHIGH) at (\layersep*2,-5.8) {$IPD_{HIGH}$};
|
||||
%\node[symptom] (PDLOW) at (\layersep*2,-8.1) {$IPD_{LOW}$};
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
%\path (R1OPEN) edge (PDLOW);
|
||||
% \path (R2SHORT) edge (PDLOW);
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
%\path (R2OPEN) edge (PDHIGH);
|
||||
% \path (R1SHORT) edge (PDHIGH);
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\node[symptom] (AMPHIGH) at (\layersep*4.4,-3) {$AMP_{HIGH}$};
|
||||
\node[symptom] (AMPLOW) at (\layersep*4.4,-5) {$AMP_{LOW}$};
|
||||
\node[symptom] (AMPLP) at (\layersep*4.4,-7) {$LOWPASS$};
|
||||
|
||||
\path (R1OPEN) edge (AMPHIGH);
|
||||
\path (R1SHORT) edge (AMPLOW);
|
||||
\path (R2SHORT) edge (AMPHIGH);
|
||||
\path (R2OPEN) edge (AMPLOW);
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
%\path (PDLOW) edge (AMPHIGH);
|
||||
\path (OPAMPLU) edge (AMPHIGH);
|
||||
|
||||
%\path (PDHIGH) edge (AMPLOW);
|
||||
\path (OPAMPNP) edge (AMPLOW);
|
||||
\path (OPAMPLD) edge (AMPLOW);
|
||||
|
||||
\path (OPAMPLS) edge (AMPLP);
|
||||
|
||||
\end{tikzpicture}
|
||||
% End of code
|
||||
\caption{Full DAG representing failure modes and symptoms of the Inverting Op-amp Circuit analysed in one stage.}
|
||||
\label{fig:invdag11}
|
||||
\end{figure}
|
||||
%
|
||||
\clearpage
|
||||
\subsection{Second Approach: Inverting OpAmp analysing with three components in one larger {\fg}}
|
||||
@ -473,7 +579,7 @@ It could be at either polarity. % (i.e. the other way around R4 could be the neg
|
||||
%
|
||||
Here, even though R3 and R4 are used as a potential divider,
|
||||
it could be either inverted or non-inverted according to the voltages on the inputs.
|
||||
Therefore the resistors cannot modelled as a potential divider, but must be placed in the {\fg}
|
||||
Therefore the resistors cannot be modelled as a potential divider, but must be placed in the {\fg}
|
||||
with the OpAmp and analysed.
|
||||
%This means we are either going to
|
||||
%get a high or low reading if R3 or R4 fail.
|
||||
@ -629,6 +735,9 @@ This FMMD analysis also revealed an undetectable failure mode, $DiffAMPIncorrec
|
||||
|
||||
The circuit in figure~\ref{fig:circuit2} shows a five pole low pass filter.
|
||||
%
|
||||
Using the FMMD guidelines~\ref{fmmdguide}, a top down view of the circuit is taken, and then groups of components
|
||||
performing specific tasks are identified.
|
||||
%
|
||||
Starting at the input, there is a first order low pass filter buffered by an op-amp,
|
||||
the output of this is passed to a Sallen~Key~\cite{aoe}[p.267]~\cite{electronicssysapproach}[p.288] second order low-pass filter.
|
||||
%
|
||||
@ -982,6 +1091,10 @@ hence a fault anywhere in the loop is likely to affect all stages.
|
||||
%
|
||||
However, this is not a problem for FMMD, as {\fgs} are readily identifiable.
|
||||
%
|
||||
%
|
||||
Using the FMMD guidelines~\ref{fmmdguide}, a top down view of the circuit is taken, and then groups of components
|
||||
performing specific tasks are identified.
|
||||
%
|
||||
%The signal path is circular (its a positive feedback circuit) and most failures would simply cause the output to stop oscillating.
|
||||
%The top level failure modes for the FMMD hierarchy bear this out.
|
||||
%However, FMMD is a bottom -up analysis methodology and we can therefore still identify
|
||||
|
@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ What is potentially difficult with applying FMMD to a software function, is deci
|
||||
its component failure modes %(in electronics the failure modes of its components)---and
|
||||
and its symptoms of failure in a manner compatible with the FMMD process. %(the failure modes of a function taken as a {\dc}) are.
|
||||
%
|
||||
With electronic components, the literature to points to suitable sets of
|
||||
With electronic components, the literature points to suitable sets of
|
||||
{\fms}~\cite{fmd91}~\cite{mil1991}~\cite{en298}. %~\cite{en61508}~\cite{en298}.
|
||||
%
|
||||
With software only some library functions are well known and rigorously documented
|
||||
|
@ -147,7 +147,8 @@ the examples analysed and theoretical models are used to demonstrate this.
|
||||
% End what has been achieved ---- all in 300ish word OK here we go.
|
||||
%Conclusions are presented listing the
|
||||
%and FMMD is compared with traditional HFMEA and SFMEA.
|
||||
This thesis presents a methodology that solves the state explosion problems of FMEA;
|
||||
This thesis presents a methodology that %solves
|
||||
mitigates the state explosion problems of FMEA;
|
||||
provides integrated hardware and software failure mode models;
|
||||
facilitates multiple failure mode analysis;
|
||||
encourages re-use of analysis work
|
||||
|
@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ Further I thank her for encouraging me to apply for the PhD. %% PITY SHE DID NOT
|
||||
I also wish to thank Alan Jones of Brighton College of Technology
|
||||
for taking a chance on someone with no `A' levels and letting him
|
||||
start an HND in software Engineering in 1986. That more than anything
|
||||
changed my life and gave me fantasic opportunities.
|
||||
changed my life and gave me fantastic opportunities.
|
||||
%
|
||||
\\
|
||||
\\
|
||||
@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ the examples analysed and theoretical models are used to demonstrate this.
|
||||
% End what has been achieved ---- all in 300ish word OK here we go.
|
||||
%Conclusions are presented listing the
|
||||
%and FMMD is compared with traditional HFMEA and SFMEA.
|
||||
This thesis presents a methodology that solves the state explosion problems of FMEA;
|
||||
This thesis presents a methodology that mitigates the state explosion problems of FMEA;
|
||||
provides integrated hardware and software failure mode models;
|
||||
facilitates multiple failure mode analysis;
|
||||
encourages re-use of analysis work
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user