.
This commit is contained in:
parent
7e6f1477d6
commit
4ad9c0dfa2
@ -68,7 +68,18 @@ are held in a computer program, we can determine if the model is complete
|
|||||||
%OK need to describe the need for it
|
%OK need to describe the need for it
|
||||||
\section{The need for a new failure mode modelling methodology}
|
\section{The need for a new failure mode modelling methodology}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
In summary.
|
|
||||||
|
\paragraph{Ideal Static failure mode methodology}
|
||||||
|
An ideal Static failure mode methodology would build a failure mode model
|
||||||
|
from which the the other four could be derived.
|
||||||
|
It would address the short-comings in the other methodologies, and
|
||||||
|
would have a user friendly interface, with a visual (rather than mathematical/formal) syntax with icons
|
||||||
|
to represent the results of analysis phases.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
There are four static analysis failure mode methodologies in common use.
|
||||||
|
Each has its advantages and drawbacks, and each is suited for
|
||||||
|
a different phase in the product life cycle.
|
||||||
|
These four methodologies are discussed briefly below.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\subsection { FTA }
|
\subsection { FTA }
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@ -90,19 +101,53 @@ system level outcomes.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
\subsection { FMEA }
|
\subsection { FMEA }
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
This places a burden of taking individual component failure modes
|
This is an early static analysis methodology, and concentrates
|
||||||
and trying to determine what affects this will have at SYSTEM level.
|
on SYSTEM level errors which have been investigated.
|
||||||
Justifications for this methodology are often statistical and Bayes Theorem \cite{probstat}
|
The investigation will typically point to a particular failure
|
||||||
is often cited.
|
of a component.
|
||||||
This lacks precision, or in other words, determinability prediction accuracy,
|
The methodology is now applied to find the significance of the failure.
|
||||||
as often the component failure mode cannt be proven to cause a SYSTEM level failure, only to make it more likely.
|
Its is based on a simple equation where $S$ ranks the severity (or cost \cite{fmea}) of the identified SYSTEM failure,
|
||||||
Also, it can miss combinations of failure modes that will cause SYSTEM level errors.
|
$O$ its occurrance, and $D$ giving the failures detectability. Mulipliying these
|
||||||
|
together,
|
||||||
|
gives a risk probability number, i.e. $RPN = S \times O \times D$.
|
||||||
|
This gives in effect
|
||||||
|
a prioritised todo list, with higher the $RPN$ values being the most urgent.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\subsection{FMECA}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Failure mode, effects, and criticality analysis (FMECDA) extends FMEA.
|
||||||
|
This is a bottom up methodology, which takes component failure modes
|
||||||
|
and traces them to the SYSTEM level failures. The components
|
||||||
|
have reliability data and this can be used to predict the
|
||||||
|
failure statistics in the design stage \cite{mil1992}.
|
||||||
|
It can do this using probability \footnote{for a given component failure mode there will be a $\Beta$ value, the
|
||||||
|
probability that the component failure mode will cause a given SYSTEM failure}.
|
||||||
|
%
|
||||||
|
This lacks precision, or in other words, determinability prediction accuracy \cite{fafmea},
|
||||||
|
as often the component failure mode can't be proven to cause a SYSTEM level failure, but
|
||||||
|
assigned a probability $\Beta$ fator by the design engineer.
|
||||||
|
%Also, it can miss combinations of failure modes that will cause SYSTEM level errors.
|
||||||
|
%
|
||||||
|
The results, as with FMEA are an $RPN$ number determing the significance of the SYSTEM fault.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
%%-WIKI- Failure mode, effects, and criticality analysis (FMECA) is an extension of failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA).
|
||||||
|
%%-WIKI- FMEA is a a bottom-up, inductive analytical method which may be performed at either the functional or
|
||||||
|
%%-WIKI- piece-part level. FMECA extends FMEA by including a criticality analysis, which is used to chart the
|
||||||
|
%%-WIKI- probability of failure modes against the severity of their consequences. The result highlights failure modes with relatively high probability
|
||||||
|
%%-WIKI- and severity of consequences, allowing remedial effort to be directed where it will produce the greatest value.
|
||||||
|
%%-WIKI- FMECA tends to be preferred over FMEA in space and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military applications,
|
||||||
|
%%-WIKI- while various forms of FMEA predominate in other industries.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\subsection { FMEDA or Statistical Analyis }
|
\subsection { FMEDA or Statistical Analyis }
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
This is a process that takes all the components in a system,
|
This is a process that takes all the components in a system,
|
||||||
and from the failure modes of those components
|
and from the failure modes of those components
|
||||||
|
tnote{for a given component failure mode there will be a $\Beta$ value, the
|
||||||
|
probability that the component failure mode will cause a given SYSTEM failure}.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
calculates a risk factor for each.
|
calculates a risk factor for each.
|
||||||
The risk factors of all the component failure modes are summed and
|
The risk factors of all the component failure modes are summed and
|
||||||
give a value for the `safety level' for the equipment in a given environment.
|
give a value for the `safety level' for the equipment in a given environment.
|
||||||
@ -140,11 +185,13 @@ This suffers from the same problems of
|
|||||||
lack of determinability prediction accuracy, as FMEA above.
|
lack of determinability prediction accuracy, as FMEA above.
|
||||||
We have to decide how particular components failing will impact ot the SYSTEM or top level.
|
We have to decide how particular components failing will impact ot the SYSTEM or top level.
|
||||||
This involves a `leap of faith'. For instance a resistor failing in a sensor cirrcuit
|
This involves a `leap of faith'. For instance a resistor failing in a sensor cirrcuit
|
||||||
may be part of a critical montioring function. But the analyst is put in a position
|
may be part of a critical montioring function.
|
||||||
|
The analyst is now put in a position
|
||||||
where he must assign a critical failure possibility to it. There is no analysis
|
where he must assign a critical failure possibility to it. There is no analysis
|
||||||
of how that resistor would/could affect that circuit, but because of the circuitry
|
of how that resistor would/could affect that circuit, but because of the circuitry
|
||||||
it is part of critical section it is linked to a critical system level fault.
|
it is part of critical section it is linked to a critical system level fault.
|
||||||
|
There is no cause and effect analysis for the failure modes. Unintended side
|
||||||
|
effects that lead to failure can be missed.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
By this we may have the MTTF of some critical component failure
|
By this we may have the MTTF of some critical component failure
|
||||||
modes, but we can only guess, in most cases what the safety case outcome
|
modes, but we can only guess, in most cases what the safety case outcome
|
||||||
@ -168,122 +215,144 @@ of the Safety Integrity Levels (SIL) of EN61508 \cite{en61508}.
|
|||||||
\item It should have a formal basis, that is to say, it should be able to produce mathematical proofs
|
\item It should have a formal basis, that is to say, it should be able to produce mathematical proofs
|
||||||
for its results.
|
for its results.
|
||||||
\item It should be capable of producing reliability and danger evaluation statistics.
|
\item It should be capable of producing reliability and danger evaluation statistics.
|
||||||
\item It should be easy to use.
|
\item It should be easy to use, Ideally useing a graphical syntax (as oppossed to a formal mathematical one).
|
||||||
|
\item From the top down the failure mode model should follow a logical de-composition of the functionality
|
||||||
|
to smaller and smaller functional modules \cite{maikowski}.
|
||||||
\end{itemize}
|
\end{itemize}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\section{building blocks of a safety critical systen}
|
\section{Proposed Methodology}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
This section looks at common features in a safety critical system and
|
The proposed methodology will be bottom-up. to fulfill the logical de-composition requirement
|
||||||
then looks at the building blocks of these systems
|
it must build {\fg}s from the bottom-up. These are minimal collections of components
|
||||||
and their characteristics.
|
that work together to perform a simple function.
|
||||||
|
We can perform a failure mode effects analysis on each of the component failure
|
||||||
|
modes within the {\fg}. We can thus ensure that all component failure modes
|
||||||
|
are covered. We can then treat the {\fg} as a `black box' or component in its own right.
|
||||||
|
We can now look at how the {\fg} can fail. Many of the component failure modes will
|
||||||
|
cause the same failure symptoms in the {fg} fialure behaviour.
|
||||||
|
We can collect these failures as common symptoms.
|
||||||
|
When we have out set of symptoms, we can now create
|
||||||
|
a {\dc}. The {\dc} will have as its set of failures
|
||||||
|
modes, the collected symptoms of the {\fg}.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\subsection{what is a safety critical system?}
|
Because we can now have a {\dc} we can use these to form
|
||||||
|
new {\fg}s and we can build a hierarchical model of the system failure modes.
|
||||||
DEFINITIONS GET REFS
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
TYPICALLY HAS MECHANICAL, ELECTRONIC and SOFTWARE
|
|
||||||
actuators control intelligence
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\subsection{An example : industrial burner}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
An industrial burner is a nice example of a safety critical system.
|
|
||||||
It has some lethal risks and some environmental.
|
|
||||||
It could, by igniting an explosive mixture, cause an explosion.
|
|
||||||
By burning incorrect proportions of fuel and air, it could be ineffecient and waste
|
|
||||||
resources, or worse could cause poisonous burning (typically carbon monoxide, but also
|
|
||||||
where flame temperature is very high, can produce NOX emmissions).
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
To prevent igniting an explosive mixture, air is pumped though the furnace
|
|
||||||
chamber on start-up, and this is verified with an air pressure switch.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
NEED A DIAGRAM HERE
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
NEED A STATE CHART TOO
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
It is interesting here to compare how the different methodologies
|
|
||||||
would deal with a particular sub-system in the burner controller
|
|
||||||
and compare how they analyse it.
|
|
||||||
The Flame scanner is a good example for this.
|
|
||||||
We shall consider a simple infra red (IR) flame scanner.
|
|
||||||
This is in the form of an IR sensitive resistor.
|
|
||||||
The flame type we will be looking for will have a characteristic
|
|
||||||
flicker frequency of around 13Hz.
|
|
||||||
The circuit is then simply a resitor voltage divider connected to
|
|
||||||
a micro-controller reading the voltage.
|
|
||||||
The flame scanner is thus a two resistor voltage divider.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\subsection{The Flame Scanner}
|
|
||||||
\subsubsection{Macro FTA perspective}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
SHOW ALL TOP LEVEL FAULTS. EXPLOSION, POISONOUS BURNING CO, POISONOUS BURNING NOX, FAILS TO LIGHT etc
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Follow the explosion tree down to flame scanner fails ON, and OFF
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
etc
|
|
||||||
\subsubsection{Macro FMEA/Statistical perspective}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Each of the resistors is considered critical, in the statistical case, and so the MTTF
|
|
||||||
is added inot the DANGEROUS section.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
For FMEA the resistor failures add up to the SYSTEM level, show this is inappropriate
|
|
||||||
and makes several jumps in applied knowledge, thus Bayes theorem etc
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\subsubsection{Micro FMMD perspective}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Here show how the flame scanner becomes a black box, or component in itself.
|
|
||||||
How it is now available to be integrated into higher level designs.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
%and then an ignition position is checked.
|
|
||||||
%Initially a pilot flame is started and when this is stable, the main
|
|
||||||
%flame is fired.
|
|
||||||
%To check the stability of the flame, a flame scanner is required.
|
|
||||||
%To mix the fuel and air, motors to position valves are generally used.
|
|
||||||
%To prevent fuel leakage into the furnace, safety shut-off valves are used \footnote{These generally open slowly under power, and when power is removed `slam shut'. Thus
|
|
||||||
%in the event of a general power failure, the default to safe behaviour.}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
%%- \section{building blocks of a safety critical systen}
|
||||||
Motors controlling air and fuel flow
|
%%-
|
||||||
safety chain to power for shutdown valves
|
%%- This section looks at common features in a safety critical system and
|
||||||
safety shutdown valves on fuel
|
%%- then looks at the building blocks of these systems
|
||||||
flame sensor
|
%%- and their characteristics.
|
||||||
air pressure sensor
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%- \subsection{what is a safety critical system?}
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
\section{Base Level Components}
|
%%- DEFINITIONS GET REFS
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
A common factor with all safety critical systems, is
|
%%-
|
||||||
base level -or- bought in components. Be these
|
%%- TYPICALLY HAS MECHANICAL, ELECTRONIC and SOFTWARE
|
||||||
electrical, mechanical or firmware, they should all
|
%%- actuators control intelligence
|
||||||
have known failure modes.
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%- \subsection{An example : industrial burner}
|
||||||
\subsection { Failure modes defining the component}
|
%%-
|
||||||
We can consider each bought-in component as a base level component,
|
%%- An industrial burner is a nice example of a safety critical system.
|
||||||
and it should have an associated set of failure modes.
|
%%- It has some lethal risks and some environmental.
|
||||||
|
%%- It could, by igniting an explosive mixture, cause an explosion.
|
||||||
|
%%- By burning incorrect proportions of fuel and air, it could be ineffecient and waste
|
||||||
|
%%- resources, or worse could cause poisonous burning (typically carbon monoxide, but also
|
||||||
\subsection { Complication of multiple failure modes }
|
%%- where flame temperature is very high, can produce NOX emmissions).
|
||||||
A very complicated component, like an integrated circuit or perhaps a servo motor, has
|
%%-
|
||||||
a set of failure modes, where several things could go worng with it within the $\tau$ period.
|
%%- To prevent igniting an explosive mixture, air is pumped though the furnace
|
||||||
This is a simultaneous failure, or more than one failure mode being active during the same time period.
|
%%- chamber on start-up, and this is verified with an air pressure switch.
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
\section{FMMD Proposed Methology Outline}
|
%%- NEED A DIAGRAM HERE
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
fire away, essentially the elevator pitch
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%- NEED A STATE CHART TOO
|
||||||
\subsection{Treating a functional group as a component}
|
%%-
|
||||||
\subsection{Using a derived component in designs}
|
%%- It is interesting here to compare how the different methodologies
|
||||||
\section{Building a failure Mode model Hierarchy}
|
%%- would deal with a particular sub-system in the burner controller
|
||||||
|
%%- and compare how they analyse it.
|
||||||
AND the hierarchy...
|
%%- The Flame scanner is a good example for this.
|
||||||
|
%%- We shall consider a simple infra red (IR) flame scanner.
|
||||||
|
%%- This is in the form of an IR sensitive resistor.
|
||||||
Probab about 3 pages
|
%%- The flame type we will be looking for will have a characteristic
|
||||||
|
%%- flicker frequency of around 13Hz.
|
||||||
|
%%- The circuit is then simply a resitor voltage divider connected to
|
||||||
|
%%- a micro-controller reading the voltage.
|
||||||
|
%%- The flame scanner is thus a two resistor voltage divider.
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%- \subsection{The Flame Scanner}
|
||||||
|
%%- \subsubsection{Macro FTA perspective}
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%- SHOW ALL TOP LEVEL FAULTS. EXPLOSION, POISONOUS BURNING CO, POISONOUS BURNING NOX, FAILS TO LIGHT etc
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%- Follow the explosion tree down to flame scanner fails ON, and OFF
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%- etc
|
||||||
|
%%- \subsubsection{Macro FMEA/Statistical perspective}
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%- Each of the resistors is considered critical, in the statistical case, and so the MTTF
|
||||||
|
%%- is added inot the DANGEROUS section.
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%- For FMEA the resistor failures add up to the SYSTEM level, show this is inappropriate
|
||||||
|
%%- and makes several jumps in applied knowledge, thus Bayes theorem etc
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%- \subsubsection{Micro FMMD perspective}
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%- Here show how the flame scanner becomes a black box, or component in itself.
|
||||||
|
%%- How it is now available to be integrated into higher level designs.
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%- %and then an ignition position is checked.
|
||||||
|
%%- %Initially a pilot flame is started and when this is stable, the main
|
||||||
|
%%- %flame is fired.
|
||||||
|
%%- %To check the stability of the flame, a flame scanner is required.
|
||||||
|
%%- %To mix the fuel and air, motors to position valves are generally used.
|
||||||
|
%%- %To prevent fuel leakage into the furnace, safety shut-off valves are used \footnote{These generally open slowly under power, and when power is removed `slam shut'. Thus
|
||||||
|
%%- %in the event of a general power failure, the default to safe behaviour.}
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%- Motors controlling air and fuel flow
|
||||||
|
%%- safety chain to power for shutdown valves
|
||||||
|
%%- safety shutdown valves on fuel
|
||||||
|
%%- flame sensor
|
||||||
|
%%- air pressure sensor
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%- \section{Base Level Components}
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%- A common factor with all safety critical systems, is
|
||||||
|
%%- base level -or- bought in components. Be these
|
||||||
|
%%- electrical, mechanical or firmware, they should all
|
||||||
|
%%- have known failure modes.
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%- \subsection { Failure modes defining the component}
|
||||||
|
%%- We can consider each bought-in component as a base level component,
|
||||||
|
%%- and it should have an associated set of failure modes.
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%- \subsection { Complication of multiple failure modes }
|
||||||
|
%%- A very complicated component, like an integrated circuit or perhaps a servo motor, has
|
||||||
|
%%- a set of failure modes, where several things could go worng with it within the $\tau$ period.
|
||||||
|
%%- This is a simultaneous failure, or more than one failure mode being active during the same time period.
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%- \section{FMMD Proposed Methology Outline}
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%- fire away, essentially the elevator pitch
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%- \subsection{Treating a functional group as a component}
|
||||||
|
%%- \subsection{Using a derived component in designs}
|
||||||
|
%%- \section{Building a failure Mode model Hierarchy}
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%- AND the hierarchy...
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%-
|
||||||
|
%%- Probab about 3 pages
|
||||||
|
File diff suppressed because it is too large
Load Diff
@ -320,17 +320,25 @@ common sense of a human pilot; and if fed the incorrect sensory information
|
|||||||
can make horrendous mistakes. This means that simply reading sensors and applying control
|
can make horrendous mistakes. This means that simply reading sensors and applying control
|
||||||
corrections cannot be enough.
|
corrections cannot be enough.
|
||||||
Checking for error conditions must also be incorporated.
|
Checking for error conditions must also be incorporated.
|
||||||
It could also develop an internal fault, and must be able to recognise and cope with this.
|
Equipment can also develop an internal faults, and strategies
|
||||||
|
must be in-pcae to recognise and cope with them.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\begin{figure}[h]
|
\begin{figure}[h]
|
||||||
\centering
|
\centering
|
||||||
\includegraphics[width=300pt,bb=0 0 678 690,keepaspectratio=true]{introduction/mv_opamp_circuit.png}
|
\includegraphics[width=300pt,keepaspectratio=true]{introduction/mv_opamp_circuit.png}
|
||||||
% mv_opamp_circuit.png: 678x690 pixel, 72dpi, 23.92x24.34 cm, bb=0 0 678 690
|
% mv_opamp_circuit.png: 577x479 pixel, 72dpi, 20.35x16.90 cm, bb=0 0 577 479
|
||||||
\caption{Milli-volt amplifier with added safety Resistor}
|
\caption{Milli-Volt Amplifier with added Safety Resistor (R18)}
|
||||||
\label{fig:millivolt}
|
\label{fig:millivolt}
|
||||||
\end{figure}
|
\end{figure}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
% \begin{figure}[h]
|
||||||
|
% \centering
|
||||||
|
% \includegraphics[width=300pt,bb=0 0 678 690,keepaspectratio=true]{introduction/mv_opamp_circuit.png}
|
||||||
|
% % mv_opamp_circuit.png: 678x690 pixel, 72dpi, 23.92x24.34 cm, bb=0 0 678 690
|
||||||
|
% \caption{Milli-volt amplifier with added safety Resistor}
|
||||||
|
% \label{fig:millivolt}
|
||||||
|
% \end{figure}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
% %5
|
% %5
|
||||||
% \begin{figure}
|
% \begin{figure}
|
||||||
@ -343,10 +351,10 @@ It could also develop an internal fault, and must be able to recognise and cope
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\paragraph{Component added to detect errors}
|
\paragraph{Component added to detect errors}
|
||||||
The op-amp in the circuit in figure \ref{fig:millivolt}, supplies a gain of $\approx 180$ \footnote{
|
The op-amp in the circuit in figure \ref{fig:millivolt}, supplies a gain of $\approx 184$ \footnote{
|
||||||
applying formula for non-inverting op-amp gain\cite{aoe} $\frac{150 \times 10^3}{820}+ 1 = 183$ }.
|
applying formula for non-inverting op-amp gain\cite{aoe} $\frac{150 \times 10^3}{820}+ 1 \approx 184$ }.
|
||||||
The safety case here is that
|
The safety case here is that
|
||||||
any amplified signal between 0.5 and 4 volts on the ADC will be considered in range.
|
any amplified signal between a range say, of 0.5 and 4 volts on the ADC will be considered in range.
|
||||||
This means that between 3mV and 21mV on the input correctly amplified
|
This means that between 3mV and 21mV on the input correctly amplified
|
||||||
can be measured.\footnote{this would be a typical thermocouple amplifier circuit where milli-volt signals
|
can be measured.\footnote{this would be a typical thermocouple amplifier circuit where milli-volt signals
|
||||||
are produced by the Seebeck effect\cite{aoe}}
|
are produced by the Seebeck effect\cite{aoe}}
|
||||||
|
Binary file not shown.
Before Width: | Height: | Size: 13 KiB After Width: | Height: | Size: 9.6 KiB |
@ -5,6 +5,12 @@
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
% $Id: mybib.bib,v 1.3 2009/11/28 20:05:52 robin Exp $
|
% $Id: mybib.bib,v 1.3 2009/11/28 20:05:52 robin Exp $
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
@ARTICLE{fafmea,
|
||||||
|
AUTHOR = "Zigmund Bluvband, Pavel Grabov",
|
||||||
|
TITLE = "Failure Analysis of FMEA",
|
||||||
|
JOURNAL = "IEEE 1-4244-2509-9/09/",
|
||||||
|
YEAR = "2009"
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
@ARTICLE{fmeda,
|
@ARTICLE{fmeda,
|
||||||
AUTHOR = "John C. Grebe Dr. William M. Goble",
|
AUTHOR = "John C. Grebe Dr. William M. Goble",
|
||||||
TITLE = "FMEDA – Accurate Product Failure Metrics",
|
TITLE = "FMEDA – Accurate Product Failure Metrics",
|
||||||
@ -357,6 +363,7 @@ OPTissn = {},
|
|||||||
OPTabstracts = {},
|
OPTabstracts = {},
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@TechReport{eurothermtables,
|
@TechReport{eurothermtables,
|
||||||
author = {Alan Brown},
|
author = {Alan Brown},
|
||||||
title = {Thermocouple Emf TABLES and PLATINUM 100 RESISTANCE THERMOMETER TABLES},
|
title = {Thermocouple Emf TABLES and PLATINUM 100 RESISTANCE THERMOMETER TABLES},
|
||||||
|
@ -1,19 +1,21 @@
|
|||||||
\relax
|
\relax
|
||||||
\bibstyle{plain}
|
|
||||||
\bibdata{vmgbibliography,mybib}
|
|
||||||
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {1}Introduction}{1}}
|
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {1}Introduction}{1}}
|
||||||
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {1.1}Product Life Cycle}{1}}
|
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {1.1}Product Life Cycle}{1}}
|
||||||
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {2}European or `EN' Standards}{1}}
|
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {1}{\ignorespaces Product Life Cycle with Competent Body Approval and Surveillance}}{1}}
|
||||||
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {2.1}Scope}{1}}
|
\newlabel{fig:prod_life}{{1}{1}}
|
||||||
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {2.2}Approval Process}{1}}
|
\bibstyle{plain}
|
||||||
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {2.3}Legal Framework}{1}}
|
\bibdata{vmgbibliography,mybib}
|
||||||
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {2.4}References}{1}}
|
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {2}European or `EN' Standards}{2}}
|
||||||
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {3}North American Standards}{1}}
|
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {2.1}Scope}{2}}
|
||||||
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {3.1}Scope}{1}}
|
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {2.2}Approval Process}{2}}
|
||||||
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {3.2}Approval Process}{1}}
|
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {2.3}Legal Framework}{2}}
|
||||||
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {3.3}Legal Framework}{1}}
|
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {2.4}References}{2}}
|
||||||
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {3.4}References}{1}}
|
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {3}North American Standards}{2}}
|
||||||
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {4}Cross Referencing}{1}}
|
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {3.1}Scope}{2}}
|
||||||
|
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {3.2}Approval Process}{2}}
|
||||||
|
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {3.3}Legal Framework}{2}}
|
||||||
|
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {3.4}References}{2}}
|
||||||
|
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {4}Cross Referencing}{2}}
|
||||||
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {5}Standard in detail: EN298}{2}}
|
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {5}Standard in detail: EN298}{2}}
|
||||||
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {6}Standard in detail: UL1998}{2}}
|
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {6}Standard in detail: UL1998}{2}}
|
||||||
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {7}Standard in detail: EN230}{2}}
|
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {7}Standard in detail: EN230}{2}}
|
||||||
|
@ -1,15 +1,16 @@
|
|||||||
This is pdfTeXk, Version 3.141592-1.40.3 (Web2C 7.5.6) (format=pdflatex 2010.5.22) 11 JUN 2010 23:04
|
This is pdfTeX, Version 3.1415926-1.40.10 (TeX Live 2009/Debian) (format=pdflatex 2010.10.4) 12 OCT 2010 16:40
|
||||||
entering extended mode
|
entering extended mode
|
||||||
|
restricted \write18 enabled.
|
||||||
%&-line parsing enabled.
|
%&-line parsing enabled.
|
||||||
**paper.tex
|
**paper.tex
|
||||||
(./paper.tex
|
(./paper.tex
|
||||||
LaTeX2e <2005/12/01>
|
LaTeX2e <2009/09/24>
|
||||||
Babel <v3.8h> and hyphenation patterns for english, usenglishmax, dumylang, noh
|
Babel <v3.8l> and hyphenation patterns for english, usenglishmax, dumylang, noh
|
||||||
yphenation, loaded.
|
yphenation, sanskrit, loaded.
|
||||||
(/usr/share/texmf-texlive/tex/latex/base/article.cls
|
(/usr/share/texmf-texlive/tex/latex/base/article.cls
|
||||||
Document Class: article 2005/09/16 v1.4f Standard LaTeX document class
|
Document Class: article 2007/10/19 v1.4h Standard LaTeX document class
|
||||||
(/usr/share/texmf-texlive/tex/latex/base/size10.clo
|
(/usr/share/texmf-texlive/tex/latex/base/size10.clo
|
||||||
File: size10.clo 2005/09/16 v1.4f Standard LaTeX file (size option)
|
File: size10.clo 2007/10/19 v1.4h Standard LaTeX file (size option)
|
||||||
)
|
)
|
||||||
\c@part=\count79
|
\c@part=\count79
|
||||||
\c@section=\count80
|
\c@section=\count80
|
||||||
@ -31,18 +32,18 @@ Package: keyval 1999/03/16 v1.13 key=value parser (DPC)
|
|||||||
\KV@toks@=\toks14
|
\KV@toks@=\toks14
|
||||||
)
|
)
|
||||||
(/usr/share/texmf-texlive/tex/latex/graphics/graphics.sty
|
(/usr/share/texmf-texlive/tex/latex/graphics/graphics.sty
|
||||||
Package: graphics 2006/02/20 v1.0o Standard LaTeX Graphics (DPC,SPQR)
|
Package: graphics 2009/02/05 v1.0o Standard LaTeX Graphics (DPC,SPQR)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
(/usr/share/texmf-texlive/tex/latex/graphics/trig.sty
|
(/usr/share/texmf-texlive/tex/latex/graphics/trig.sty
|
||||||
Package: trig 1999/03/16 v1.09 sin cos tan (DPC)
|
Package: trig 1999/03/16 v1.09 sin cos tan (DPC)
|
||||||
)
|
)
|
||||||
(/etc/texmf/tex/latex/config/graphics.cfg
|
(/etc/texmf/tex/latex/config/graphics.cfg
|
||||||
File: graphics.cfg 2007/01/18 v1.5 graphics configuration of teTeX/TeXLive
|
File: graphics.cfg 2009/08/28 v1.8 graphics configuration of TeX Live
|
||||||
)
|
)
|
||||||
Package graphics Info: Driver file: pdftex.def on input line 90.
|
Package graphics Info: Driver file: pdftex.def on input line 91.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
(/usr/share/texmf-texlive/tex/latex/pdftex-def/pdftex.def
|
(/usr/share/texmf-texlive/tex/latex/pdftex-def/pdftex.def
|
||||||
File: pdftex.def 2007/01/08 v0.04d Graphics/color for pdfTeX
|
File: pdftex.def 2009/08/25 v0.04m Graphics/color for pdfTeX
|
||||||
\Gread@gobject=\count87
|
\Gread@gobject=\count87
|
||||||
))
|
))
|
||||||
\Gin@req@height=\dimen103
|
\Gin@req@height=\dimen103
|
||||||
@ -278,12 +279,12 @@ File: pgfmodulematrix.code.tex 2008/01/15 (rcs-revision 1.1)
|
|||||||
hs.code.tex
|
hs.code.tex
|
||||||
File: tikzlibrarytopaths.code.tex 2008/01/09 v2.00 (rcs-revision 1.1)
|
File: tikzlibrarytopaths.code.tex 2008/01/09 v2.00 (rcs-revision 1.1)
|
||||||
))) (/usr/share/texmf-texlive/tex/latex/amsfonts/amsfonts.sty
|
))) (/usr/share/texmf-texlive/tex/latex/amsfonts/amsfonts.sty
|
||||||
Package: amsfonts 2001/10/25 v2.2f
|
Package: amsfonts 2009/06/22 v3.00 Basic AMSFonts support
|
||||||
\@emptytoks=\toks20
|
\@emptytoks=\toks20
|
||||||
\symAMSa=\mathgroup4
|
\symAMSa=\mathgroup4
|
||||||
\symAMSb=\mathgroup5
|
\symAMSb=\mathgroup5
|
||||||
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting math alphabet `\mathfrak' in version `bold'
|
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting math alphabet `\mathfrak' in version `bold'
|
||||||
(Font) U/euf/m/n --> U/euf/b/n on input line 132.
|
(Font) U/euf/m/n --> U/euf/b/n on input line 96.
|
||||||
)
|
)
|
||||||
(/usr/share/texmf-texlive/tex/latex/amsmath/amsmath.sty
|
(/usr/share/texmf-texlive/tex/latex/amsmath/amsmath.sty
|
||||||
Package: amsmath 2000/07/18 v2.13 AMS math features
|
Package: amsmath 2000/07/18 v2.13 AMS math features
|
||||||
@ -381,7 +382,7 @@ LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 15.
|
|||||||
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for U/cmr/m/n on input line 15.
|
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for U/cmr/m/n on input line 15.
|
||||||
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 15.
|
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 15.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
(/usr/share/texmf/tex/context/base/supp-pdf.tex
|
(/usr/share/texmf/tex/context/base/supp-pdf.mkii
|
||||||
[Loading MPS to PDF converter (version 2006.09.02).]
|
[Loading MPS to PDF converter (version 2006.09.02).]
|
||||||
\scratchcounter=\count122
|
\scratchcounter=\count122
|
||||||
\scratchdimen=\dimen157
|
\scratchdimen=\dimen157
|
||||||
@ -396,35 +397,39 @@ LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 15.
|
|||||||
)
|
)
|
||||||
LaTeX Font Info: Try loading font information for U+msa on input line 24.
|
LaTeX Font Info: Try loading font information for U+msa on input line 24.
|
||||||
(/usr/share/texmf-texlive/tex/latex/amsfonts/umsa.fd
|
(/usr/share/texmf-texlive/tex/latex/amsfonts/umsa.fd
|
||||||
File: umsa.fd 2002/01/19 v2.2g AMS font definitions
|
File: umsa.fd 2009/06/22 v3.00 AMS symbols A
|
||||||
)
|
)
|
||||||
LaTeX Font Info: Try loading font information for U+msb on input line 24.
|
LaTeX Font Info: Try loading font information for U+msb on input line 24.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
(/usr/share/texmf-texlive/tex/latex/amsfonts/umsb.fd
|
(/usr/share/texmf-texlive/tex/latex/amsfonts/umsb.fd
|
||||||
File: umsb.fd 2002/01/19 v2.2g AMS font definitions
|
File: umsb.fd 2009/06/22 v3.00 AMS symbols B
|
||||||
) (./standards_paper.tex)
|
) (./standards_paper.tex
|
||||||
No file paper.bbl.
|
<./prod_life.jpg, id=4, 635.37375pt x 422.57875pt>
|
||||||
|
File: ./prod_life.jpg Graphic file (type jpg)
|
||||||
|
<use ./prod_life.jpg>
|
||||||
[1
|
[1
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
{/var/lib/texmf/fonts/map/pdftex/updmap/pdftex.map}] [2] (./paper.aux) )
|
{/var/lib/texmf/fonts/map/pdftex/updmap/pdftex.map} <./prod_life.jpg>])
|
||||||
|
No file paper.bbl.
|
||||||
|
[2] (./paper.aux) )
|
||||||
Here is how much of TeX's memory you used:
|
Here is how much of TeX's memory you used:
|
||||||
8148 strings out of 95086
|
8189 strings out of 495052
|
||||||
137558 string characters out of 1183255
|
137972 string characters out of 1182271
|
||||||
184667 words of memory out of 1500000
|
187902 words of memory out of 3000000
|
||||||
11149 multiletter control sequences out of 10000+50000
|
11197 multiletter control sequences out of 15000+50000
|
||||||
10465 words of font info for 39 fonts, out of 1200000 for 2000
|
10456 words of font info for 39 fonts, out of 3000000 for 9000
|
||||||
28 hyphenation exceptions out of 8191
|
28 hyphenation exceptions out of 8191
|
||||||
47i,11n,49p,350b,242s stack positions out of 5000i,500n,6000p,200000b,5000s
|
47i,11n,49p,350b,242s stack positions out of 5000i,500n,10000p,200000b,50000s
|
||||||
</usr/s
|
</usr/share/texmf-texlive/fonts/type1/public/amsfonts/cm/cmb
|
||||||
hare/texmf-texlive/fonts/type1/bluesky/cm/cmbx12.pfb></usr/share/texmf-texlive/
|
x12.pfb></usr/share/texmf-texlive/fonts/type1/public/amsfonts/cm/cmbx9.pfb></us
|
||||||
fonts/type1/bluesky/cm/cmbx9.pfb></usr/share/texmf-texlive/fonts/type1/bluesky/
|
r/share/texmf-texlive/fonts/type1/public/amsfonts/cm/cmr10.pfb></usr/share/texm
|
||||||
cm/cmr10.pfb></usr/share/texmf-texlive/fonts/type1/bluesky/cm/cmr12.pfb></usr/s
|
f-texlive/fonts/type1/public/amsfonts/cm/cmr12.pfb></usr/share/texmf-texlive/fo
|
||||||
hare/texmf-texlive/fonts/type1/bluesky/cm/cmr17.pfb></usr/share/texmf-texlive/f
|
nts/type1/public/amsfonts/cm/cmr17.pfb></usr/share/texmf-texlive/fonts/type1/pu
|
||||||
onts/type1/bluesky/cm/cmr9.pfb></usr/share/texmf-texlive/fonts/type1/bluesky/cm
|
blic/amsfonts/cm/cmr9.pfb></usr/share/texmf-texlive/fonts/type1/public/amsfonts
|
||||||
/cmsl10.pfb>
|
/cm/cmsl10.pfb>
|
||||||
Output written on paper.pdf (2 pages, 52324 bytes).
|
Output written on paper.pdf (2 pages, 127654 bytes).
|
||||||
PDF statistics:
|
PDF statistics:
|
||||||
40 PDF objects out of 1000 (max. 8388607)
|
41 PDF objects out of 1000 (max. 8388607)
|
||||||
0 named destinations out of 1000 (max. 131072)
|
0 named destinations out of 1000 (max. 500000)
|
||||||
13 words of extra memory for PDF output out of 10000 (max. 10000000)
|
18 words of extra memory for PDF output out of 10000 (max. 10000000)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Binary file not shown.
BIN
standards/prod_life.dia
Normal file
BIN
standards/prod_life.dia
Normal file
Binary file not shown.
BIN
standards/prod_life.jpg
Normal file
BIN
standards/prod_life.jpg
Normal file
Binary file not shown.
After Width: | Height: | Size: 29 KiB |
@ -20,6 +20,13 @@ are reviewed.
|
|||||||
\section{Introduction}
|
\section{Introduction}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\subsection{Product Life Cycle}
|
\subsection{Product Life Cycle}
|
||||||
|
\begin{figure}[h]
|
||||||
|
\centering
|
||||||
|
\includegraphics[width=300pt,keepaspectratio=true]{./standards/prod_life.jpg}
|
||||||
|
% prod_life.jpg: 620x421 pixel, 72dpi, 21.87x14.85 cm, bb=0 0 620 421
|
||||||
|
\caption{Product Life Cycle with Competent Body Approval and Surveillance}
|
||||||
|
\label{fig:prod_life}
|
||||||
|
\end{figure}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
difffernent areas
|
difffernent areas
|
||||||
EN61508 REQ to SPEC to DESIGN
|
EN61508 REQ to SPEC to DESIGN
|
||||||
|
@ -4,29 +4,44 @@
|
|||||||
\ifthenelse {\boolean{paper}}
|
\ifthenelse {\boolean{paper}}
|
||||||
{
|
{
|
||||||
\begin{abstract}
|
\begin{abstract}
|
||||||
This chapter describes the legal frameworks and standards organisations
|
This paper describes the legal frameworks and standards organisations
|
||||||
that exist in Europe and North America.
|
that exist in Europe and North America.
|
||||||
Some specific standards (that the author has experience with directly)
|
Some specific standards (that the author has experience with directly)
|
||||||
are reviewed.
|
are reviewed.
|
||||||
\end{abstract}
|
\end{abstract}
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
{}
|
{
|
||||||
|
This chapter describes the legal frameworks and standards organisations
|
||||||
|
that exist in Europe and North America.
|
||||||
|
Some specific standards (that the author has experience with directly)
|
||||||
|
are reviewed.
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\section{Introduction}
|
\section{Introduction}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\subsection{Product Life Cycle}
|
\subsection{Product Life Cycle}
|
||||||
i
|
\begin{figure}[h]
|
||||||
|
\centering
|
||||||
|
\includegraphics[width=300pt,keepaspectratio=true]{./prod_life.jpg}
|
||||||
|
% prod_life.jpg: 620x421 pixel, 72dpi, 21.87x14.85 cm, bb=0 0 620 421
|
||||||
|
\caption{Product Life Cycle with Competent Body Approval and Surveillance}
|
||||||
|
\label{fig:prod_life}
|
||||||
|
\end{figure}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
difffernent areas
|
difffernent areas
|
||||||
EN61508 REQ to SPEC to DESIGN
|
EN61508 REQ to SPEC to DESIGN
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
EN298
|
EN298
|
||||||
DESIGN TO PRODUCT
|
DESIGN TO
|
||||||
|
TESTING (EMC PRODUCT
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
FM
|
FM
|
||||||
PRODUCT VERIFICATION MONITORING
|
PRODUCT VERIFICATION MONITORING
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
NEW A PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE IMAGE WITH AN EULER DIAGRMA FOR THE DIFFERENT STANDARDS
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Different agencies - approval is testing of new product
|
Different agencies - approval is testing of new product
|
||||||
and verification to standard - manufacturing overwatch / supervision
|
and verification to standard - manufacturing overwatch / supervision
|
||||||
word on tip of tounge -
|
word on tip of tounge -
|
||||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user