AF comments for last week done, now CH2 and janet and john Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
This commit is contained in:
parent
f7c7aa33a2
commit
5c5dade1fa
@ -284,6 +284,7 @@ was presented to the IET System safety conference in 2011,~\cite{syssafe2011}.
|
|||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
FMEA, currently cannot integrate software models into its hardware failure mode models~\cite{sfmea,modelsfmea,embedsfmea,sfmeainterface}, but
|
FMEA, currently cannot integrate software models into its hardware failure mode models~\cite{sfmea,modelsfmea,embedsfmea,sfmeainterface}, but
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
|
\fmmdglossCONTRACTPROG
|
||||||
FMMD can use the existing structure of functional software, in conjunction
|
FMMD can use the existing structure of functional software, in conjunction
|
||||||
with contract programming to model software;
|
with contract programming to model software;
|
||||||
%and
|
%and
|
||||||
|
@ -186,8 +186,8 @@ as defined in equation~\ref{eqn:fmea_single},
|
|||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
% This figure would mean we could compare the maximum number of checks (i.e. exhaustive %rigorous
|
% This figure would mean we could compare the maximum number of checks (i.e. exhaustive %rigorous
|
||||||
% analysis) with the number actually performed.
|
% analysis) with the number actually performed.
|
||||||
Comlexity comparision here, means the maximum number of checks (i.e. exhaustive %rigorous
|
Complexity comparison here, means the maximum number of checks (i.e. exhaustive %rigorous
|
||||||
analysis) could be compared to the number actually performed.
|
analysis) compared to the number actually performed.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
In effect a yard~stick for the amount of work performed
|
In effect a yard~stick for the amount of work performed
|
||||||
for a particular FMEA analysis technique/strategy.
|
for a particular FMEA analysis technique/strategy.
|
||||||
|
@ -1436,7 +1436,7 @@ mode could be considered in the context of all other components in the system---
|
|||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
With FMMD, because the {\fgs} have small numbers of components in them, we can easily apply XFMEA within the {\fgs}.
|
With FMMD, because the {\fgs} have small numbers of components in them, we can easily apply XFMEA within the {\fgs}.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
In broad terms, FMMD mitigates state explosion by reducing the number of checks---{\fms} against components)---to perform.
|
In broad terms, FMMD mitigates state explosion by reducing the number of checks---{\fms} against components---to perform.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
This issue addressed formally in section~\ref{sec:cc}.
|
This issue addressed formally in section~\ref{sec:cc}.
|
||||||
\fmmdgloss
|
\fmmdgloss
|
||||||
|
@ -53,7 +53,8 @@ A unitary state failure mode concept was developed (see section~\ref{sec:unitary
|
|||||||
the FMMD process naturally enforced this throughout the hierarchy of a model.
|
the FMMD process naturally enforced this throughout the hierarchy of a model.
|
||||||
\fmmdglossMUTEX
|
\fmmdglossMUTEX
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
Finally the FMMD process was described algorithmically using set theory in appendix~\ref{sec:algorithmfmmd}.%{app:alg}.
|
Finally the FMMD process was described algorithmically % using set theory
|
||||||
|
in appendix~\ref{sec:algorithmfmmd}.%{app:alg}.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
In conclusion then, a new method of failure analysis has been devised which improves on established techniques in the following ways:
|
In conclusion then, a new method of failure analysis has been devised which improves on established techniques in the following ways:
|
||||||
% \begin{itemize}
|
% \begin{itemize}
|
||||||
@ -68,8 +69,8 @@ In conclusion then, a new method of failure analysis has been devised which imp
|
|||||||
% \end{itemize}
|
% \end{itemize}
|
||||||
\fmmdglossSTATEEX
|
\fmmdglossSTATEEX
|
||||||
\begin{itemize}
|
\begin{itemize}
|
||||||
\item FMMD provides the means to create failure models that integrate software and hardware,
|
\item FMMD provides the means to determine failure models that integrate software and hardware,
|
||||||
\item the state explosion related to exhaustive FMEA solved,
|
\item the state explosion related to exhaustive FMEA reduced from a polynomial to logarithmic order,
|
||||||
\item a modular approach to FMEA means that analysis work is re-usable,
|
\item a modular approach to FMEA means that analysis work is re-usable,
|
||||||
%\item FMMD encourages
|
%\item FMMD encourages
|
||||||
\item distributed systems, and smart instruments, can now be analysed and assessed,
|
\item distributed systems, and smart instruments, can now be analysed and assessed,
|
||||||
@ -79,7 +80,7 @@ These benefits fall under the following assumptions and constraints:
|
|||||||
\begin{itemize}
|
\begin{itemize}
|
||||||
\item Failure modes are available for all {\bcs},
|
\item Failure modes are available for all {\bcs},
|
||||||
\item Analysts are capable of finding suitable {\fgs} from electronic schematics,
|
\item Analysts are capable of finding suitable {\fgs} from electronic schematics,
|
||||||
\item Software is hierarchical and its elements (functions) can be modelled using contract programming.
|
\item Functional software and its elements (hardware interfaces, data and functions) can be modelled using contract programming.
|
||||||
%\item
|
%\item
|
||||||
\end{itemize}
|
\end{itemize}
|
||||||
\fmmdglossRD
|
\fmmdglossRD
|
||||||
@ -158,7 +159,7 @@ in hours for a wide range of generic components
|
|||||||
can give conservative reliability figures when applied to
|
can give conservative reliability figures when applied to
|
||||||
modern components}.
|
modern components}.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
Using the MIL-HDBK-217F%~\cite{mil1991}
|
Using the MIL-HDBK-217F %~\cite{mil1991}
|
||||||
specifications for resistor and thermistor failure statistics, the reliability for the Pt100 example (see section~\ref{sec:Pt100}) is calculated below.
|
specifications for resistor and thermistor failure statistics, the reliability for the Pt100 example (see section~\ref{sec:Pt100}) is calculated below.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
@ -526,7 +527,7 @@ all failure modes of the resultant {\dcs} as we progress up a hierarchy.
|
|||||||
FMMD requires that all failure modes of components in a {\fg} are resolved to
|
FMMD requires that all failure modes of components in a {\fg} are resolved to
|
||||||
a symptom in the resulting {\dc}.
|
a symptom in the resulting {\dc}.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
Because we can enforce a `complete' analysis, FMMD can find failure modes were missed by
|
Because we can enforce a `complete' analysis, FMMD can find failure modes which were missed by
|
||||||
other FMEA processes; meaning that the FMMD process can expose un-handled
|
other FMEA processes; meaning that the FMMD process can expose un-handled
|
||||||
failure modes.
|
failure modes.
|
||||||
%come to light.
|
%come to light.
|
||||||
@ -562,7 +563,7 @@ leading to idealised XFMEA requirements (see section~\ref{sec:reasoningdistance}
|
|||||||
Using FMMD only those modules in the hierarchy above the
|
Using FMMD only those modules in the hierarchy above the
|
||||||
component with the new failure mode need be re-visited.
|
component with the new failure mode need be re-visited.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
The failure mode DAGs can be traced to determine exactly which
|
The failure mode DAGs (see section~\ref{sec:chap4}) can be traced to determine exactly which
|
||||||
{\fgs} exist in the hierarchy above the affected {\bcs}.
|
{\fgs} exist in the hierarchy above the affected {\bcs}.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
This means that with FMMD the re-work task can be precisely defined.
|
This means that with FMMD the re-work task can be precisely defined.
|
||||||
@ -570,7 +571,9 @@ This means that with FMMD the re-work task can be precisely defined.
|
|||||||
Also where a new {\bc} {\fm} is merged with an existing symptom in the analysis
|
Also where a new {\bc} {\fm} is merged with an existing symptom in the analysis
|
||||||
the re-work need not continue above it in the hierarchy.
|
the re-work need not continue above it in the hierarchy.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
This could be automated in a software tool that can traverse the failure mode trees.
|
That is a new {\bc} {\fm} may cause a symptom already found in the analysis hierarchy.
|
||||||
|
%
|
||||||
|
Finding these could be automated in a software tool that can traverse the failure mode trees.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
% By %doing
|
% By %doing
|
||||||
% applying contracts and seeing how calling functions deal with
|
% applying contracts and seeing how calling functions deal with
|
||||||
|
@ -833,54 +833,54 @@ FMMD analysis tables from chapter~\ref{sec:chap6}.
|
|||||||
\label{sec:gnuplotxfmeafmmdcomp}
|
\label{sec:gnuplotxfmeafmmdcomp}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\begin{verbatim}
|
\begin{verbatim}
|
||||||
##
|
#####################################################################################
|
||||||
# GNUPLOT SCRIPT to plot XFMEA FMMD reasoning distance
|
# GNUPLOT SCRIPT to plot XFMEA FMMD reasoning distance
|
||||||
# comparisons.
|
# comparisons.
|
||||||
#
|
#
|
||||||
#
|
#
|
||||||
# alway define fp in declaration, as in 'C'
|
# Always define floating point explicitly at initialisation, as in 'C',
|
||||||
# or gnuplot treats these as integers.
|
# because otherwise gnuplot treats these as integers.
|
||||||
#
|
#
|
||||||
# number of failure modes per component
|
# number of failure modes per component
|
||||||
fm = 3.0
|
fm = 3.0
|
||||||
|
#
|
||||||
# number of components in each functional group
|
# number of components in each functional group
|
||||||
k = 3.0
|
k = 3.0
|
||||||
|
#
|
||||||
# place the functional group size and failure mode per components
|
# place the functional group size and failure mode per components
|
||||||
# size into a string to use as the graph title
|
# size into a string to use as the graph title
|
||||||
#
|
#
|
||||||
tt = sprintf("reasoning distance comparison for |fg| = %d and |fm| = %d", k, fm)
|
tt = sprintf("reasoning distance comparison for |fg| = %d and |fm| = %d", k, fm)
|
||||||
set title tt
|
set title tt
|
||||||
|
#
|
||||||
a = 0.0
|
a = 0.0
|
||||||
b = 0.0
|
b = 0.0
|
||||||
|
#
|
||||||
# formula for reasoning distance in one level of FMMD
|
# formula for reasoning distance in one level of FMMD
|
||||||
# hierarchy (as given by ll)
|
# hierarchy (as given by ll)
|
||||||
#
|
#
|
||||||
fmmd(ll)=k**ll * k * fm * (k - 1)
|
fmmd(ll)=k**ll * k * fm * (k - 1)
|
||||||
|
#
|
||||||
# set up iterative sum in gnuplot syntax
|
# set up iterative sum in gnuplot syntax
|
||||||
# to iterate over FMMD levels
|
# to iterate over FMMD levels
|
||||||
#
|
#
|
||||||
sum(a,b) = (a > b) ? 0 : fmmd(a) + sum(a+1, b)
|
sum(a,b) = (a > b) ? 0 : fmmd(a) + sum(a+1, b)
|
||||||
sig_fx(c) = sum(a,c)
|
sig_fx(c) = sum(a,c)
|
||||||
|
#
|
||||||
# reasoning distance for exhaustive case in FMEA
|
# reasoning distance for exhaustive case in FMEA
|
||||||
# where ll is the hierarchy level
|
# where ll is the hierarchy level
|
||||||
xfmea(ll) = k**(ll+1) * ( k**(ll+1) -1 ) * fm
|
xfmea(ll) = k**(ll+1) * ( k**(ll+1) -1 ) * fm
|
||||||
|
#
|
||||||
|
#
|
||||||
set xrange [0:1000]
|
set xrange [0:1000]
|
||||||
set xlabel "Component count"
|
set xlabel "Component count"
|
||||||
set ylabel "reasoning distance"
|
set ylabel "reasoning distance"
|
||||||
set logscale y
|
set logscale y
|
||||||
|
#
|
||||||
set terminal png
|
set terminal png
|
||||||
set output 'xfmea_fmmd_comp.png'
|
set output 'xfmea_fmmd_comp.png'
|
||||||
plot sig_fx(x**(1/k)), xfmea(x**(1/k))
|
plot sig_fx(x**(1/k)), xfmea(x**(1/k))
|
||||||
#!sleep 20
|
#!sleep 20
|
||||||
|
#####################################################################################
|
||||||
\end{verbatim}
|
\end{verbatim}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
@ -127,8 +127,8 @@ Software Fault Tree Analysis (SFTA):
|
|||||||
top down failure investigation applied to software}}}
|
top down failure investigation applied to software}}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\newcommand{\fmmdglossSA}{\glossary{name={Symptom Abstraction},description={
|
\newcommand{\fmmdglossSA}{\glossary{name={Symptom Abstraction},description={
|
||||||
By applying failure mode analysis to a module, the symptoms of failure for the it are determined
|
By applying failure mode analysis to a module the symptoms of failure for it are determined
|
||||||
given the failure modes of its components, its topology and expected behaviour.}}}
|
given the failure modes of its components, its topology and its expected behaviour}}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\newcommand{\fmmdglossMUTEX}{\glossary{name={mutually~exclusive},description={
|
\newcommand{\fmmdglossMUTEX}{\glossary{name={mutually~exclusive},description={
|
||||||
Mutual exclusivity applied to component failure modes
|
Mutual exclusivity applied to component failure modes
|
||||||
@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ only one of its failure modes may be active at any given time}}}
|
|||||||
\newcommand{\fmmdglossSTATEEX}{\glossary{name={State~explosion},description={
|
\newcommand{\fmmdglossSTATEEX}{\glossary{name={State~explosion},description={
|
||||||
State Explosion is the effect where very large numbers of combinations of conditions, or combinations of
|
State Explosion is the effect where very large numbers of combinations of conditions, or combinations of
|
||||||
conditions and entities have to be processed. The number to be processed can quickly become too large
|
conditions and entities have to be processed. The number to be processed can quickly become too large
|
||||||
for practical consideration, and when this happens `state~explosion' can be said to have occurred.
|
for practical consideration, and when this happens `state~explosion' can be said to have occurred
|
||||||
}}}
|
}}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\newcommand{\fmmdglossFTA}{\glossary{name={FTA},description={
|
\newcommand{\fmmdglossFTA}{\glossary{name={FTA},description={
|
||||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user