robin/Robin_PHD
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Refernces in the PLD

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Robin Clark 2010-08-13 19:33:08 +01:00
parent 4633a06de5
commit 5fe54eddd3
3 changed files with 31 additions and 14 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

3
.gitignore vendored
View File

@ -13,3 +13,6 @@
*.toc
*.*~
*paper.tex
*.txt

4
logic_diagram/Makefile
View File

@ -16,3 +16,7 @@ paper: paper.tex logic_diagram_paper.tex
#
logic_diagram_paper.tex: logic_diagram.tex
cat logic_diagram.tex | sed 's/logic_diagram\///' > logic_diagram_paper.tex
bib: logic_diagram_paper.tex
bibtex paper

38
logic_diagram/logic_diagram.tex
View File

@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ Propositial Logic Diagrams (PLD) have been designed to provide an intuitive meth
a specific sub-set of logic equations, to express fault modes in Mechanical and Electronic Systems.
PLDs are a variant of constraint diagrams. Contours used to express
sets represent failure modes and the Symptomatically merged groups
are akin to the `spiders' of constraint diagrams\ref{constraint}.
are akin to the `spiders'\cite{howse:rwsd} of constraint diagrams\cite{gil:tafocd}.
%To aid hierarchical stages of fault analysis, it has been specifically developed for the purpose of
%joining conjunctive conditions with disjuctive conditions
%to group the effects of failure modes.
@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ Nearly all modern safety critical systems involve these three disiplines.
%
It is intended to be used for analysis of automated safety critical systems.
Many types of safety critical systems now legally
require fault mode effects analysis\cite{FMEA},
require fault mode effects analysis\cite{sccs}[pp 38-39],
but few formal systems exist and wide-spread take-up is
not yet the norm.\cite{takeup}.
%
@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ Propositial Logic Diagrams (PLD) have been designed to provide an intuitive meth
a specific sub-set of logic equations, to express fault modes in Mechanical and Electronic Systems.
PLDs are a variant of constraint diagrams. Contours used to express
sets represent failure modes and the Symptomatically merged groups
are akin to the `spiders' of constraint diagrams\ref{constraint}.
are akin to the `spiders'\cite{howse:rwsd} of constraint diagrams\cite{gil:tafocd}.
%To aid hierarchical stages of fault analysis, it has been specifically developed for the purpose of
%joining conjunctive conditions with disjuctive conditions
%to group the effects of failure modes.
@ -51,9 +51,9 @@ Nearly all modern safety critical systems involve these three disiplines.
%
It is intended to be used for analysis of automated safety critical systems.
Many types of safety critical systems now legally
require fault mode effects analysis\cite{FMEA},
but few formal systems exist and wide-spread take-up is
not yet the norm.\cite{takeup}.
require fault mode effects analysis\cite{sccs}[pp 38-39],
but few formal systems exist to assist in this, and wide-spread take-up is
not yet the norm.\cite{sccs}[pp 304-305].
%
Because of its visual nature, it is easy to manipulate and model
complicated conditions that can lead to dangerous failures in
@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ for the analysis of safety critical software and hardware systems.
}
Propositional Logic Diagrams (PLDs) have been created
to collect and simplfy fault~modes in safety critical systems undergoing
static analysis\cite{FMEA}\cite{SIL}.
static analysis.%\cite{sccs}\cite{en61508}.
%
This type of analysis treats failure modes within a system as logical
states.
@ -155,6 +155,8 @@ Definitions of concrete and abstract PLD's follow.
Well-formedness conditions for PLD's are separated from this definition, because of
practical differences between the way they are used to represent software as opposed to
representing electronics and mechanical systems.
The concrete definitions for PLD's and Spider Diagrams\cite{howse:sd} share many common features.
\subsection{Concrete PLD Definition}
@ -362,7 +364,7 @@ $fmg$ in the diagram, where an SMG is a non empty set of test points
$$ \mathcal{G}:SMG \rightarrow P_{fmg} $$
The logic equation representing an SMG $p_{fmg}$ can be determined thus.
The logic equation (using $oplus$ to represent exclusive-or) representing an SMG $p_{fmg}$ can be determined thus.
$$\mathcal{G}_{fmg}(fmg) = \bigoplus_{t \in fmg} (\; \mathcal{F}_{t} (t) \;) $$
}
@ -621,7 +623,7 @@ by the FMMD software tool.
Very often a failure mode can only occur
given a separate environmental condition.
In Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) this is represented by an inhibit gate.\cite{FTA}[pp41-42],\cite{NUK}
In Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) this is represented by an inhibit gate.\cite{nasafta}[pp41-42],\cite{nucfta}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
@ -641,17 +643,17 @@ The diagram \ref{fig:inhibit} has a test case in the contour $C$.
Contour $C$ is \textbf{enclosed} by contour $A$. This says
that for failure~mode $C$ to occur failure mode $A$
must have occurred.
A well known example of this is the space shuttle `O' ring failure that
caused the 1986 Challenger disaster \cite{wdycwopt}.
A famous example of this is the space shuttle `O' ring failure that
caused the 1986 Challenger disaster\cite{wdycwopt}.
For the failure mode to occur, the ambient temperature had to
be below a critical value.
If we take the failure mode of the `O' ring to be $C$
and the temperature below critical to be $A$, we can see that
the low temperature failure~mode $C$ can only occur if $A$ is true.
The `O' ring could fail in a different way independant of the critical temperature and this is
The `O' ring could fail in a different way independent of the critical temperature and this is
represented, for the sake of this example, by contour $D$.
In terms of propositional logic, the inhibit gate of FTA, and the contour enclosure
In terms of propositional logic, the inhibit gate of FTAi\cite{nasafta}[pp 41-42], and the contour enclosure
of PLD represent {\em implication}.
\\
% \tiny
@ -777,7 +779,7 @@ it will not lead to a dangerous failure~mode of the subsystem.
% F & F & T \\ \hline
% F & T & T \\ \hline
% T & F & F \\ \hline
% T & T & T \\ \hline \hline
% T & T & T \\ \hline \hline:
% \end{tabular}
% %\vspace{0.3cm}
% \normalsize
@ -908,6 +910,14 @@ The test case AFE represents the condition where all four engines have failed.
%\begin{verbatim}
%CVS Revision Identity $Id: logic_diagram.tex,v 1.17 2010/01/06 13:41:32 robin Exp $
%\end{verbatim}
%\ifthenelse {\boolean{paper}}
%{
% \bibliographystyle{plain}
% \bibliography{../vmgbibliography,../mybib}
%
%}
%{
%}
Compiled last \today
%\end{document}