25APR2010
This commit is contained in:
parent
dcad10e83d
commit
70103f5ee9
@ -76,12 +76,40 @@ was going to be impractical. To do this with complete coverage
|
|||||||
each component failure mode would have to have been checked against
|
each component failure mode would have to have been checked against
|
||||||
the other thousand or so components for influence, and then
|
the other thousand or so components for influence, and then
|
||||||
a determination of the effects on the system would have had to have been
|
a determination of the effects on the system would have had to have been
|
||||||
determined. Thus millions of checks would have to have been performed, and
|
made. Thus millions of checks would have to have been performed, and
|
||||||
as FMEA is an `expert only' time consuming technique, this idea was
|
as FMEA is an `expert only' time consuming technique, this idea was
|
||||||
obviously impractical.
|
obviously impractical. Note that most of the checks made would be redundant.
|
||||||
|
Most components affect the performance of a few that they are placed to work with
|
||||||
|
to perform some particular low-level function.
|
||||||
|
\paragraph{Top down Approach}
|
||||||
|
A top down approach has several potential problems.
|
||||||
|
By its nature it means that at the start of the process
|
||||||
|
a set of system or top level faults or undesireable outcomes are defined.
|
||||||
|
It then must break the system down into modules and
|
||||||
|
decide which of these can contribute to a system level fault mode.
|
||||||
|
Potentially failure modes, be they from components or the interaction
|
||||||
|
betweem modules can be missed. A disturbing example of this
|
||||||
|
is the NASA space shuttle in 1986, which missed the fault mode of an O
|
||||||
|
ring.
|
||||||
|
\paragraph{Bottom-up Approach}
|
||||||
|
A bottom-up approach look impractical at first due to the shear number
|
||||||
|
of component failure modes in a typical system. However
|
||||||
|
were this bottom-up approach to be modular
|
||||||
|
we can reduce the
|
||||||
|
, and built into a hierachy
|
||||||
|
of modules rising up until all components are covered, we
|
||||||
|
can model an entire complex system.
|
||||||
|
This is the core concept behind this study.
|
||||||
|
By working from the bottom up, at the lowest level taking the
|
||||||
|
smallest functional~groups of components
|
||||||
|
and analysing these, we can obtain a set of failure modes
|
||||||
|
for the functional~groups. We can then treat these
|
||||||
|
as `higher level' components and combine them
|
||||||
|
to form new `functional~groups'.
|
||||||
|
In this way all failure modes from all components must be at the very least considered.
|
||||||
|
Also a hierarchy is formed when the top level errors are formed
|
||||||
|
naturally from the lower levels of analysis.
|
||||||
|
Unlike a top~down analysis, we cannot miss a top level fault condition.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\section{Safety Critical Systems}
|
\section{Safety Critical Systems}
|
||||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user