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

Working through RFMEA and FMMD

Browse Source 
comparison complexity examples.
Re-calculating some, because they were
removed and not left commented out.
Annoying but good revision in how I came
up with the metrics.
This commit is contained in:
Robin Clark 2013-02-01 14:07:56 +00:00
parent 61dd574e87
commit 83a297a193
3 changed files with 52 additions and 4 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

7
submission_thesis/CH5_Examples/copy.tex
View File

@ -2331,7 +2331,7 @@ In this section we examine the failure mode behaviour % for all single
double simultaneous faults.
Traditional FMEA methodologies do not provide double failure analysis~\cite{safeware}[p.342]
and double failure analysis for FMEA is a subject of current research~\cite{FMEAmultiple653556,AutoFMEAfaultTree1281774}.
%Well,
%This corresponds to the cardinality constrained powerset of one (see section~\ref{ccp}), of
%the failure modes in the functional group.
All the single faults have been analysed in the last section.
@ -2340,8 +2340,9 @@ All the single faults have been analysed in the last section.
%potential divider equation proofs.
%
Table \ref{tab:ptfmea2} lists all the combinations of double
faults and then hypothesises how the functional~group will react
under those conditions.
faults as FMMD test cases.
%and then hypothesises how the functional~group will react
%under those conditions.
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{Pt100 FMEA Double Faults} % title of Table

48
submission_thesis/CH6_Evaluation/copy.tex
View File

@ -367,14 +367,60 @@ $$
$$
\subsection{Complexity Comparison applied to previous FMMD Examples}
All the FMMD examples in chapters \ref{chap5} and \ref{chap6} showed a marked reduction in comparison
All the FMMD examples in chapters \ref{sec:chap5} and \ref{sec:chap6} showed a marked reduction in comparison
complexity compared to the RFMEA worst case figures.
%
%
A table of complexity comparison vs. RFMEA is presented below.
%\usepackage{multirow}
\begin{tabular}{ |l|l|l| }
\hline
\textbf{Hierarchy} & \textbf{Analysis object} & \textbf{Complexity} \\
\textbf{Level} & \textbf{Description} & \textbf{Comparison} \\
%\hline \hline
%\multicolumn{3}{ |c| }{Complexity Comparison against RFMEA for examples in Chapter~\ref{sec:chap5}} \\
%\hline \hline
%Goalkeeper & GK & Paul Robinson \\ \hline
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{ |c| }{Inverting Amplifier Two stage FMMD Hierarchy: section~\ref{sec:invamp}} \\ \hline
%\multirow{3}{*} {Inverting Amplifier Two stage FMMD Hierarchy: section~\ref{sec:invamp}} & & \\
0 & Potential Divider & 4 \\
1 & PD + Opamp & 8 \\
& Inverting Amplifier: & FMMD 10 \\
& Inverting Amplifier: & RFMEA 16 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{ |c| } {Inverting Amplifier One stage FMMD Hierarchy: section~\ref{sec:invamp}} \\ \hline
0 & Resistors + Opamp & 16 \\
& Inverting Amplifier: & FMMD 16 \\
& Inverting Amplifier: & RFMEA 16 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{ |c| } {Differencing Amplifier One stage FMMD Hierarchy: section~\ref{sec:invamp}} \\ \hline
%\multirow{4}{*} {Differencing Amplifier FMMD Hierarchy: section~\ref{sec:diffamp}} & & \\
2 & Non inv Amp reused (see section~\ref{sec:noninvamp}) & 10 \\
0 & Inverting amplifier & 16 \\
& Differencing Amplifier: & FMMD 26 \\
& Differencing Amplifier: & RFMEA 80 \\ \hline
\hline
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
The complexity comparison figures for the example circuits in chapter~\ref{sec:chap5} show
that for increasing complexity the performance benefits from FMMD become apparent.
% \subsection{Exponential squared to Exponential}
%

1
submission_thesis/thesis.tex
View File

@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
\documentclass[a4paper,10pt]{book}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{tikz}
\usetikzlibrary{shapes,snakes}
\usetikzlibrary{shapes.gates.logic.US,trees,positioning,arrows}