More intro
This commit is contained in:
parent
ce5543b206
commit
8cb5124c28
36
mybib.bib
36
mybib.bib
@ -290,6 +290,30 @@ Database
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@article{syssafe2012,
|
||||
title = "Applying Failure Mode Modular de-composition (FMMD) across the Software/Hardware Interface",
|
||||
journal = "7th IET International Conference on System Safety 2012",
|
||||
volume = "",
|
||||
number = "",
|
||||
pages = "",
|
||||
year = "2012",
|
||||
note = "",
|
||||
issn = "",
|
||||
doi = "",
|
||||
url = "",
|
||||
author = "Clark, R and Fish, A and Garrett, C and Howse, J",
|
||||
keywords = "Failsafe",
|
||||
keywords = "Software",
|
||||
keywords = "FMEA",
|
||||
keywords = "FMEDA",
|
||||
keywords = "FMECA",
|
||||
keywords = "fault",
|
||||
keywords = "double-fault",
|
||||
keywords = "single-fault",
|
||||
keywords = "fault-tolerance"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@ARTICLE{ontfmea,
|
||||
AUTHOR = "Lars Dittman et all",
|
||||
TITLE = "FMEA using Ontologies",
|
||||
@ -433,6 +457,16 @@ year = {2012},
|
||||
YEAR = "2002"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@
|
||||
@BOOK{usefulinfoengineers,
|
||||
AUTHOR = "William Fairbairn",
|
||||
TITLE = "Useful Information for Engineers
|
||||
being a series of lectures delivered to the working engineers of Yorkshire and Lancashire :
|
||||
together with a series of appendices, containing the results of experimental inquiries into the
|
||||
strength of materials, the causes of boiler explosions",
|
||||
PUBLISHER = "Longman",
|
||||
YEAR = "1864"
|
||||
}
|
||||
@BOOK{opmanage,
|
||||
AUTHOR = "Roger Schroeder",
|
||||
TITLE = "Operations Management: Contemporary Concepts and Cases ISBN: 978-0073403380",
|
||||
@ -823,7 +857,7 @@ OPTissn = {},
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@Book{aoe,
|
||||
title = {The Art of Electronics},
|
||||
title = {The Art of Electronics, 2nd Edition},
|
||||
publisher = {Cambridge},
|
||||
year = {1989},
|
||||
author = {Paul Horowitz, Winfield Hill},
|
||||
|
@ -1,14 +1,47 @@
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Abstract}{
|
||||
Increasingly we rely on automation in everyday life.
|
||||
Many of the automated systems have the potential to cause harm or even death, should they fail.
|
||||
Safety assessment and certification is now required of
|
||||
almost all potentially dangerous equipment.
|
||||
%
|
||||
As part of the assessment/certification process, we typically apply
|
||||
a battery of tests; examining features such as resistance to extremes of environment, electro magnetic compatibility (EMC),
|
||||
endurance and static testing.
|
||||
%
|
||||
Static testing is at the theoretical, or design level, and involves
|
||||
looking a failure scenarios and trying to predict how systems would react.
|
||||
%
|
||||
This thesis deals with one area of static testing, that of Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA), a commonly
|
||||
used technique that is legally mandatory for a wide range of equipment.
|
||||
|
||||
The ability to assess the safety of man made equipment has been a concern
|
||||
since the dawn of the industrial age~\cite{indacc01}~\cite{steamboilers}.
|
||||
since the dawn of the industrial age~\cite{indacc01,usefulinfoengineers,steamboilers}.
|
||||
The philosophy behind safety measure has progressed
|
||||
with time, and by world war two~\cite{boffin} we begin to see concepts such as `no single component failure should cause
|
||||
a dangerous system failure' emerging.
|
||||
a dangerous system failure' emerging. Concepts such as these allow us to apply
|
||||
objective criteria to safety assessment. We can extend the `no~single~failure' concept
|
||||
to double or even multiple failures not being allowed to cause dangerous states.
|
||||
%
|
||||
The concept of a double failure causing a dangerous condition being unacceptable,
|
||||
can be found in the legally binding European standard EN298~\cite{en298}.
|
||||
can be found in the legally binding European standard EN298 which became
|
||||
a legal requirement in 2006~\cite{en298}.
|
||||
More sophisticated statistically based standards, i.e EN61508~\cite{en61508} and variants thereof,
|
||||
governing failure conditions and determining risk levels associated with systems.
|
||||
are based on statistical thresholds for the frequency of dangerous failures.
|
||||
We could state, for instance, that we can tolerate an `acceptable' maximum number of
|
||||
dangerous failure per billion hours of operation.
|
||||
We can then broadly separate these ratings failure rates into safety integrity levels (SIL).
|
||||
So for a maximum of 10 failures per billion hours of operation we assign a SIL level of 4,
|
||||
for 100 a sil level of 3 etc.
|
||||
If we can determine a SIL rating
|
||||
we can match it against the risk.
|
||||
The more dangerous the consequences of failure
|
||||
the higher SIL rating we can demand for it.
|
||||
A band-saw with one operative may require a SIL rating of 1,
|
||||
a nuclear power-station, with far greater consequences on dangerous failure
|
||||
may require a SIL rating of 4.
|
||||
SIL ratings give us another objective yardstick to measure system safety.
|
||||
%governing failure conditions and determining risk levels associated with systems.
|
||||
|
||||
All of these risk assessment techniques are based on variations on the theme of
|
||||
Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA), which has its roots in the 1940's mass production industry
|
||||
@ -31,10 +64,13 @@ firstly looking at electronic circuits and then at electronic/software hybrid sy
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Introduction}
|
||||
The motivation for this study came form two sources, one academic and the other
|
||||
practical. I had recently completed an
|
||||
Msc and my project was to create an Euler/Spider Diagram editor in Java.
|
||||
practical.
|
||||
\paragraph{MSc Project: Euler/Spider diagram Editor.}
|
||||
I had recently completed an
|
||||
MSc and my project was to create an Euler/Spider~Diagram~\cite{howse:spider} editor in Java.
|
||||
This editor allowed the user to draw Euler/Spider diagrams, and could then
|
||||
represent these as abstract---or mathematical---definitions.
|
||||
represent these as abstract---i.e. mathematical---definitions.
|
||||
\paragraph{European Safety Requirements increase in scope and complexity.}
|
||||
At work, writing embedded `C' and assembly language code for safety critical
|
||||
industrial burners, we were faced with a new and daunting requirement.
|
||||
Conformance to the latest European standard, EN298. It appeared to ask for the impossible,
|
||||
@ -48,7 +84,18 @@ documented and approved using failure mode effects analysis (FMEA). This new req
|
||||
effectively meant that any all combinations of component failures were
|
||||
now required to be analysed. This, from a state explosion problem alone,
|
||||
meant that it was going to be virtually impossible to perform.
|
||||
FMEA had a deficiency of repeated work, as each component failure is typically represented
|
||||
by one line or entry in a spreadsheet~\cite{bfmea}, analysis on repeated section of
|
||||
circuitry (for instance repeated 4-20mA outputs on a PCB), meant that
|
||||
analysis of identical circuitry was performed many times.
|
||||
A desirable feature of a new methodology would be to be able to re-use
|
||||
analysis for identical repeated modules. The development of this new methodology
|
||||
was presented to the IET System safety conference in 2011~\cite{syssafe2011}.
|
||||
FMEA, currently cannot integrate software into its failure mode models.
|
||||
A modular variant of FMEA can use the existing structure of functional software, in conjunction
|
||||
with contract programming, to model software~\cite{syssafe2012}.
|
||||
%
|
||||
\paragraph{Modularising FMEA and augmenting this with concepts from Euler/Spider Diagrams}
|
||||
Following the concept of de-composing a problem, and thus simplifying the state explosion---using the thinking behind
|
||||
the fast Fourier transform (FFT)~\cite{fpodsadsp}[Ch.8], which takes a complex intermeshed series of real and imaginary number calculations
|
||||
and by de-composing them simplifies the problem.
|
||||
@ -58,32 +105,68 @@ Once these first modules were analysed, I now call them {\fgs}, I could determin
|
||||
Using the symptoms of failure, I could now treat these modules as components, now called {\dcs}, and use them to build higher level
|
||||
modules. I could apply double simultaneous failure mode checking, because the number of components
|
||||
in each module/{\fg} was quite small---thus avoiding state explosion problems, but I could apply
|
||||
double checking all the way up the hierarchy. In fact this meant, as a by-product that many multiple as well as double
|
||||
failures would be analysed.
|
||||
double checking all the way up the hierarchy.
|
||||
In fact this means, as a by-product that many multiple as well as double
|
||||
failures would be analysed, but because failure modes are traceable from the base components to the top level---or system---failure modes
|
||||
and these are held in a data structure, we can apply automated methods to search all cardinalities of multiple failure modes
|
||||
within the model.
|
||||
%
|
||||
Because, Euler/Spider Diagrams
|
||||
could be used to model failure modes in components
|
||||
it was thought that a diagrammatic notation would
|
||||
be easier to demonstrate than using formal logic.
|
||||
%
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Euler/Spider Diagrams
|
||||
could be used to model failure modes in components.
|
||||
Contours could represent failure modes, and the spider diagram
|
||||
For an FMEA Spider diagram, contours represent failure modes, and the spider diagram
|
||||
`existential~points' instances of failure modes.
|
||||
Overlapping contours could represent multiple failure modes.
|
||||
By drawing a spider collecting existential points, a common failure symptom could
|
||||
be determined and from this a new diagram generated automatically, to represent the {\dc}.
|
||||
%
|
||||
Each spider represented a derived failure mode.
|
||||
These concepts were presented at the ``Euler~2004''~\cite{Clark200519} conference at Brighton University.
|
||||
The act of collecting common symptoms by drawing spiders
|
||||
meant that the analyst was forced to associate one component failure mode with one symptom/derived~failure~mode of failure.
|
||||
%
|
||||
These concepts were presented at the ``Euler~2004''~\cite{Clark200519} conference held at Brighton University.
|
||||
This brought together concepts for modularising FMEA and the formal visual notations from Spider diagrams.
|
||||
Euler diagrams have been used later in the thesis to describe the containment relationships
|
||||
of derived components building hierarchical analysis models with the modularised
|
||||
variant of FMEA that this thesis proposes and defends.
|
||||
|
||||
--- 2005 paper --- need for static analysis because of
|
||||
high reliability of modern safety critical systems.
|
||||
\paragraph{Objectives of the thesis}.
|
||||
The primary objective of the work performed for this thesis is to propose a modularised variant of
|
||||
FMEA that solves the problems of:
|
||||
\begin{itemize}
|
||||
\item State Explosion,
|
||||
\item Multiple failure mode modelling,
|
||||
\item Re-usability of pre-analysed modules,
|
||||
\item Inclusion of software in failure mode modelling.
|
||||
\end{itemize}
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Practical Experience: Safety Critical Product Approvals}
|
||||
|
||||
FMEA performed on selected areas perceived as critical
|
||||
by test house.
|
||||
Blanket measures, RAM ROM checks, EMC, electrical and environmental stress testing
|
||||
Chapter~\ref{chap2} examines the current state of FMEA based methodologies, Chapter~\ref{chap3}
|
||||
examines the benifits and drawbacks of these these methodologies
|
||||
and proposes a detailed wish list for an ideal FMEA technique.
|
||||
Chapter~\ref{chap4} proposes Failure Mode Modular de-composition (FMMD)---a modularised variant
|
||||
of FMEA designed to address the points in the detailed wish list.
|
||||
Chapter~\ref{chap5} provides worked examples usin g common electronic circuits.
|
||||
Chapter~\ref{chap6} gives two examples of integgrated software and electronic systems anyalysed using FMMD.
|
||||
Metrics and evaluation, along with an example showing double simultaneous failure analysis
|
||||
are dealt with in Chapter~\ref{chap7}
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Practical limitations of testing for certification vs. rigorous approach}
|
||||
|
||||
State explosion problem considering a failure mode of a given component against
|
||||
all other components in the system i.e. an exponential ($2^N$) order of processing resource rather than a polynomial i.e. $N^2$.
|
||||
|
||||
Impossible to perform double simultaneous failure analysis (as demanded by EN298~\cite{en298}).
|
||||
% \section{Case Study: Safety Critical Product Approval changes for EN298:2003}
|
||||
%
|
||||
% FMEA performed on selected areas perceived as critical
|
||||
% by test house.
|
||||
% Blanket measures, RAM ROM checks, EMC, electrical and environmental stress testing
|
||||
%
|
||||
% \subsection{Practical limitations of testing for certification vs. rigorous approach}
|
||||
%
|
||||
% State explosion problem considering a failure mode of a given component against
|
||||
% all other components in the system i.e. an exponential ($2^N$) order of processing resource
|
||||
% rather than a polynomial i.e. $N^2$.
|
||||
%
|
||||
% Impossible to perform double simultaneous failure analysis (as demanded by EN298~\cite{en298}).
|
||||
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user