WE removal
This commit is contained in:
parent
7e53e0c05d
commit
a476926969
@ -104,11 +104,11 @@ These are presented below.
|
|||||||
\fmmdgloss
|
\fmmdgloss
|
||||||
\fmeagloss
|
\fmeagloss
|
||||||
An FMMD model has a data structure (described by UML diagrams, see figure~\ref{fig:cfg}), and by traversing an FMMD hierarchy
|
An FMMD model has a data structure (described by UML diagrams, see figure~\ref{fig:cfg}), and by traversing an FMMD hierarchy
|
||||||
we can map system level failures back to {\bc} {\fms} (or combinations thereof).
|
system level failures can be mapped back to {\bc} {\fms} (or combinations thereof).
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
Because we can determine these mappings we can produce reports in the traditional FMEA format ({\bc}~{\fm}~$\mapsto$~{system failure}).
|
Because these mappings can be determined reports in the traditional FMEA format ({\bc}~{\fm}~$\mapsto$~{system failure}) can be produced.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
With the addition of {\bc} {\fm} statistics~\cite{mil1991} we can provide reliability predictions for system level failures.
|
With the addition of {\bc} {\fm} statistics~\cite{mil1991} reliability predictions for system level failures can be provided.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
The Pt100 example is revisited for this purpose and analysed for single and double failures, with statistics for {\bcs}
|
The Pt100 example is revisited for this purpose and analysed for single and double failures, with statistics for {\bcs}
|
||||||
taken from MIL1991 %~\cite{mil1991},
|
taken from MIL1991 %~\cite{mil1991},
|
||||||
@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ in section~\ref{sec:bcstats}.
|
|||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
With an FMMD failure mode model a top down perspective is possible.
|
With an FMMD failure mode model a top down perspective is possible.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
We could for instance take each system level failure and produce a causation tree for it, tracing back
|
Each system level failure can have a causation tree produced for it, tracing back
|
||||||
to all {\bc} {\fms}.
|
to all {\bc} {\fms}.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
This is very closely related to the structure of FTA (top down) failure causation graphs.
|
This is very closely related to the structure of FTA (top down) failure causation graphs.
|
||||||
@ -139,15 +139,17 @@ FMMD, as a bottom up methodology can use component failure mode statistical data
|
|||||||
into its hierarchical model.
|
into its hierarchical model.
|
||||||
%By way of example, the Pt100 analysis %example
|
%By way of example, the Pt100 analysis %example
|
||||||
%from section~\{sec:pt100} has been used to demonstrate this.
|
%from section~\{sec:pt100} has been used to demonstrate this.
|
||||||
Because we can use an FMMD model to generate an FMEA report, with additional {\bc} failure mode statistics
|
Because an FMMD model can be used to generate an FMEA report,
|
||||||
we can %therefore
|
with additional {\bc} failure mode statistics
|
||||||
use FMMD to produce an FMEDA report.
|
an FMEDA report can be produced.
|
||||||
|
%we can %therefore
|
||||||
|
%use FMMD to produce an FMEDA report.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\paragraph{Pt100 Example: Single Failures and statistical data.} %Mean Time to Failure}
|
\paragraph{Pt100 Example: Single Failures and statistical data.} %Mean Time to Failure}
|
||||||
\frategloss
|
\frategloss
|
||||||
From an earlier example, the model for the failure mode behaviour of the Pt100 circuit,
|
From an earlier example, the model for the failure mode behaviour of the Pt100 circuit,
|
||||||
we can add {\bc} {\fm} statistics and determine the probability of symptoms of failure.
|
{\bc} {\fm} statistics are added to determine the probability of symptoms of failure.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
The DOD electronic reliability of components
|
The DOD electronic reliability of components
|
||||||
document MIL-HDBK-217F~\cite{mil1991} gives formulae for calculating
|
document MIL-HDBK-217F~\cite{mil1991} gives formulae for calculating
|
||||||
@ -256,7 +258,7 @@ resistor{\lambda}_p = {\lambda}_{b}{\pi}_Q{\pi}_E
|
|||||||
Thus thermistor, bead type, `non~military~spec' is given a FIT of 315.0.
|
Thus thermistor, bead type, `non~military~spec' is given a FIT of 315.0.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
\frategloss
|
\frategloss
|
||||||
Using the RIAC finding we can draw up the following table (table \ref{tab:stat_single}),
|
Using the RIAC finding the following table (table \ref{tab:stat_single}) can be created,
|
||||||
showing the FIT values for all single failure modes.
|
showing the FIT values for all single failure modes.
|
||||||
%\glossary{name={FIT}, description={Failure in Time (FIT). The number of times a particular failure is expected to occur in a $10^{9}$ hour time period.}}
|
%\glossary{name={FIT}, description={Failure in Time (FIT). The number of times a particular failure is expected to occur in a $10^{9}$ hour time period.}}
|
||||||
\fmmdglossFIT
|
\fmmdglossFIT
|
||||||
@ -292,10 +294,13 @@ about $\approx 360$ years per circuit.
|
|||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
A probabilistic tree can now be drawn, with a FIT value for the Pt100
|
A probabilistic tree can now be drawn, with a FIT value for the Pt100
|
||||||
circuit and FIT values for all the component fault modes from which it was calculated.
|
circuit and FIT values for all the component fault modes from which it was calculated.
|
||||||
We can see from this that the most likely fault is the thermistor going OPEN.
|
%
|
||||||
|
From this it can be seen that the most likely fault is the thermistor going OPEN.
|
||||||
|
%
|
||||||
This circuit is around 10 times more likely to fail in this way than in any other.
|
This circuit is around 10 times more likely to fail in this way than in any other.
|
||||||
Were we to need a more reliable temperature sensor, this would probably
|
%
|
||||||
be the fault~mode we would scrutinise first.
|
If a more reliable temperature sensor was required, this would probably
|
||||||
|
be the fault~mode scrutinised first.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
\frategloss
|
\frategloss
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
@ -313,8 +318,8 @@ conditions.
|
|||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
\paragraph{Pt100 Example: Double Failures and statistical data}
|
\paragraph{Pt100 Example: Double Failures and statistical data}
|
||||||
Because we can perform double simultaneous failure analysis under FMMD
|
Because double simultaneous failure analysis can be performed under FMMD
|
||||||
we can also apply failure rate statistics to double failures.
|
failure rate statistics to double failures can also be determined.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
\frategloss
|
\frategloss
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
@ -325,14 +330,14 @@ we can also apply failure rate statistics to double failures.
|
|||||||
%% statistical impacts of failures.
|
%% statistical impacts of failures.
|
||||||
%%
|
%%
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
If we consider the failure modes to be statistically independent we can calculate
|
Considering the failure modes to be statistically independent
|
||||||
the FIT values for all the combinations
|
the FIT values for all the combinations
|
||||||
failures in the electronic examples from chapter~\ref{sec:chap5} in table~\ref{tab:ptfmea2}.
|
failures in the electronic examples from chapter~\ref{sec:chap5} in table~\ref{tab:ptfmea2} can be calculated.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
The failure mode of most concern, the undetectable {\textbf{FLOATING}} condition,
|
The failure mode of most concern, the undetectable {\textbf{FLOATING}} condition,
|
||||||
requires that resistors $R_1$ and $R_2$ both fail.
|
requires that resistors $R_1$ and $R_2$ both fail.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
We can multiply the MTTF probabilities for these types of resistor failing and find the MTTF for both failing.
|
Multiplying the MTTF probabilities for these types of resistor failing gives the MTTF for both failing.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
The FIT value of 12.42 corresponds to
|
The FIT value of 12.42 corresponds to
|
||||||
$12.42 \times {10}^{-9}$ failures per hour. Squaring this gives $ 154.3 \times {10}^{-18} $.
|
$12.42 \times {10}^{-9}$ failures per hour. Squaring this gives $ 154.3 \times {10}^{-18} $.
|
||||||
@ -341,19 +346,23 @@ This is an astronomically small MTTF, and so small that it would
|
|||||||
probably fall below a threshold to sensibly consider.
|
probably fall below a threshold to sensibly consider.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
However, it is very interesting from a failure analysis perspective,
|
However, it is very interesting from a failure analysis perspective,
|
||||||
because here we have found a fault that we cannot detect (at least at this
|
because an undetectable fault (at least at this
|
||||||
level in the FMMD hierarchy).
|
level in the FMMD hierarchy) has been revealed.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
This means that should we wish to cope with
|
This means that should it be required to cope with
|
||||||
this fault, we need to engineer a new way of detecting this
|
this fault, a new way of detecting this
|
||||||
condition, perhaps in higher levels of the system/FMMD hierarchy.
|
condition must be engineered, perhaps in higher levels of the system/FMMD hierarchy.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
\paragraph{MTTF statistics and FMMD hierarchies.}
|
\paragraph{MTTF statistics and FMMD hierarchies.}
|
||||||
|
%
|
||||||
In a large FMMD model, system/top level failures can be traced
|
In a large FMMD model, system/top level failures can be traced
|
||||||
down to {\bc} {\fms}. To determine the MTTF probability
|
down to {\bc} {\fms}.
|
||||||
for a system level failure, we add the MTTF statistics for all its possible causes.
|
%
|
||||||
Thus even for large FMMD models we can calculate accurate
|
To determine the MTTF probability
|
||||||
statistics for electronic sourced failures.
|
for a system level failure, the MTTF statistics are added for all its possible causes.
|
||||||
|
%
|
||||||
|
Thus even for large FMMD models accurate
|
||||||
|
statistics for electronic sourced failures can be calculated.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
%\glossary{name={FIT}, description={Failure in Time (FIT). The number of times a particular failure is expected to occur in a $10^{9}$ hour time period. Associated with continuous demand systems under EN61508~\cite{en61508}}}
|
%\glossary{name={FIT}, description={Failure in Time (FIT). The number of times a particular failure is expected to occur in a $10^{9}$ hour time period. Associated with continuous demand systems under EN61508~\cite{en61508}}}
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
@ -366,8 +375,10 @@ statistics for electronic sourced failures.
|
|||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
Fault Tree Analysis (FTA)~\cite{ftahistory} is a top down methodology that
|
Fault Tree Analysis (FTA)~\cite{ftahistory} is a top down methodology that
|
||||||
draws a fault tree---or top down fault causation diagram---for each given top-level
|
draws a fault tree---or top down fault causation diagram---for each given top-level
|
||||||
failure. With an FMMD model, we can trace all the causes of system failures
|
failure.
|
||||||
down to the base component level.
|
%
|
||||||
|
With an FMMD model, all the causes of system failures
|
||||||
|
down can be traced to the base component level.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
This would be enough to create a fault causation tree, but FTA introduces
|
This would be enough to create a fault causation tree, but FTA introduces
|
||||||
concepts of operational and environmental states, and inhibit gates.
|
concepts of operational and environmental states, and inhibit gates.
|
||||||
@ -380,8 +391,8 @@ The FTA perspective is that some safety can be built in
|
|||||||
by preventing certain things happening (inhibit gates), and by considering
|
by preventing certain things happening (inhibit gates), and by considering
|
||||||
different behaviour due to environmental or operational states~\cite{nucfta,nasafta}.
|
different behaviour due to environmental or operational states~\cite{nucfta,nasafta}.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
If we require FMMD to produce full FTA diagrams, we need to add these
|
If FMMD is required to produce full FTA diagrams, these
|
||||||
attributes to the FMMD UML model\footnote{Top down failure mode models, such as FTA, are additionally
|
attributes must be added to the FMMD UML model\footnote{Top down failure mode models, such as FTA, are additionally
|
||||||
useful in guiding diagnostic analysis.}.
|
useful in guiding diagnostic analysis.}.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
\fmmdglossINHIBIT
|
\fmmdglossINHIBIT
|
||||||
@ -424,35 +435,40 @@ This is rather like a logical guard criterion. For instance in the gas burner st
|
|||||||
states that a flame detector must confirm that a pilot flame has been established before the main burner fuel can be applied.
|
states that a flame detector must confirm that a pilot flame has been established before the main burner fuel can be applied.
|
||||||
In FTA terms this would be an inhibit condition on the main fuel, i.e. PILOT\_NOT\_CONFIRMED.
|
In FTA terms this would be an inhibit condition on the main fuel, i.e. PILOT\_NOT\_CONFIRMED.
|
||||||
\fmmdglossFTA
|
\fmmdglossFTA
|
||||||
We now look at the nature of these three attributes and decide how they should fit into the UML
|
The nature of these three attributes is examined and decisions are made as how they should fit into the UML
|
||||||
model for FMMD developed in section~\ref{sec:fmmd_uml}.
|
model for FMMD developed in section~\ref{sec:fmmd_uml}.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\paragraph{Environmental Modelling.} The external influences/environment could typically be temperature ranges,
|
\paragraph{Environmental Modelling.} The external influences/environment could typically be temperature ranges,
|
||||||
levels of electrical interference, high voltage contamination on supply
|
levels of electrical interference, high voltage contamination on supply
|
||||||
lines, radiation levels etc.
|
lines, radiation levels etc.
|
||||||
|
%
|
||||||
Environmental influences will affect specific components in specific ways\footnote{A good example of a part
|
Environmental influences will affect specific components in specific ways\footnote{A good example of a part
|
||||||
affected by environmental conditions, in this case temperature, is the opto-isolator~\cite{tlp181}
|
affected by environmental conditions, in this case temperature, is the opto-isolator~\cite{tlp181}
|
||||||
which typically starts having performance problems at {60 \oc} and above.
|
which typically starts having performance problems at {60 \oc} and above.
|
||||||
Most electrical components are robust to temperature variations and
|
Most electrical components are robust to temperature variations and
|
||||||
would not normally require special environmental attributes.}.
|
would not normally require special environmental attributes.}.
|
||||||
Environmental analysis is thus applicable to components.
|
Environmental analysis is thus applicable to components.
|
||||||
|
%
|
||||||
Environmental influences, such as over-stress due to voltage
|
Environmental influences, such as over-stress due to voltage
|
||||||
can be eliminated by down-rating components as discussed in section~\ref{sec:determine_fms}.
|
can be eliminated by down-rating components as discussed in section~\ref{sec:determine_fms}.
|
||||||
With given environmental constraints, we can therefore eliminate some failure modes from the model.
|
%
|
||||||
|
With given environmental constraints, it is therefore possible to eliminate some failure modes from the model.
|
||||||
\fmmdglossFTA
|
\fmmdglossFTA
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\paragraph{Operational states.}
|
\paragraph{Operational states.}
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
Within the field of safety critical engineering, we often encounter
|
Within the field of safety critical engineering,
|
||||||
elements that include test or self-test facilities.
|
elements are often encountered that include test or self-test facilities.
|
||||||
|
%
|
||||||
|
Degraded performance
|
||||||
|
(such as only performing certain functions in an emergency) and lockout/emergency conditions
|
||||||
|
are also common conditions that are considered.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
We also encounter degraded performance
|
|
||||||
(such as only performing certain functions in an emergency) and lockout/emergency conditions.
|
|
||||||
These can be broadly termed operational states. %, and apply to the
|
These can be broadly termed operational states. %, and apply to the
|
||||||
%functional groups.
|
%functional groups.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
We need to determine which UML class is most appropriate to hold a relationship
|
The UML class is most appropriate to hold a relationship
|
||||||
to operational states.
|
to operational states must be chosen.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
Consider for instance an electrical circuit that has a TEST line.
|
Consider for instance an electrical circuit that has a TEST line.
|
||||||
When the TEST line is activated, it supplies a test signal
|
When the TEST line is activated, it supplies a test signal
|
||||||
@ -463,7 +479,7 @@ It seems more appropriate to apply the operational states to {\fgs}
|
|||||||
which %
|
which %
|
||||||
%Functional groupings
|
%Functional groupings
|
||||||
by definition implement functionality, or purpose.
|
by definition implement functionality, or purpose.
|
||||||
On this basis we associate operational states with {\fgs}.
|
On this basis operational states are associated with {\fgs}.
|
||||||
%therefore are the best objects to model
|
%therefore are the best objects to model
|
||||||
%operational states.% with.
|
%operational states.% with.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@ -482,7 +498,7 @@ a failure mode.
|
|||||||
This inhibit class can be triggered
|
This inhibit class can be triggered
|
||||||
on a combination of environmental or failure modes.
|
on a combination of environmental or failure modes.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
In the UML diagram, we therefore link this with
|
In the UML diagram, this is therefore, linked with
|
||||||
both environmental conditions and failure modes.
|
both environmental conditions and failure modes.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
@ -522,12 +538,12 @@ can reveal previously undetected system failure modes.
|
|||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
This is because the analyst
|
This is because the analyst
|
||||||
is forced to deal with all component failure modes when applying the FMMD process, and
|
is forced to deal with all component failure modes when applying the FMMD process, and
|
||||||
all failure modes of the resultant {\dcs} as we progress up a hierarchy.
|
all failure modes of the resultant {\dcs} as the hierarchy is built.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
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 which were missed by
|
As `complete' analysis can be enforced, 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.
|
||||||
@ -535,7 +551,7 @@ failure modes.
|
|||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
\paragraph{Retrospective failure mode analysis and software.}
|
\paragraph{Retrospective failure mode analysis and software.}
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
We can apply retrospective FMMD to electronic and software hybrid systems as well.
|
Retrospective FMMD can be applied to electronic and software hybrid systems. %as well.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
The electronic components {\fms} are established in the literature~\cite{fmd91,mil1991,en298,en230}.
|
The electronic components {\fms} are established in the literature~\cite{fmd91,mil1991,en298,en230}.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
@ -551,7 +567,7 @@ which parts of the FMEA analysis to
|
|||||||
re-visit.
|
re-visit.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
For instance, which components in the system should
|
For instance, which components in the system should
|
||||||
we check against this newly discovered failure mode?
|
newly discovered failure mode be checked against?
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
This is linked to the concepts behind
|
This is linked to the concepts behind
|
||||||
the need for failure mode coverage against all components in the system, that provoked discussions
|
the need for failure mode coverage against all components in the system, that provoked discussions
|
||||||
@ -582,10 +598,10 @@ Finding these could be automated in a software tool that can traverse the failur
|
|||||||
% By treating hardware interfaces to software as {\dcs}, we automatically have a list of the failure modes
|
% By treating hardware interfaces to software as {\dcs}, we automatically have a list of the failure modes
|
||||||
% of the electronics.
|
% of the electronics.
|
||||||
%%
|
%%
|
||||||
With the contracts in place for the software functions, we can then integrate them into the FMMD model.
|
With the contracts in place for the software functions, they can be integrated into the FMMD model.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
FMMD models both software and hardware;
|
FMMD models both software and hardware;
|
||||||
we can thus verify that all
|
thus it can be verified that all
|
||||||
failure modes from the electronics module have been dealt
|
failure modes from the electronics module have been dealt
|
||||||
with by the controlling software.
|
with by the controlling software.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
@ -598,15 +614,15 @@ This again can be flagged using an automated tool.
|
|||||||
% of the electronics.
|
% of the electronics.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
By performing FMMD on a software electronic hybrid system,
|
By performing FMMD on a software electronic hybrid system,
|
||||||
we thus reveal design deficiencies in both the software, the electronics and the software/electronics interface.
|
design deficiencies are revealed in both the software, the electronics and the software/electronics interface.
|
||||||
%in the hardware/software interface.
|
%in the hardware/software interface.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
\fmmdglossFMEDA
|
\fmmdglossFMEDA
|
||||||
\fmmdgloss
|
\fmmdgloss
|
||||||
FMEDA does not handle software ---or---the software/hardware interface.
|
FMEDA does not handle software ---or---the software/hardware interface.
|
||||||
It thus potentially misses many undetected failures (in EN61508 terms undetected-dangerous and undetected safe failures).
|
It thus potentially misses many undetected failures (in EN61508 terms undetected-dangerous and undetected safe failures).
|
||||||
In Safety Integrity Level (SIL)~\cite{en61508} terms, by identifying undetectable faults and fixing them, we raise
|
In Safety Integrity Level (SIL)~\cite{en61508} terms, by identifying undetectable faults and fixing them,
|
||||||
the safe failure fraction (SFF).
|
the safe failure fraction (SFF) is raised.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
@ -615,6 +631,7 @@ the safe failure fraction (SFF).
|
|||||||
%Opportunity for formal definitions and perhaps an interface or process for achieving it....
|
%Opportunity for formal definitions and perhaps an interface or process for achieving it....
|
||||||
The act of applying failure mode effects analysis, is commonly performed from
|
The act of applying failure mode effects analysis, is commonly performed from
|
||||||
an `engineering' oriented cause and effect perspective.
|
an `engineering' oriented cause and effect perspective.
|
||||||
|
%
|
||||||
This is the realm of the objective.
|
This is the realm of the objective.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
The executive decisions about deploying systems are in the domain of management and politics.
|
The executive decisions about deploying systems are in the domain of management and politics.
|
||||||
@ -638,26 +655,39 @@ leak of radioactive material into the environment.
|
|||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
For the objective failure mode determined by
|
For the objective failure mode determined by
|
||||||
FMEA, that of leakage of coolant,
|
FMEA, that of leakage of coolant,
|
||||||
we would not reasonably expect this to go unchecked and unresolved for an extended period and cause such a critical failure.
|
it would not be reasonable to expect this to go unchecked and unresolved for an extended period and cause such a critical failure.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
The criticality level of that accident was therefore subjective. It was not known how the operators
|
The criticality level of that accident was therefore subjective.
|
||||||
|
%
|
||||||
|
It was not known how the operators
|
||||||
would have reacted, and deficiencies in the Human Machine Interface (HMI) were not a factor in the failure analysis.
|
would have reacted, and deficiencies in the Human Machine Interface (HMI) were not a factor in the failure analysis.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\paragraph{Further Work: Objective and Subjective Reasoning in FMEA.}
|
\paragraph{Further Work: Objective and Subjective Reasoning in FMEA.}
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
We could term the criticality prediction to be in the domain of subjective reasoning. With an objectively defined system level failure
|
Criticality prediction can be said to be in the domain of subjective reasoning.
|
||||||
we often are next required to determine its level of criticality, or how serious the risk posed would be.
|
%
|
||||||
|
With an objectively defined system level failure
|
||||||
|
it is often required to next determine its level of criticality, or how serious the risk posed would be.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
Two methodologies have started to consider this aspect, FMECA~\cite{fmeca} with its criticality and probability factors, and
|
Two methodologies have started to consider this aspect, FMECA~\cite{fmeca} with its criticality and probability factors, and
|
||||||
FMEDA~\cite{en61508,fmeda} with its classification of dangerous and safe failures.
|
FMEDA~\cite{en61508,fmeda} with its classification of dangerous and safe failures.
|
||||||
\fmmdglossFMEDA
|
\fmmdglossFMEDA
|
||||||
\fmmdglossFMECA
|
\fmmdglossFMECA
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
It is the author's opinion that more work is required to clarify this area. The scope of FMMD is the objective level only.
|
It is the author's opinion that more work is required to clarify this area.
|
||||||
|
%
|
||||||
Accurate models of objective failure modes, are seen by the author to be a pre-requisite
|
Accurate models of objective failure modes, are seen by the author to be a pre-requisite
|
||||||
for subjective assessment.
|
for subjective assessment.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
|
The scope of FMMD is the objective level only,
|
||||||
|
but offers significant benefits in terms of accuracy and work savings.
|
||||||
|
%
|
||||||
|
It also offers integrated modelling of software and hardware.
|
||||||
|
%
|
||||||
|
Its failure mode model can also be used to assist in producing traditional FMEA formats.
|
||||||
|
%
|
||||||
|
%
|
||||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||||
%\today%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
%\today%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user