OK morning edit. Now off to Mums to collect Pip
perhaps see Cap on the way back.
This commit is contained in:
parent
f726db842e
commit
a8afb3a34e
@ -661,6 +661,10 @@ Perhaps we should: this would be a more rigorous and complete
|
||||
approach in looking for system failures. We could term FMEA where
|
||||
each failure mode is compared against all other components
|
||||
as exhaustive FMEA (XFMEA).
|
||||
%
|
||||
An indicator of the potential vagueness, in terms of failure outcome,
|
||||
is manifested in the UML relationship in figure~\ref{fig:component_fm_rel_ana}
|
||||
giving a one to many mapping for a failure mode and its system level symptom.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Theoretical Concepts in FMEA}
|
||||
@ -973,6 +977,10 @@ The discussion on reasoning distance leads provides us with a metric to examine
|
||||
the state explosion problems associated with forward search failure investigation
|
||||
methodologies.
|
||||
|
||||
It is apparent that the shorter the reasoning distance, the more precisely our theoretical examination
|
||||
is to determine failure symptoms. For instance for a very simple small circuit, we can have a better understanding
|
||||
of failure effects, than for a very large system where there are more variables and potential {\fm} interactions.
|
||||
|
||||
%.... general concept... simple ideas about how complex a
|
||||
%failure analysis is the more modules and components are involved
|
||||
% cite for forward and backward search related to safety critical software
|
||||
@ -1185,7 +1193,7 @@ and require re-design of some systems.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\section{FMEDA - Failure Modes Effects and Diagnostic Analysis}
|
||||
|
||||
%
|
||||
%\subsection{ FMEDA - Failure Modes Effects and Diagnostic Analysis}
|
||||
% \begin{figure}
|
||||
% \centering
|
||||
@ -1193,16 +1201,7 @@ and require re-design of some systems.
|
||||
% % SIL.jpg: 350x286 pixel, 72dpi, 12.35x10.09 cm, bb=0 0 350 286
|
||||
% \caption{SIL requirements}
|
||||
% \end{figure}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{ FMEDA - Failure Modes Effects and Diagnostic Analysis}
|
||||
%\subsection{ FMEDA - Failure Modes Effects and Diagnostic Analysis}
|
||||
%
|
||||
\fmmdglossFMEDA
|
||||
%
|
||||
|
@ -127,6 +127,25 @@ examined in section~\ref{sec:distributed}.
|
||||
% and then though the system being integrated.
|
||||
% This problem is compounded by the fact that traditional FMEA cannot integrate software into FMEA models~\cite{sfmea,safeware}.
|
||||
|
||||
%% Ideal case where we can determine one to one mapping of failure modes
|
||||
%% to system level failures
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{FMEA one to many mapping for component failure to system level {\fms}}
|
||||
\label{sec:onetoone}
|
||||
Traditional FMEA allows for the possibility of {\bc} {\fms} causing
|
||||
more than one potential system failure mode.
|
||||
%
|
||||
This can be seen as an indicator of the lack of
|
||||
cause to effect precision possible when analysing
|
||||
large systems using FMEA.
|
||||
%
|
||||
Ideally this relationship would be one to one.
|
||||
%
|
||||
This would be beneficial in terms of validating
|
||||
precision of analysis, and for by-products of
|
||||
the process such as developing diagnostic fault trees from
|
||||
FMEA analyses.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Reasoning Distance used to measure Comparison Complexity}
|
||||
\label{sec:reasoningdistance}
|
||||
@ -474,6 +493,7 @@ in an improved FMEA methodology,
|
||||
\item traceable reasoning inherent in system failure models,% to aid repeatability and checking,
|
||||
\item re-usable i.e. it should be possible to re-use analysis,
|
||||
\item possibility to analyse simultaneous/multiple failures,
|
||||
\item one to one mapping from {\bc} {\fms} to system level failures (see section~\ref{sec:onetoone}),
|
||||
\item modular --- i.e. usable in a distributed system.
|
||||
% \item
|
||||
\end{itemize}
|
||||
|
@ -2276,9 +2276,13 @@ by a symptom within a {\fg}, and therefore the failure modes of a {\dc} are mutu
|
||||
%
|
||||
Thus FMMD naturally produces {\dcs} with failure modes that are mutually exclusive.
|
||||
%
|
||||
This property forces the FMMD analyst to
|
||||
create failure modes models that have a one to one mapping from {\bc} {\fm}
|
||||
to system level failure, or symptom (see section~\ref{sec:onetoone}).
|
||||
%
|
||||
\fmmdglossMUTEX
|
||||
%
|
||||
This property is examined in more detail in section~\ref{ch7:mutex}.
|
||||
This property, termed a `unitary~state~failure~mode', is examined formally in section~\ref{ch7:mutex}.
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Objective and contextual/subjective failure symptoms.}
|
||||
Because the top level failure symptoms of an FMMD analysis are objective, or the result of reasoning,
|
||||
|
@ -83,15 +83,15 @@ These benefits fall under the following assumptions and constraints:
|
||||
|
||||
Whilst investigating FMMD a number of further areas for research revealed themselves.
|
||||
These are presented below.
|
||||
|
||||
%
|
||||
%\section{Conclusion}
|
||||
|
||||
%
|
||||
% It is the authors belief that the practise of FMEA would be improved by taking a modular approach
|
||||
% and that it is necessary that software and hardware should be included in the same failure mode models.
|
||||
% %
|
||||
% The proposed methodology, FMMD, provides the means to do this, and it is the authors hope that this
|
||||
% or a variant thereof is taken up and used to improve system safety.
|
||||
|
||||
%
|
||||
\section{Further Work}
|
||||
%This section describes areas that the study has revealed where the FMMD methodology may be extended or improved.
|
||||
\subsection{How traditional FMEA reports can be derived from an FMMD model.}
|
||||
@ -466,9 +466,9 @@ both environmental conditions and failure modes.
|
||||
\paragraph{UML Diagram Additional Objects.}
|
||||
The additional objects System, Environment, Inhibit and Operational States
|
||||
are added to UML diagram in figure \ref{fig:cfg} are represented in figure \ref{fig:cfg2}.
|
||||
|
||||
%
|
||||
\label{completeumlfurtherwork}
|
||||
|
||||
%
|
||||
\begin{figure}[h]
|
||||
\centering
|
||||
\includegraphics[width=400pt,keepaspectratio=true]{./CH8_Conclusion/master_uml_further_work.png}
|
||||
@ -500,13 +500,29 @@ Because we can enforce a `complete' analysis, FMMD can find failure modes were m
|
||||
other FMEA processes; meaning that the FMMD process can expose un-handled
|
||||
failure modes.
|
||||
%come to light.
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Retrospective Failure Mode analysis and software}
|
||||
We can apply retrospective FMMD to electronic and software hybrid systems as well.
|
||||
%
|
||||
The electronic components {\fms} are established in the literature~\cite{fmd91,mil1991,en298,en230}.
|
||||
%
|
||||
Each function in the software would have to be assigned a `design~contract'~\cite{dbcbe} (where violations of
|
||||
contract clauses will be treated as failure modes in FMMD).
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Effect of newly discovered failure modes in components.}
|
||||
Using traditional FMEA when discovering a new failure mode in a component or
|
||||
sub-system it could be difficult to know
|
||||
which parts of the FMEA analysis to
|
||||
re-visit. For instance, which components in the system should
|
||||
we check against this newly discovered failure mode?
|
||||
%
|
||||
This is linked to the concepts behind
|
||||
the need for failure mode coverage against all components in the system, that provoked discussions
|
||||
leading to idealised XFMEA requirements (see section~\ref{sec:reasoningdistance}).
|
||||
\fmmdglossSFMEA
|
||||
%
|
||||
Using FMMD only those modules in the hierarchy above the
|
||||
component with the new failure mode need be re-visited.
|
||||
This means that with FMMD the re-work task can be precisely defined.
|
||||
%
|
||||
% By %doing
|
||||
% applying contracts and seeing how calling functions deal with
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user