Monday night edit. Dark cycle home !

common_mode/common_mode.tex

@@ -64,6 +64,8 @@ effects.
  
 \section{Introduction}
 
+{\huge MIGHT BECOME A PAPER IN ITS OWN RIGHT. WILL PROB BE PART OF DATA MODEL CHAPTER FOR NOW 22NOV2010 }
+
 \ifthenelse {\boolean{paper}}
 {
 paper

component_failure_modes_definition/component_failure_modes_definition.tex

@@ -772,78 +772,10 @@ are added to  UML diagram in figure \ref{fig:cfg} and represented in figure \ref
  \label{fig:cfg2}
 \end{figure}
 
-{ \huge This might become a chapter in its own right after fmmdset }
-
-\section{From UML Model to Object Model}
-
-Let us consider a theoretical FMMD model. For the sake of simplicity
-consider that all components and functional groups have only two failure modes that
-we will label $a$ and $b$.
-We can start with some base components, of types C and K  say, $\{ C_1, C_2, C_3, K_4, C_5, C_6, K_7 \}$.
-For the sake of example, let us say that each component has two failure
-modes $a$ and $b$. So the function $fm$ applied to
-$C_1$ yields $C_{1 a}$ and $C_{1 b}$.
-
-HOW UML OBJECT MODEL OF COMPONENT AND ITS ERROR MODES
-
-We can organise these into functional groups (where the superscript represents the $\alpha$ value, see section \ref{alpha}), thus:
-
-$$ FG^0_1 = \{C_1, C_2\}$$
-$$ FG^0_2 = \{C_1, C_3, C_4\}$$
-$$ FG^0_3 = \{C_5, C_6, C_7\}$$
-
-A processes of symptom extraction is now applied to the functional groups.
-Again for the sake of example, let us say that each functional
-group has one or two symptoms again subscripted by $a$ and $b$.
-
-Applying symptom abstraction to $FG^0_1$ i.e. $\bowtie fm ( FG^0_1 ) = \{ FG^0_{1 a}, FG^0_{1 b}  \} $ 
-We can now create a new derived component, $DC^1_1$, whose failure
-modes are the symptoms of $FG^0_1 $ thus $ fm ( {DC}^1_1 )  = \{ FG^0_{1 a}, FG^0_{1 b}  \} $.
-
-UML OBJECT MODEL OF  DERIVED COMPONENT TOO
 
 
 
-
-\subsection{Using Derived Components in Functional Groups}
-
-
-HERE should how the hierarchy is built, how the inheritance works etc
-
-HAVE an example. totally theoretical. HAVE Common mode failure detection AND Common dependency detection
-
-\subsection{Directed Acyclic Graph}
-
-Show how the hierarchy can be represented as a DAG
-
-draw a dag
-
-\subsection{Traversing the datamodel}
-
-Show how we can find multiple causes for a SYSTEM level error
-
-\subsubsection{Common mode failure detection}
-
-Describe what a common mode failure is.
-
-show how common mode failures can be detected by using the parts list (same components can all have their
-error modes turned on, and the effect can be seen on the system, automatically tracing
-common mode failures.
-
-
-\subsubsection{Common dependency detection}
-
-The same component can be relied on by different functional groups within a system
-For instance a power supply spur (i.e. supplying a particular isolated voltage say)
-could have many functional groups depending or linked to its failure modes.
-
-Show how FMMD makes this tracable
-
-
-% clear the page if its a paper to keep the diagram out of the references
-\ifthenelse {\boolean{paper}}
-{
-\clearpage
-}
-{
-}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

fmmd_data_model/fmmd_data_model.tex

@@ -35,6 +35,99 @@ This chapter
 
 }
 
+%{ \huge This might become a chapter in its own right after fmmdset }
+
+\section{From UML Model to Object Model}
+
+Let us consider a theoretical FMMD model. For the sake of simplicity
+consider that all components and functional groups have only two failure modes that
+we will label $a$ and $b$.
+We can start with some base components, of types C and K  say, $\{ C_1, C_2, C_3, K_4, C_5, C_6, K_7 \}$.
+Thus applying the function $fm$ to any of the components
+gives error modes identified by a or b.
+
+For the sake of example, let us say that each component has two failure
+modes $a$ and $b$. So the function $fm$ applied to
+$C_1$ yields $C_{1 a}$ and $C_{1 b}$:
+i.e. $fm(C_1) = \{ C_{1 a}, C_{1 b} \}$.
+
+HOW UML OBJECT MODEL OF COMPONENT AND ITS ERROR MODES
+
+\ifthenelse {\boolean{paper}}
+{
+We can organise these into functional groups (where the superscript
+represents the FMMD hierarchy level, or $\alpha$ value, thus:
+}
+{
+We can organise these into functional groups (where the superscript 
+represents the $\alpha$ value, see section \ref{alpha}), thus:
+}
+
+$$ FG^0_1 = \{C_1, C_2\},$$
+$$ FG^0_2 = \{C_1, C_3, K_4\},$$
+$$ FG^0_3 = \{C_5, C_6, K_7\}.$$
+
+Note that in this model the base~component $C_1$ has been used in
+two separate functional groups.
+Also that the component type $K$ has been used by 
+two different functional groups.
+
+\paragraph{Symptom Extraction.}
+A processes of symptom extraction is now applied to the functional groups.
+Again for the sake of example, let us say that each functional
+group has one or two symptoms again subscripted by $a$ and $b$.
+
+Applying symptom abstraction to $FG^0_1$ i.e. $\bowtie fm ( FG^0_1 ) = \{ FG^0_{1 a}, FG^0_{1 b}  \} $ 
+We can now create a new derived component, $DC^1_1$, whose failure
+modes are the symptoms of $FG^0_1 $ thus $ fm ( {DC}^1_1 )  = \{ FG^0_{1 a}, FG^0_{1 b}  \} $.
+
+UML OBJECT MODEL OF  DERIVED COMPONENT TOO
+
+
+
+
+\subsection{Using Derived Components in Functional Groups}
+
+
+HERE should how the hierarchy is built, how the inheritance works etc
+
+HAVE an example. totally theoretical. HAVE Common mode failure detection AND Common dependency detection
+
+\subsection{Directed Acyclic Graph}
+
+Show how the hierarchy can be represented as a DAG
+
+draw a dag
+
+\subsection{Traversing the datamodel}
+
+Show how we can find multiple causes for a SYSTEM level error
+
+\subsubsection{Common mode failure detection}
+
+Describe what a common mode failure is.
+
+show how common mode failures can be detected by using the parts list (same components can all have their
+error modes turned on, and the effect can be seen on the system, automatically tracing
+common mode failures.
+
+
+\subsubsection{Common dependency detection}
+
+The same component can be relied on by different functional groups within a system
+For instance a power supply spur (i.e. supplying a particular isolated voltage say)
+could have many functional groups depending or linked to its failure modes.
+
+Show how FMMD makes this tracable
+
+
+% clear the page if its a paper to keep the diagram out of the references
+\ifthenelse {\boolean{paper}}
+{
+\clearpage
+}
+{
+}
 
  
 \section{Current Static Failure Mode Methodologies}

fmmd_design_aide/fmmd_design_aide.tex

@@ -371,12 +371,57 @@ and place them into a functional group.
 We can now analyse this functional
 group w.r.t the failure modes in the two derived compoennts.
 
-\vspace{20pt}
-Draw FMMD hierarchy diagram.
-\vspace{20pt}
+\begin{figure}[h]
+ \centering
+ \includegraphics[width=300pt,bb=0 0 698 631,keepaspectratio=true]{./testable_mvamp.jpg}
+ % testable_mvamp.jpg: 698x631 pixel, 72dpi, 24.62x22.26 cm, bb=0 0 698 631
+ \caption{Testable milli-volt amplifier}
+ \label{fig:testable_mvamp}
+\end{figure}
 
 \subsection{Analysis of FMMD Derived component `added safety milli-volt amp'}
 
+The failure mode of most concern is the the `low~reading'. This has two potential
+causes in the unmodified circuit, R22\_SHORT and R18\_OPEN.
+
+\paragraph{R22\_SHORT with safety addition}
+With the modified circuit, in the $\overline{TEST\_LINE}$ ON condition
+TR1 will be off and we will have a reading + test $\Delta V$.
+However with  $\overline{TEST\_LINE}$ OFF we have no potential divider.
+R18 will pull the +ve terminal on the op-amp up, pushing the result out of range.
+The failure is thus detectable.
+
+\paragraph{R18\_OPEN with safety addition}
+Here there is no potential divider. The $\overline{TEST\_LINE}$ will have no effect
+which ever way it is switched. The failure mode is thus detectable.
+
+\paragraph{Symptom Extraction for the Functional Group `testable mill-volt amplifier'}
+
+We have four failure modes to consider in the functional group `testable mill-volt amplifier'.
+These are 
+\begin{itemize}
+\item failure mode: open~potential~divider
+\item failure mode: no~test~effect
+\item failure mode: out~of~range
+\item failure mode: low~reading
+\end{itemize}
+
+We can now collect symptoms; `open~potential~divider' from test will cause R18 to pull the +ve input of the opamp high
+giving an out of range reading from the op-amp output.
+We can group `low~reading' with `out~of~range'.
+The `low~reading' will now becomes either `no~test~effect' or `out~of~range' depending on the $\overline{TEST\_LINE}$ state.
+
+We now have two symptoms, `out~of~range' or `no~test~effect'. So for single component failures
+we now have a circuit where there are no undetectable failure modes.
+
+We can surmise the symptoms in a list.
+
+\begin{itemize}
+\item symptom: \textbf{out~of~range} caused by the failure modes: open~potential~divider, low~reading. 
+\item symptom: \textbf{no~test~effect} caused by the failure modes: no~test~effect, low~reading.
+\end{itemize}
+
+
 
 
 \section{conclusions}

fmmd_design_aide/paper.tex

@@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
 \usepackage{tikz}
 \usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amsthm}
 \input{../style}
+\usepackage{lastpage}
 \usepackage{ifthen}
 \newboolean{paper}
 \setboolean{paper}{true} % boolvar=true or false
@@ -14,6 +15,14 @@
 
 \begin{document}
 \pagestyle{fancy}
+\fancyhf{}
+%\renewcommand{\chaptermark}[1]{\markboth{ \emph{#1}}{}}
+\fancyhead[LO]{}
+\fancyhead[RE]{\leftmark}
+%\fancyfoot[LE,RO]{\thepage}
+\cfoot{Page \thepage\ of \pageref{LastPage}}
+\rfoot{\today}
+\lhead{FMMD as a design aide}
 
 %\outerhead{{\small\bf Statistical Basis for Current Static Analysis Methodologies}}         
 %\innerfoot{{\small\bf R.P. Clark } }