diff --git a/common_mode/common_mode.tex b/common_mode/common_mode.tex index 2efbcb2..2034d00 100644 --- a/common_mode/common_mode.tex +++ b/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 diff --git a/component_failure_modes_definition/component_failure_modes_definition.tex b/component_failure_modes_definition/component_failure_modes_definition.tex index 40004ba..a42152e 100644 --- a/component_failure_modes_definition/component_failure_modes_definition.tex +++ b/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 -} -{ -} +%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% +%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% +%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% +%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% diff --git a/fmmd_data_model/fmmd_data_model.tex b/fmmd_data_model/fmmd_data_model.tex index 284d756..e5bc015 100644 --- a/fmmd_data_model/fmmd_data_model.tex +++ b/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} diff --git a/fmmd_design_aide/fmmd_design_aide.tex b/fmmd_design_aide/fmmd_design_aide.tex index 3d07987..2209c79 100644 --- a/fmmd_design_aide/fmmd_design_aide.tex +++ b/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} diff --git a/fmmd_design_aide/paper.tex b/fmmd_design_aide/paper.tex index 3267860..a942f06 100644 --- a/fmmd_design_aide/paper.tex +++ b/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 } }