turd polishing
This commit is contained in:
parent
cd0ec8fa69
commit
c4bf1cd625
@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
|
|||||||
\label{sec:chap8}
|
\label{sec:chap8}
|
||||||
|
%
|
||||||
\fmeagloss
|
\fmeagloss
|
||||||
|
%
|
||||||
This study has examined the %processes and state of the art of the
|
This study has examined the %processes and state of the art of the
|
||||||
four main FMEA variants.
|
four main FMEA variants.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
@ -150,7 +152,7 @@ Because an FMMD model can be used to generate an FMEA report,
|
|||||||
with additional {\bc} failure mode statistics
|
with additional {\bc} failure mode statistics
|
||||||
an FMEDA report can be produced.
|
an FMEDA report can be produced.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
FMMD has been applied to the Pt100 example in appendix~\ref{detailed:Pt100stats}.
|
FMMD has been applied with component failure statistics to the Pt100 example in appendix~\ref{detailed:Pt100stats}.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
This demonstrates FIT values being obtained for single and doubly sourced system failure modes
|
This demonstrates FIT values being obtained for single and doubly sourced system failure modes
|
||||||
in a way that is compatible with FMEDA/EN61508.
|
in a way that is compatible with FMEDA/EN61508.
|
||||||
@ -282,7 +284,7 @@ be factored into the UML model.
|
|||||||
An undesired condition may occur where it could be necessary to inhibit some action of the system.
|
An undesired condition may occur where it could be necessary to inhibit some action of the system.
|
||||||
This is rather like a logical guard criterion. For instance in the gas burner standard EN298 it
|
This is rather like a logical guard criterion. For instance in the gas burner standard EN298 it
|
||||||
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
|
||||||
The nature of these three attributes is examined and decisions are made as 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}.
|
||||||
@ -316,7 +318,7 @@ are also common conditions that are considered.
|
|||||||
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.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
The UML class is most appropriate to hold a relationship
|
The UML class most appropriate to hold a relationship
|
||||||
to operational states must be chosen.
|
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.
|
||||||
@ -415,10 +417,10 @@ sub-system it could be difficult to know
|
|||||||
which parts of the FMEA analysis to
|
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 the
|
||||||
newly discovered failure mode be checked against?
|
newly discovered failure mode be checked against?
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
This is linked to the concepts behind
|
This concern 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
|
||||||
leading to idealised XFMEA requirements (see section~\ref{sec:reasoningdistance}).
|
leading to idealised XFMEA requirements (see section~\ref{sec:reasoningdistance}).
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
@ -454,7 +456,7 @@ 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.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
If not, they would be an un-handled error condition relating to the software/hardware interface.
|
If not, this would be an un-handled error condition relating to the software/hardware interface.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
This again can be flagged using an automated tool.
|
This again can be flagged using an automated tool.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
@ -493,12 +495,13 @@ the Human Machine Interface~(HMI)~\cite{stranks2007human}.
|
|||||||
\paragraph{Objective and Subjective Reasoning in FMEA: Three Mile Island nuclear accident example.}
|
\paragraph{Objective and Subjective Reasoning in FMEA: Three Mile Island nuclear accident example.}
|
||||||
An example of objective and subjective factors is demonstrated in the accident report on the 1979 Three Mile Island
|
An example of objective and subjective factors is demonstrated in the accident report on the 1979 Three Mile Island
|
||||||
nuclear accident~\cite{safeware}[App.D]. Here, a vent valve for the primary reactor coolant (pressurised water) became stuck open.
|
nuclear accident~\cite{safeware}[App.D]. Here, a vent valve for the primary reactor coolant (pressurised water) became stuck open.
|
||||||
This condition causes an objectively derived failure mode --- `leakage~of~coolant' --- due to a stuck valve.
|
This condition caused an objectively derived failure mode --- `leakage~of~coolant' --- due to a stuck valve.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
This, if recognised correctly by the operators, would have lead quickly to a reactor shut-down and
|
This, if recognised correctly by the operators, would have lead quickly to a reactor shut-down and
|
||||||
a maintenance procedure to replace the valve.
|
a maintenance procedure to replace the valve.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
The failure was not recognised in time however, and coolant was lost
|
The failure was not recognised in time %however,
|
||||||
|
and coolant was lost
|
||||||
until a partial meltdown of the reactor fuel occurred, with a resulting
|
until a partial meltdown of the reactor fuel occurred, with a resulting
|
||||||
leak of radioactive material into the environment.
|
leak of radioactive material into the environment.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
@ -506,10 +509,11 @@ For the objective failure mode determined by
|
|||||||
FMEA, that of leakage of coolant,
|
FMEA, that of leakage of coolant,
|
||||||
it would not be reasonable to 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.
|
The criticality level of that {\fm} %accident
|
||||||
|
was therefore subjective.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
It was not known how the operators
|
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.}
|
||||||
@ -521,6 +525,7 @@ it is often required to next determine its level of criticality, or how serious
|
|||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
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
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
@ -530,7 +535,7 @@ Accurate models of objective failure modes, are seen by the author to be a pre-r
|
|||||||
for subjective assessment.
|
for subjective assessment.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
The scope of FMMD is the objective level only,
|
The scope of FMMD is the objective level only,
|
||||||
but offers significant benefits in terms of accuracy and work savings.
|
but offers significant benefits in terms of accuracy and labour savings.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
It also offers integrated modelling of software and hardware.
|
It also offers integrated modelling of software and hardware.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user