AF comments 12JAN2013.
This commit is contained in:
parent
e7d791ceb5
commit
e3d70d5dd0
@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ As part of the assessment/certification process, we typically apply
|
||||
a battery of tests, examining features such as resistance to extremes of environment, Electro Magnetic Compatibility (EMC),
|
||||
endurance regimes and static testing.
|
||||
%
|
||||
Static testing is at the theoretical, or design level and involves
|
||||
Static testing is at the theoretical, or design level, and involves
|
||||
looking at failure scenarios and trying to predict how systems would react.
|
||||
%
|
||||
This thesis deals with one area of static testing, that of Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA), a commonly
|
||||
@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ used technique that is legally mandatory for a wide range of equipment certifica
|
||||
The ability to assess the safety of man made equipment has been a concern
|
||||
since the dawn of the industrial age~\cite{usefulinfoengineers,steamboilers}.
|
||||
The philosophy behind safety measure has progressed
|
||||
with time, and by World War Two we begin to see concepts such as `no single component failure should cause
|
||||
with time, and by World War Two we began to see concepts such as `no single component failure should cause
|
||||
a dangerous system failure'~\cite{boffin} emerging~\cite{echoesofwar}[Ch.13].
|
||||
%
|
||||
Concepts such as these allow us to apply
|
||||
@ -56,6 +56,8 @@ the higher SIL rating we can demand for it.
|
||||
A band-saw with one operative may require a SIL rating of 1,
|
||||
a nuclear power-station, with far greater consequences on dangerous failure
|
||||
may require a SIL rating of 4.
|
||||
What we are saying is that while we may tolerate a low incidence of failure on a band-saw,
|
||||
we will only tolerate extremely low incidences of failure in nuclear plant.
|
||||
SIL ratings give us another objective yardstick for the measurement of system safety.
|
||||
%governing failure conditions and determining risk levels associated with systems.
|
||||
|
||||
@ -89,6 +91,8 @@ firstly looking at common electronic circuits and then at electronic/software hy
|
||||
\section{Motivation}
|
||||
The motivation for this study came from two sources, one academic (my Software Engineering MSc project) and the other
|
||||
practical (as a practising embedded software engineer working with FMEA on safety critical burner systems).
|
||||
%
|
||||
% AF does not think the paragraph below should be included 12JAN2013
|
||||
\paragraph{MSc Project: Euler/Spider diagram Editor.}
|
||||
I had recently completed an
|
||||
MSc and my project was to create an Euler/Spider~Diagram~\cite{howse:spider} editor in Java.
|
||||
@ -98,12 +102,14 @@ The primary motive for writing the Spider diagram editor was to provide an alter
|
||||
to formal languages for software specification.
|
||||
Because of my exposure to FMEA, I started thinking of ways to apply formal languages and spider diagrams to
|
||||
failure mode analysis.
|
||||
%
|
||||
%
|
||||
\paragraph{European Safety Requirements increase in scope and complexity.}
|
||||
At work---which consisted of designing, testing, building and writing embedded `C' and assembly language code for safety critical
|
||||
industrial burners---we were faced with a new and daunting requirement.
|
||||
Conformance to the latest European standard, EN298.
|
||||
%
|
||||
It appeared to ask for the impossible,
|
||||
It appeared to ask for the impossible:
|
||||
not only did it require the usual safety measures (self checking of ROM and RAM, watchdog processors with separate clock sources, EMC and the
|
||||
triple fail safe control of valves), it had one new clause in it that had far reaching consequences.
|
||||
%
|
||||
@ -112,18 +118,19 @@ applies all possible safety measures to stop fuel entering the burner---it could
|
||||
%
|
||||
In short this meant we had to be able to deal with double failures.
|
||||
%
|
||||
Any of the components that could, in failing create a dangerous state were already
|
||||
Any of the components that could, in failing, create a dangerous state were already
|
||||
documented and approved using failure mode effects analysis (FMEA).
|
||||
%
|
||||
This new requirement
|
||||
effectively meant that all single component failures and double combinations of component failures were
|
||||
effectively meant that all single and double component failures
|
||||
%double combinations of component failures were
|
||||
now required to be analysed. This, from a state explosion problem alone,
|
||||
meant that it was going to be virtually impossible to perform.
|
||||
%
|
||||
To compound the state explosion problem
|
||||
To compound the problem %state explosion problem
|
||||
FMEA has a deficiency of repeated work, as each component failure is typically represented
|
||||
by one line or entry in a spreadsheet~\cite{bfmea}; analysis on repeated sections of
|
||||
circuitry (for instance repeated 4-20mA outputs on a PCB), meant that
|
||||
circuitry (for instance repeated 4-20mA outputs on a PCB) meant that
|
||||
analysis of identical circuitry was performed many times.
|
||||
%
|
||||
|
||||
@ -140,7 +147,8 @@ I wondered if this thinking could be applied to the state explosion problems enc
|
||||
%Following the concept of de-composing a problem, and thus simplifying the state explosion---using the thinking behind
|
||||
%the fast Fourier transform (FFT)~\cite{fpodsadsp}[Ch.8], which takes a complex intermeshed series of real and imaginary number calculations
|
||||
%and by de-composing them, simplifies the problem.
|
||||
My reasoning was that were we to analyse the problem in small modules, from the bottom-up following the FFT example, we could apply
|
||||
My reasoning was that if we analysed %were we to analyse
|
||||
the problem in small modules, from the bottom-up following the FFT example, we could apply
|
||||
checking for all double failure scenarios.
|
||||
%
|
||||
Once these first modules were analysed---we now call them {\fgs}---we could determine the symptoms of failure for them.
|
||||
@ -150,7 +158,8 @@ representing a failure mode model for the system.
|
||||
%
|
||||
Because this is modular, we can apply double simultaneous failure mode checking; and as %because
|
||||
the number of components
|
||||
in each {\fg} is typically small---we avoid state explosion problems.
|
||||
in each {\fg} is typically small---we avoid state explosion problems. % for the general case. % AF says `in the general case' here 12JAN2013
|
||||
%
|
||||
%
|
||||
If we apply
|
||||
double checking all the way up the hierarchy we can guarantee to have considered
|
||||
@ -160,8 +169,9 @@ This means, as a fortunate by-product, that many multiple as well as double
|
||||
failures would be analysed, but because failure modes are traceable from the base components to the top level---or system---failure modes
|
||||
these relationships can be held in a traversable data structure.
|
||||
%
|
||||
If held in a traversable data structure we can apply automated methods to search all the cardinalities of multiple failure modes
|
||||
within the model.
|
||||
If held in a traversable data structure we can apply automated methods to search for all the combinations of multiple failure modes
|
||||
within the model that have been analysed. Because of this, it may not be necessary to apply double checking
|
||||
at all higher levels in the analysis hierarchy, to achieve complete double failure coverage.
|
||||
%
|
||||
\subsection{Initial direction: Application of Spider diagrams to FMEA.}
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -1473,7 +1473,7 @@ failure modes.
|
||||
%
|
||||
This means that by using FMMD, we can identify the sub-systems which require
|
||||
re-design to eliminate unobservable failure modes.
|
||||
The demands of EN61508~\cite{en61508} for minimum safe failure fraction~\cite{scsh}[p.52] thresholds associated with
|
||||
The demands of EN61508~\cite{en61508} for minimum safe failure fraction thresholds~\cite{scsh}[p.52] associated with
|
||||
SIL levels, make this a desirable feature of any FMEA based methodology.
|
||||
%
|
||||
For the failure modes caused
|
||||
|
@ -66,7 +66,7 @@
|
||||
\lfoot{University of Brighton 2012} %% Year keeps fucking incrementing
|
||||
\rfoot{R.P.Clark \today}
|
||||
\lhead{Failure Mode Modular De-Composition}
|
||||
\rhead{PhD Thesis}
|
||||
\rhead{Ph.D Thesis}
|
||||
%\begin{document}
|
||||
|
||||
%\typeout{>>--------------------->> introduction}
|
||||
|
@ -32,7 +32,7 @@
|
||||
\rule{120pt}{1pt}
|
||||
\vspace{0.1in}
|
||||
|
||||
{\bf PhD Thesis}
|
||||
{\bf Ph.D Thesis}
|
||||
|
||||
\vspace{0.1in}
|
||||
\rule{120pt}{1pt}
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user