robin/Robin_PHD
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

hate this fucking stupid university

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Robin Clark 2012-09-01 12:18:18 +01:00
parent 780527d435
commit f5a7928639
1 changed files with 52 additions and 34 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

86
submission_thesis/CH4_FMMD/copy.tex
View File

@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ These {\dcs} are used to then build further {\fgs} until a hierarchy of {\fgs}
and {\dcs} has been built, converging to a final {\dc}
at the top of the hierarchy.
%
Or in other words we take the traditional FMEA process, and modularise it.
Or in other words we take the traditional FMEA~\cite{sccs}[pp.34-38] process, and modularise it.
We break down each stage of reasoning
into small manageable groups, and use the results of those groups, as {\dcs}
to build higher level groups.
@ -530,7 +530,7 @@ and determine how they affect the operation of the potential divider.
%which is represented on the diagram, with an asterisk marking
%which failure modes is modelling (see figure \ref{fig:fg1a}).
%
For this example we look at single failure modes only.
%%For this example we look at single failure modes only.
For each failure mode in our {\fg} `potential~divider',
we can assign a {\fc} number (see table \ref{tbl:pdfmea}).
Each {\fc} is analysed to determine the `symptom'
@ -540,7 +540,7 @@ voltage output from it would float high (+ve).
This would mean the symptom of the failed potential divider would be voltage high output.
%
The failure symptom of a high potential divider output is termed `HighPD', and
for it outputing a low voltage `LowPD'. % Andrew asked for this to be defined before the table. ...
for it outputting a low voltage `LowPD'. % Andrew asked for this to be defined before the table. ...
%We can now consider the {\fg}
%as a component in its own right, and its symptoms as its failure modes.
@ -550,6 +550,12 @@ for it outputing a low voltage `LowPD'. % Andrew asked for this to be defined be
\centering % used for centering table
\begin{tabular}{||l|c|c|l||}
\hline \hline
% FUCKING HATE HAVING TO REMOVE THE TERM FAILURE SCENARIO HERE....
% GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE IET/IEEE, but then they live in the real
% world don't they....
%\textbf{Failure} & \textbf{Pot.Div} & \textbf{Symptom} \\
%\textbf{scenario} & \textbf{Effect} & \textbf{Description} \\
\textbf{Fault} & \textbf{Pot.Div} & \textbf{Derived Component} \\ % \textbf{Symptom} \\
\textbf{Mode} & \textbf{Effect} & \textbf{Failure modes} \\ %\textbf{Description} \\
% R & wire & res + & res - & description
@ -632,19 +638,21 @@ we name this \textbf{PD}.
This {\dc} will have two failure modes.
We use the symbol $\derivec$ to represent the process of taking the analysed
{\fg} and creating from it a {\dc}.
%The creation of the {\dc} \textbf{PD} isrepresented in figure~\ref{fig:dc1}.
The creation of the {\dc} \textbf{PD} is represented as a
hierarchy diagram in figure~\ref{fig:dc1}.
We represent the {\dc} \textbf{PD}, as a DAG in figure \ref{fig:dc1dag}.
%We could represent it algebraically thus: $ \derivec(PotDiv) =
% FUCKING HELL THIS IS REMOVED TOO : CUNTS
% \begin{figure}[h+]
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=200pt,keepaspectratio=true]{./CH4_FMMD/dc1.png} %%% Where the f**king hell is this file ????? in an old paper even in the SYSSAFE2011
% % dc1.jpg: 430x619 pixel, 72dpi, 15.17x21.84 cm, bb=0 0 430 619
% \caption{From functional group to derived component}
% \label{fig:dc1}
% \end{figure}
% FUCKING HELL THIS IS to be REMOVED TOO : CUNTS
\begin{figure}[h+]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=200pt,keepaspectratio=true]{./CH4_FMMD/dc1.png}
% dc1.jpg: 430x619 pixel, 72dpi, 15.17x21.84 cm, bb=0 0 430 619
\caption{From functional group to derived component, a hierarchical diagram showing how the {\fg} is analysed using the $\derivec$
manual process and from this the {\dc} is created.}
\label{fig:dc1}
\end{figure}
% We can now represent the potential divider as a {\dc}.
@ -674,14 +682,15 @@ We represent the {\dc} \textbf{PD}, as a DAG in figure \ref{fig:dc1dag}.
% The derived component is defined by its failure modes and
% the functional group used to derive it.
% %We can consider this an an orthogonal WHAT???? Group ???? Collection ????
% We now have a {\dc} model for a generic potential divider, and can use it
% as a building block for other {\fgs} in the same way as we used the base components $R1$ and $R2$.
We now have a {\dc} model for a generic potential divider, and can use it
as a building block for other {\fgs} in the same way as we used the base components $R1$ and $R2$.
%\clearpage
%\paragraph{Failure Mode Analysis of the OP-AMP}
\paragraph{Failure Mode Analysis of a generic op-amp}
Let use now consider the op-amp as a {\bc}. According to
\clearpage
Let us now consider the op-amp as a {\bc}. According to
FMD-91~\cite{fmd91}[3-116] an op amp may have the following failure modes (with assigned probabilities):
latch-up(12.5\%), latch-down(6\%), no-operation(31.3\%), low~slew~rate(50\%).
\nocite{mil1991}
@ -745,6 +754,11 @@ The two components in this new {\fg} have failure modes.
\centering % used for centering table
\begin{tabular}{||l|c|c|l||}
\hline \hline
%% FUCKING HATE HAVING TO REMOVE THE TERM FAILURE SCENARIO --- whats is this the fucking
%%childrens version
%\textbf{Failure} & \textbf{Amplifier} & \textbf{Derived component} \\ %Symptom} \\
% \textbf{Scenario} & \textbf{Effect} & \textbf{Failure Modes} \\ %Description} \\
%%
\textbf{Fault} & \textbf{Amplifier} & \textbf{Derived component} \\ %Symptom} \\
\textbf{Mode} & \textbf{Effect} & \textbf{Failure Modes} \\ %Description} \\
% R & wire & res + & res - & description
@ -903,24 +917,25 @@ The two components in this new {\fg} have failure modes.
%amplification characteristics from FS2 and FS6 can be considered as low output from the OPAMP for the application
%in hand (say milli-volt signal amplification).
% For this amplifier configuration we have three {\dc} failure modes; {\em AMP\_High, AMP\_Low, LowPass}. % see figure~\ref{fig:fgampb}.
% This model now has two stages of analysis hierarchy,
% as represented in figure~\ref{fig:dc2}.
%
For this amplifier configuration we have three {\dc} failure modes; {\em AMP\_High, AMP\_Low, LowPass}. % see figure~\ref{fig:fgampb}.
This model now has two stages of analysis hierarchy,
as represented in figure~\ref{fig:dc2}.
From the analysis in table \ref{tbl:ampfmea1} we can create the {\dc} {\em NONINVAMP}, which
represents the failure mode behaviour of the non-inverting amplifier.
% \begin{figure}[h]
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=225pt]{./CH4_FMMD/dc2.png}
% % dc2.png: 635x778 pixel, 72dpi, 22.40x27.45 cm, bb=0 0 635 778
% \caption{Hierarchy representing the two stage FMMD analysis of the non-inverting amplifier}
% \label{fig:dc2}
% \end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=225pt]{./CH4_FMMD/dc2.png}
% dc2.png: 635x778 pixel, 72dpi, 22.40x27.45 cm, bb=0 0 635 778
\caption{Hierarchy representing the two stage FMMD analysis
(i.e. two `$\derivec$' processes taking {\fgs} and creating {\dcs}) for the non-inverting amplifier}
\label{fig:dc2}
\end{figure}
We can represent the hierarchy as an Euler diagram as well, where the curves
define the components and {\dcs} used to form {\fgs}, see figure~\ref{fig:eulerfmmd}.
We can also represent the hierarchy as an Euler diagram, where the curves
define the components and {\dcs} used to form the INVAMP model, see figure~\ref{fig:eulerfmmd}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
@ -1023,8 +1038,9 @@ Component & A building block, this may be a {\bc} or a {\dc}. \\%or manufacture
%this would be both a {\em{\dc}} and a {\fg}. \\
%{\em Constraint} & This object must have a defined set of failure~modes. \\ \hline
Failure mode & A way in which a component can fail. \\ \hline
%%A part failure mode is the way in which a component fails "functionally" on component level. Often a part has only a few failure modes.
Failure mode & A failure mode~\cite{sccs}[p.8] is the way in which a component may fail functionally (i.e. the way in which it can fail to perform
its intended function). A component will typically have few failure modes. \\ \hline
Functional Grouping & A collection of
components with a functional purpose.
@ -1039,10 +1055,12 @@ Derived Component & A theoretical component, created to represent the failure
{\em Constraint} & This object must have a defined set of failure~modes. \\ \hline
% UNITARY STATE NOT DISCUSSED HERE NOW......
% Unitary State & A component with `unitary~state' failure modes, means that it cannot fail
% with more than one of its failure modes at a time.\\ \hline
Unitary State & A component with `unitary~state' failure modes, means that it cannot fail
with more than one of its failure modes at a time.\\ \hline
%%%% TOLD TO REMOVE THIS BUT FUCKING HATE TO HAVE TO DO IT
% Failure Scenario & A single failure mode (or a combination), used to
% determine failure mode effects on a {\fg}.
\\
@ -1054,7 +1072,7 @@ with more than one of its failure modes at a time.\\ \hline
\end{table}
\subsection{Parts, Components and Base Components.}
\paragraph{A discussion on the terms Parts, Components and Base Components.}
A component is anything we use to build a %a product or
system.
It could be something quite complicated