Robin Clark
2078211ae0
Use and contrast two valid functional groups for the inverting amplifier r# Please enter the commit message for your changes. Lines starting
957 lines
34 KiB
Plaintext
957 lines
34 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
|
|
|
|
\ifthenelse {\boolean{paper}}
|
|
{
|
|
\abstract{
|
|
This paper analyses a non-inverting op-amp
|
|
configuration, with the opamp and gain resistors using the FMMD
|
|
methodology.
|
|
%
|
|
It has three base components, two resistors
|
|
and one op-amp.
|
|
|
|
The two resistors are used as a potential divider to program the gain
|
|
of the amplifier. We consider the two resistors as a functional group
|
|
where their function is to operate as a potential divider.
|
|
%
|
|
The base component error modes of the
|
|
resistors are used to model the potential divider from
|
|
a failure mode perspective.
|
|
%
|
|
We determine the failure symptoms of the potential divider and
|
|
consider these as failure modes of a new derived component.
|
|
|
|
We can now create a functional group representing the non-inverting amplifier,
|
|
by bringing the failure modes from the potential divider and
|
|
the op-amp into a functional group.
|
|
%
|
|
This can be analysed and a derived component to represent the non inverting
|
|
amplifier determined.
|
|
}
|
|
\section{Introduction}
|
|
}
|
|
{
|
|
This chapter analyses a non-inverting op-amp
|
|
configuration, with the opamp and gain resistors using the FMMD
|
|
methodology.
|
|
%
|
|
It has three base components, two resistors
|
|
and one op-amp.\section{Introduction}
|
|
|
|
The two resistors are used as a potential divider to program the gain
|
|
of the amplifier. We consider the two resistors as a functional group
|
|
where their function is to operate as a potential divider.
|
|
%
|
|
The base component error modes of the
|
|
resistors are used to model the potential divider from
|
|
a failure mode perspective.
|
|
%
|
|
We determine the failure symptoms of the potential divider and
|
|
consider these as failure modes of a new derived component.
|
|
|
|
We can create a functional group representing the non-inverting amplifier,
|
|
by bringing the failure modes from the potential divider and
|
|
the op-amp into a functional group.
|
|
%
|
|
This can now be analysed and a derived component to represent the non inverting
|
|
amplifier determined.
|
|
\section{Introduction: The non-inverting amplifier}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A standard non inverting op amp (from ``The Art of Electronics'' ~\cite{aoe}[pp.234]) is shown in figure \ref{fig:noninvamp}.
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}[h]
|
|
\centering
|
|
\includegraphics[width=200pt,keepaspectratio=true]{./noninvopamp/noninv.png}
|
|
% noninv.jpg: 341x186 pixel, 72dpi, 12.03x6.56 cm, bb=0 0 341 186
|
|
\caption{Standard non inverting amplifier configuration}
|
|
\label{fig:noninvamp}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The function of the resistors in this circuit is to set the amplifier gain.
|
|
They operate as a potential divider and program the minus input on the op-amp
|
|
to balance them against the positive input, giving the voltage gain ($G_v$)
|
|
defined by $ G_v = 1 + \frac{R2}{R1} $ at the output.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A functional group, is an ideally small in number collection of components,
|
|
that interact to provide
|
|
a function or task within a system.
|
|
As the resistors work to provide a specific function, that of a potential divider,
|
|
we can treat them as a functional group. This functional group has two members, $R1$ and $R2$.
|
|
Using the EN298 specification for resistor failure ~\cite{en298}[App.A]
|
|
we can assign failure modes of $OPEN$ and $SHORT$ to the resistors.
|
|
\ifthenelse {\boolean{dag}}
|
|
{
|
|
We can now represent a resistor in terms of its failure modes as a directed acyclic graph (DAG)
|
|
(see figure \ref{fig:rdag}).
|
|
\begin{figure}[h+]
|
|
\centering
|
|
\begin{tikzpicture}[shorten >=1pt,->,draw=black!50, node distance=\layersep]
|
|
\tikzstyle{every pin edge}=[<-,shorten <=1pt]
|
|
\tikzstyle{fmmde}=[circle,fill=black!25,minimum size=30pt,inner sep=0pt]
|
|
\tikzstyle{component}=[fmmde, fill=green!50];
|
|
\tikzstyle{failure}=[fmmde, fill=red!50];
|
|
\tikzstyle{symptom}=[fmmde, fill=blue!50];
|
|
\tikzstyle{annot} = [text width=4em, text centered]
|
|
\node[component] (R) at (0,-3) {$R$};
|
|
\node[failure] (RSHORT) at (\layersep,-2) {$R_{SHORT}$};
|
|
\node[failure] (ROPEN) at (\layersep,-4) {$R_{OPEN}$};
|
|
\path (R) edge (RSHORT);
|
|
\path (R) edge (ROPEN);
|
|
\end{tikzpicture}
|
|
\caption{DAG representing a reistor and its failure modes}
|
|
\label{fig:rdag}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
}
|
|
{
|
|
}
|
|
Thus $R1$ has failure modes $\{R1\_OPEN, R1\_SHORT\}$ and $R2$ has failure modes $\{R2\_OPEN, R2\_SHORT\}$.
|
|
|
|
|
|
%\clearpage
|
|
\section{Failure Mode Analysis of the Potential Divider}
|
|
|
|
\ifthenelse {\boolean{pld}}
|
|
{
|
|
Modelling this as a functional group, we can draw a simple closed curve
|
|
to represent each failure mode, taken from the components R1 and R2,
|
|
in the potential divider, shown in figure \ref{fig:fg1}.
|
|
\begin{figure}[h]
|
|
\centering
|
|
\includegraphics[width=200pt,keepaspectratio=true]{./noninvopamp/fg1.png}
|
|
% fg1.jpg: 430x271 pixel, 72dpi, 15.17x9.56 cm, bb=0 0 430 271
|
|
\caption{potential divider `functional group' failure modes}
|
|
\label{fig:fg1}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
}
|
|
{
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
\ifthenelse {\boolean{dag}}
|
|
{
|
|
Modelling this as a functional group, we can draw this as a directed graph
|
|
failure modes, taken from the components R1 and R2,
|
|
in the potential divider, shown in figure \ref{fig:fg1dag}.
|
|
\begin{figure}
|
|
\centering
|
|
\begin{tikzpicture}[shorten >=1pt,->,draw=black!50, node distance=\layersep]
|
|
\tikzstyle{every pin edge}=[<-,shorten <=1pt]
|
|
\tikzstyle{fmmde}=[circle,fill=black!25,minimum size=30pt,inner sep=0pt]
|
|
\tikzstyle{component}=[fmmde, fill=green!50];
|
|
\tikzstyle{failure}=[fmmde, fill=red!50];
|
|
\tikzstyle{symptom}=[fmmde, fill=blue!50];
|
|
\tikzstyle{annot} = [text width=4em, text centered]
|
|
|
|
\node[component] (R1) at (0,-4) {$R_1$};
|
|
\node[component] (R2) at (0,-6) {$R_2$};
|
|
|
|
\node[failure] (R1SHORT) at (\layersep,-2) {$R1_{SHORT}$};
|
|
\node[failure] (R1OPEN) at (\layersep,-4) {$R1_{OPEN}$};
|
|
|
|
\node[failure] (R2SHORT) at (\layersep,-6) {$R2_{SHORT}$};
|
|
\node[failure] (R2OPEN) at (\layersep,-8) {$R2_{OPEN}$};
|
|
|
|
\path (R1) edge (R1SHORT);
|
|
\path (R1) edge (R1OPEN);
|
|
|
|
\path (R2) edge (R2SHORT);
|
|
\path (R2) edge (R2OPEN);
|
|
|
|
% Potential divider failure modes
|
|
%
|
|
%\node[symptom] (PDHIGH) at (\layersep*2,-4) {$PD_{HIGH}$};
|
|
%\node[symptom] (PDLOW) at (\layersep*2,-6) {$PD_{LOW}$};
|
|
|
|
%\path (R1OPEN) edge (PDHIGH);
|
|
%\path (R2SHORT) edge (PDHIGH);
|
|
|
|
%\path (R2OPEN) edge (PDLOW);
|
|
%\path (R1SHORT) edge (PDLOW);
|
|
|
|
\end{tikzpicture}
|
|
|
|
\caption{DAG representing the functional group `Potential Divider'}
|
|
\label{fig:fg1dag}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
}
|
|
{
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
We can now look at each of these base component failure modes,
|
|
and determine how they will affect the operation of the potential divider.
|
|
%Each failure mode scenario we look at will be given a test case number,
|
|
%which is represented on the diagram, with an asterisk marking
|
|
%which failure modes is modelling (see figure \ref{fig:fg1a}).
|
|
|
|
\ifthenelse {\boolean{pld}}
|
|
{
|
|
Each labelled asterisk in the diagram represents a failure mode scenario.
|
|
The failure mode scenarios are given test case numbers, and an example to clarify this follows
|
|
in table~\ref{pdfmea}.
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}[h+]
|
|
\centering
|
|
\includegraphics[width=200pt,keepaspectratio=true]{./noninvopamp/fg1a.png}
|
|
% fg1a.jpg: 430x271 pixel, 72dpi, 15.17x9.56 cm, bb=0 0 430 271
|
|
\caption{potential divider with test cases}
|
|
\label{fig:fg1a}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
}
|
|
{
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
\ifthenelse {\boolean{dag}}
|
|
{
|
|
For this example we can look at single failure modes only.
|
|
For each failure mode in our {\fg} `potential~divider'
|
|
we can assign a test case number (see table \ref{pdfmea}).
|
|
Each test case is analysed to determine the `symptom'
|
|
on the potential dividers' operation. For instance
|
|
were the resistor $R_1$ to go open, the circuit would not be grounded and the
|
|
voltage output from it would be the +ve supply rail.
|
|
This would mean the symptom of the failed potential divider, would be that it
|
|
gives an output high voltage reading. We can now consider the {\fg}
|
|
as a component in its own right, and its symptoms as its failure modes.
|
|
|
|
From table \ref{pdfmea} we can see that resistor
|
|
failures modes lead to common symptoms.
|
|
By drawing connecting lines in the graph
|
|
we can represent them.
|
|
The {\fg} can now be considered a derived component.
|
|
This is represented in the DAG in figure \ref{fig:fg1adag}.
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}[h+]
|
|
\centering
|
|
\begin{tikzpicture}[shorten >=1pt,->,draw=black!50, node distance=\layersep]
|
|
\tikzstyle{every pin edge}=[<-,shorten <=1pt]
|
|
\tikzstyle{fmmde}=[circle,fill=black!25,minimum size=30pt,inner sep=0pt]
|
|
\tikzstyle{component}=[fmmde, fill=green!50];
|
|
\tikzstyle{failure}=[fmmde, fill=red!50];
|
|
\tikzstyle{symptom}=[fmmde, fill=blue!50];
|
|
\tikzstyle{annot} = [text width=4em, text centered]
|
|
|
|
\node[component] (R1) at (0,-4) {$R_1$};
|
|
\node[component] (R2) at (0,-6) {$R_2$};
|
|
|
|
\node[failure] (R1SHORT) at (\layersep,-2) {$R1_{SHORT}$};
|
|
\node[failure] (R1OPEN) at (\layersep,-4) {$R1_{OPEN}$};
|
|
|
|
\node[failure] (R2SHORT) at (\layersep,-6) {$R2_{SHORT}$};
|
|
\node[failure] (R2OPEN) at (\layersep,-8) {$R2_{OPEN}$};
|
|
|
|
\path (R1) edge (R1SHORT);
|
|
\path (R1) edge (R1OPEN);
|
|
|
|
\path (R2) edge (R2SHORT);
|
|
\path (R2) edge (R2OPEN);
|
|
|
|
% Potential divider failure modes
|
|
%
|
|
\node[symptom] (PDHIGH) at (\layersep*2,-4) {$PD_{HIGH}$};
|
|
\node[symptom] (PDLOW) at (\layersep*2,-6) {$PD_{LOW}$};
|
|
|
|
\path (R1OPEN) edge (PDHIGH);
|
|
\path (R2SHORT) edge (PDHIGH);
|
|
|
|
\path (R2OPEN) edge (PDLOW);
|
|
\path (R1SHORT) edge (PDLOW);
|
|
|
|
\end{tikzpicture}
|
|
|
|
\caption{Failure symptoms of the `Potential Divider'}
|
|
\label{fig:fg1adag}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
}
|
|
{
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
\begin{table}[ht]
|
|
\caption{Potential Divider: Failure Mode Effects Analysis: Single Faults} % title of Table
|
|
\centering % used for centering table
|
|
\begin{tabular}{||l|c|c|l|l||}
|
|
\hline \hline
|
|
\textbf{Test} & \textbf{Pot.Div} & \textbf{ } & \textbf{General} \\
|
|
\textbf{Case} & \textbf{Effect} & \textbf{ } & \textbf{Symtom Description} \\
|
|
% R & wire & res + & res - & description
|
|
\hline
|
|
\hline
|
|
TC1: $R_1$ SHORT & LOW & & LowPD \\
|
|
TC2: $R_1$ OPEN & HIGH & & HighPD \\ \hline
|
|
TC3: $R_2$ SHORT & HIGH & & HighPD \\
|
|
TC4: $R_2$ OPEN & LOW & & LowPD \\ \hline
|
|
\hline
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
|
\label{pdfmea}
|
|
\end{table}
|
|
|
|
\ifthenelse {\boolean{pld}}
|
|
{
|
|
We can now collect the symptoms of failure. From the four base component failure modes, we now
|
|
have two symptoms, where the potential divider will give an incorrect low voltage (which we can term $LowPD$)
|
|
or an incorrect high voltage (which we can term $HighPD$).
|
|
We can represent the collection of these symptoms by drawing connecting lines between
|
|
the test cases and naming them (see figure \ref{fig:fg1b}).
|
|
\begin{figure}[h+]
|
|
\centering
|
|
\includegraphics[width=200pt,keepaspectratio=true]{./noninvopamp/fg1b.png}
|
|
% fg1b.jpg: 430x271 pixel, 72dpi, 15.17x9.56 cm, bb=0 0 430 271
|
|
\caption{Collection of potential divider failure mode symptoms}
|
|
\label{fig:fg1b}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
%\clearpage
|
|
|
|
We can now make a `derived component' to represent this potential divider.
|
|
This can be named \textbf{PD}.
|
|
This {\dc} will have two failure modes.
|
|
We can use the symbol $\bowtie$ to represent taking the analysed
|
|
{\fg} and creating from it, a {\dc}.
|
|
|
|
%We could represent it algebraically thus: $ \bowtie(PotDiv) =
|
|
\begin{figure}[h+]
|
|
\centering
|
|
\includegraphics[width=200pt,keepaspectratio=true]{./noninvopamp/dc1.png}
|
|
% 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}
|
|
}
|
|
{
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
\ifthenelse {\boolean{dag}}
|
|
{
|
|
We can now represent the potential divider as a {\dc}.
|
|
Because have its symptoms or failure mode behaviour,
|
|
we can treat these as the failure modes of a a new {\dc}.
|
|
We can represent it now as a DAG (see \ref{fig:dc1dag}).
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}[h+]
|
|
\centering
|
|
\begin{tikzpicture}[shorten >=1pt,->,draw=black!50, node distance=\layersep]
|
|
\tikzstyle{every pin edge}=[<-,shorten <=1pt]
|
|
\tikzstyle{fmmde}=[circle,fill=black!25,minimum size=30pt,inner sep=0pt]
|
|
\tikzstyle{component}=[fmmde, fill=green!50];
|
|
\tikzstyle{failure}=[fmmde, fill=red!50];
|
|
\tikzstyle{symptom}=[fmmde, fill=blue!50];
|
|
\tikzstyle{annot} = [text width=4em, text centered]
|
|
\node[component] (PD) at (0,-3) {$PD$};
|
|
\node[symptom] (PDHIGH) at (\layersep,-2) {$PD_{HIGH}$};
|
|
\node[symptom] (PDLOW) at (\layersep,-4) {$PD_{LOW}$};
|
|
\path (PD) edge (PDHIGH);
|
|
\path (PD) edge (PDLOW);
|
|
\end{tikzpicture}
|
|
\caption{DAG representing a Potential Divider (PD) its failure symptoms}
|
|
\label{fig:dc1dag}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
{
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because the derived component is defined by its failure modes and
|
|
the functional group used to derive it, we can use it
|
|
as a building block for other {\fgs} in the same way as we used the resistors $R1$ and $R2$.
|
|
|
|
\clearpage
|
|
|
|
\section{Failure Mode Analysis of the OP-AMP}
|
|
|
|
Let use now consider the op-amp. According to
|
|
FMD-91~\cite{fmd91}[3-116] an op amp may have the following failure modes:
|
|
latchup(12.5\%), latchdown(6\%), nooperation(31.3\%), lowslewrate(50\%).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\ifthenelse {\boolean{pld}}
|
|
{
|
|
We can represent these failure modes on a diagram (see figure~\ref{fig:op1}).
|
|
\begin{figure}[h+]
|
|
\centering
|
|
\includegraphics[width=200pt,keepaspectratio=true]{./noninvopamp/op1.png}
|
|
% op1.jpg: 406x221 pixel, 72dpi, 14.32x7.80 cm, bb=0 0 406 221
|
|
\caption{Op Amp failure modes}
|
|
\label{fig:op1}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
}
|
|
{
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
\ifthenelse {\boolean{dag}}
|
|
{
|
|
We can represent these failure modes on a DAG (see figure~\ref{fig:op1dag}).
|
|
\begin{figure}
|
|
\centering
|
|
\begin{tikzpicture}[shorten >=1pt,->,draw=black!50, node distance=\layersep]
|
|
\tikzstyle{every pin edge}=[<-,shorten <=1pt]
|
|
\tikzstyle{fmmde}=[circle,fill=black!25,minimum size=30pt,inner sep=0pt]
|
|
\tikzstyle{component}=[fmmde, fill=green!50];
|
|
\tikzstyle{failure}=[fmmde, fill=red!50];
|
|
\tikzstyle{symptom}=[fmmde, fill=blue!50];
|
|
\tikzstyle{annot} = [text width=4em, text centered]
|
|
|
|
\node[component] (OPAMP) at (0,-4) {$OPAMP$};
|
|
|
|
\node[failure] (OPAMPLU) at (\layersep,-0) {latchup};
|
|
\node[failure] (OPAMPLD) at (\layersep,-2) {latchdown};
|
|
\node[failure] (OPAMPNP) at (\layersep,-4) {noop};
|
|
\node[failure] (OPAMPLS) at (\layersep,-6) {lowslew};
|
|
|
|
\path (OPAMP) edge (OPAMPLU);
|
|
\path (OPAMP) edge (OPAMPLD);
|
|
\path (OPAMP) edge (OPAMPNP);
|
|
\path (OPAMP) edge (OPAMPLS);
|
|
|
|
\end{tikzpicture}
|
|
% End of code
|
|
\caption{DAG representing failure modes of an Op-amp}
|
|
\label{fig:op1dag}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
{
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
%\clearpage
|
|
|
|
\section{Bringing the OP amp and the potential divider together}
|
|
|
|
We can now consider bringing the OP amp and the potential divider together to
|
|
model the non inverting amplifier. We have the failure modes of the functional group for the potential divider,
|
|
so we do not need to consider the individual resistor failure modes that define its behaviour.
|
|
We can make a new functional group to represent the amplifier, by bringing the component \textbf{opamp}
|
|
and the component potential divider \textbf{PD} into a new functional group.
|
|
|
|
\ifthenelse {\boolean{pld}}
|
|
{
|
|
This functional group has the failure modes from the op-amp component, and the failure modes
|
|
from the potential divider {\dc}, represented by figure~\ref{fig:fgamp}.
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}[h+]
|
|
\centering
|
|
\includegraphics[width=200pt,keepaspectratio=true]{./noninvopamp/fgamp.png}
|
|
% fgamp.jpg: 430x330 pixel, 72dpi, 15.17x11.64 cm, bb=0 0 430 330
|
|
\caption{Amplifier Functional Group}
|
|
\label{fig:fgamp}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
We can now place test cases on this (note this analysis considers single failure modes only
|
|
where we want to model multiple failures, we can over lap contours, and place the test cases in overlapping
|
|
regions) see figure~\ref{fig:fgampa}.
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}[h+]
|
|
\centering
|
|
\includegraphics[width=200pt,keepaspectratio=true]{./noninvopamp/fgampa.png}
|
|
% fgampa.jpg: 430x330 pixel, 72dpi, 15.17x11.64 cm, bb=0 0 430 330 hno
|
|
\caption{Amplifier Functional Group with Test Cases}
|
|
\label{fig:fgampa}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
}
|
|
{
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
\ifthenelse {\boolean{dag}}
|
|
{
|
|
We can now represent the {\fg} for the non-inverting amplifier
|
|
by bringing together the failure modes from \textbf{opamp} and \textbf{PD}.
|
|
Each of these failure modes will be given a test case for analysis,
|
|
and this is represented in table \ref{ampfmea}.
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
{
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
\clearpage
|
|
|
|
\begin{table}[ht]
|
|
\caption{Non Inverting Amplifier: Failure Mode Effects Analysis: Single Faults} % title of Table
|
|
\centering % used for centering table
|
|
\begin{tabular}{||l|c|c|l|l||}
|
|
\hline \hline
|
|
\textbf{Test} & \textbf{Amplifier} & \textbf{ } & \textbf{General} \\
|
|
\textbf{Case} & \textbf{Effect} & \textbf{ } & \textbf{Symtom Description} \\
|
|
% R & wire & res + & res - & description
|
|
\hline
|
|
\hline
|
|
TC1: $OPAMP$ LatchUP & Output High & & AMPHigh \\
|
|
TC2: $OPAMP$ LatchDown & Output Low : Low gain& & AMPLow \\ \hline
|
|
TC3: $OPAMP$ No Operation & Output Low & & AMPLow \\
|
|
TC4: $OPAMP$ Low Slew & Low pass filtering & & LowPass \\ \hline
|
|
TC5: $PD$ LowPD & Output High & & AMPHigh \\ \hline
|
|
TC6: $PD$ HighPD & Output Low : Low Gain& & AMPLow \\ \hline
|
|
%TC7: $R_2$ OPEN & LOW & & LowPD \\ \hline
|
|
\hline
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
|
\label{ampfmea}
|
|
\end{table}
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let us consider, for the sake of example, that the voltage follower (very low gain of 1.0)
|
|
amplification chracteristics from
|
|
TC2 and TC6 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 failure modes, $AMPHigh, AMPLow, LowPass$.%see figure~\ref{fig:fgampb}.
|
|
\ifthenelse {\boolean{pld}}
|
|
{
|
|
We can now derive a `component' to represent this amplifier configuration (see figure ~\ref{fig:noninvampa}).
|
|
\begin{figure}[h+]
|
|
\centering
|
|
\includegraphics[width=200pt,keepaspectratio=true]{./noninvopamp/noninvampa.png}
|
|
% noninvampa.jpg: 436x720 pixel, 72dpi, 15.38x25.40 cm, bb=0 0 436 720
|
|
\caption{Non Inverting Amplifier Derived Component}
|
|
\label{fig:noninvampa}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
}
|
|
{
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
\ifthenelse {\boolean{dag}}
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}
|
|
\centering
|
|
\begin{tikzpicture}[shorten >=1pt,->,draw=black!50, node distance=\layersep]
|
|
\tikzstyle{every pin edge}=[<-,shorten <=1pt]
|
|
\tikzstyle{fmmde}=[circle,fill=black!25,minimum size=30pt,inner sep=0pt]
|
|
\tikzstyle{component}=[fmmde, fill=green!50];
|
|
\tikzstyle{failure}=[fmmde, fill=red!50];
|
|
\tikzstyle{symptom}=[fmmde, fill=blue!50];
|
|
\tikzstyle{annot} = [text width=4em, text centered]
|
|
|
|
\node[component] (OPAMP) at (0,-4) {$OPAMP$};
|
|
\node[failure] (OPAMPLU) at (\layersep,-0) {latchup};
|
|
\node[failure] (OPAMPLD) at (\layersep,-2) {latchdown};
|
|
\node[failure] (OPAMPNP) at (\layersep,-4) {noop};
|
|
\node[failure] (OPAMPLS) at (\layersep,-6) {lowslew};
|
|
\path (OPAMP) edge (OPAMPLU);
|
|
\path (OPAMP) edge (OPAMPLD);
|
|
\path (OPAMP) edge (OPAMPNP);
|
|
\path (OPAMP) edge (OPAMPLS);
|
|
|
|
|
|
\node[component] (PD) at (0,-9) {$PD$};
|
|
\node[symptom] (PDHIGH) at (\layersep,-8) {$PD_{HIGH}$};
|
|
\node[symptom] (PDLOW) at (\layersep,-10) {$PD_{LOW}$};
|
|
\path (PD) edge (PDHIGH);
|
|
\path (PD) edge (PDLOW);
|
|
|
|
\node[symptom] (AMPHIGH) at (\layersep*4,-3) {$AMP_{HIGH}$};
|
|
\node[symptom] (AMPLOW) at (\layersep*4,-5) {$AMP_{LOW}$};
|
|
\node[symptom] (AMPLP) at (\layersep*4,-7) {$LOWPASS$};
|
|
|
|
\path (PDLOW) edge (AMPHIGH);
|
|
\path (OPAMPLU) edge (AMPHIGH);
|
|
|
|
\path (PDHIGH) edge (AMPLOW);
|
|
\path (OPAMPNP) edge (AMPLOW);
|
|
\path (OPAMPLD) edge (AMPLOW);
|
|
\path (OPAMPLS) edge (AMPLP);
|
|
\end{tikzpicture}
|
|
% End of code
|
|
\caption{DAG representing failure modes and symptoms of the Non Inverting Op-amp Circuit}
|
|
\label{fig:noninvdag0}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
}
|
|
{
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
%failure mode contours).
|
|
%\clearpage
|
|
\clearpage
|
|
\section{Failure Modes from non inverting amplifier as a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG)}
|
|
\ifthenelse {\boolean{pld}}
|
|
{
|
|
We can now represent the FMMD analysis as a directed graph, see figure \ref{fig:noninvdag0}.
|
|
With the information structured in this way, we can trace the high level failure mode symptoms
|
|
back to their potential causes.
|
|
}
|
|
{
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
\ifthenelse {\boolean{dag}}
|
|
{
|
|
We can now expand the $PD$ {\dc} and now have a full FMMD failure mode model
|
|
drawn as a DAG, which we can use to traverse to determine the possible causes to
|
|
the three high level symptoms, or failure~modes of the non-inverting amplifier.
|
|
Figure \ref{fig:noninvdag0} shows a fully expanded DAG, from which we can derive information
|
|
to assist in building models for FTA, FMEA, FMECA and FMEDA failure mode analysis methodologies.
|
|
}
|
|
{
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}
|
|
\centering
|
|
\begin{tikzpicture}[shorten >=1pt,->,draw=black!50, node distance=\layersep]
|
|
\tikzstyle{every pin edge}=[<-,shorten <=1pt]
|
|
\tikzstyle{fmmde}=[circle,fill=black!25,minimum size=30pt,inner sep=0pt]
|
|
\tikzstyle{component}=[fmmde, fill=green!50];
|
|
\tikzstyle{failure}=[fmmde, fill=red!50];
|
|
\tikzstyle{symptom}=[fmmde, fill=blue!50];
|
|
\tikzstyle{annot} = [text width=4em, text centered]
|
|
|
|
% Draw the input layer nodes
|
|
%\foreach \name / \y in {1,...,4}
|
|
% This is the same as writing \foreach \name / \y in {1/1,2/2,3/3,4/4}
|
|
% \node[component, pin=left:Input \#\y] (I-\name) at (0,-\y) {};
|
|
|
|
\node[component] (OPAMP) at (0,-4) {$OPAMP$};
|
|
\node[component] (R1) at (0,-9) {$R_1$};
|
|
\node[component] (R2) at (0,-13) {$R_2$};
|
|
|
|
%\node[component] (C-3) at (0,-5) {$C^0_3$};
|
|
%\node[component] (K-4) at (0,-8) {$K^0_4$};
|
|
%\node[component] (C-5) at (0,-10) {$C^0_5$};
|
|
%\node[component] (C-6) at (0,-12) {$C^0_6$};
|
|
%\node[component] (K-7) at (0,-15) {$K^0_7$};
|
|
|
|
% Draw the hidden layer nodes
|
|
%\foreach \name / \y in {1,...,5}
|
|
% \path[yshift=0.5cm]
|
|
|
|
\node[failure] (OPAMPLU) at (\layersep,-0) {latchup};
|
|
\node[failure] (OPAMPLD) at (\layersep,-2) {latchdown};
|
|
\node[failure] (OPAMPNP) at (\layersep,-4) {noop};
|
|
\node[failure] (OPAMPLS) at (\layersep,-6) {lowslew};
|
|
|
|
\node[failure] (R1SHORT) at (\layersep,-9) {$R1_{SHORT}$};
|
|
\node[failure] (R1OPEN) at (\layersep,-11) {$R1_{OPEN}$};
|
|
|
|
\node[failure] (R2SHORT) at (\layersep,-13) {$R2_{SHORT}$};
|
|
\node[failure] (R2OPEN) at (\layersep,-15) {$R2_{OPEN}$};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% Draw the output layer node
|
|
|
|
% % Connect every node in the input layer with every node in the
|
|
% % hidden layer.
|
|
% %\foreach \source in {1,...,4}
|
|
% % \foreach \dest in {1,...,5}
|
|
\path (OPAMP) edge (OPAMPLU);
|
|
\path (OPAMP) edge (OPAMPLD);
|
|
\path (OPAMP) edge (OPAMPNP);
|
|
\path (OPAMP) edge (OPAMPLS);
|
|
|
|
\path (R1) edge (R1SHORT);
|
|
\path (R1) edge (R1OPEN);
|
|
|
|
\path (R2) edge (R2SHORT);
|
|
\path (R2) edge (R2OPEN);
|
|
|
|
|
|
% Potential divider failure modes
|
|
%
|
|
\node[symptom] (PDHIGH) at (\layersep*2,-11) {$PD_{HIGH}$};
|
|
\node[symptom] (PDLOW) at (\layersep*2,-13) {$PD_{LOW}$};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\path (R1OPEN) edge (PDHIGH);
|
|
\path (R2SHORT) edge (PDHIGH);
|
|
|
|
|
|
\path (R2OPEN) edge (PDLOW);
|
|
\path (R1SHORT) edge (PDLOW);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\node[symptom] (AMPHIGH) at (\layersep*4,-6) {$AMP_{HIGH}$};
|
|
\node[symptom] (AMPLOW) at (\layersep*4,-8) {$AMP_{LOW}$};
|
|
\node[symptom] (AMPLP) at (\layersep*4,-10) {$LOWPASS$};
|
|
|
|
\path (PDLOW) edge (AMPHIGH);
|
|
\path (OPAMPLU) edge (AMPHIGH);
|
|
|
|
\path (PDHIGH) edge (AMPLOW);
|
|
\path (OPAMPNP) edge (AMPLOW);
|
|
\path (OPAMPLD) edge (AMPLOW);
|
|
|
|
\path (OPAMPLS) edge (AMPLP);
|
|
% %\node[symptom,pin={[pin edge={->}]right:Output}, right of=C-1a] (O) {};
|
|
% \node[symptom, right of=C-1a] (s1) {s1};
|
|
% \node[symptom, right of=C-2a] (s2) {s2};
|
|
%
|
|
%
|
|
%
|
|
% \path (C-2b) edge (s1);
|
|
% \path (C-1a) edge (s1);
|
|
%
|
|
% \path (C-2a) edge (s2);
|
|
% \path (C-1b) edge (s2);
|
|
%
|
|
% %\node[component, right of=s1] (DC) {$C^1_1$};
|
|
%
|
|
% %\path (s1) edge (DC);
|
|
% %\path (s2) edge (DC);
|
|
%
|
|
%
|
|
%
|
|
% % Connect every node in the hidden layer with the output layer
|
|
% %\foreach \source in {1,...,5}
|
|
% % \path (H-\source) edge (O);
|
|
%
|
|
% % Annotate the layers
|
|
% \node[annot,above of=C-1a, node distanc
|
|
e=1cm] (hl) {Failure modes};
|
|
% \node[annot,left of=hl] {Base Components};
|
|
% \node[annot,right of=hl](s) {Symptoms};
|
|
%\node[annot,right of=s](dcl) {Derived Component};
|
|
\end{tikzpicture}
|
|
% End of code
|
|
\caption{DAG representing failure modes and symptoms of the Non Inverting Op-amp Circuit}
|
|
\label{fig:noninvdag0}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\section{Extracting Fault Trees from the DAG}
|
|
|
|
We can derive an FTA~\cite{nucfta}~\cite{nasafta} diagram for a top level event, by tracing back through the DAG.
|
|
Where we come to a node with more than one error source, this becomes an xor gate
|
|
in the FTA diagram. Tracing back from the top level event $AMP Low$ we are lead to
|
|
the $OPAMP latch down$ and $OP amp Noop$. These two events can cause the symptom $AMP Low$.
|
|
We can also trace back down to the symptom $PD High$. Thus we have three
|
|
possible cause for $AMP LOW$, and so we can draw a three input
|
|
`xor' gate below $AMP Low$, to which $OPAMP latch down$, $OP amp Noop$ and $PD High$
|
|
connect to from below\footnote{XOR is used here, because we are considering single failures only.
|
|
This is a weakness in FTA diagrams, as it is clumsy to represent
|
|
conjunction and dis-junction sourced from the same failure modes.
|
|
For instance, for $AMP_{low}$ to use an OR gate, would saying that all elements of the powerset of
|
|
$\{ OPAMP_{latch down}, OPAMP_{noop}, PD_{high}\}$ will cause the symptom $AMP_{low}$.
|
|
Were $PD_{high} \wedge OPAMP_{noop}$ to be true, the output
|
|
would be floating and this would be a new failure mode to consider.
|
|
So for the example of $AMP_{low}$ using OR as opposed to an XOR gate would be a mistake.
|
|
% FTA OR TRAP.... OR IS MORE WORK THEN YOU INITIALLY THINK....
|
|
}.
|
|
$OPAMP latch down$ and $OP amp Noop$ are base level or component events, and so we cannot
|
|
trace them down any further.
|
|
$PD High$ is a symptom, and can be traced further.
|
|
$PD High$ can occur by either event $R1_{open}$ or $R2_{short}$.
|
|
We can place an or gate below $PD High$ and connect the events $R1_{open}$ or $R2_{short}$
|
|
to it.
|
|
The FTA diagram directly derived from the FMMD DAG is shown in figure \ref{fig:noninvfta}.
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}
|
|
\begin{tikzpicture}[
|
|
% Gates and symbols style
|
|
and/.style={and gate US,thick,draw,fill=blue!40,rotate=90,
|
|
anchor=east,xshift=-1mm},
|
|
or/.style={xor gate US,thick,draw,fill=blue!40,rotate=90,
|
|
anchor=east,xshift=-1mm},
|
|
be/.style={circle,thick,draw,fill=white!60,anchor=north,
|
|
minimum width=0.7cm},
|
|
tr/.style={buffer gate US,thick,draw,fill=white!60,rotate=90,
|
|
anchor=east,minimum width=0.8cm},
|
|
% Label style
|
|
label distance=3mm,
|
|
every label/.style={blue},
|
|
% Event style
|
|
event/.style={rectangle,thick,draw,fill=yellow!20,text width=2cm,
|
|
text centered,font=\sffamily,anchor=north},
|
|
% Children and edges style
|
|
edge from parent/.style={very thick,draw=black!70},
|
|
edge from parent path={(\tikzparentnode.south) -- ++(0,-1.05cm)
|
|
-| (\tikzchildnode.north)},
|
|
level 1/.style={sibling distance=7cm,level distance=1.4cm,
|
|
growth parent anchor=south,nodes=event},
|
|
level 2/.style={sibling distance=7cm},
|
|
level 3/.style={sibling distance=6cm},
|
|
level 4/.style={sibling distance=3cm}
|
|
%% For compatability with PGF CVS add the absolute option:
|
|
% absolute
|
|
]
|
|
%% Draw events and edges
|
|
%\node (g1) [event] {AMP Low}
|
|
%
|
|
% child { node (g1) { triple or gate }
|
|
%
|
|
% child { node (PDHigh) { double or gate }
|
|
% child { node (g2) {G02} {
|
|
% child {node (r1o) {$R1_{open}$}}
|
|
% child {node (r2s) {$R2_{short}$}}
|
|
% }
|
|
% }
|
|
% }
|
|
% child {node (opld) {opamp latch down}}
|
|
% child {node (opnp) {opamp noop}}
|
|
%
|
|
% };
|
|
|
|
\node (g1) [event] {amp low}
|
|
|
|
child {
|
|
node (g2) {op amp output voltage low}
|
|
child {node
|
|
(t1) {pd high}
|
|
child { node (g4) {potential divider voltage high}
|
|
child {node (b1) {r1 open}}
|
|
child {node (b2) {r2 short}}
|
|
}
|
|
%child { node (g5) {No flow from Component A2}
|
|
% child {node (t2) {No flow from source2}}
|
|
% child {node (b3) {Component A2 blocks flow}}
|
|
%}
|
|
}
|
|
child {node (b3) {OP amp latch dn}}
|
|
child {node (b4) {OP amp no op}}
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
%% Place gates and other symbols
|
|
%% In the CVS version of PGF labels are placed differently than in PGF 2.0
|
|
%% To render them correctly replace '-20' with 'right' and add the 'absolute'
|
|
%% option to the tikzpicture environment. The absolute option makes the
|
|
%% node labels ignore the rotation of the parent node.
|
|
%\node [or] at (g1.south) [label=-20:G01] {};
|
|
\node [or] at (g2.south) [label=-20:G01] {};
|
|
\node [or] at (g4.south) [label=-20:G02] {};
|
|
% \node [and] at (g3.south) [label=-20:G03] {};
|
|
% \node [or] at (g4.south) [label=-20:G04] {};
|
|
% \node [or] at (g5.south) [label=-20:G05] {};
|
|
\node [be] at (b1.south) [label=below:B01] {};
|
|
\node [be] at (b2.south) [label=below:B02] {};
|
|
\node [be] at (b3.south) [label=below:B03] {};
|
|
\node [be] at (b4.south) [label=below:B04] {};
|
|
% \node [tr] at (t1.south) [label=below:T01] {};
|
|
% \node [tr] at (t2.south) [label=below:T02] {};
|
|
%%
|
|
|
|
\end{tikzpicture}
|
|
\label{fig:noninvfta}
|
|
\caption{Example FTA Derived from the DAG for symptom `Amp Low'}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Information missing in FTA}
|
|
|
|
|
|
to expand: Each FTA deals only with one symptom.
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Further refinements}
|
|
|
|
to expand: Cuts sets and minimal cut sets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
\clearpage
|
|
\section{Assisting FMEA reports from the DAG}
|
|
|
|
|
|
A design FMEA, or potential failure mode and effects analysis
|
|
will typically require the designer to look at the possible effects
|
|
of all the component failure modes in the system under investigation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
FMEA uses the terms `potential causes' and `potential failure modes'.
|
|
In an FMMD sense, the `potential causes' are component level failure modes
|
|
and the `potential failure modes' are top-level symptoms.
|
|
|
|
\ifthenelse {\boolean{paper}}
|
|
{
|
|
%FMEA - brief description for paper...
|
|
Design FMEA is methodology for assessing potential reliability/dangerous conditions early
|
|
in the development cycle.
|
|
FMEA is used to identify potential failure modes,
|
|
determine their effect on the operation of the product,
|
|
and identify actions to mitigate the failures.
|
|
FMEA relies anticipating what {\em might} go wrong with a product.
|
|
While anticipating every failure mode is not possible, a development team should
|
|
collate as complete a list of potential failure modes as possible.
|
|
|
|
With an FMMD sourced failure mode to symptom mapping, this
|
|
list should be more complete. It will for instance include
|
|
not only an entry every component failure mode, but has a formal
|
|
reasoning process behind it, which leads to the symptom.
|
|
}
|
|
{
|
|
See section \ref{pfmea} for an overview of FMEA.
|
|
FMEA relies anticipating what {\em might} go wrong with a product.
|
|
While anticipating every failure mode is not possible, a development team should
|
|
collate as complete a list of potential failure modes as possible.
|
|
With an FMMD sourced failure mode to symptom mapping, this
|
|
list should be more complete.
|
|
|
|
It will for instance include
|
|
not only an entry every component failure mode, but has a formal
|
|
reasoning process behind it, which leads to the symptom.
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
We have from the DAG model, a direct path from each component failure
|
|
mode to top-level symptoms. This allows us to partially fill in
|
|
the FMEA report. The detectability and severity of the symptom
|
|
are subjective. Given component failure rates, the probability
|
|
of the the potential cause occurring can be calculated, given suitable
|
|
component failure mode statistical references (e.g. FMD-91~\cite{fmd91} and MIL1991~\cite{mil1991}).
|
|
|
|
\begin{table}[ht]
|
|
\caption{Non Inverting Amplifier: Failure Mode Effects Analysis: Single Faults} % title of Table
|
|
\centering % used for center
|
|
ing table
|
|
\begin{tabular}{||l|l|c|l|c|c|c||}
|
|
\hline \hline
|
|
\textbf{Item} & \textbf{Potential Failure} & \textbf{ Sev } & \textbf{Potential} & \textbf{prob} & \textbf{det} & \textbf{RPN} \\
|
|
\textbf{Function} & \textbf{mode} & \textbf{ /cost }& \textbf{Cause} & \textbf{/occ } & \textbf{} & \\\hline
|
|
\hline
|
|
Non Inverting & $AMP_{high}$ & & $R1_{short} $ & & & \\
|
|
Amplifier & $AMP_{low}$ & & $R1_{open} $ & & & \\
|
|
Circuit & $AMP_{low}$ & & $R2_{short} $ & & & \\
|
|
& $AMP_{high}$ & & $R2_{open}$ & & & \\
|
|
|
|
& $AMP_{lowpass}$ & & $OPAMP_{lowslew}$ & & & \\
|
|
& $AMP_{low}$ & & $OPAMP_{latchdown}$ & & & \\
|
|
& $AMP_{high}$ & & $OPAMP_{latchup}$ & & & \\
|
|
& $AMP_{low}$ & & $OPAMP_{noop} $ & & & \\
|
|
|
|
|
|
\hline
|
|
\hline
|
|
\hline
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
|
\label{ampfmea}
|
|
\end{table}
|
|
|
|
|
|
With the partially filled in table the FMEA report only now needs the severity/cost,
|
|
probability/occurrence and detectability fields filled in to obtain the
|
|
$RPN$ numbers that define the order of importance of failure modes in FMEA.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Information missing in FMEA}
|
|
|
|
to expand: Each FMEA looses the reasoning in the FMMD Hierarchy/DAG for linking
|
|
the symptoms to the potential causes.
|
|
FMEA can miss symptoms especially where a component failure mode may cause more than one top-level symptom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Work out the alpha and beta values !!!
|
|
|
|
\section{Extracting FMEDA from the DAG}
|
|
|
|
\section{Conclusion}
|
|
|
|
We now have a derived component that represents the failure modes of a non-inverting
|
|
op-amp based amplifier. We can now use this to model higher level designs, where we have systems
|
|
that use this type of amplifier.
|
|
If failure mode/reliability statistics were required these could be derived
|
|
from the model, as each failure mode of the derived component
|
|
is traceable to one or more base component failure mode causes, for which established
|
|
statistical literature is available ~\cite{mil1991}~\cite{fmd91}.
|
|
Software used to edit these diagrams, keeps the model in a directed acyclic graph data structure
|
|
for this purpose.
|
|
|
|
\clearpage
|
|
%\end{document} |