34 lines
1.7 KiB
TeX
34 lines
1.7 KiB
TeX
\begin{abstract}
|
|
In failure mode analysis, it is essential to
|
|
know the failure modes of the sub-systems and components used.
|
|
This paper outlines a technique for determining the failure modes of a sub-system given
|
|
its components.
|
|
%
|
|
This paper describes a process for taking a functional~group of components,
|
|
applying FMEA analysis on all the component failure modes possible in that functional~group,
|
|
and then determining how that functional group can fail.
|
|
%
|
|
With this information, we can treat the functional group
|
|
as a component in its own right.
|
|
This new component is a derived from the functional~group.
|
|
In the field of safety engineering this derived component corresponds to a low~level sub-system.
|
|
|
|
Once the failure modes have been determined for a sub-system/derived~component,
|
|
this derived component can be combined with others to form functional groups
|
|
to model higher level sub-systems/derived~components.
|
|
In this way a hierarchy to represent the fault behaviour
|
|
of a system can be built from the bottom~up. This process can continue
|
|
until there is a complete hierarchy representing the failure mode
|
|
behaviour of the entire system under analysis.
|
|
%FMMD hierarchy
|
|
%Using the FMMD technique the hierarchy is built from the bottom up to ensure complete failure mode coverage.
|
|
Because the process is bottom-up, syntax checking and tracking can ensure that
|
|
no component failure mode can be overlooked.
|
|
Once a hierarchy is in place it can be converted into a fault data model.
|
|
%
|
|
From the fault data model, traditional FTA and FMEA models (sub-sets of the fault data model) can be derived if desired.
|
|
%
|
|
%
|
|
%This paper focuses on the process of building the blocks, the symptom extraction or abstraction process, that is key to creating an FMMD hierarchy.
|
|
\end{abstract}
|