Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T21:19:53.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Function-based failure propagation for conceptual design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2009

Daniel Krus  and
Katie Grantham Lough
Daniel Krus
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, Missouri, USA
Katie Grantham Lough
Affiliation:
Department of Interdisciplinary Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, Missouri, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When designing a product, the earlier the potential risks can be identified, the more costs can be saved, as it is easier to modify a design in its early stages. Several methods exist to analyze the risk in a system, but all require a mature design. However, by applying the concept of “common interfaces” to a functional model and utilizing a historical knowledge base, it is possible to analyze chains of failures during the conceptual phase of product design. This paper presents a method based on these common interfaces to be used in conjunction with other methods such as risk in early design to allow a more complete risk analysis during the conceptual design phase. Finally, application of this method is demonstrated in a design setting by applying it to a thermal control subsystem.

Keywords

Conceptual DesignFunction-Based DesignProbabilistic Risk Analysis
Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 23 , Issue 4: Problem Solving Methods: Past, Present, and Future , November 2009 , pp. 409 - 426
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anand, A., & Somani, A.K. (1998). Hierarchical analysis of fault trees with dependencies, using decomposition. Proc. Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedford, T., & Cooke, R. (2001). Probabilistic Risk Analysis: Foundations and Methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell Helicopter Textron. (1997). Long Ranger IV Product Data, Report No. Bell 206L-4. Ft. Worth, TX: Bell Helicopter Textron.Google Scholar
Bell Helicopter Textron. (1999). Product Data, Report No. Bell 206B-3. Ft. Worth, TX: Bell Helicopter Textron.Google Scholar
Bryant, C.R., Stone, R.B., McAdams, D.A., Kurtoglu, T., & Campbell, M.I. (2005). Concept generation from the functional basis of design. Int. Conf. Engineering Design, ICED ’05, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
CAIB. (2003). Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report. Arlington, VA: CAIB.Google Scholar
Clarkson, J., Simons, C., & Eckert, C. (2001). Predicting Change Propagation in Complex Design. Proc. ASME DETC ’01, Pittsburgh, PA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, N. (2000). Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
Deutsch, M.-J., & Nichols, J.S. (2000). Advanced approach to concept and design studies for space missions. Astrophysics and Space Science 273, 201–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dym, C.L., & Little, P. (2004). Engineering Design: A Project-Based Introduction. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Eckert, C., Clarkson, P.J., & Zanker, W. (2004). Change and customization in complex engineering domains. Research in Engineering Design 15, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, M.V. (1999). Reentry safety: probability of fuel release. ESREL ‘99.Google Scholar
Grantham Lough, K. (2005). Risk in Early Design. Rolla, MO: University of Missouri–Rolla.Google Scholar
Grantham Lough, K., Stone, R.B., Turner, I.Y. et al. (2006a). Prescribing and implementing the risk in early design (RED) method. Proc. ASME DETC ’06, Philadelphia, PA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grantham Lough, K., Stone, R.B., & Turner, I. (2006b). The risk in early design (RED) method: likelihood and consequence formulations. Proc. ASME DETC ’06, Philadelphia, PA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grantham Lough, K., & Krus, D. (2007). Breaking the cycle—preventing failures by leveraging historical data during conceptual design. Proc. Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing ’07, Las Vegas, NV.Google Scholar
Hirtz, J., Stone, R.B., McAdams, D.A., Szykman, S., & Wood, K.L. (2002). A functional basis for engineering design: reconciling and evolving previous efforts. Research in Engineering Design 13 ( 2), 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarratt, T.A.W., Stone, R.B., Clarkson, P.J., Parks, C.T., & Eckert, C.M. (2002). Use of Monte Carlo methods in the prediction of change propagation. Engineering Design Conf., King's College, London.Google Scholar
Kumamoto, H., & Henley, E.J. (1996). Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Management for Engineers and Scientists. New York: IEEE Press.Google Scholar
Lions, J.L. (1996). Ariane 5 Flight 501 Failure. Paris: Inquiry Board.Google Scholar
US Department of Defense. (1980). Procedures for Performing a Failure Mode: Effects and Criticality Analysis, Report No. MIL-P-1629A. Washington, DC: US Department of Defense.Google Scholar
National Academy of Sciences. (1998). Improving the Continued Airworthiness of Civil Aircraft: A Strategy for the FAA's Aircraft Certification Service. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Otto, K., & Wood, K. (2001). Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering, Systematic Design, and New Product Development. New York: Prentice–Hall.Google Scholar
Schellhorn, G., Thums, A., & Reif, W. (2002). Formal fault tree semantics. Proc. 6th World Conf. Integrated Design and Process Technology, Pasadena, CA.Google Scholar
Stone, R., & Wood, K. (2000). Development of a functional basis for design. Journal of Mechanical Design 122 ( 4), 359–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, R.B., Turner, I.Y., & Van Wie, M. (2004). The function–failure design method. Journal of Mechanical Design 127 ( 3), 397–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
USNR Commission. (1975). Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, Appendix I: Accident Definition and Use of Event Trees. Washington, DC: USNR Commission.Google Scholar
Van Wie, M., Grantham Lough, K., Stone, R., & Barrientos, F. (2005). An analysis of risk and function information in early stage design. Proc. ASME DETC ’05, Long Beach, CA.Google Scholar
Vesely, W. E., Goldberg, F.F., Roberts, N.H., & Haasl, D.F. (1981). Fault Tree Handbook. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar