Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T15:44:35.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Procedure for assessing the quality of explanations in failure analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 August 2022

Kristian González Barman Open the ORCID record for Kristian González Barman [Opens in a new window]
Kristian González Barman*
Affiliation:
Centre for Logic and Philosophy of Science, Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
*
Author for correspondence: Kristian González Barman, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper outlines a procedure for assessing the quality of failure explanations in engineering failure analysis. The procedure structures the information contained in explanations such that it enables to find weak points, to compare competing explanations, and to provide redesign recommendations. These features make the procedure a good asset for critical reflection on some areas of the engineering practice of failure analysis and redesign. The procedure structures relevant information contained in an explanation by means of structural equations so as to make the relations between key elements more salient. Once structured, the information is examined on its potential to track counterfactual dependencies by offering answers to relevant what-if-things-had-been-different questions. This criterion for explanatory goodness derives from the philosophy of science literature on scientific explanation. The procedure is illustrated by applying it to two case studies, one on Failure Analysis in Mechanical Engineering (a broken vehicle shaft) and one on Failure Analysis in Civil Engineering (a collapse in a convention center). The procedure offers failure analysts a practical tool for critical reflection on some areas of their practice while offering a deeper understanding of the workings of failure analysis (framing it as an explanatory practice). It, therefore, allows to improve certain aspects of the explanatory practices of failure analysis and redesign, but it also offers a theoretical perspective that can clarify important features of these practices. Given the programmatic nature of the procedure and its object (assessing and refining explanations), it extends work on the domain of computational argumentation.

Keywords

Computational argumentationepistemologyfailure analysisredesignstructural equation modeling
Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 36 , 2022 , e26
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Abdelhamid, TS and Everett, JG (2000) Identifying root causes of construction accidents. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 126, 52–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Affonso, LOA (2006) Machinery Failure Analysis Handbook. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Andersen, B and Fagerhaug, T (2006) Root Cause Analysis: Simplified Tools and Techniques. Milwaukee: Quality Press.Google Scholar
Barman, KG and van Eck, D (2021) IBE in engineering science – the case of malfunction explanation. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 11, 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, WT and Shipley, RJ (eds) (2002) ASM Handbook, Volume 11: Failure Analysis and Prevention, 10th Edn. Materials Park, OH: ASM International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J, Snooke, N and Price, CJ (2007) Functional decomposition for interpretation of model-based simulation. Advanced Engineering Informatics 21, 398–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhaumik, S (2009) A view on the general practice in engineering failure analysis. Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 9, 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloch, HP and Geitner, FK (2012) Practical Machinery Management for Process Plants. Volume 2: Machinery Failure Analysis and Troubleshooting. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Bollen, KA and Pearl, J (2013) Eight myths about causality and structural equation models. In Morgan, SL (ed.), Handbook of Causal Analysis for Social Research. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 301–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boon, M (2008) Diagrammatic models in the engineering sciences. Foundations of Science 13, 127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chantler, MJ, Leitch, RR, Shen, Q and Coghill, GM (1995) A methodology for the development of model based diagnostic systems. IEE Colloquium on Real-Time Knowledge Based Systems, London, pp. 51–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleland, JH and Jones, DRH (1996) Shear failure of a road-vehicle steering shaft. Engineering Failure Analysis 4, 81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delatte, NJ Jr (2009) Beyond Failure: Forensic Case Studies for Civil Engineers. Reston, Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers.Google Scholar
Dennies, DP (2002) The organization of a failure investigation. Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 2, 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Ridder, J (2006) Mechanistic artefact explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 37, 81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engineering News-Record (2006) Pittsburgh convention center plans to add girder seats.Google Scholar
Fan, X and Toni, F (2015) On computing explanations in argumentation. In Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farshad, M (2011) Plastic Pipe Systems: Failure Investigation and Diagnosis, Vol. 407. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Gabbay, DM, Thagard, P, Woods, J and Meijers, AW (2009) Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences. Eindhoven: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Goel, AK and Chandrasekaran, B (1989) Functional representation of designs and redesign problem solving. In IJCAI, pp. 1388–1394.Google Scholar
Hall, N (2007) Structural equations and causation. Philosophical Studies 132, 109–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpern, JY (2008) Defaults and normality in causal structures. In KR, pp. 198–208.Google Scholar
Halpern, JY and Hitchcock, C (2011) Actual causation and the art of modeling. arXiv preprint. arXiv:1106.2652.Google Scholar
Hendrick, K and Benner, L (1987) Investigating Accidents with STEP. New York: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Hershberger, SL (2003) The growth of structural equation modeling: 1994–2001. Structural Equation Modeling 10, 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollnagel, E (2002) Understanding accidents-from root causes to performance variability. In Proceedings of the IEEE 7th conference on human factors and power plants. IEEE, p. 1.Google Scholar
Houser, M and Ritchie, J (2007) Convention center collapse blamed on bolt connection. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. February 22.Google Scholar
Jensen, DC, Bello, O, Hoyle, C and Tumer, IY (2014) Reasoning about system-level failure behavior from large sets of function-based simulations. AI EDAM-Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 28, 4.Google Scholar
Josephson, JR and Josephson, GS (eds) (1994) Abductive Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katsakiori, P, Sakellaropoulos, G and Manatakis, E (2009) Towards an evaluation of accident investigation methods in terms of their alignment with accident causation models. Safety Science 47, 1007–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleer, JD and Williams, BC (1987) Diagnosing multiple faults. Artificial Intelligence 32, 97–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laflamme, L (1990) A better understanding of occupational accident genesis to improve safety in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Accidents 12, 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehto, M and Salvendy, G (1991) Models of accident causation and their application: review and reappraisal. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 8, 173–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leveson, N (2004) A new accident model for engineering safer systems. Safety Science 42, 237–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, G, Gao, J and Chen, F (2009) A novel approach for failure modes and effects analysis based on polychromatic sets. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: aI EDAM 23, 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, PL (1999) Electronic Failure Analysis Handbook: Techniques and Applications for Electronic and Electrical Packages, Components, and Assemblies. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
Pearl, J (2009) Causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiter, R (1998) A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artificial Intelligence 32, 57–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenblum, C (2007) Beam failure at Pittsburgh convention center fixed. Journal of the American Institute of Architects. Available at https://www.architectmagazine.com/technology/beam-failure-at-pittsburgh-convention-center-fixed_o.Google Scholar
Rubio, DM and Gillespie, DF (1995) Problems with error in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 2, 367–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakama, C (2014) Counterfactual reasoning in argumentation frameworks. In COMMA, pp. 385–396.Google Scholar
Saleh, JH, Marais, KB, Bakolas, E and Cowlagi, RV (2010) Highlights from the literature on accident causation and system safety: review of major ideas, recent contributions, and challenges. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 95, 1105–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sklar, EI and Azhar, MQ (2018) Explanation through argumentation. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction, pp. 277–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sklet, S (2004) Comparison of some selected methods for accident investigation. Journal of Hazardous Materials 111, 29–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stern, CR and Luger, GF (1997) Abduction and abstraction in diagnosis: a schema-based account. In Feltovich, PJ and Hoffman, RR (eds), Expertise in Context. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press, pp. 363–381.Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, H, Naderi, N, Hou, Y, Bilu, Y, Prabhakaran, V, Thijm, TA and Stein, B (2017) Computational argumentation quality assessment in natural language. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers, pp. 176–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagenaar, WA and van der Schrier, J (1997) The goal, and how to get there. Safety Science 26, 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. (WJE). (2008). David L. Lawrence Convention Center: Investigation of the 5 February 2007 Collapse, Pittsburgh, PA, Final Report. Sports and Exhibition Authority of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County.Google Scholar
Woodward, J (2003) Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, J and Hitchcock, C (2003) Explanatory generalizations, part I: a counterfactual account. Noûs 37, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xing, L and Amari, SV (2008) Fault tree analys. In Misra, KB (ed.), Handbook of Performability Engineering. London: Springer, pp. 595–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ylikoski, P and Kuorikoski, J (2010) Dissecting explanatory power. Philosophical Studies 148, 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar