Abstract
This paper presents a method to conceptually model sacrificing non-critical sub-systems, or components, in a failure scenario to protect critical system functionality through a functional failure modeling technique. Understanding the potential benefits and drawbacks of choosing how a failure is directed in a system away from critical sub-systems and toward sub-systems that can be sacrificed to maintain core functionality can help system designers to design systems that are more likely to complete primary mission objectives despite failure events. Functional modeling techniques are often used during the early stage of conceptual design for complex systems to provide a better understanding of system architecture. A family of methods exists that focuses on the modeling of failure initiation and propagation within a functional model of a system. Modeling failure flow provides an opportunity to understand system failure propagation and inform system design iteration for improved survivability and robustness. Currently, the ability to model failure flow decision-making is missing from the family of function failure and flow methodologies. The failure flow decision function (FFDF) methodology presented in this paper enables system designers to model failure flow decision-making problems where functions and flows that are critical to system operation are protected through the sacrifice of less critical functions and flow exports. The sacrifice of less critical system functions and flows allows for mission critical functionality to be preserved, leading to a higher rate of mission objective completion. An example of FFDF application in a physical design is a non-critical peripheral piece of electrical hardware being sacrificed during an electrical surge condition to protect critical electronics necessary for the core functionality of the system. In this paper, a case study of the FFDF method is presented based on a Sojourner class Mars Exploration Rover (MER) platform.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Blanchard BS, Fabrycky JW (1990) Systems engineering and analysis 4th edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. http://sutlib2.sut.ac.th/sut_contents/H104135.pdf
Bohm MR, Stone RB, Szykman S (2005) Enhancing virtual product representations for advanced design repository systems. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 5(4):360–372
Browning TR (2001) Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 48(3):292–306. http://axiod.com/technology/papers/4DSMs.pdf
David P, Idasiak V, Kratz F (2010) Reliability study of complex physical systems using SysML. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 95(4):431–450
Distefano S, Puliafito A (2007) Dynamic reliability block diagrams: overview of a methodology. ESREL 7:1059–68. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Antonio_Puliafito/publication/254229063_Dynamic_reliability_block_diagrams_Overview_of_a_methodology/links/0f31753c575b50cf6d000000.pdf
Ericson C (1999) Fault tree analysis–a history from the proceeding of the 17th International System Safety Conference. Orlando
Force, US Air (1981) “ICAM architecture Part II, Vol. IV., Function Modelling Manual (IDEF0).” AFWAL-TR-81-4023, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, USA
Garvey PR, Pinto CA (2009) Introduction to functional dependency network analysis. In: The MITRE Corporation and Old Dominion, Second International Symposium on Engineering Systems, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, vol. 5.1. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/865c/27f6870ead4fddc7ab0af3248f89f1875dc7.pdf
Garvey PR, Ariel PC, Santos JR (2014) Modelling and measuring the operability of interdependent systems and systems of systems: advances in methods and applications. Int J Syst Syst Eng 5(1):1–24
Gosselin SR (2006) Probabilities of failure and uncertainty estimate information for passive components: a literature review. Division of Fuel, Engineering, and Radiological Research, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Guariniello C, DeLaurentis D (2017) Supporting design via the system operational dependency analysis methodology. Res Eng Design 28(1):53–69
Haimes YY, Horowitz BM, Lambert JH, Santos JR, Lian C, Crowther KG (2005) Inoperability input-output model for interdependent infrastructure sectors. I: theory and methodology. J Infrastruct Syst 11(2):67–79
Hirtz J, Stone RB, McAdams DA, Szykman S, Wood KL (2002) A functional basis for engineering design: reconciling and evolving previous efforts. Res Eng Design 13(2):65–82
Huang E, Ramamurthy R, McGinnis LF (2007) System and simulation modeling using SysML. In: Proceedings of the 39th Conference on Winter Simulation: 40 Years! The Best Is yet to Come, pp 796–803. IEEE Press. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1351687
Hutcheson RS, McAdams DA, Stone RB, Tumer IY (2006) A function-based methodology for analyzing critical events. In: ASME 2006 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers. pp 1193–1204. http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1588322
Jensen D, Tumer IY, Kurtoglu T (2009) Flow state logic (FSL) for analysis of failure propagation in early design. In: ASME 2009 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp 1033–1043. http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1650614
JPL Team X (2016) http://jplteamx.jpl.nasa.gov/. Accessed 1 April
Kalvin AD, Varol YL (1983) On the generation of all topological sortings. J Algorithms 4(2):150–162. doi:10.1016/0196-6774(83)90042-1
Kumamoto H, Henley EJ (1996) Probabilistic risk assessment and management for engineers and scientists. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE Press). http://www.bcin.ca/Interface/openbcin.cgi?submit=submit&Chinkey=231931
Kurtoglu T, Tumer IY (2007) Ffip: a framework for early assessment of functional failures in complex systems. In: The International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED, vol. 7. http://www.designsociety.org/download-publication/25348/ffip_a_framework_for_early_assessment_of_functional_failures_in_complex_systems
Kurtoglu T, Tumer IY (2008) A graph-based fault identification and propagation framework for functional design of complex systems. J Mech Design 130(5):051401
Kurtoglu T, Tumer IY, Jensen DC (2010) A functional failure reasoning methodology for evaluation of conceptual system architectures. Res Eng Des 21(4):209–234
Lightsey B (2001) Systems engineering fundamentals. DTIC document. http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA387507
Long J (2002) Relationships between common graphical representations in systems engineering. Vitech White Paper, Vitech Corporation, Vienna, p 70
Lucero B, Viswanathan VK, Linsey JS, Turner CJ (2014) Identifying critical functions for use across engineering design domains. J Mech Des 136(12):121101
Materese R (2002) A functional basis for engineering design: reconciling and evolving previous efforts. Text. NIST. https://www.nist.gov/node/742436. Accessed Feb 1
Mimlitz Z, Short A, Van Bossuyt DL (2016) Towards risk-informed operation of autonomous vehicles to increase resilience in unknown and dangerous environments. In: ASME 2016 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference
Mohr RR (2002) Failure modes and effects analysis. JE Jacobs Sverdrup. http://icecube.wisc.edu/~kitamura/NK/Flasher_Board/Useful/FMEA.pdf. Accessed 3 Mar 2016
Navarro I, Fernando M (2012) An introduction to swarm robotics. Int Sch Res Not 2013(September):e608164. doi:10.5402/2013/608164
O’Halloran BM, Papakonstantinou N, Van Bossuyt DL (2015) Modeling of function failure propagation across uncoupled systems. In: Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS), 2015 Annual, IEEE, pp 1–6. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=7105107
Papakonstantinou N, Sierla S, Jensen DC, Tumer IR (2012) Simulation of interactions and emergent failure behavior during complex system design. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 12(3):031007
Rumbaugh J, Jacobson I, Booch G (2004) Unified modeling language reference manual, The Pearson Higher Education. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=993859
Sen C, Summers JD, Mocko GM (2013) Physics-based reasoning in conceptual design using a formal representation of function structure graphs. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 13(1):011008
Short AR, Van Bossuyt DL (2015a) Rerouting failure flows using logic blocks in functional models for improved system robustness: failure flow decision functions. In: International Conference on Engineering Design 2015
Short AR, Van Bossuyt DL (2015b) Risk attitude informed route planning in a simulated planetary rover. In: ASME 2015 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, V01BT02A048–V01BT02A048. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=2483254
Short AR, Van Bossuyt DL (2016) Active mission success estimation through PHM-informed probabilistic modelling. https://www.phmsociety.org/sites/phmsociety.org/files/phm_submission/2015/phmc_15_051.pdf. Accessed 4 Mar
Short AR, Mimlitz Z, Van Bossuyt DL (2016) Autonomous system design and controls design for operations in high risk environments. In: ASME 2016 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference
Sojourner Rover Home Page (2015) http://mars.nasa.gov/MPF/rover/sojourner.html. Accessed 15 Dec
Stone RB, Wood KL (2000) Development of a functional basis for design. J Mech Des 122(4):359–370
Stone RB, Tumer IY, Van Wie M (2005) The function-failure design method. J Mech Des 127(3):397–407
Truszkowski W, Hinchey M, Rash J, Rouff C (2004) NASA’s swarm missions: the challenge of building autonomous software. IT Prof 6(5):47–52
Van Eck D, McAdams DA, Vermaas PE (2007) Functional decomposition in engineering: a survey. In: ASME 2007 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, pp 227–236. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1604183
Wertz JR, Everett DF, Puschell JJ (2011a) Risk and reliability. In: Space mission engineering: the new SMAD. Microcosm Press
Wertz JR, Everett DF, Puschell JJ (2011b) Space mission engineering: the new SMAD. Microcosm Press
Yadav S, Verma KK, Mahanta S (2012) The maze problem solved by micro mouse. Int J Eng Adv Technol (IJEAT) ISSN 2249–8958
Acknowledgements
This research was partially supported by United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Grant No. NRC-HQ-84-14-G-0047. Any opinions or findings of this work are the responsibility of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors or collaborators. The authors wish to acknowledge the work of the undergraduate research assistants in the Van Bossuyt lab and specifically wish to thank the following students for their contributions: Alexis Humann, David Hodge, Zachary Mimlitz, and Robin Coleman. The authors wish to thank LeVar Burton, Fred Rogers, Gene Roddenberry, Carl Sagan, and their individual middle school and high school science and technical arts teachers who inspired them to pursue careers in the sciences and engineering, and instilled in them a sense of purpose and compassion.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Flow type | Probability of passing failure downstream | Probability of passing failure upstream |
---|---|---|
Collectable energy | 0.10 | 0.00 |
Electrical energy | 0.40 | 0.02 |
Digital signal | 0.50 | 0.02 |
Control signal | 0.50 | 0.02 |
Positional information | 0.47 | 0.00 |
Visual information | 0.47 | 0.00 |
Rotational work | 0.50 | 0.15 |
Translational work | 0.50 | 0.15 |
Alignment work | 0.25 | 0.15 |
Function | Probability of accepting failure flow | |
---|---|---|
Accumulate energy | 0.50 | |
Store energy | 0.12 | |
Distribute electrical | 0.24 | |
Control magnitude electrical | 0.20 | |
Convert electrical to rotation | 0.16 | |
Transmit rotation | 0.16 | |
Convert rotation to translation | 0.16 | |
Direct command | 0.44 | |
Process signal | 0.01 | |
Store data | 0.01 | |
Record position | 0.22 | |
Record visual | 0.22 | |
Transmit data | 0.44 |
Appendix 3
Index | Flow type | ||
---|---|---|---|
f1 | Collectable energy | ||
f2 | Electrical energy | ||
f3 | Digital signal | ||
f4 | Position information | ||
f5 | Visual information | ||
f6 | Rotational work | ||
f7 | Translation work | ||
f8 | Steering work |
Index | Function type | Index | Function type |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Operating environment | 26 | Convert electric-to-rotation 7 |
2 | Accumulate energy 1 | 27 | Convert electric-to-rotation 8 |
3 | Accumulate energy 2 | 28 | Convert electric-to-rotation 9 |
4 | Accumulate energy 3 | 29 | Convert electric-to-rotation 10 |
5 | Accumulate energy 4 | 30 | Transmit rotation 1 |
6 | Accumulate energy 5 | 31 | Transmit rotation 2 |
7 | Accumulate energy 6 | 32 | Transmit rotation 3 |
8 | Accumulate energy 7 | 33 | Transmit rotation 4 |
9 | Accumulate energy 8 | 34 | Convert rotation-to-translation 1 |
10 | Accumulate energy 9 | 35 | Convert Rotation-to-Translation 2 |
11 | Accumulate energy 10 | 36 | Convert rotation-to-translation 3 |
12 | Accumulate energy 11 | 37 | Convert rotation-to-translation 4 |
13 | Accumulate energy 12 | 38 | Convert rotation-to-translation 5 |
14 | Accumulate energy 13 | 39 | Convert rotation-to-translation 6 |
15 | Store energy 1 | 40 | Direct command |
16 | Store energy 2 | 41 | Process signal |
17 | Store energy 3 | 42 | Process signal (digital) |
18 | Distribute electricity | 43 | Store data 1 |
19 | Control magnitude electrical | 44 | Store data 2 |
20 | Convert electric-to-rotation 1 | 45 | Store data 3 |
21 | Convert electric-to-rotation 2 | 46 | Record position |
22 | Convert electric-to-rotation 3 | 47 | Record visual 1 |
23 | Convert electric-to-rotation 4 | 48 | Record visual 2 |
24 | Convert electric-to-rotation 5 | 49 | Record visual 3 |
25 | Convert electric-to-rotation 6 | 50 | Transmit data (analogue) |
Appendix 4
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Short, AR., Lai, A.D. & Van Bossuyt, D.L. Conceptual design of sacrificial sub-systems: failure flow decision functions. Res Eng Design 29, 23–38 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-017-0258-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-017-0258-3