“…As a core element in the reliability and quality fields of product development, FMEA is adopted in three distinct applications [2,9]: (1) Functional FMEA -evaluating product and system functions-related failure modes, (2) Design FMEA -appraising the failure modes associated with sub-system functions and components designs and (3) Process FMEA -assessing failures identified in manufacturing and assembly processes. To maximise the benefits of applying FMEA, these different tasks of FMEA must be synchronised as presented in Figure 2 [1,2,3,4,5,10].…”
Section: Fig 1 the Processes For Executing Fmeamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The investigation of failures and their prevention throughout a design process forms an effective approach for reducing the number of failures in manufacturing, as failures could be prevented and minimised at an early stage and in a proactive manner [1,2,3,4]. To address this issue, Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) was developed to proactively evaluate the potential failures in a product, process or service, as well as identifying actions to reduce and mitigate risks.…”
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is a systematic approach for evaluating the potential failure modes in a system, and is mainly employed in three distinct tasks labelled: (1) Functional FMEA – evaluating those failures associated with product functional definition, (2) Design FMEA – analysing those failures associated with design definition and (3) Process FMEA – assessing potential failures in manufacturing and assembly processes. The literature review has shown limited works on the field of synchronising these different tasks into a working model. To address this gap, this research developed a framework for integrating these tasks of FMEAs, and then qualitatively validating the proposed framework. This research adopted a semi-structured questionnaire to collect experts’ feedback and validate the proposed framework. The t-test was then employed to evaluate the collected feedback. The findings highlight that the proposed framework is applicable and could facilitate the synchronisation of the different tasks of FMEA. This research presents a methodological approach for executing and synchronising FMEAs. Therefore, the proposed framework is practically relevant as an aid for the practitioners in catching the cascading failures and reducing the relevant impact.
“…As a core element in the reliability and quality fields of product development, FMEA is adopted in three distinct applications [2,9]: (1) Functional FMEA -evaluating product and system functions-related failure modes, (2) Design FMEA -appraising the failure modes associated with sub-system functions and components designs and (3) Process FMEA -assessing failures identified in manufacturing and assembly processes. To maximise the benefits of applying FMEA, these different tasks of FMEA must be synchronised as presented in Figure 2 [1,2,3,4,5,10].…”
Section: Fig 1 the Processes For Executing Fmeamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The investigation of failures and their prevention throughout a design process forms an effective approach for reducing the number of failures in manufacturing, as failures could be prevented and minimised at an early stage and in a proactive manner [1,2,3,4]. To address this issue, Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) was developed to proactively evaluate the potential failures in a product, process or service, as well as identifying actions to reduce and mitigate risks.…”
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is a systematic approach for evaluating the potential failure modes in a system, and is mainly employed in three distinct tasks labelled: (1) Functional FMEA – evaluating those failures associated with product functional definition, (2) Design FMEA – analysing those failures associated with design definition and (3) Process FMEA – assessing potential failures in manufacturing and assembly processes. The literature review has shown limited works on the field of synchronising these different tasks into a working model. To address this gap, this research developed a framework for integrating these tasks of FMEAs, and then qualitatively validating the proposed framework. This research adopted a semi-structured questionnaire to collect experts’ feedback and validate the proposed framework. The t-test was then employed to evaluate the collected feedback. The findings highlight that the proposed framework is applicable and could facilitate the synchronisation of the different tasks of FMEA. This research presents a methodological approach for executing and synchronising FMEAs. Therefore, the proposed framework is practically relevant as an aid for the practitioners in catching the cascading failures and reducing the relevant impact.
“…Our proposed approach for the ESD representation of operations on flows is underpinned by the Systems State Flow Diagram (SSFD) function modelling as described in Yildirim et al (2017). We have chosen to underpin the ESD on the SSFD functional modelling paradigm (Yildirim et al 2017), both because of the logical complementarity, and also because this methodology has been taught and used by many of our industrial collaborators for over 10 years (Campean et al 2011(Campean et al , 2013(Campean et al , 2015Henshall et al 2014;Dobryden et al 2017;Naidu et al 2017).…”
This paper introduces an Enhanced Sequence Diagram (ESD) as the basis for a structured framework for the functional analysis of complex multidisciplinary systems. The ESD extends the conventional sequence diagrams (SD) by introducing a rigorous functional flow-based modelling schemata to provide an enhanced basis for model-based functional requirements and architecture analysis in the early systems design stages. The proposed ESD heuristics include the representation of transactional and transformative functions required to deliver the use case sequence, and fork and join nodes to facilitate analysis of combining and bifurcating operations on flows. A case study of a personal mobility device is used to illustrate the deployment of the ESD methodology in relation to three common product development scenarios: (i) reverse engineering, (ii) the introduction of a specific technology to an existent system; and (iii) the introduction of a new feature as user-centric innovation for an existing system, at a logical design level, without reference to any solution. The case study analysis provides further insights into the effectiveness of the ESD to support function modelling and functional requirements capture, and architecture development. The significance of this paper is that it establishes a rigorous ESD-based functional analysis methodology to guide the practitioner with its deployment, facilitating its impact to both the engineering design and systems engineering communities, as well as the design practice in the industry.
“…This leads to poor integration and traceability within the system design development. The SSFD has delivered a fundamental underpinning for the development of a framework for robust engineering design based on failure mode avoidance, which has been comprehensively deployed within the automotive industry (Campean, Henshall, & Rutter, 2013; Henshall et al, 2014, 2015; Dobryden et al, 2017; Naidu et al, 2017).…”
Section: Critical Evaluation Of Ssfd Using the Function Representatiomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This often leads to imprecise function articulation and modeling, with no consistent reference to measurable attributes. A further strength of the SSFD is that it can be applied to the function modeling and representation across different disciplines (including software), and allows combination of multiple flows, as illustrated in the case studies reported in the literature (Campean et al, 2011; Campean, Henshall, & Rutter, 2013; Henshall et al, 2014, 2015; Dobryden et al, 2017; Naidu et al, 2017). Fig.…”
This paper introduces a rigorous framework for function modeling of complex multidisciplinary systems based on the system state flow diagram (SSFD). The work addresses the need for a consistent methodology to support solution-neutral function-based system decomposition analysis, facilitating the design, modeling, and analysis of complex systems architectures. A rigorous basis for the SSFD is established by defining conventions for states and function definitions and a representation scheme, underpinned by a critical review of existing literature. A set of heuristics are introduced to support the function decomposition analysis and to facilitate the deployment of the methodology with strong practitioner guidelines. The SSFD heuristics extend the existing framework of Otto and Wood (2001) by introducing a conditional fork node heuristic, to facilitate analysis and aggregation of function models across multiple modes of operation of the system. The empirical validation of the SSFD function modeling framework is discussed in relation to its application to two case studies: a benchmark problem (glue gun) set for the engineering design community; and an industrial case study of an electric vehicle powertrain. Based on the evidence from the two case studies presented in the paper, a critical evaluation of the SSFD function modeling methodology is discussed based on the function benchmarking framework established by Summers et al. (2013), considering the representation, modeling, cognitive, and reasoning characteristics. The significance of this paper is that it establishes a rigorous reference framework for the SSFD function representation and a consistent methodology to guide the practitioner with its deployment, facilitating its impact to industrial practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
