A Comparison of Functional Models for Use in the Function-Failure Design Method

When failure analysis and prevention, guided by historical design knowledge, are coupled with product design at its conception, shorter design cycles are possible. By decreasing the design time of a product in this manner, design costs are reduced and the product will better suit the customer s needs. Prior work indicates that similar failure modes occur with products (or components) with similar functionality. To capitalize on this finding, a knowledge base of historical failure information linked to functionality is assembled for use by designers. One possible use for this knowledge base is within the Elemental Function-Failure Design Method (EFDM). This design methodology and failure analysis tool begins at conceptual design and keeps the designer cognizant of failures that are likely to occur based on the product s functionality. The EFDM offers potential improvement over current failure analysis methods, such as FMEA, FMECA, and Fault Tree Analysis, because it can be implemented hand in hand with other conceptual design steps and carried throughout a product s design cycle. These other failure analysis methods can only truly be effective after a physical design has been completed. The EFDM however is only as good as the knowledge base that it draws from, and therefore it is of utmost importance to develop a knowledge base that will be suitable for use across a wide spectrum of products. One fundamental question that arises in using the EFDM is: At what level of detail should functional descriptions of components be encoded? This paper explores two approaches to populating a knowledge base with actual failure occurrence information from Bell 206 helicopters. Functional models expressed at various levels of detail are investigated to determine the necessary detail for an applicable knowledge base that can be used by designers in both new designs as well as redesigns. High level and more detailed functional descriptions are derived for each failed component based on NTSB accident reports. To best record this data, standardized functional and failure mode vocabularies are used. Two separate function-failure knowledge bases are then created aid compared. Results indicate that encoding failure data using more detailed functional models allows for a more robust knowledge base. Interestingly however, when applying the EFDM, high level descriptions continue to produce useful results when using the knowledge base generated from the detailed functional models.