Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

A methodology for the improvement of dependability of self-optimizing systems

  • Quality Assurance
  • Published:
Production Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The conceivable development of communication and information technology opens up fascinating perspectives which move far beyond current standards of mechatronics: mechatronic systems having inherent partial intelligence. We call such systems self-optimizing systems. Self-optimizing systems react autonomously and flexibly on changing environmental conditions. The design of dependable self-optimizing systems is challenging. The main reasons are the involvement of different domains and the integration of partial intelligence which leads to non-deterministic behavior. In particular, it has to be ensured that the self-optimization works dependable itself. In order to accomplish this, dependability engineering methods have to be used which are suitable to the underlying development task. In such cases the developers face a great number of methods, from which they have to manually select the appropriate ones. This selection is tedious and error-prone. In this contribution we introduce a methodology for the improvement of dependability of self-optimizing systems. It consists of a method database, a guide for selection and planning of dependability engineering methods and a software tool. The methodology supports the developers by search, selection and planning of dependability engineering methods (e.g. Fault Tree Analysis), which are suitable for their particular development task.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Avizienis et al. [1] define dependability as availability, reliability, safety, integrity and maintainability. In this contribution we apply this definition with the exception of the integrity aspect, which is not considered.

  2. In this work the following definition of methodology provided by Jayaratna is used:

    “an explicit way of structuring one’s thinking and actions. Methodologies contain models and reflect particular perspectives of reality based on a set of philosophical paradigms. A methodology must show, what steps to take, how those steps are performed […] the reasons, why the methodology user must follow those steps and in the suggested order” [9].

  3. CONSENS—CONceptual design Specification technique for the ENgineering of mechatronic Systems.

  4. The active structure describes the basic structure and operation mode of the system. It describes the subordinated system elements. Also the relationships between the system elements are described using material, information and energy flows. System elements represent a part of the system which has not been detailed yet. They are detailed in the course of the product development process and can be consolidated into modules, parts, assemblies and software components.

References

  1. Avizienis A, Laprie J, Randell B, Landwehr C (2004) Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing. IEEE Trans Dependable Secure Comput 1(1):11–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Sierla S, Tumer I, Papakonstantinou N, Koskinen K, Jensen D (2012) Early integration of safety to the mechatronic system design process by the functional failure identification and propagation framework. Mechatronics 22(2012):137–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Toyota (2010) Toyota Deutschland informiert über Gaspedal-Rückrufaktion (online). Available from http://www.toyota.de/about/news/details_2010_04c.tmex. Accessed 25 Sep 2012

  4. Ludwig U (2002) Tödlicher Irrweg. In: Der Spiegel 35/2002 (online). Available from http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-24093760.html. Accessed 24 Sept 2012

  5. Ehrlenspiel K, Kiewert A, Lindemann U (2007) Cost-efficient design. Springer, Berlin, p 11

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Ericson C (2005) Hazard analysis techniques for system safety. Wiley, Hoboken

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Birolini A (2007) Reliability engineering. Theory and practice, 5th edn. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  8. National Aerospace Laboratory in the Netherland (2012) The safety methods database (online). Available from http://www.nlr.nl/documents/flyers/SATdb.pdf. Accessed 5 March 2012

  9. Jayaratna N (1994) Understanding and evaluating methodologies: NIMSAD, a systematic framework. McGraw-Hill, London

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gausemeier J, Frank U, Donoth J, Kahl S (2009) Specification technique for the description of self-optimizing mechatronic systems. Res Eng Design 20(4):201–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Adelt P, Donoth J, Gausemeier J, Geisler J, Henkler S, Kahl S, Klöpper B, Krupp A, Münch E, Oberthür S, Paiz C, Porrmann M, Radkowski R, Romaus C, Schmidt A, Schulz B, Vöcking H, Witkowski U, Witting K, Znamenshchykov O (2009) Selbstoptimierende Systeme des Maschinenbaus, HNI-Verlagsschriftenreihe, vol 234. University of Paderborn, Heinz Nixdorf Institute, Paderborn

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kahl, S, Gausemeier J, Dumitrescu R (2010) Interactive visualization of development processes in mechatronic engineering. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on modeling and management of engineering processes MMEP

  13. Rieke J, Dorociak R, Sudmann O, Gausemeier J, Schäfer W (2012) Management of cross-domain model consistency for behavioral models of mechatronic systems. In: Proceedings of the 12th international design conference design

  14. Pook S, Gausemeier J, Dorociak R (2012) securing the reliability of tomorrow’s systems with self-optimization. In: Proceedings of the reliability and maintainability symposium

  15. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) (2006) IEC 60812: 2006. Analysis techniques for system reliability procedure for failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA)

  16. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) (2006) IEC 61025: 2006. Fault tree analysis (FTA)

  17. Wilkinson PJ, Kelly TP (1998) Functional hazard analysis for highly integrated aerospace systems. Certification of ground/air systems seminar (Ref. No. 1998/255)

  18. Fenelon P, McDermid JA, Nicolson M, Pumfrey DJ (1994) Towards integrated safety analysis and design. SIGAPP Appl Comput 2(1):21–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Tumer I, Stone R, Bell D (2003) Requirements for a failure mode taxonomy for use in conceptual design. In: Proceedings of the international conference on engineering design ICED

  20. Davies A (1998) Handbook of condition monitoring—techniques and methodology. Chapman and Hall, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2011) ISO 17359: condition monitoring and diagnostics of machines—general guidelines

  22. Sondermann-Wölke C, Sextro W (2010) Integration of condition monitoring in self-optimizing function modules applied to the active railway guidance module. Intl J Adv Intell Syst 3(1 & 2):65–74

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lee J, Wang H (2008) New technologies for maintenance. In: Complex systems maintenance handbook, springer series in reliability engineering, part B, pp 49–78

  24. Sondermann-Woelke C, Meyer T, Dorociak, R, Gausemeier J, Sextro W (2012) Conceptual design of advanced condition monitoring for a self-optimizing system based on its principle solution. In: Proceedings of the PSAM 11 & ESREL 2012

  25. Dorociak R (2012) Early probabilistic reliability analysis of mechatronic systems. In: Proceedings of the reliability and maintainability symposium

  26. Lee J, Ni D, Djurdjanovic H, Qiu H, Liao H (2006) Intelligent prognostic tools and e-maintenance. Comput Ind 57(2006):476–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) (2011) CENELEC EN 50128: 2011. Railway applications communication, signalling and processing systems software for railway control and protection systems

  28. RailCab Neue Bahntechnik Paderborn (2012) The project web site (online). Available from http://railcab.de/. Accessed 5 March 2012

  29. Iwnicki S (2006) Handbook of railway vehicle dynamics. Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Dell’Aere A, Hirsch M, Klöpper B, Köster M, Krupp A, Krüger M, Müller T, Oberthür S, Pook S, Priesterjahn C, Romaus C, Schmidt A, Sondermann-Wölke C, Tichy M, Vöcking H, Zimmer D (2009) Verlässlichkeit selbstoptimierender Systeme: Potenziale nutzen und Risiken vermeiden, HNI-Verlagsschriftenreihe, vol 235. University of Paderborn, Heinz Nixdorf Institut, Paderborn

    Google Scholar 

  31. Papadopoulos Y, McDermid J, Sasse R, Heiner G (2001) Analysis and synthesis of the behaviour of complex programmable electronic systems in conditions of failure. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 71:247–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Peikenkamp T, Cavallo A, Valacca L, Böde E, Pretzer M, Hahn E (2006) Towards a unified modelbased safety assessment. Lect Notes Comput Sci 4166:275–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Faerber M, Jochaud F, Stöber C, Jablonski S, Meerkamm H (2008) Knowledge oriented process management for DfX. In: Proceedings of the 10th international design conference DESIGN

  34. Ponn J (2007) Situative Unterstützung der methodischen Konzeptentwicklung technischer Produkte. PhD thesis, Fakultät für Maschinenwesen, Technische Universität München

  35. Bichlmaier C (2007) Methoden zur flexiblen Gestaltung von integrierten Entwicklungsprozessen. PhD thesis, Fakultät für Maschinenwesen, Technische Universität München

Download references

Acknowledgments

This contribution was developed in the course of the Collaborative Research Centre 614 “Self-Optimizing Concepts and Structures in Mechanical Engineering” funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). Furthermore the authors thank the anonymous referees for their valuable comments which have led to a significant improvement of the paper contents.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Heinz Nixdorf Institute, University of Paderborn, Fuerstenallee 11, 33102, Paderborn, Germany

    R. Dorociak, T. Gaukstern, J. Gausemeier, P. Iwanek & M. Vaßholz

Authors
  1. R. Dorociak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. Gaukstern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Gausemeier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. Iwanek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. Vaßholz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Dorociak.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dorociak, R., Gaukstern, T., Gausemeier, J. et al. A methodology for the improvement of dependability of self-optimizing systems. Prod. Eng. Res. Devel. 7, 53–67 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11740-012-0425-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11740-012-0425-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation