自动紧急制动系统危害分析的HAZOP、FMEA、FRAM和STPA方法比较

Liangliang Sun, Yanfu Li, E. Zio
{"title":"自动紧急制动系统危害分析的HAZOP、FMEA、FRAM和STPA方法比较","authors":"Liangliang Sun, Yanfu Li, E. Zio","doi":"10.1115/1.4051940","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n As autonomous vehicle (AV) intelligence for controllability continues to develop, involving increasingly complex and interconnected systems, the maturity level of AV technology increasingly depends on the systems reliability level, also considering the interactions among them. Hazard analysis is typically used to identify potential system risks and avoid loss of AV system functionality. Conventional hazard analysis methods are commonly used for traditional standalone systems. New hazard analysis methods have been developed that may be more suitable for AV system-of-systems complexity. However, a comprehensive comparison of hazard analysis methods for AV systems is lacking. In this study, the traditional hazard analysis methods, hazard and operability (HAZOP) and failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA), as well as the most recent methods, like functional resonance analysis method (FRAM; Hollnagel, 2004, 2012) and system-theoretic process analysis (STPA; Leveson, 2011), are considered for implementation in the automatic emergency braking system. This system is designed to avoid collisions by utilizing the surrounding sensors to detect objects on the road, warning drivers with alerts about any collision risk, and actuating automatic partial/full braking through calculated adaptive braking deceleration. The objective of this work is to evaluate the methods in terms of their applicability to AV technologies. The advantages of HAZOP, FMEA, FRAM, and STPA, as well as the possibility of combining them to achieve systematic risk identification in practice, are discussed.","PeriodicalId":44694,"journal":{"name":"ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems Part B-Mechanical Engineering","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the HAZOP, FMEA, FRAM and STPA Methods for the Hazard Analysis of Automatic Emergency Brake Systems\",\"authors\":\"Liangliang Sun, Yanfu Li, E. Zio\",\"doi\":\"10.1115/1.4051940\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n As autonomous vehicle (AV) intelligence for controllability continues to develop, involving increasingly complex and interconnected systems, the maturity level of AV technology increasingly depends on the systems reliability level, also considering the interactions among them. Hazard analysis is typically used to identify potential system risks and avoid loss of AV system functionality. Conventional hazard analysis methods are commonly used for traditional standalone systems. New hazard analysis methods have been developed that may be more suitable for AV system-of-systems complexity. However, a comprehensive comparison of hazard analysis methods for AV systems is lacking. In this study, the traditional hazard analysis methods, hazard and operability (HAZOP) and failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA), as well as the most recent methods, like functional resonance analysis method (FRAM; Hollnagel, 2004, 2012) and system-theoretic process analysis (STPA; Leveson, 2011), are considered for implementation in the automatic emergency braking system. This system is designed to avoid collisions by utilizing the surrounding sensors to detect objects on the road, warning drivers with alerts about any collision risk, and actuating automatic partial/full braking through calculated adaptive braking deceleration. The objective of this work is to evaluate the methods in terms of their applicability to AV technologies. The advantages of HAZOP, FMEA, FRAM, and STPA, as well as the possibility of combining them to achieve systematic risk identification in practice, are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44694,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems Part B-Mechanical Engineering\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems Part B-Mechanical Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4051940\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems Part B-Mechanical Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4051940","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

摘要

随着自动驾驶汽车智能可控性的不断发展,涉及越来越复杂和互联的系统,自动驾驶技术的成熟程度越来越依赖于系统的可靠性水平,并考虑到系统之间的相互作用。危害分析通常用于识别潜在的系统风险,避免自动驾驶系统功能的丧失。传统的危害分析方法通常用于传统的独立系统。新的危害分析方法已经被开发出来,可能更适合于AV系统的复杂性。然而,缺乏对AV系统危害分析方法的综合比较。在本研究中,传统的危害分析方法,危害和可操作性(HAZOP)和失效模式和影响分析(FMEA),以及最近的方法,如功能共振分析法(FRAM);Hollnagel, 2004, 2012)和系统理论过程分析(STPA;Leveson, 2011),考虑在自动紧急制动系统中实施。该系统旨在利用周围的传感器来检测道路上的物体,警告驾驶员任何碰撞风险,并通过计算自适应制动减速度来实现自动部分/完全制动,从而避免碰撞。这项工作的目的是评估这些方法在自动驾驶技术中的适用性。讨论了HAZOP、FMEA、FRAM和STPA的优点,以及在实践中将它们结合起来实现系统风险识别的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of the HAZOP, FMEA, FRAM and STPA Methods for the Hazard Analysis of Automatic Emergency Brake Systems
As autonomous vehicle (AV) intelligence for controllability continues to develop, involving increasingly complex and interconnected systems, the maturity level of AV technology increasingly depends on the systems reliability level, also considering the interactions among them. Hazard analysis is typically used to identify potential system risks and avoid loss of AV system functionality. Conventional hazard analysis methods are commonly used for traditional standalone systems. New hazard analysis methods have been developed that may be more suitable for AV system-of-systems complexity. However, a comprehensive comparison of hazard analysis methods for AV systems is lacking. In this study, the traditional hazard analysis methods, hazard and operability (HAZOP) and failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA), as well as the most recent methods, like functional resonance analysis method (FRAM; Hollnagel, 2004, 2012) and system-theoretic process analysis (STPA; Leveson, 2011), are considered for implementation in the automatic emergency braking system. This system is designed to avoid collisions by utilizing the surrounding sensors to detect objects on the road, warning drivers with alerts about any collision risk, and actuating automatic partial/full braking through calculated adaptive braking deceleration. The objective of this work is to evaluate the methods in terms of their applicability to AV technologies. The advantages of HAZOP, FMEA, FRAM, and STPA, as well as the possibility of combining them to achieve systematic risk identification in practice, are discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
13.60%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Verification and Validation of Rotating Machinery Using Digital Twin Risk Approach Based On the Fram Model for Vessel Traffic Management A Fault Detection Framework Based On Data-driven Digital Shadows Domain Adaptation Of Population-Based Of Bolted Joint Structures For Loss Detection Of Tightening Torque Human-Comfort Evaluation for A Patient-Transfer Robot through A Human-Robot Mechanical Model
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1