A comprehensive evaluation method for testability indicators

Abstract

The present application belongs to the field of aircraft system test technology, and particularly relates to a comprehensive evaluation method for testability indicators. The method includes step S1, collecting testability indicator evaluation results of a plurality of specified types of tests; step S2, determining whether each testability indicator meets the standard according to the fault detection rate threshold and the fault isolation rate threshold of each testability indicator; step S3, if all testability indicators meet the standard, the comprehensive evaluation conclusion given is that it meets the standard, if there is a testability indicator evaluation result of a set type of test that has not been collected, then a self-evaluation of the testability indicators based on field data is performed; step S4, obtaining a testability identification test indicator evaluation result based on the testability indicator self-evaluation; step S5, if the testability identification test indicator evaluation result meets the standard, then the comprehensive evaluation conclusion given is that it meets the standard. The comprehensive evaluation method for testability indicators given in the present application can provide support for testability indicator evaluation and provide a basis for improving testability design.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present application belongs to the technical field of aircraft system testing, and in particular relates to a comprehensive evaluation method for testability indicators. Background Art

[0002] Testability evaluation is an important means to evaluate whether the testability design results meet the development needs. In the process of equipment development and use, by evaluating the testability indicators, testability design defects can be discovered, providing a basis for improving testability. At different stages of equipment development, the testability indicator evaluation methods are different, mainly including testability development test evaluation, testability identification test evaluation, flight test test testability indicator evaluation, and troop test testability indicator evaluation. Due to the different technical status at the time of evaluation, the testability design status is also different, and the testability indicator evaluation results obtained at each stage are generally different. In view of these different evaluation results, how to comprehensively and accurately evaluate the testability design level, provide support for testability identification, and give the final comprehensive evaluation conclusion is an important issue that needs to be solved. Summary of the invention

[0003] In order to solve at least one of the above technical problems, this application designs a comprehensive evaluation method for testability indicators, which mainly includes:

[0004] Step S1, collecting testability index evaluation results of a plurality of specified types of tests, wherein the testability indexes include a fault detection rate and a fault isolation rate;

[0005] Step S2: determining whether each testability indicator meets the standard according to the fault detection rate threshold and the fault isolation rate threshold of each testability indicator;

[0006] Step S3: If all testability indicators meet the standards, the comprehensive evaluation conclusion given is that the standards are met; if there is a testability indicator that does not meet the standards, the comprehensive evaluation conclusion given is that the standards are not met; if the testability indicator evaluation results of the set type test are not collected, a testability indicator self-evaluation based on field data is performed;

[0007] Step S4, obtaining a testability identification test indicator evaluation result according to the testability indicator self-evaluation;

[0008] Step S5: According to the testability identification test index evaluation result, compare it with the preset fault detection rate threshold and fault isolation rate threshold to determine whether the testability identification test index evaluation result meets the standard. If the testability identification test index evaluation result meets the standard, the comprehensive evaluation conclusion given is that it meets the standard; otherwise, the comprehensive evaluation conclusion given is that it does not meet the standard.

[0009] Preferably, step S1 further comprises:

[0010] Collect the testability development test index evaluation results, collect the testability identification test index evaluation results, collect the testability index evaluation results of the flight test, and collect the testability index evaluation results of the troops test.

[0011] Preferably, step S2 further comprises:

[0012] Determine in sequence whether the testability development test index evaluation results, testability identification test index evaluation results, flight test test index evaluation results, and force test test index evaluation results meet the standards. On the premise that the testability development test index evaluation results meet the standards, determine whether the testability identification test index evaluation results meet the standards.

[0013] On the premise that the testability qualification test indicator evaluation results meet the standards, determine whether the flight test test indicator evaluation results meet the standards;

[0014] On the premise that the flight test testability index evaluation results meet the standards or are inconclusive, determine whether the unit test testability index evaluation results meet the standards;

[0015] Under the premise that the evaluation results of the testability indicators of the troops' experiments have not yet been concluded, a self-evaluation of the testability indicators based on the field data shall be conducted;

[0016] The inconclusiveness means that the test index evaluation results of the corresponding type of test have not been collected.

[0017] Preferably, in step S3, the testability index self-assessment based on field data includes:

[0018] Step S31, obtaining fault-related data of the fault source that occurs during field use;

[0019] Step S32, performing fault classification processing on the fault-related data, and selecting fault samples for evaluation;

[0020] Step S33: Perform test analysis on the selected fault samples for evaluation, wherein the test analysis includes determining detection conditions, isolation conditions, and false alarm conditions;

[0021] Step S34: Calculate the fault detection rate and the fault isolation rate.

[0022] Preferably, in step S32, selecting fault samples for evaluation includes:

[0023] Eliminate multiple types of faults specified by the fault classification process, including but not limited to structural parts failure, mechanical equipment failure, separation equipment failure, manufacturing process failure, equipment process failure, improper operation failure, failure exceeding the product's use environment requirements, product normal life failure, and product design defect failure.

[0024] Preferably, in step S34, a testability index evaluation including calculation of fault detection rate and fault isolation rate is performed based on a one-sided confidence lower limit evaluation method.

[0025] The comprehensive evaluation method for testability indicators given in this application can provide support for testability indicator evaluation and provide a basis for improving testability design. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0026] Figure 1 It is a flow chart of an implementation method of the comprehensive evaluation method of test indicators of the present application.

[0027] Figure 2 It is a schematic diagram of field fault data testability analysis record of a preferred embodiment of the present application. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0028] In order to make the purpose, technical scheme and advantages of the implementation of this application clearer, the technical scheme in the implementation of this application will be described in more detail in combination with the drawings in the implementation of this application. In the drawings, the same or similar reference numerals throughout represent the same or similar elements or elements with the same or similar functions. The described implementation is a part of the implementation of this application, not all of the implementations. The implementation described below with reference to the drawings is exemplary and is intended to be used to explain this application, and cannot be understood as a limitation on this application. Based on the implementation in this application, all other implementations obtained by ordinary technicians in this field without making creative work are within the scope of protection of this application. The implementation of this application is described in detail below in combination with the drawings.

[0029] This application provides a comprehensive evaluation method for testability indicators, which mainly includes:

[0030] Step S1, collecting testability index evaluation results of a plurality of specified types of tests, wherein the testability indexes include a fault detection rate and a fault isolation rate.

[0031] In some optional embodiments, step S1 further includes: collecting testability development test index evaluation results, collecting testability identification test index evaluation results, collecting flight test test index evaluation results, and collecting troop test test index evaluation results.

[0032] Step S2: determining whether each testability indicator meets the standard according to the fault detection rate threshold and the fault isolation rate threshold of each testability indicator.

[0033] In this embodiment, for example, the fault detection rate threshold is 75%, and the fault isolation rate threshold is 80%.

[0034] Step S3: If all test indicators meet the standards, the comprehensive evaluation conclusion given is that the standards are met; if there is a test indicator that does not meet the standards, the comprehensive evaluation conclusion given is that the standards are not met; if the test indicator evaluation results of the set type test are not collected, a test indicator self-evaluation based on field data is performed.

[0035] Figure 1 A specific test evaluation process is given to judge in turn whether the testability development test index evaluation results, testability identification test index evaluation results, flight test test index evaluation results and troop test test index evaluation results meet the standards.

[0036] First, determine whether the testability index evaluation results of the testability development test meet the standards: if the testability index evaluation results do not meet the standards, the comprehensive evaluation conclusion is that they do not meet the standards, and the evaluation process ends; if the testability index evaluation results meet the standards, continue to determine whether the testability identification test test meets the standards: if the results do not meet the standards, the comprehensive evaluation conclusion is that they do not meet the standards, and the evaluation process ends; if the results meet the standards, continue to determine whether the testability index evaluation results of the flight test meet the standards: if the results do not meet the standards, the comprehensive evaluation conclusion is that they do not meet the standards, and the evaluation process ends; if the results meet the standards or no evaluation results are given, continue to determine whether the testability index evaluation results of the military test meet the standards: if the results do not meet the standards, the comprehensive evaluation conclusion is that they do not meet the standards, and the evaluation process ends; if the results meet the standards, the comprehensive evaluation conclusion is that they meet the standards, and the evaluation process ends; if no evaluation results are given, continue to carry out the self-evaluation of testability indicators based on field data. It should be noted that the inconclusiveness means that the testability index evaluation results of the corresponding type of test have not been collected.

[0037] In a specific embodiment, the testability development test index evaluation results are: fault detection rate 80%, fault isolation rate to 1 LRU / LRM 90%; testability identification test index evaluation results: fault detection rate 78%, fault isolation rate to 1 LRU / LRM 82%; flight test test index evaluation results: no conclusion; military test test index evaluation results: no conclusion. According to the fault detection rate threshold and fault isolation rate threshold given in step S2, the testability development test index evaluation results and the testability identification test index evaluation results are both qualified. Since the flight test test index evaluation results and the military test test index evaluation results are inconclusive, it is necessary to conduct a testability index self-evaluation based on field data.

[0038] In some optional implementations, in step S3, the testability indicator self-assessment based on field data includes:

[0039] Step S31, obtaining fault-related data of the fault source that occurs during field use;

[0040] Step S32, performing fault classification processing on the fault-related data, and selecting fault samples for evaluation;

[0041] Step S33: Perform test analysis on the selected fault samples for evaluation, wherein the test analysis includes determining detection conditions, isolation conditions, and false alarm conditions;

[0042] Step S34: Calculate the fault detection rate and the fault isolation rate.

[0043] Among them, in step S31, the basic information of the fault source required for self-assessment of test indicators based on field data includes data related to faults occurring during field use, such as aircraft number, fault date, airborne equipment, name of faulty component, fault phenomenon and cause analysis.

[0044] In step S32, the acquired fault data is firstly subjected to fault classification processing, and the fault classification generally includes:

[0045] 1) Functional failure;

[0046] 2) Structural component failure;

[0047] 3) Mechanical equipment failure;

[0048] 4) Separation equipment failure;

[0049] 5) Manufacturing process failure: failure caused by unstable product status due to the manufacturing process;

[0050] 6) Equipment process failure: product failure caused by the operation of the assembler during assembly;

[0051] 7) Failure due to improper operation: Failure caused by operator error or improper operation during use;

[0052] 8) Product design defect failure: Failure caused by the product's initial design defects, which has been corrected later;

[0053] 9) Failures beyond the product's use environment requirements: Failures caused by exceeding the product's use environment requirements;

[0054] 10) Product failure due to normal service life: failure caused by the normal service life of the product;

[0055] 11) Other faults.

[0056] Secondly, select fault samples for evaluation. In some optional implementations, the main purpose is to eliminate specified multiple types of faults given by the fault classification process, including but not limited to structural parts failures, mechanical equipment failures, separation equipment failures, manufacturing process failures, equipment process failures, improper operation failures, failures that exceed the product's use environment requirements, product normal life failures, and product design defect failures.

[0057] In step S33, a test analysis is performed on the selected fault samples for evaluation, including:

[0058] 1) Detection situation analysis: For the self-assessment fault samples, analyze whether the detection is successful based on the actual detection situation of the evaluation fault samples, and record the inspection methods. The inspection methods include: in-machine inspection, automatic test equipment, manual inspection, and others.

[0059] 2) Isolation analysis: For the fault samples used for evaluation with the detection method of "in-machine detection", the fault isolation fuzzy results and the number of fuzzy groups are analyzed and given:

[0060] 3) False alarm analysis: For self-assessment fault samples whose detection method is "built-in detection", false alarm analysis is performed. If it is a false alarm, the cause of the false alarm is analyzed.

[0061] After step S33, the process further includes filling in the field fault data testability analysis table. Specifically, the field fault data testability analysis table is filled in by comprehensively acquiring fault data source, processing fault data, and performing testability analysis. Figure 2 shown.

[0062] In step S34, a testability index evaluation is performed. In some optional implementations, a testability index evaluation including calculation of fault detection rate and fault isolation rate is performed based on a one-sided confidence lower limit evaluation method, such as Figure 2 As shown, the minimum sample size is determined to be 5, the calculated fault detection rate is 5 / 6=83.3%, and the calculated fault isolation rate is 4 / 5=80%.

[0063] Step S4: obtaining a testability identification test indicator evaluation result according to the testability indicator self-evaluation.

[0064] According to the fault detection rate threshold and the fault isolation rate threshold given in step S2, it can be known that the testability index self-assessment result obtained by the testability identification test index self-assessment is also qualified.

[0065] Step S5: According to the testability identification test index evaluation result, compare it with the preset fault detection rate threshold and fault isolation rate threshold to determine whether the testability identification test index evaluation result meets the standard. If the testability identification test index evaluation result meets the standard, the comprehensive evaluation conclusion given is that it meets the standard; otherwise, the comprehensive evaluation conclusion given is that it does not meet the standard.

[0066] According to the given example data, it can be seen that the comprehensive evaluation conclusion is that the standard is met and the evaluation is ended.

[0067] The comprehensive evaluation method for testability indicators given in this application can provide support for testability indicator evaluation and provide a basis for improving testability design.

[0068] The above is only a specific implementation of the present application, but the protection scope of the present application is not limited thereto. Any changes or substitutions that can be easily thought of by a person skilled in the art within the technical scope disclosed in the present application should be included in the protection scope of the present application. Therefore, the protection scope of the present application shall be based on the protection scope of the claims.

Claims

1. A comprehensive evaluation method for testability indicators, characterized in that: include: Step S1, collecting testability index evaluation results of a plurality of specified types of tests, wherein the testability indexes include a fault detection rate and a fault isolation rate; Step S2: determining whether each testability indicator meets the standard according to the fault detection rate threshold and the fault isolation rate threshold of each testability indicator; Step S3: If all testability indicators meet the standards, the comprehensive evaluation conclusion given is that the standards are met; if there is a testability indicator that does not meet the standards, the comprehensive evaluation conclusion given is that the standards are not met; if the testability indicator evaluation results of the set type test are not collected, a testability indicator self-evaluation based on field data is performed; Step S4, obtaining a testability identification test indicator evaluation result according to the testability indicator self-evaluation; Step S5: According to the testability identification test index evaluation result, compare it with the preset fault detection rate threshold and fault isolation rate threshold to determine whether the testability identification test index evaluation result meets the standard. If the testability identification test index evaluation result meets the standard, the comprehensive evaluation conclusion given is that it meets the standard; otherwise, the comprehensive evaluation conclusion given is that it does not meet the standard.

2. The testability index comprehensive evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that: Step S1 further comprises: Collect the testability development test index evaluation results, collect the testability identification test index evaluation results, collect the testability index evaluation results of the flight test, and collect the testability index evaluation results of the troops test.

3. The testability index comprehensive evaluation method according to claim 2, characterized in that: Step S2 further comprises: Determine in sequence whether the testability development test index evaluation results, testability identification test index evaluation results, flight test test index evaluation results, and force test test index evaluation results meet the standards. On the premise that the testability development test index evaluation results meet the standards, determine whether the testability identification test index evaluation results meet the standards. On the premise that the testability qualification test indicator evaluation results meet the standards, determine whether the flight test test indicator evaluation results meet the standards; On the premise that the flight test testability index evaluation results meet the standards or are inconclusive, determine whether the unit test testability index evaluation results meet the standards; Under the premise that the evaluation results of the testability indicators of the troops' experiments have not yet been concluded, a self-evaluation of the testability indicators based on field data shall be conducted; The inconclusiveness means that the test index evaluation results of the corresponding type of test have not been collected.

4. The testability index comprehensive evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step S3, the self-assessment of the testability indicators based on the field data includes: Step S31, obtaining fault-related data of the fault source that occurs during field use; Step S32, performing fault classification processing on the fault-related data, and selecting fault samples for evaluation; Step S33: Perform test analysis on the selected fault samples for evaluation, wherein the test analysis includes determining detection conditions, isolation conditions, and false alarm conditions; Step S34: Calculate the fault detection rate and the fault isolation rate.

5. The testability index comprehensive evaluation method according to claim 4, characterized in that: In step S32, selecting fault samples for evaluation includes: Eliminate multiple types of faults specified by fault classification processing, including structural parts failure, mechanical equipment failure, separation equipment failure, manufacturing process failure, equipment process failure, improper operation failure, failure exceeding the product's use environment requirements, product normal life failure, and product design defect failure.

6. The testability index comprehensive evaluation method according to claim 4, characterized in that: In step S34, a testability index evaluation including fault detection rate and fault isolation rate calculation is performed based on a one-sided confidence lower limit evaluation method.

Images