SysEng6104 Project Task 7

SystemArchitecture Assessment Method

Using the system benefit that is defined in earlier project tasks namely; system key performance
attributes( MOE), fuzzy terms to assess the architecture, fuzzy statements and MOE, MOP, TPM
formulate an architecture assessment method of your own and assess the Level-2 system
architecture that you have developed in project task 6. You can select at least ten journal or
conference proceeding papers that are related to architecture assessment that can help you in
building your assessment model.
Ans:
Level 2 Architecture of Corrosion protection system of hot rolled steel rebar:

Level 0

Level 1

Level 2

The KPAs will be used to grade or assess the overall architecture:

KPA Unacceptable Marginal Acceptable Excellent
Adjustibility Fails to meet Fails to meet at Meets or exceeds Exceeds at more
multiple least one all measures of than one
measures of measure of performance measure of
performance performance performance
60-85
(Nozzle
40-60 >85
adjustment, tank
adjustment, etc.)
<40
Controllability Fails to meet Marginal Meets or exceeds Meets or exceeds
 primary measure Performance for primary measure all measures of
of performance primary measure of performance performance
(flow control, of performance
>85
mixing ratio
control) 65-85
50-65
<50
Maintainability If preventive If preventive If preventive If preventive
maintenance time maintenance maintenance maintenance
is greater than 5 time is in time is in time is less than 2
hours between 4-5 between 2-4 hours
hours hours
>5 <2
4-5 2-4
Reliability If the failure time If the failure time If the failure time If the failure time
is greater than is in between is in between is less than 10%
40% of operating 30% to 40% of 10% to 30% of of operating time
time operating time operating time
<10%
>40% 30% -40% 10% -30%
Compactness If total dimension If total dimension If total dimension If total dimension
exceeds 4 square is in between3- 4 is in between2-3 is less than 2
meter square meter square meter square meter
>4 3-4 2-3 <2
Affordability Projected total Projected total Projected total Projected total
costs exceed costs exceed 95% costs is between costs is less than
100% of Budget of Budget 85% and 95% of 85% of budget
Budget
>100% >95% <85%
85% - 95%

For each of the level-2 architecture, assessment model and corresponding Kiviat Chart is as
following:
1) Architecture model for ‘Mixing’:
Model Type Capability Description Acceptable Max Actual
KPA 1 Adjustability 60 100 88
KPA 2 Controllability 65 100 90
KPA 3 Maintainability 2 5 3
Key Performance Parameters
KPA 4 Reliability 30 40 32
KPA 5 Compactness 2 4 2
KPA 6 Affordability 85 100 85
 Level-2
Model Type Description Acceptable Max Actual
Function
F1 Receiving 22 25 23.25
Quantitative & Qualitative
F2 Rotating 23 25 23.5
Assessment
F3 Discharging 22 25 22.5
Model Type TPM Description Acceptable Max Actual
TPM 1 Flow Rate 22 25 22.5
Quantitative & Qualitative
TPM 2 RPM 21 25 22
Assessment
TPM 3 Flow Rate 22 25 22.5
Total 376 499 436.25
Overall score percentage 87.42%

Kiviat chart for ‘Mixing’:

Kivia Chart for Mixing

Receiving
23.5
23
22.5
22
21.5
21

Discharging Rotating

2) Architecture model for ‘Pumping’:

Model Type Capability Description Acceptable Max Actual
KPA 1 Adjustability 60 100 88
KPA 2 Controllability 65 100 90
KPA 3 Maintainability 2 5 3
Key Performance Parameters
KPA 4 Reliability 30 40 32
KPA 5 Compactness 2 4 2
KPA 6 Affordability 85 100 85
Level-2
Model Type Description Acceptable Max Actual
Function
 F1 Valve opening 23 25 23.25
Quantitative & Qualitative F2 Flowing into pump inlet 23.5 25 23.75
assessment F3 Rotating fluid 23 25 23.5
F4 Discharging 22.5 25 23
Model Type TPM Description Acceptable Max Actual
TPM 1 Valve opening % 22 25 22.5
Quantitative & Qualitative TPM 2 Flowability 21 25 22
assessment TPM 3 RPM 22.5 25 23
TPM 4 Flowability 22.5 25 23
Total 424 549 484
Overall score percentage 88.16%

Kiviat Chart for pumping:

Kiviat Chart for Pumping

Valve opening
24
23
22
21
Flowing into pump
Discharging 20
inlet

Rotating fluid

3) Architecture model for Regulating:

Model Type Capability Description Acceptable Max Actual

KPA 1 Adjustability 60 100 88
KPA 2 Controllability 65 100 90
KPA 3 Maintainability 2 5 3
Key Performance Parameters
KPA 4 Reliability 30 40 32
KPA 5 Compactness 2 4 2
KPA 6 Affordability 85 100 85
Level-2
Model Type Description Acceptable Max Actual
Function
Quantitative & Qualitative F1 Sensing 23 25 24
Assessment F2 Signalling 23 25 24
 F3 Valve Opening 22 25 22.5
Model Type TPM Description Acceptable Max Actual
TPM 1 Sensing speed 22 25 22.5
Quantitative & Qualitative
TPM 2 Current flow 23 25 24
Assessment
TPM 3 Valve Opening% 22 25 22.5
Total 379 499 439.5
Overall score percentage 88.08%
Kiviat Chart for regulating:

Kiviat Chart for Regulating

Sensing
24
23.5
23
22.5
22
21.5
21

Valve Opening Signalling

4) Architecture model for Spraying:

Model Type Capability Description Acceptable Max Actual

KPA 1 Adjustability 60 100 88
KPA 2 Controllability 65 100 90
KPA 3 Maintainability 2 5 3
Key Performance Parameters
KPA 4 Reliability 30 40 32
KPA 5 Compactness 2 4 2
KPA 6 Affordability 85 100 85
Level-2
Model Type Description Acceptable Max Actual
Function
F1 Adjusting Nozzle 23 25 24
Quantitative & Qualitative F2 Flowing into nozzle 23.5 25 24
assessment F3 Reduce volume 23 25 23.5
F4 Flowing out 22.5 25 23
 Model Type TPM Description Acceptable Max Actual
TPM 1 Angle 22 25 22.5
Quantitative & Qualitative TPM 2 Flow rate 21 25 24.5
assessment TPM 3 Pressure 22.5 25 24.5
TPM 4 Flow rate 22.5 25 24
Total 424 549 490
Overall score percentage 89.25%

Kiviat Chart for spraying:

Kiviat Chart for Spraying

Adjusting Nozzle
24

23

22

21

Flowing out 20 Flowing into nozzle

Reduce volume

5) Architecture model for Creating Bond:

Model Type Capability Description Acceptable Max Actual

KPA 1 Adjustability 60 100 88
KPA 2 Controllability 65 100 90
KPA 3 Maintainability 2 5 3
Key Performance Parameters
KPA 4 Reliability 30 40 32
KPA 5 Compactness 2 4 2
KPA 6 Affordability 85 100 85
Level-2
Model Type Description Acceptable Max Actual
Function
F1 Contacting steel 23 25 24
Quantitative & Qualitative
F2 Chemical Reaction 23 25 24
Assessment
F3 Preventing oxidation 22 25 24.5
Model Type TPM Description Acceptable Max Actual
Quantitative & Qualitative TPM 1 Surface area 22 25 24
 Assessment TPM 2 Reaction speed 23 25 24
TPM 3 Oxidation rate 22 25 22.5
Total 379 499 443
Overall score percentage 88.78%

Kiviat Chart for creating bond:

Kiviat Chart for Bonding

Contacting steel
25
24
23
22
21
20

Preventing Chemical
oxidation Reaction

These Kiviat charts can be used to assess the system.