Dynamic Safety Requirements for Adaptive Robotics Systems

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current Safety Requirements Specifications (SRS) documents are static, limiting flexibility during system operation and requiring burdensome re-establishment of system safety with every change in functionality or environment.

Innovation Solution

A safety computing system that includes an ontology and reasoning engine to dynamically update safety-related ontologies throughout the lifecycle of robotics or automation systems, allowing for just-in-time verification of safety constraints.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If static safety requirements specifications are used, then safety constraints are clearly defined and enforced, but system flexibility and adaptability to changes are reduced

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesafety constraint enforcementVSAvoidsystem flexibility

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The patent transforms static safety requirements into dynamic, executable code that can be automatically updated and verified. The safety requirements specification is converted into a machine-executable form that allows real-time adaptation while maintaining enforcement, resolving the contradiction between static safety assurance and dynamic flexibility.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system allows safety parameters to be modified through automated updates of the executable safety requirements. Changes in safety constraints can be made by updating the code representation, enabling flexible parameter adjustment while maintaining rigorous safety verification through automated checking.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

2Reliability

If static safety requirements are enforced, then safety violations are prevented, but verification of requirements during operation is inhibited

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesafety violation preventionVSAvoidrequirement verification

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The system implements automated feedback loops where the executable safety requirements are continuously verified against system operation. The machine-executable form enables automatic checking and reporting of compliance status, making verification easy while maintaining prevention of violations through real-time monitoring.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The safety verification process is automated through the executable code representation, which self-verifies compliance during operation without requiring manual intervention. The system automatically checks safety constraints and reports violations, enabling easy verification while maintaining rigorous safety enforcement.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

3Adaptability or versatility

If safety requirements are changed, then adaptability to new environments is improved, but system safety must be re-established from scratch

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveenvironmental adaptabilityVSAvoidsafety re-establishment time

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The safety requirements are pre-converted into machine-executable code during system design, creating a ready-to-verify foundation. When environmental changes occur, the executable representation allows rapid updates and automated re-verification, eliminating the need to re-establish safety from scratch and significantly reducing the time loss.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

4Productivity

If engineering time and costs are reduced through agile safety management, then productivity increases, but safety verification rigor may be compromised

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveengineering efficiencyVSAvoidsafety verification rigor

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces manual, mechanical safety verification processes with automated machine-executable verification. The executable safety requirements code automatically checks compliance during operation, providing rigorous verification without requiring time-consuming manual processes, thus increasing productivity while maintaining or enhancing safety rigor.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Data Source

PatentUS20250124180A1Just-in-time safety systems

Publication Date: 2025.04.17 SIEMENS CORP

AI summary

Methods and systems are disclosed for generating or monitoring programmatically accessible safety requirements dynamically during a systems lifecycle. In an example aspect, a safety computing system includes one or more processors and a memory having a plurality of application modules stored thereon. The modules can include an ontology and reasoning engine configured to update safety-related ontologies related to components of a robotics or automation system throughout the systems lifecycle. The safety computing system can further include a design module, an implementation module, and an operations module each communicatively coupled to the ontology and reasoning engine.