Field Device Parameter Validation via Data-Diverse Interfaces

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Safety-critical field devices in automation systems face challenges with insecure communication interfaces during parameterization, leading to potential falsification of parameters and difficulties in validation, especially in environments requiring functional safety like IEC 61508 SIL 3 standards.

Innovation Solution

The method involves using data diversity across logical interfaces for parameter transmission and calculation of test indicators within the field device, ensuring secure remote parameterization by comparing test indicators between the field device and engineering system, with write protection and state machine management to enforce compliance and integrity.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Ease of operation

If field devices are parameterized through standard communication interfaces (HART, PROFIBUS, FF, PROFINET), then ease of operation is improved, but security against parameter falsification deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveparameterization accessibilityVSAvoidparameter integrity

Core Design Contradiction:

Ease of operationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

A secure communication interface is introduced as an intermediary between the engineering system and the field device. This interface acts as a mediator that enables parameterization while ensuring security through encrypted data transmission and authentication mechanisms, thus resolving the contradiction between ease of operation and parameter integrity

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements feedback mechanisms where the field device sends back confirmation signals and status information to the engineering system. This feedback loop allows for verification of parameter integrity and detection of any unauthorized modifications, maintaining reliability while enabling remote parameterization

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

2Reliability

If visual inspection of parameters is performed on site using the field device display, then reliability of parameter validation is improved, but ease of operation deteriorates due to complex parameter lists and difficult device access

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveparameter validation accuracyVSAvoidvalidation effort

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The parameter list is copied and displayed on the engineering system's user interface alongside the parameterization process. This eliminates the need for physical on-site inspection by allowing operators to view and validate parameters remotely through the engineering system, thus improving ease of operation while maintaining validation reliability

Inventive Principle:

Principle #26Copying

Solution Approach 2:

The manual visual inspection process is replaced by automated comparison functions within the engineering system. The system automatically compares transmitted parameters with the parameter list and validates integrity through cryptographic verification, substituting manual mechanical inspection with automated electronic verification

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

3Productivity

If multiple users access the same field device simultaneously for commissioning, then productivity is improved, but reliability deteriorates due to competing access and potential conflicts

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecommissioning speedVSAvoidparameterization consistency

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The secure communication interface maintains continuous authenticated connections with the field device, establishing persistent secure sessions for multiple users. This allows simultaneous access without breaking the security chain, enabling parallel commissioning activities while maintaining parameter integrity through continuous cryptographic verification

Inventive Principle:

Principle #20Continuity of useful action

Solution Approach 2:

Access to the field device is segmented into multiple independent secure sessions, each with its own authentication and encryption context. This segmentation allows multiple users to work simultaneously on different aspects of commissioning without interfering with each other, while the field device manages multiple secure connections independently

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Data Source

PatentEP3607405B1Method for parameterizing a field device, and field device that can be parameterized

Publication Date: 2021.02.17 SIEMENS AG

Figure 1~2
Figure 3~4

AI summary

The invention relates to a method for parameterizing a field device (Fx) by means of at least one parameter (SCUP) and to a field device for carrying out the method. For validation, a first checking characteristic (P1) is calculated by the field device (Fx) on the basis of the parameter (SCUP) and a device ID (SN), is stored in a memory (21) of the field device (Fx), and is transferred to an engineering system (4) via a logical interface. In addition, the parameter to be validated and the device ID are transferred to the engineering system (4) via a logical interface that is data-diverse with respect to the aforementioned interface and are output on a display (6) there. In order to confirm correct parameterization, a user can input the read first checking characteristic (P1) at an operating unit (6) of the engineering system (4), which first checking characteristic is then transferred back to the field device (Fx) via the data-diverse interface. The received checking characteristic (P1') is compared with the calculated checking characteristic (P1) by the field device in order to validate the parameter. Thus, a calculation of checking characteristics outside of the field device is advantageously not required and it is ensured that the validation relates to the correct field device.