Modular Safety System Validation for Dynamic Configuration Compliance

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current safety validation methods for modular safety systems are complex and inflexible, particularly in dynamic or changing configurations, making it difficult to ensure compliance with safety standards like IEC 61508, especially in Cyber Physical Systems and Industry 4.0 environments where modularization and adaptive configurations are common.

Innovation Solution

A method for automatic validation of safety functions in modular safety systems, involving a checking device that stores and compares safety-relevant target characteristic values with actual parameters from subsystem modules, generating reaction signals to ensure compliance and trigger safety reactions as needed, allowing for online and offline validation.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If manual validation methods are used for modular safety systems, then validation can be performed with simple tools, but the validation process becomes increasingly complex and time-consuming with dynamic configurations

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesafety validation complianceVSAvoidvalidation process complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The safety system performs self-validation by automatically comparing its actual configuration parameters against stored target parameters. The system autonomously detects configuration errors and generates validation results without requiring external manual intervention, thereby simplifying the validation process while maintaining high reliability for modular and dynamic configurations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

2Reliability

If comprehensive safety validation is performed on complete systems, then all safety functions can be verified, but the validation becomes unmanageable with growing system complexity

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesafety function verificationVSAvoidvalidation manageability
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The validation process is segmented into modular steps: individual subsystem modules are validated separately by comparing their specific parameter sets against target parameters, then results are aggregated to validate the complete system. This hierarchical segmentation makes comprehensive validation manageable by breaking it down into smaller, independent validation units that can be processed systematically.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

3Adaptability or versatility

If traditional validation methods are used for modular systems, then existing validation processes can be maintained, but adaptation to dynamic configurations becomes difficult

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveconfiguration flexibilityVSAvoidvalidation system complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The validation system is designed to be dynamic by automatically adapting to changing system configurations. When modules are added, removed, or modified, the system dynamically retrieves updated target parameters and performs validation without requiring reconfiguration of the validation process itself. This dynamic capability enables the system to handle flexible modular configurations while maintaining a relatively simple validation mechanism.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

4Productivity

If automated validation is implemented, then validation efficiency improves, but the system requires more complex infrastructure

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvevalidation efficiencyVSAvoidvalidation system infrastructure
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system uses parameter sets as virtual copies of the actual safety system configuration. Instead of requiring complex physical test equipment, the validation process creates and compares digital parameter representations (target parameter sets and actual parameter sets). This copying approach enables automated validation with simple computational infrastructure while maintaining high efficiency.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #26Copying

Data Source

PatentEP3098673B1Method and device for automated validation of security features on a modular security system
Publication Date: 2023.08.23 PHOENIX CONTACT GMBH & CO KG
  • EP3098673B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP3098673B1 patent drawingFigure 2

AI summary

The invention relates to an automatic validation of safety functions of a safety system constructed in a modular manner with subsystem modules. Safety-relevant target characteristic values ​​of a system, which forms a safety system that is to be constructed or is constructed in a modular manner from at least two subsystem modules, in particular residual error probabilities, failure rates and/or overall reaction times, are stored in machine-readable form in the memory of a checking device and local, module-specific safety-relevant actual characteristic values ​​at least of each individual subsystem module, which is used or is to be used for the modular structure of the safety system of the system, are stored in machine-readable form in the respective subsystem module. The local, module-specific, safety-relevant actual characteristic values ​​are transmitted from the individual subsystem modules, which currently build up the safety system of the system in a modular manner, to the checking device and are automatically processed into overarching safety-relevant actual characteristic values ​​resulting from the interaction of the individual subsystem modules. The resulting, overarching, safety-relevant actual characteristic values ​​are then compared by the checking device with the target characteristic values ​​of the system stored in the memory of the checking device, and a reaction signal is automatically generated depending on the result of the comparison.