Function Module Validation for Industrial Plant I/O Rule Compliance
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Modular industrial plant design tools lack effective mechanisms for detecting design errors in function modules, particularly in input/output channels, leading to costly failures during later stages of plant operation, such as Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) and Site Acceptance Test (SAT).
Innovation Solution
A computer-implemented method for verifying function module design in modular industrial plants, which involves obtaining a ruleset for input/output channels and connections, checking for compliance, and preventing the use of faulty modules, along with a module validator system that performs structural and service verifications using tools like NuSMV and SPIN to identify and rectify errors before hardware implementation.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If function modules are designed without automated verification tools, then design flexibility and ease of creation are maintained, but design errors remain undetected until late-stage testing, causing costly failures
Solution Approach 1:
The patent applies preliminary action by performing automated verification of function modules during the design phase, before deployment to physical hardware. The system checks I/O channel configurations, connection validity, and design consistency upfront, preventing errors from propagating to later testing stages. This early detection mechanism resolves the contradiction by ensuring reliability through advance verification without requiring complex runtime checking systems.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent introduces an intermediary verification system that acts as a mediator between the design tool and the physical deployment environment. This intermediary layer automatically checks design artifacts against predefined rules and constraints, providing a buffer that catches errors before they reach the costly FAT/SAT testing phases. The intermediary verification mechanism resolves the contradiction by adding a relatively simple automated checking layer rather than fundamentally complicating the entire design system.
2Reliability
If comprehensive design verification is implemented, then the quality and reliability of function modules improve, but the time and resources required for the design process increase
Solution Approach 1:
The verification system performs comprehensive checks automatically during the design phase, completing quality assurance before deployment. By conducting I/O channel validation, connection checking, and design rule verification upfront, the system ensures high function module quality without requiring extended testing time at later stages. The preliminary verification approach resolves the time quality contradiction by front-loading the verification activities.
Solution Approach 2:
The design verification system operates autonomously, automatically checking design artifacts against predefined rules without requiring manual review time. The system self- validates I/O configurations, detects inconsistencies, and provides immediate feedback to designers. This self-service verification mechanism resolves the time-quality contradiction by eliminating the need for prolonged manual checking while maintaining comprehensive quality assurance.
3Ease of manufacture
If design errors are detected early in the engineering phase, then correction costs are reduced by a factor of 10 compared to late-stage detection, but automated verification tools must be integrated into the design process
Solution Approach 1:
The patent introduces an intermediary automated verification system that integrates into the design toolchain, acting as a mediator between design creation and validation. This intermediary layer provides automated checking of I/O channels, connections, and design rules, enabling early error detection with minimal disruption to existing design workflows. The integration approach resolves the contradiction by adding a modular verification component rather than fundamentally redesigning the entire toolchain.
Solution Approach 2:
The verification system performs self-validation of design artifacts automatically, checking consistency and correctness without requiring complex manual review processes. The system self-identifies errors in I/O configurations and connections, providing immediate feedback that enables rapid correction. This self-service mechanism resolves the cost-complexity contradiction by automating the verification process, reducing correction costs while keeping tool integration relatively simple.
4Adaptability or versatility
If inconsistent I/O channel configurations are allowed, then design flexibility is maintained, but operational failures occur during Factory Acceptance Test and Site Acceptance Test
Solution Approach 1:
The patent applies preliminary anti-action by proactively preventing inconsistent I/O channel configurations from being deployed. The verification system checks for configuration inconsistencies, invalid connections, and rule violations before the design reaches the FAT/SAT testing phases. By blocking problematic configurations upfront, the system maintains design flexibility for valid configurations while preventing operational failures from inconsistent ones. This preliminary prevention mechanism resolves the flexibility-reliability contradiction.
Data Source
AI summary
A method for verifying the design of a function module in an industrial plant having control logic for a physical process; logic to accept commands from a superordinate management system; communication between logics and between the function module and the industrial plant; and input/output channels, the method comprising: obtaining a ruleset comprising at least requirements for I/O channels and their connections that are necessary conditions for the function module to perform its intended function in the industrial plant; checking whether the input/output channels of the function module and their connections meet the rules in the ruleset; and in response to determining that at least one rule in the ruleset is not met, determining that the design of the function module has an error, and preventing use of the function module in the modular industrial plant.