Safety-Critical Architecture Analysis for Failure Rate Alignment
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
The increasing complexity of safety-critical systems in domains like aerospace, healthcare, and automotive poses challenges in designing architectures that meet stringent safety and reliability requirements while reducing time-to-market and ensuring compliance with industrial norms and regulations.
Innovation Solution
A method that involves creating a physical system analysis model to incrementally modify the architecture until calculated failure rates match those of a functional system analysis model, using component fault trees to generate and adapt elements, and performing quantitative fault tree analysis to ensure safety and reliability requirements are met.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Adaptability or versatility
If the system complexity of safety-critical systems increases to meet growing functional requirements, then the system can fulfill more customer needs and application domain requirements, but the effort to design and assure safe and reliable system increases drastically
Solution Approach 1:
The patent divides the safety analysis into multiple hierarchical levels (system level, architecture level, component level). Each level has its own analysis model and safety requirements, allowing complex safety-critical systems to be managed through structured decomposition. The architecture analysis model specifically bridges system-level safety requirements and component-level implementations, enabling systematic handling of complexity.
Solution Approach 2:
The architecture analysis model serves as an intermediary between system-level safety requirements and component-level safety analyses. It translates abstract system safety goals into concrete architecture-level constraints and validates that component implementations satisfy these constraints, thereby managing the complexity transition across different abstraction levels.
2Reliability
If traditional safety analysis methods are used for complex safety-critical systems, then safety and reliability requirements can be addressed, but the time-to-market for designed products increases
Solution Approach 1:
The architecture analysis model enables preliminary safety validation at the architecture level before detailed component design and integration. By establishing safety constraints and validation criteria early in the development process, the model prevents later rework and accelerates time-to-market while maintaining reliability requirements.
Solution Approach 2:
The model provides automated feedback mechanisms that continuously validate architecture-level safety constraints during design iterations. This early and continuous validation prevents propagation of safety issues to later development stages, reducing rework and accelerating time-to-market.
3Reliability
If detailed safety analysis is performed for each component in complex systems, then safety requirements can be ensured, but the effort and cost associated with ensuring compliance increases
Solution Approach 1:
The patent segments safety analysis into appropriate levels of abstraction. The architecture analysis model handles system-level safety constraints and architecture-level validation, while component-level analyses focus on specific component safety properties. This segmentation avoids the overhead of applying full system-level analysis to every component.
Solution Approach 2:
Different parts of the system receive appropriately tailored safety analysis depth. Critical architecture-level decisions and safety constraints receive detailed analysis, while less critical components use standardized analysis approaches. This local quality approach optimizes analysis effort according to actual safety needs at each system level.
Data Source
Figure 1~2
Figure 3
Figure 4
AI summary
A method for analyzing and designing a physical system architecture of a safety-critical system (SYS), wherein a physical system analysis model (PSYS-AM) representing the physical system architecture (PSYS-A) of said safety-critical system (SYS) is modified incrementally until calculated failure rates (λPFM) of failure modes (FM) of said physical system analysis model (PSYS-AM) are less or equal to failure rates (λFFM ) of corresponding failure modes (FM) of a functional system analysis model (FSYS-AM) representing a functional system architecture (FSYS-A) of said safety-critical system (SYS) .