Model-Based Safety Contracts for Failure Behavior Analysis

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current methods for generating safety contracts in safety-critical systems are manual, time-consuming, and prone to errors, especially as system complexity increases, with limited automation and incomplete checks.

Innovation Solution

A system for safety analysis of failure behavior that automatically generates safety contracts using a model-based safety analysis model with separate modules for components, defining internal failure behavior and fault tree models, and transforming failure modes into interface and component contracts.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If safety contracts are generated manually by developers/experts, then the safety analysis can be performed, but the process is time-consuming and cost-intensive

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesafety analysis qualityVSAvoidcontract generation time

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces the manual mechanical process of safety contract generation with an automated computer-based system. The safety analysis unit automatically generates safety contracts from system models, replacing the manual work of developers and experts while maintaining safety analysis quality.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Solution Approach 2:

The system enables self-service by automatically generating safety contracts without requiring manual intervention from developers or experts. The automated process uses pre-defined models and algorithms to produce safety contracts independently, eliminating the need for time-consuming manual creation.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

2Reliability

If safety contracts are generated manually, then completeness can be checked by expert reviews, but the review process is time-consuming and cost-intensive

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecontract completenessVSAvoidreview efficiency

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces manual expert review with automated verification processes. The system automatically checks the completeness and consistency of generated safety contracts using predefined criteria and algorithms, eliminating the need for time-consuming manual reviews while maintaining reliability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements automated feedback mechanisms that verify safety contract completeness immediately after generation. The verification unit provides instant feedback on whether contracts meet required standards, eliminating delays associated with manual review processes.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

3Device complexity

If system complexity increases with more connected devices, then more comprehensive safety analysis is needed, but manual contract generation becomes increasingly error-prone

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesystem complexityVSAvoidcontract accuracy

Core Design Contradiction:

Device complexityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the complex safety analysis process into modular components: system model generation, safety contract generation, and verification. Each module handles specific aspects of the analysis independently, making the overall process more reliable and easier to manage for complex systems with multiple connected devices.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent replaces manual safety contract generation with an automated computer-based system that can handle increasing system complexity without introducing human errors. The automated system consistently applies safety criteria across all components, maintaining reliability even as system complexity increases.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

4Adaptability or versatility

If manual safety contract generation is used, then flexibility in handling diverse system requirements is maintained, but consistency and completeness checks are incomplete

Engineering Contradiction:

Improverequirement handling flexibilityVSAvoidcontract consistency

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements a universal safety contract generation system that can handle diverse system requirements through standardized models and templates. The system maintains flexibility by adapting to different system types while ensuring consistent application of safety criteria across all cases through automated verification.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements automated feedback loops that verify consistency and completeness of safety contracts immediately after generation. This feedback mechanism ensures that all contracts meet required standards regardless of system complexity or type, maintaining reliability while preserving adaptability to diverse requirements.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

Data Source

PatentEP3640757B1Automatic generation of a safety contract

Publication Date: 2021.11.24 SIEMENS IND SOFTWARE NV

Figure 1~2
Figure 3

AI summary

The invention relates to a system (100) for safety analysis of failure behavior for a unit (200) comprising two or more components (210, 220, 230) with at least one inport (I) for receiving failure data and one outport (O) for transmitting failure data, wherein for the analysis of the failures data of the components (210, 220, 230) and/or the unit (200) a safety contract (SC) is used, and wherein the safety contract (SC) is generated automatically by a model-based safety analysis model (SAM) comprising separate SAM modules (110, 120, 130) which are related to the components (210, 220, 230) of the unit 200.