Safety Device Computation Method Using Diversified Algorithms

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing safety devices in thermal power plants and similar systems face challenges in preventing common mode failures, particularly due to software and hardware similarities, which can lead to reliability issues and increased costs in developing diverse algorithms and software units.

Innovation Solution

A safety device configuration that includes a first computation unit and a second computation unit, each performing different types of computations on detected values, with an output control unit that only outputs results if both units agree, thereby reducing the likelihood of common mode failures through hardware and software diversification.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Ease of manufacture

If the same software is installed on each of multiplexed computation devices, then the development cost is reduced, but common mode failures occur interfering with achievement of high reliability

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedevelopment costVSAvoidcommon mode failure prevention
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of manufactureVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies local quality by making each computation device have different software characteristics at specific locations (computation units). The first computation unit uses a first algorithm while the second computation unit uses a second algorithm, creating local differences in software quality that prevent common mode failures while maintaining overall system functionality.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements asymmetry by using different algorithms (first algorithm and second algorithm) in different computation units. This asymmetric software configuration ensures that failures in one algorithm do not necessarily affect the other, thereby preventing common mode failures while maintaining system reliability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #4Asymmetry

2Reliability

If different software units are installed on N multiplexed devices for diversification, then common mode failures are avoided, but it is not easy to develop N different algorithms and software units causing increased costs

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecommon mode failure preventionVSAvoiddevelopment cost
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSEase of manufacture

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies universality by creating a computation device that can perform multiple computation types (first computation and second computation) using different algorithms. This multi-functional approach allows a single device structure to achieve software diversification for common mode failure prevention without requiring completely separate development efforts for each computation unit.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent uses parameter changes by varying the algorithm parameters between the first and second computation units. By changing computational parameters (different algorithms) while maintaining the same hardware platform, the system achieves software diversification at lower development cost compared to hardware diversification.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Reliability

If computation devices are arranged in parallel and multiplexed, then the probability of malfunction due to failure is decreased, but the device complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemalfunction probability reductionVSAvoidcomputation device configuration
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies merging by combining multiple computation units (first computation unit and second computation unit) into a single computation device. This integration reduces device complexity by consolidating parallel computation capabilities within one unit while maintaining the reliability benefits of multiple computation paths.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Data Source

PatentEP2672339B1Safety device, and safety device computation method
Publication Date: 2019.04.03 MITSUBISHI HEAVY IND LTD
  • EP2672339B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP2672339B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP2672339B1 patent drawingFigure 3~4

AI summary

A safety device includes a first computation unit, a second computation unit, an output control unit, and a first central processing device. The first computation unit is different from the second computation unit. The first computation unit is configured to perform a first computation on a detected value that is detected from a subject to be controlled, thus obtaining a first result value. The second computation unit is configured to perform a second computation on the detected value, thus obtaining a second result value, and determine whether the first result value is equal to the second result value. The output control unit is configured to output the first result value in a case that the second computation unit determines that the first result value is equal to the second result value, and not to output the first result value in a case that the second computation unit determines that the first result value is not equal to the second result value.