Safety Processor Architecture for Complex Sensor-Based Machine Control
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Traditional safety processors in industrial safety systems lack the processing power to perform complex computations required for monitoring hazardous environments, making it difficult to meet stringent safety rating criteria, especially in dynamic and heterogeneous settings with unpredictable human and hazard interactions.
Innovation Solution
A dual-processor architecture combining a safety processor (SP) with a non-safety multi-processor computation module (MPCM) that allows for sophisticated processing and analysis of sensor data, enabling the system to generate safety-rated signals and meet safety requirements while performing complex operations beyond the scope of conventional safety-rated components.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Power
If traditional safety processors are used, then safety certification can be obtained, but processing power is insufficient for complex computations
Solution Approach 1:
The system divides processing functions into two segments: a safety processor dedicated to safety-critical functions and certification compliance, and a separate non-safety processor handling complex computations. This segmentation allows each processor to be optimized for its specific purpose while maintaining overall system safety through the gateway interface.
Solution Approach 2:
A safety gateway interface acts as an intermediary between the non-safety processor and safety processor. This gateway validates and translates computational results from the non-safety processor into safety-certified outputs, enabling complex processing while maintaining safety certification requirements.
2Productivity
If non-safety processors are used for complex processing, then processing capability increases, but safety guarantees are compromised
Solution Approach 1:
The safety gateway serves as a mediator that accepts complex computational results from non-safety processors, validates them against safety criteria, and transforms them into safety-guaranteed outputs. This allows the system to leverage high-performance non-safety processors while maintaining safety guarantees through the gateway's validation layer.
Solution Approach 2:
The system replaces direct mechanical/safety-critical processing with computational processing through the gateway interface. Non-safety processors perform complex algorithms, but the gateway substitutes the final safety-critical decision-making with validated, safety-certified logic.
3Adaptability or versatility
If safety processing is made more complex to handle dynamic environments, then adaptability improves, but processing time increases
Solution Approach 1:
The system segments processing tasks by complexity and safety-criticality. The non-safety processor handles complex, time-consuming computations for adaptability, while the safety processor handles time-critical safety decisions. This segmentation allows adaptability improvements without compromising real-time safety response requirements.
Data Source
AI summary
Control systems for industrial machinery (e.g., robots) or other devices such as medical devices utilize a safety processor (SP) designed for integration into safety applications and computational components that are not necessarily safety-rated. The SP monitors performance of the non-safety computational components, including latency checks and verification of identical outputs. One or more sensors send data to the non-safety computational components for sophisticated processing and analysis that the SP cannot not perform, but the results of this processing are sent to the SP, which then generates safety-rated signals to the machinery or device being controlled by the SP. As a result, the system may qualify for a safety rating despite the ability to perform complex operations beyond the scope of safety-rated components.