Safety PLC Program Validation Through Simulated Hazard Scenarios

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current methods for hazard/safety analysis in industrial processes are inefficient and prone to human error, lacking automation in identifying and validating protection mechanisms to prevent accidents.

Innovation Solution

An AI-based system that simulates industrial processes using a process model, employing multi-agent interactions to identify hazards and evaluate protective mechanisms, generating safety requirements for safety programmable logic controllers (PLCs) and testing their efficacy.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If manual methods are used for hazard identification and safety analysis, then human expertise can be applied to complex scenarios, but the process is inefficient and prone to human error

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveaccuracy of hazard identificationVSAvoidefficiency of safety analysis process

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces manual mechanical analysis processes with an automated computer-based system that uses simulation tools and AI algorithms to perform hazard identification and safety analysis, eliminating human error while maintaining analytical capability

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Solution Approach 2:

The system enables self-service automation where the computer-based tool independently performs hazard identification, protective mechanism evaluation, and safety requirements generation without requiring continuous human intervention, thereby improving both reliability and productivity

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

2Reliability

If comprehensive safety analysis is performed manually to ensure all hazards are identified, then thorough validation of protection mechanisms is achieved, but the process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvethoroughness of safety validationVSAvoidduration of hazard analysis process

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary automated analysis by simulating various hazard scenarios and evaluating protective mechanisms before final safety decisions are made, allowing comprehensive validation to be completed quickly and efficiently

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent substitutes time-consuming manual validation processes with automated computer-based simulation and analysis, enabling thorough safety validation to be performed in a fraction of the time required for manual methods

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

3Productivity

If automated tools are used to improve efficiency of safety analysis, then productivity is increased, but the complexity of the system increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveautomation level of hazard analysisVSAvoidsystem complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent introduces an intermediary computer-based system that bridges manual safety analysis expertise and automated processing, using simulation tools and AI algorithms to manage complexity while delivering automated productivity benefits

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

4Reliability

If human personnel perform safety PLC programming and validation, then expertise can be applied to ensure safety requirements are met, but human error may lead to inadequate protection

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesafety of protection mechanismsVSAvoidhuman error in safety analysis

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSObject-generated harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces human personnel with an automated computer-based system for performing safety PLC programming and validation, eliminating human error while maintaining the application of safety expertise through algorithmic processing

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Solution Approach 2:

The system incorporates feedback mechanisms where the automated tool continuously validates safety requirements and protective mechanisms, providing iterative verification that eliminates human error in safety assessment

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

Data Source

PatentUS11294359B1Method and apparatus to automate process hazard, LOPA and safety PLC application program validation for safety instrumented systems

Publication Date: 2022.04.05 SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SYSTEMS USA INC

AI summary

A method is provided for automatically or semi-automatically analyzing process hazards and validating protection mechanisms for an industrial process. The method can involve establishing communication between a simulation tool and a process hazard analysis tool. The simulation tool simulates operation of the process according to a process model. The method can further involve creating, using the process hazard analysis tool, conditions for hazards in the process based on information learned about the industrial process from the simulation tool; for each of the hazards, simulating the hazards using the simulation tool and attempting to prevent the hazards using the process hazard analysis tool by introducing protective mechanism(s) to the process; and evaluating effectiveness of the introduced protective mechanisms for each of the hazards and creating safety requirements for the process based on the evaluated effectiveness. The safety requirements are used to generate a safety application program, such as for a PLC.