Failure rate evaluation method for HW architecture derived from functional safety standards (ISO 19014, ISO 25119, IEC 61508)

An important issue concerning the use of safety standards in the design of a complex system is the proper evaluation of the risks. The risk is correlated to the probability of failure, then to the failure rate, and it plays a fundamental role in the safety assessment process. This paper focuses on the failure rate evaluation methods adopted by the following functional safety standards: ISO 19014, ISO 25119, and IEC 61508. All of these standards are applicable, respectively, in the earth-moving machinery, in the tractors and machinery for agriculture and forestry, and in the industrial automation fields. As proposed by the standards, the failure rate evaluation depends on the conventional parameters like Mean Time To Failure, Diagnostic Coverage level, and Hardware Categories. Nevertheless, assuming the same value of these parameters, the results obtained adopting the suggested methods from different standards are not always the same. The aim of this paper is to give an analytical approach to calculate, on a common basis, the failure rate starting from a certain set of input parameters. In addition, the approximations are analysed in order to identify the correct assumptions for the proper application of all these “not exact†values in each application field.

[1]  Mehrdad Sabetzadeh,et al.  An extended systematic literature review on provision of evidence for safety certification , 2014, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[2]  Torsten Dittel,et al.  How to "Survive" a Safety Case According to ISO 26262 , 2010, SAFECOMP.

[3]  Hui Jin,et al.  New PFH-formulas for k-out-of-n: F-systems , 2013, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[4]  Anne Barros,et al.  PFDavg generalized formulas for SIS subject to partial and full periodic tests based on multi-phase Markov models , 2016, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[5]  Julie Beugin,et al.  A SIL quantification approach based on an operating situation model for safety evaluation in complex guided transportation systems , 2007, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[6]  Hamid Jahanian,et al.  Generalizing PFD formulas of IEC 61508 for KooN configurations. , 2015, ISA transactions.

[7]  Huáscar Espinoza,et al.  Reuse of safety certification artefacts across standards and domains: A systematic approach , 2017, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[8]  Hong Wang,et al.  A novel method for SIL verification based on system degradation using reliability block diagram , 2014, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[9]  Per Hokstad,et al.  Demand rate and risk reduction for safety instrumented systems , 2014, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[10]  Grzegorz Kaczor,et al.  Verification of safety integrity level with the application of Monte Carlo simulation and reliability block diagrams , 2016 .

[11]  Jan C.A. Windhorst Rigorous Versus Simplified Protection Layer Reliability Calculations and Problems with Popular Risk Analysis Methodologies , 2014 .

[12]  Julio-Ariel Romero-Pérez,et al.  A new methodology for facilitating the design of safety-related parts of control systems in machines according to ISO 13849: 2006 standard , 2018, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[13]  Per Hokstad,et al.  Loss of safety assessment and the IEC 61508 standard , 2004, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[14]  Marvin Rausand,et al.  Reliability analysis of safety-instrumented systems operated in high-demand mode , 2014 .

[15]  Enrico Zio,et al.  Uncertainty analysis for target SIL determination in the offshore industry , 2015 .

[16]  Fares Innal,et al.  Generalized analytical expressions for safety instrumented systems' performance measures: PFDavg and PFH , 2015 .

[17]  Marcantonio Catelani,et al.  The FMEDA approach to improve the safety assessment according to the IEC61508 , 2010, Microelectron. Reliab..