re wording SIL stuff
This commit is contained in:
parent
5dc7e6ce8f
commit
8f4861bfdf
@ -28,16 +28,15 @@ The four main current FMEA variants are described and we develop %conclude by d
|
|||||||
the concepts
|
the concepts
|
||||||
that underlie the usage and philosophy of FMEA.
|
that underlie the usage and philosophy of FMEA.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
We return to the overall process of FMEA
|
We return to the overall process of FMEA and model it using UML.
|
||||||
and model it using UML.
|
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
By using UML %we define
|
By using UML
|
||||||
relationships between the FMEA data objects
|
the entities needed to implement FMEA
|
||||||
are defined. % at the start of this chapter.
|
are defined.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
The act
|
The act
|
||||||
of defining relationships between the data objects
|
of defining relationships between the data objects
|
||||||
in FMEA raise questions about the nature of the process
|
in FMEA raises questions about the nature of the process
|
||||||
and allows us to analytically discuss its strengths and weaknesses.
|
and allows us to analytically discuss its strengths and weaknesses.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@ -1222,6 +1221,14 @@ FMEDA is a modern extension of FMEA, in that it recognises the effect of
|
|||||||
self checking features on safety, and provides detailed recommendations for computer/software architecture.
|
self checking features on safety, and provides detailed recommendations for computer/software architecture.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
|
%
|
||||||
|
FMEDA is the fundamental methodology of the statistical (safety integrity level)
|
||||||
|
type standards (EN61508/IOC5108).
|
||||||
|
The end result of an EN61508 analysis is an % provides a statistical
|
||||||
|
overall `level~of~safety' known as a Safety Integrity level (SIL), for an installed system.
|
||||||
|
%
|
||||||
|
It has a simple final result, a Safety Integrity Level (SIL) from 1 to 4 (where 4 is safest).
|
||||||
|
%
|
||||||
These SIL levels are broadly linked to the concept of an
|
These SIL levels are broadly linked to the concept of an
|
||||||
acceptance of given probabilities of dangerous
|
acceptance of given probabilities of dangerous
|
||||||
failures against time, as shown in table~\ref{tbl:sil_levels}.
|
failures against time, as shown in table~\ref{tbl:sil_levels}.
|
||||||
@ -1229,24 +1236,14 @@ failures against time, as shown in table~\ref{tbl:sil_levels}.
|
|||||||
The philosophy behind this is that is recognised that no system can have a perfect
|
The philosophy behind this is that is recognised that no system can have a perfect
|
||||||
safety integrity, but risk and criticality can be matched to acceptable,
|
safety integrity, but risk and criticality can be matched to acceptable,
|
||||||
or realistic levels of risk.
|
or realistic levels of risk.
|
||||||
%
|
|
||||||
FMEDA is the fundamental methodology of the statistical (safety integrity level)
|
|
||||||
type standards (EN61508/IOC5108).
|
|
||||||
The end result of an EN61508 analysis is an % provides a statistical
|
|
||||||
overall `level~of~safety' known as a Safety Integrity level (SIL), for a system.
|
|
||||||
%
|
|
||||||
It has a simple final result, a Safety Integrity Level (SIL) from 1 to 4 (where 4 is safest).
|
|
||||||
%
|
|
||||||
%There are currently four SIL `levels', one to four, with four being the highest level.
|
%There are currently four SIL `levels', one to four, with four being the highest level.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
It allows diagnostic mitigation for self checking circuitry.
|
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
SIL levels are intended to
|
SIL levels are intended to
|
||||||
classify the statistical safety of installed plant:
|
classify the statistical safety of installed plant:
|
||||||
salesmen’s terms such as a `SIL~3~sensor' or other `device' given a SIL level, are meaningless.
|
salesmen’s terms such as a `SIL~3~sensor' or other `device' given a SIL level, are meaningless.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
SIL analysis is concerned with `safety~loops', not individual modules.
|
SIL analysis is concerned with `safety~loops', not individual modules, sensors, computing devices or actuators.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
In control engineering terms, the safety~loop is the complete
|
In control engineering terms, the safety~loop is the complete
|
||||||
path from sensors to signal~processing to actuators for a given function
|
path from sensors to signal~processing to actuators for a given function
|
||||||
@ -1265,9 +1262,11 @@ In EN61508 terminology, a safety~loop is known as a Safety Instrumented Function
|
|||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
FMEDA requires %does force
|
FMEDA requires %does force
|
||||||
the analyst to consider all hardware components in a system
|
the analyst to consider all hardware components in a system
|
||||||
by requiring that an MTTF value is assigned for each base component failure~mode;
|
and requires that an MTTF value is assigned for each {\bc} {\fm};
|
||||||
the MTTF may be statistically mitigated (improved)
|
the MTTF may be statistically mitigated (improved)
|
||||||
if it can be shown that self-checking will detect its failure modes.
|
if it can be shown that self-checking measures will not only detect it within the SIF, but
|
||||||
|
also react in a safe way.
|
||||||
|
That is that the SIF can recognise that it has a fault condition and can take appropriate action.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
The MTTF value for each component {\fm} is denoted using the symbol `$\lambda$'.
|
The MTTF value for each component {\fm} is denoted using the symbol `$\lambda$'.
|
||||||
%
|
%
|
||||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user