Fault tolerant components

The hardware and software used to implement LIMS systems must be vahdated. Computers and networks need to be examined for potential impact of component failure on LIMS data. Security concerns regarding control of access to LIMS information must be addressed. Software, operating systems, and database management systems used in the implementation of LIMS systems must be vahdated to protect against data cormption and loss. Mechanisms for fault-tolerant operation and LIMS data backup and restoration should be documented and tested. One approach to vahdation of LIMS hardware and software is to choose vendors whose products are precertified however, the ultimate responsibihty for vahdation remains with the user. Vahdating the LIMS system s operation involves a substantial amount of work, and an adequate vahdation infrastmcture is a prerequisite for the constmction of a dependable and flexible LIMS system. 

The Idealized Fault-Tolerant Component diagram (see Figure 3) is a simple, indeed simplistic, structuring technique that shows one approach to distinguishing between various sorts of system interactions, in particular identifying and classifying those that relate to system activity aimed at error recovery. 

TurboWorx Enterprise is the execution engine for workflows and can be enabled to utilize distributed computational and data resources. During the orchestration of a workflow, the workflow engine uploads component programs to Worker machines, as outlined in the previous Hub description. This approach also provides for a degree of fault tolerance, where failed... 

STAMP not only allows consideration of more accident causes than simple component failures, but it also allows more sophisticated analysis of failures and component failure accidents. Component failures may result from inadequate constraints on the manufacturing process inadequate engineering design such as missing or incorrectly implemented fault tolerance lack of correspondence between individual component capacity (including human capacity) and task requirements unhandled environmental disturbances (e.g., electromagnetic interference or EMI) inadequate maintenance physical degradation (wearout) and so on. 

While a preliminary functional decomposition of the system components is created to start the process, as more information is obtained from the hazard analysis and the system design continues, this decomposition may be altered to optimize fault tolerance and communication requirements. For example, at this point the need... 

Nuclear safety I C systems have to meet demanding functional and non-functional objectives. They need high reliability and quality of components as well as good properties of architectures such as deterministic behavior, fail-safe and fault tolerant features, functional diversity, and separation. Furthermore, these systems should avoid unnecessary complexity and prevent when possible, operator and maintenance errors. In addition, safety I C systems shall meet the other customer expectations such as modularity, scalability, flexibility, ease of operation. 

The international working group that prepared lEC 61508 considered the above factors and specified the extent of fault tolerance required in lEC 61508-2. In preparing this sector-specific standard for the process sector it was considered that the requirements for fault tolerance of field devices and non PE logic solver could be simplified and the requirements in lEC 61511-1 ANSI/ISA-84.00.01-2004 Part 1 (lEC 61511-1 Mod) could be applied as an alternative. It should be noted that subsystem designs may require more component redundancy than what is stated in Tables 5 and 6 in order to satisfy availability requirements. 

The requirements for hardware fault tolerance can apply to individual components or subsystems required to perform a SIF. For example, in the case of a sensor subsystem comprising a number of redundant sensors, the fault tolerance requirement applies to the sensor subsystem in total, not to individual sensors. 

B.2.3.5 SIS component specification all system components have proven characteristics (for example, PFD, SFF, fault tolerance, systematic requirements for the specified SIL) as mandated in lEC 61511-1 ANSI/ISA-84.00.01-2004 Part 1 flEC 61511-1 Mod). 

Problem A set of non-redundant (hardware fault tolerance = 0) safety equipment is used to perform a safety instrumented function in continuous demand mode. Diagnostic time is given as one second. The following failure rate data is obtained when adding the failure rates of the categories of all components ... 

For Type A components, the minimum hardware fault tolerance chart per lEC 61508 is shown in Figure 7-8. 

It can be seen by comparison that if a Type B field component has a SFF of 92% and a hardware fault tolerance of 0, then it meets SIL 2 per Figure 7-8. Using Figure 7-6, the conclusion would be SIL 1 unless a "prior use" justification is documented. 

Machines safety circuits sometimes require special components such as relays, contactors, interlocks, and E-stops. Common terms associated with these machine components are control reliable, fault tolerant, aaA fail-safe, which means that they fail to a safe condition after a single fault (not multiple faults). 

To iUustrate some common misconceptions, a few examples of compliant and noncompliant industrial-type components are discussed in the next sections. Fault-tolerant components, that have been EU type-approved for proper classification, such as positive opening, guarded actuator, redundancy, cross-monitoring, or fault detection, are preferred and in some cases mandatory. Testing nonapproved components (CE is not an approval) to verify their conformity or nonconformity is the higher risk (of failure) alternative and usually costs considerably more time and money. 

Mains Disconnect Switches 116 Emergency Stop Switches 117 Fault-Tolerant Components and Safety Circuits 117 Transformers 118 Motors 118... 

Due to the dynamic behavior of reconfigurable fault-tolerant systems, the creation of stochastic dependability models is a difficult task. Traditional techniques like fault trees or rehabdity block diagrams are no longer sufficient in many cases, because they assume all components to be of a Boolean nature. However, in today s adaptable and reconfigurable systems, components must be described by more than the states active and failed in order to reflect the different roles of a component in a reconfigurable system. Moreover, often the system itself is not considered to be Boolean, but different failure classes are discriminated. Finally, the basic events (component failures and repairs) cannot be assumed to be independent, but common cause failure, failure propagation, limited repair capacities etc. must be taken into account. 

There are irmumerous means to reduce the risk of losing an AUV One could increase the vehicle reliability through redimdancy of critical components, use of safety barriers, at the hardware level. At the software level, software fault tolerance techniques, software diversity and formal checking are also techniques that can reduce the risk of system failure. At the operational level, a guided maintenance program is an effective way to reduce the risk. 

The test case used in this paper consists of five components and includes both serial and parallel structures. It is assumed that all components have only two possible states, a functioning state and a failed state. The test system represents a fault tolerant system capable of switching between two redrmdant component in case of failure. 

Previous research on software component failure dependencies seems to have been done primarily for parallel components, typically related to diverse and redrmdant components in fault tolerant designs such as N-version programming. These situations are characterised by components that are subject to the same input. We argue that failure dependencies must be viewed more generally, and that possible causes of dependent failure behaviour are more complex than current methods consider. 

The aim of the first steps of designing a dependable control system consists in determining the best instrumentation, that is to say, a set of sensors and actuators that, with the lowest cost, allows the system to perform its mission despite the failure of one or several of its components. This activity is generally complex, because two antagonist aspects have to he taken into account (Conrard and Bayart, 2003) The system has to be inexpensive thanks to the minimisation of the number of components and it has to be fault tolerant which generally implies hardware redundancies. 

The rehabdity modeling of fault-tolerant aircraft systems using SyRelAn can be divided into two modeling levels, one mapping the system architecture, the other defining the redundancy management. Therefore the SyRelAn tool uses ReUabdity Block Diagrams for the definition of the nominal system architecture. To map the multi-state behavior of different components Concurrent Finite State Machines are implemented. 

Between these five discrete states 16 transitions 2) can be defined, depending on the set of possible states for each component and an initial state for the nominal system stale. The conditions of those state transitions are defined by a logical syntax, addressing the system component and the component state. Additionally, it is possible to address not just single component states but also logical combinations of different component states by setting combined conditions in order to provide a system with fault-tolerant capabilities. 

Failure A failure is a permanent interruption of a system s ability to perform a required function. It can only be accommodated by a reconfiguration of the system. Fault A system fault is a deviation of the system structure or the system parameters from the nominal conditions [2]. Appropriate actions may enable to recover from a component fault without replacing the component. The fault may be accommodated through fault tolerant control. 

Hardware fault tolerance Systems must have a certain level of resilience to random hardware faults, depending on the SIL specification. This may be achieved using a combination of redundant components and sub-systems, frequent manual testing and repair and computer-automated testing ( diagnostics ). 

The subsystems architectural constraints, SILCL, is determined by use of Table 5 in lEC 62061. The SFF and hardware fault tolerance gives the claimed SIL level in the table, also a use of two parallel (N=l) connected systems/elements gives a one step increase of the single component SILCL level. 

---