Systematic failure implementation

Step lb is therefore based on the application of a lessons learned checklist, an example of which is contained in Table 6.1. Its purpose is to identify potential sources of systemic errors (which could lead to systematic failures). It considers the possibility of requirement, design and implementation errors (as weU as reasonably anticipated crew errors after the failure occurrence of a failure condition). The checklist may be applied to consider system architecture vulnerabilities as well as physical installation vnlnerabilities in the ZSA (see Chapter 8). 

Systematic Failure Systematic Failures are produced by design and implementation Faults caused by Errors made by Developers (i.e. humans or tools) during System development or manufacture, or by human Error during operation or maintenance. 

It then becomes obvious that the owner/specifier needs to be concerned not only with the technical design of the hoist brake system but also with the processes involved with the design, implementation, operation and maintenance (systematic processes) of a safety system since systematic failures result in the majority of control system failures. 

Systematic failures (or errors), a hidden fault in design or implementation... 

Systematic faults occur due a combination of conditions resulting in a reproducible failure of the system, and are most often attributable to software issues in programmable safety systems. This failure may be a result of some error in design, operation or production process, installation and/or maintenance. Improper implementation of MOC at any stage could be responsible for systematic failure also. Device manufacturing errors can be addressed by diversity this increases the SIF complexity. Diversity can be applied to sensor, I/O technologies, control and software platforms, and even product development teams. Incorrect specification, implementation. 

If safety mechanisms against all possible systematic failures would be implemented at the system level, all random failures in the E/E hardware are also covered. By adequate verifications and integration according ISO 26262 any further design error in the components could be identified. 

The same correlations can be found for the development of components. In the software it is useful to analyze deductively and functionally even during the development of requirements and therefore determine the key characteristics of the elements, which are necessary for the correct implementation of the function. After software design is finished an inductive analysis should follow. It should proof whether aU systematic failure, which stiU remain in the software, are covered by sufficient measures. 

AU other possible failure impacts by the microcontroller to the application software need to already be controlled by the basic software. However, it is a question of preferred software architecture, where the error types are safeguarded. It would be possible that the errors are controlled in the basic software. Especially data correction, control mechanism or implemented safely mechanism versus systematic errors from the peripheral, sensors and also from the microcontroller itself effectively implemented in the basic software would simpUfy the application software and related safety mechanism. If possibly the application software needs only safety mechanism against their own systematic faults or safely mechanism which are implemented in software but control the systematic failure on system level could simplify the needed architecture and related dataflow tremendously. Since safety goals are often also subjects to change, the safely mechanisms against systematic failures on system level should be implemented in an independent area. 

If activities, which are supported by the tools, can emphasize safety relevant product influences verifications should lead to inconsistencies. Simply consider-ing s, principals and many methods are based on process verifications even Process- and System-FMEAs are very similar. Considering a System-FMEA in a way that systematic failure can influence the function of a product, measures have to be taken against it. Possible malfunction (which are mainly systematic errors) in the Process-EMEA are controlled by measures during the production process, which is mainly the aim of a Control Plan. Analogical to that, the System-FMEA evaluates systematic errors during development process and determines adequate implemented safely mechanism. 

If in fact, each possible systematic failure that can influence the failure behavior or important characteristics of the product and needs to be compensated with safety measures such as implemented safety mechanism. ISO 26262 did not distinguish between verifications of work-products and the process. The first verification, which should be strongly recommended, is the test of the intended functions, which are the basis for the item, the system on vehicle level. This verification indicates whether the functions can lead to hazards even if they functioning correctly. In this context we speak about the safety-of-use. Consequendy, the Item Definition should be verified. If it turns out to be incorrect undetected inconsistency in the hazard and risk analysis should be expected. 

Systemic risk can thus be defined as the potential for systemic failure. Systemic approaches have been, or are being, implemented to control complexity, particularly through the creation of global installation models designed to smdy important properties such as safety or availability. These quantitative RAMS (Reliabilty, Availability, Maintainability and Safety) models, based on probabilistic approaches, are fairly well accepted for their representation of pure hardware elements (random failures) and human factors. They are much less so for their representation of deterministic aspects of computer systems (systemic or systematic failures). 

The pressure and temperature transmitters are smart devices, contain programmable (fixed programming language) elements and have a claim limit of SIL2 based on compliance with lEC 61508. The transmitters were used in SIL3 applications (i.e., SIF S-1 SIF S-2). To address systematic failures, each SIL 3 SIF had several techniques implemented ... 

Systematic errors can occur anywhere in the design and implementation process or during the operational life of an SIS device. These errors put the SIS on the path to failure in spite of the design elements incorporated to achieve robust hardware and software systems. Systematic errors are minimized using work processes that address potential human errors in the SIS design and management (e.g., programming errors or hardware specification errors). 

If a recommendation asks for a change in the process, the action must undergo a formal process hazard analysis (PHA) study, such as a HAZOP or other methodology, before implementation. This systematic and formal approach identifies and evaluates hazards associated with the proposed revisions. The study may uncover failure scenarios, adverse consequences, and obscure relationships that are not immediately apparent. The CCPS publication Hazard Evaluation Procedures i is an excellent guide to selection and proper application of PHA methodologies. 

Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) can be defined as the application of a systematic method to a process design in order to identify potential hazards and operating problems. It determines the causes and consequences of abnormal process conditions that arise from equipment failure, human error or other events. The goal is to determine whether opportunities exist to reduce the risks of the toll s hazards and then to implement warranted action items. The AJChE CCPS guideline Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, Second Edition with Worked Examples is a good resource for fully detailed approaches to process hazard analysis. It provides an introduction to hazard evaluation as well as guidance on ... 

Recently, few topics in analytical chemistry have occupied the scientific community more than the ability of chemical laboratories to reliably determine at the low parts-per-billion level the presence of Fusarium trichothecenes in environmental and toxicological samples. This paper provides a systematic approach for developing and implementing a quality assurance and quality control program for a complex analytical method in which human error and system failure can occur. The application of this approach to the problem of determining the presence of nine naturally... 

No management program is perfect. Gaps between goals and reality always exist. In order to systematically identify the gaps, audits are needed. If the audit finds deficiencies or gaps, the process recycles to the implementation step. (The word delta is sometimes used to describe the difference between plan and performance because it sounds less critical than words such as deficiency or failure. )... 

Design and implementation errors made by developers (i.e., humans or tools during system specification, design, development or manufacture), or by human error during operation or maintenance are referred to as systematic faults and failures (Weaver, 2003). Such faults are labelled as systematic because they originate from specific instances of a breakdown in the degree to which these activities are methodical. The result of failing to be systanatically methodical is usually that the behaviour of the system under specific contextual circumstances will vary from the behaviour intended... 

The analysis of failure modes, their effects (FMEA) preceded by a functional analysis and a study of predictive Reliability (Quantitative Analysis), allows you to list and classify the predictable failures of a team. The FMEA intends to obtain an optimal system reliability drawing experience and expert opinion, using a simple and systematic analysis of possible failures (Figure 5). Tantamount to finding faults potential, to identify possible causes, to assess their effects to find the corrective action and implementation, to find a list of critical points. 

The fault propagation behaviors caused by all possible combinations of failures and/or disturbances are simulated with the Petri net presented in Fig. 16. Obviously, an extremely large number of case studies must be carried out for a comprehensive hazard analysis. It is, therefore, necessary to install additional auxiliary devices in this PN model to facilitate efficient and systematic implementation. These auxiliary devices are described as follows. 

In a simple LOPA using a conservative approach, unless there is complete independence in how basic process control functions are implemented through the BPCS, no credit can be taken for any risk reduction provided by a control or alarm function implemented through the BPCS as a protection layer if a BPCS failure also forms part of an initiating event. However, this conservative approach may be relaxed if it can be demonstrated that there is sufficient independence to allow credit to be taken for both. This issue is discussed in Sections 9.4 and 9.5 of BS EN 61511-1 and BS EN 61511 -2. The reader is referred to these sources for a more detailed discussion. Systematic factors such as security, software, design errors and human factors should also be considered. 

Dutyholders should ensure they have implemented an integrated and comprehensive management system fhaf systematically and continuously identifies, reduces and manages process safety risks, including risk of human failure. 

---