Common Cause Failure Analysis for Field Devices

Method: IEC-61508, Part 6, Annex D

Kenexis
Project:
By:
Date:
Checked by:
Date:

Question Answer Field Device - SubScore Notes

(Y/N) XSF YSF
Separation/segregation
Are all signal cables for the channels routed separately at all positions? Y 1 2
If the sensors/final elements have dedicated control electronics, is the Y 2.5 1.5
electronics for each channel on separate printed-circuit boards?
If the sensors/final elements have dedicated control electronics, is the N 0 0
electronics for each channel indoors and in separate cabinets?
Diversity/Redundancy
Do the devices employ different physical principles for the sensing elements, N 0 0
e.g., pressure and temperature, vane anemometer and Doppler transducer,
etc?
Do the devices employ different electrical principles/designs, e.g., digital and N 0 0
analogue, different manufacturer (not re-badged) or different technology?
Do the channels employ enhanced redundancy with MooN architecture, N 0 0
where N > M + 2 ?
Do the channels employ enhanced redundancy with MooN architecture, N 0 0
where N = M + 2 ?
Are separate test methods and people used for each channel during N 0 0
commissioning?
Is maintenance on each channel carried out by different people at different N 0 0
times?
Complexity/design/application/maturity/experience
Does cross-connection between channels preclude the exchange of any Y 0.5 0.5
information other than that used for diagnostic testing or voting purposes?
Is the design based on techniques used in equipment that has been used Y 1 1
successfully in the field for > 5 years?
Is there more than 5 years experience with the same hardware used in similar Y 1.5 1.5
environments?
Are inputs and outputs protected from potential levels of over-voltage and Y 1.5 0.5
over-current?
Are all devices/components conservatively rated (for example, by a factor of 2 N 0 0
or more)?
Assessment/analysis and feedback of data
Have the results of the Failure Modes and Effects Anaysis or Fault Tree Y 0 3
Analysis been examined to establish sources of CCF and have
predetermined sources of Common Cause Failure been eliminated by
design?
Were CC failures considered in design reviews with the results fed back into N 0 0
the design? (Documentary evidence of the design review activity is required.)
Are all field failures fully analysed with feedback into the design? N 0 0
(Documentary evidence of the procedure is required.)
Procedures/human interface
Is there a written system of work to ensure that all component failures (or N 0 0
degradations) are detected, the root causes established and other similar
items inspected for similar potential causes of failure?
Are procedures in place to ensure that: maintenance (including adjustment or N 0 0
calibration) of any part of the independent channels is staggered, and, in
addition to the manual checks carried out following maintenance, the
diagnostic tests are allowed to run satisfactorily between the completion of
maintenance on one channel and the start of maintenance on another?
Do the documented maintenance procedures specify that all parts of N 0 0
redundant systems (for example, cables, etc.), intended to be independent of
each other, are not to be relocated?
Is all maintenance of printed-circuit boards, etc. carried out off site at a Y 0.5 1.5
qualified repair centre and have all the repaired items gone through a full pre-
installation testing?
Does the system diagnostic tests report failures to the level of a field- N 0 0
replaceable module?
 Question Answer Field Device - SubScore Notes
(Y/N) XSF YSF
Competence/training/safety culture
Have designers been trained (with training documentation) to understand the N 0 0
causes and consequences of common cause failures?
Have maintainers been trained (with training documentation) to understand Y 0.5 4.5
the causes and consequences of common cause failures?
Environmental control
Is personnel access limited (for example locked cabinets, inaccessible Y 0.5 2.5
position)?
Is the system likely to operate always within the range of temperature, Y 3 1
humidity, corrosion, dust, vibration, etc., over which it has been tested, without
the use of external environmental control?
Are all signal and power cables separate at all positions? N 0 0
Environmental testing
Has the system been tested for immunity to all relevant environmental Y 10 10
influences (for example EMC, temperature, vibration, shock, humidity) to an
appropriate level as specified in recognised standards?
XSF YSF
Total Subscores 22.5 29.5

Diagnostic coverage Diagnostic test interval (Enter 1 in the

appropriate cell, others 0)
Less than 1 Between 1 Greater than
0.5
min and 5 min 5 min
99 %
90 % 1
60 %

Field Device Score (S or SD) b or b D

Less than 45 10%
45 to 70 5%
70 to 120 2%
120 or above 1%

Score (S) b
Common Cause Factor for Undetected Failures 52 5%
Score (SD) bD
Common Cause Factor for Detected Failures 63.25 5%
 Common Cause Failure Analysis for Programmable Logic Solvers
Method: IEC-61508, Part 6, Annex D
Kenexis
Project:
By:
Date:
Checked by:
Date:

Question Answer Logic Solver - SubScore Notes

(Y/N) XSF YSF
Separation/segregation
Are all signal cables for the channels routed separately at all positions? Y 1.5 1.5
Are the logic subsystem channels on separate printed-circuit boards? Y 3 1
Are the logic subsystem channels in separate cabinets? N 0 0
Diversity/Redundancy
Do the channels employ different electrical technologies, e.g., one electronic N 0 0
or programmable electronic and the other relay?
Do the channels employ different electronic technologies, e.g., one electronic, N 0 0
the other programmable electronic?
Do the channels employ enhanced redundancy with MooN architecture, N 0 0
where N > M + 2 ?
Do the channels employ enhanced redundancy with MooN architecture, N 0 0
where N = M + 2 ?
Is low diversity used, for example hardware diagnostic tests using same N 0 0
technology?
Is medium diversity used, for example hardware diagnostic tests using N 0 0
different technology?
Were the channels designed by different designers with no communication N 0 0
between them during the design activities?
Are separate test methods and people used for each channel during N 0 0
commissioning?
Is maintenance on each channel carried out by different people at different N 0 0
times?
Complexity/design/application/maturity/experience
Does cross-connection between channels preclude the exchange of any Y 0.5 0.5
information other than that used for diagnostic testing or voting purposes?
Is the design based on techniques used in equipment that has been used Y 0.5 1
successfully in the field for > 5 years?
Is there more than 5 years experience with the same hardware used in similar Y 1 1.5
environments?
Is the system simple, for example no more than 10 inputs or outputs per Y 0 1
channel?
Are inputs and outputs protected from potential levels of over-voltage and Y 1.5 0.5
over-current?
Are all devices/components conservatively rated (for example, by a factor of 2 N 0 0
or more)?
Assessment/analysis and feedback of data
Have the results of the Failure Modes and Effects Anaysis or Fault Tree Y 0 3
Analysis been examined to establish sources of CCF and have
predetermined sources of Common Cause Failure been eliminated by
design?
Were CC failures considered in design reviews with the results fed back into N 0 0
the design? (Documentary evidence of the design review activity is required.)
Are all field failures fully analysed with feedback into the design? N 0 0
(Documentary evidence of the procedure is required.)
Procedures/human interface
Is there a written system of work to ensure that all component failures (or N 0 0
degradations) are detected, the root causes established and other similar
items inspected for similar potential causes of failure?
Are procedures in place to ensure that: maintenance (including adjustment or N 0 0
calibration) of any part of the independent channels is staggered, and, in
addition to the manual checks carried out following maintenance, the
diagnostic tests are allowed to run satisfactorily between the completion of
maintenance on one channel and the start of maintenance on another?
Do the documented maintenance procedures specify that all parts of N 0 0
redundant systems (for example, cables, etc.), intended to be independent of
each other, are not to be relocated?
 Question Answer Logic Solver - SubScore Notes
(Y/N) XSF YSF
Is all maintenance of printed-circuit boards, etc. carried out off site at a Y 0.5 1
qualified repair centre and have all the repaired items gone through a full pre-
installation testing?
Does the system have low diagnostic coverage (60 % to 90 %) and report Y 0.5 0
failures to the level of a field-replaceable module?
Does the system have medium diagnostics coverage (90 % to 99 %) and Y 1.5 1
report failures to the level of a field-replaceable module?
Does the system have high diagnostics coverage (>99 %) and report failures N 0 0
to the level of a field-replaceable module?
Competence/training/safety culture
Have designers been trained (with training documentation) to understand the N 0 0
causes and consequences of common cause failures?
Have maintainers been trained (with training documentation) to understand Y 0.5 4.5
the causes and consequences of common cause failures?
Environmental control
Is personnel access limited (for example locked cabinets, inaccessible Y 0.5 2.5
position)?
Is the system likely to operate always within the range of temperature, Y 3 1
humidity, corrosion, dust, vibration, etc., over which it has been tested, without
the use of external environmental control?
Are all signal and power cables separate at all positions? N 0 0
Environmental testing
Has the system been tested for immunity to all relevant environmental Y 10 10
influences (for example EMC, temperature, vibration, shock, humidity) to an
appropriate level as specified in recognised standards?
XSF YSF
Total Subscores 24.5 30

Diagnostic coverage Diagnostic test interval (Enter 1 in the

appropriate cell, others 0)
Less than 1 Between 1 Greater than
1.5
min and 5 min 5 min
99 %
90 % 1
60 %

Logic Solver Score (S or SD) b or b D

Less than 45 5%
45 to 70 2%
70 to 120 1%
120 or above 0.5%

Score (S) b
Common Cause Factor for Undetected Failures 54.5 2%
Score (SD) bD
Common Cause Factor for Detected Failures 91.25 1%