“Verification and Examination Management of Complex Systems”
Authors: Stian Ruud and Roger Skjetne,Affiliation: Det Norske Veritas (DNV) and NTNU, Department of Marine Technology
Reference: 2014, Vol 35, No 4, pp. 333-346.
Keywords: Verification management; Verification risk; Audit planning; Audit risk; Complex technical systems
Abstract: As ship systems become more complex, with an increasing number of safety-critical functions, many interconnected subsystems, tight integration to other systems, and a large amount of potential failure modes, several industry parties have identified the need for improved methods for managing the verification and examination efforts of such complex systems. Such needs are even more prominent now that the marine and offshore industries are targeting more activities and operations in the Arctic environment. In this paper, a set of requirements and a method for verification and examination management are proposed for allocating examination efforts to selected subsystems. The method is based on a definition of a verification risk function for a given system topology and given requirements. The marginal verification risks for the subsystems may then be evaluated, so that examination efforts for the subsystem can be allocated. Two cases of requirements and systems are used to demonstrate the proposed method. The method establishes a systematic relationship between the verification loss, the logic system topology, verification method performance, examination stop criterion, the required examination effort, and a proposed sequence of examinations to reach the examination stop criterion.
PDF (711 Kb)
DOI: 10.4173/mic.2014.4.9References:
[1] AICPA. (2006). Audit risk and materiality in conducting an audit, Statements on Auditing Standards AU sec. 312 (SAS No. 107), American Inst. Certified Public Accountants. http://www.aicpa.org/research/standards/auditattest/pages/sas.aspx#SAS100, Internet, visited 2014/11/13.
[2] Arens, A., Elder, R., and Beasley, M. (2006). Auditing and Assurance Services: An Integrated Approach, Pearson Prentice Hall. http://books.google.no/books?id=JcWuHAAACAAJ.
[3] DNV. (2012). Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) of Redundant Systems, DNV-RP-D102, DNV-GL. https://exchange.dnv.com/publishing/codes/download.asp?url=2012-01/rp-d102.pdf. Internet, visited 2014/11/13.
[4] IEC. (2010). Functional safety of electrical/ electronic/ programmable electronic safety-related systems, IEC 61508, Int. Electrotech. Comm.. http://www.iec.ch/functionalsafety.
[5] NIST/SEMATECH. (2014). e-Handbook of Statistical Methods, 2014. http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook, Internet, visited 2014/11/18.
[6] Rausand, M. and Hoyland, A. (2004). System Reliability Theory: Models, Statistical Methods, and Applications, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, New Jersey, 2 edition.
[7] Skjetne, R. and Egeland, O. (2006). Hardware-in-the-loop testing of marine control systems, Modeling, Identification and Control. 27(4):239--258. doi:10.4173/mic.2006.4.3
[8] Skjetne, R. and Sorensen, A.J. (2004). Computer-based systems on ships and offshore vessels: The software problem ++, Report, Marine Cybernetics AS, Trondheim, Norway. Joint report by Marine Cybernetics, DNV, Statoil, Smedvig Offshore, Kongsberg Maritime, Norsk Hydro, Stolt Offshore, Eidesvik, Subsea 7, Solstad Offshore, Ulstein, ABB, PSA Norway, and Norwegian Maritime Directorate.
BibTeX:
@article{MIC-2014-4-9,
title={{Verification and Examination Management of Complex Systems}},
author={Ruud, Stian and Skjetne, Roger},
journal={Modeling, Identification and Control},
volume={35},
number={4},
pages={333--346},
year={2014},
doi={10.4173/mic.2014.4.9},
publisher={Norwegian Society of Automatic Control}
};