STPA Systems Theoretic Process Analysis John Thomas and Nancy Leveson. All rights reserved.

Similar documents
Basic STPA Tutorial. John Thomas

Systems Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA)

Systems Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA)

Basic STPA Exercises. Dr. John Thomas

STAMP/STPA Beginner Introduction. Dr. John Thomas System Engineering Research Laboratory Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Performing Hazard Analysis on Complex, Software- and Human-Intensive Systems

Using STPA in the Design of a new Manned Spacecraft

Modeling and Hazard Analysis Using Stpa

Three Approaches to Safety Engineering. Civil Aviation Nuclear Power Defense

Missing no Interaction Using STPA for Identifying Hazardous Interactions of Automated Driving Systems

Failure Management and Fault Tolerance for Avionics and Automotive Systems

Introducing STAMP in Road Tunnel Safety

STPA: A New Hazard Analysis Technique. (System-Theoretic Process Analysis)

An STPA Primer. Version 1, August 2013

Real-Time & Embedded Systems

HAZARD ANALYSIS PROCESS FOR AUTONOMOUS VESSELS. AUTHORS: Osiris A. Valdez Banda Aalto University, Department of Applied Mechanics (Marine Technology)

A systematic hazard analysis and management process for the concept design phase of an autonomous vessel.

Every things under control High-Integrity Pressure Protection System (HIPPS)

Safety models & accident models

4. Hazard Analysis. Limitations of Formal Methods. Need for Hazard Analysis. Limitations of Formal Methods

ASSESSMENT OF CORRECTNESS OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM AUTOMATIC IDENTIFICATION OF SHIP S SYSTEM (AIS)

NAVIGATION ACCIDENTS AND THEIR CAUSES IS SHIPBOARD TECHNOLOGY A HELP OR HINDERANCE? CAPT.CLEANTHIS ORPHANOS MSc HEAD MAIC SERVICE

Lecture 1 Temporal constraints: source and characterization

So it s Reliable but is it Safe? - a More Balanced Approach To ATM Safety Assessment

Purpose. Scope. Process flow OPERATING PROCEDURE 07: HAZARD LOG MANAGEMENT

Helicopter Safety Recommendation Summary for Small Operators

Reliability of Safety-Critical Systems Chapter 3. Failures and Failure Analysis

Safety-Critical Systems

Lecture 04 ( ) Hazard Analysis. Systeme hoher Qualität und Sicherheit Universität Bremen WS 2015/2016

Flutter Testing. Wind Tunnel Testing (excerpts from Reference 1)

An STPA Tool. Dajiang Suo, John Thomas

Traditional Hazard Analysis

ASSESSMENT OF CORRECTNESS OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM AUTOMATIC IDENTIFICATION OF SHIP S SYSTEM (AIS)

FLIGHT CREW TRAINING NOTICE

(C) Anton Setzer 2003 (except for pictures) A2. Hazard Analysis

PRACTICAL EXAMPLES ON CSM-RA

Critical Systems Validation

Probability Risk Assessment Methodology Usage on Space Robotics for Free Flyer Capture


Safety Criticality Analysis of Air Traffic Management Systems: A Compositional Bisimulation Approach

Go around manoeuvre How to make it safer? Capt. Bertrand de Courville

Hazard Identification

D-Case Modeling Guide for Target System

3. Real-time operation and review of complex circuits, allowing the weighing of alternative design actions.

Driver Training School Instructor Curriculum Requirements for Student Learning & Performance Goals

CHAPTER 28 DEPENDENT FAILURE ANALYSIS CONTENTS

Report on Phase 2 Causal Modeling for Schiphol Airport

Flight Dynamics II (Stability) Prof. Nandan Kumar Sinha Department of Aerospace Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Madras

Advanced LOPA Topics

General Rules 2010: Regular category

Reliability of Safety-Critical Systems Chapter 10. Common-Cause Failures - part 1

Advisory Circular (AC)

The Relationship Between Automation Complexity and Operator Error

OBSERVATION OF GAP ACCEPTANCE DURING INTERSECTION APPROACH

Effect of floating bridge vertical motion on vehicle ride comfort and road grip. Dragan Sekulic, Postdoctoral Researcher

Hazard Identification

Module 3 Developing Timing Plans for Efficient Intersection Operations During Moderate Traffic Volume Conditions

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CRITERIA

2 ETSO-C115c#9 Airborne Area Navigation Equipment Flight Management Systems (FMS) Using Multi-Sensor Inputs

System Safety Introduction

Understanding safety life cycles

IVAO International Virtual Aviation Organization Training department

FLIGHT TEST RISK ASSESSMENT THREE FLAGS METHOD

SIL Safety Manual. ULTRAMAT 6 Gas Analyzer for the Determination of IR-Absorbing Gases. Supplement to instruction manual ULTRAMAT 6 and OXYMAT 6

Southern California Walking/Biking Research And Creative Evaluation

Montana Teen Driver Education and Training. Module 3.3. Mixing with Traffic. Montana Teen Driver Curriculum

Software Quality Engineering: Testing, Quality Assurance, and Quantifiable Improvement

#19 MONITORING AND PREDICTING PEDESTRIAN BEHAVIOR USING TRAFFIC CAMERAS

Preparing A Landing Zone L Z

Failure modes and models

EUROPEAN GUIDANCE MATERIAL ON INTEGRITY DEMONSTRATION IN SUPPORT OF CERTIFICATION OF ILS AND MLS SYSTEMS

18-642: Safety Plan 11/1/ Philip Koopman

Safety Critical Systems

Verification Of Calibration for Direct-Reading Portable Gas Monitors

CENTER PIVOT EVALUATION AND DESIGN

Dear Sir, 8 May Please accept this letter as formal representation against Enforcement Notice as detailed above.

Upon entry to the McDonald s Ashburton Six Hour Race all competitors have been required to sign a waiver which states;

intended velocity ( u k arm movements

Combining disturbance simulation and safety analysis techniques for improvement of process safety and reliability

MINE SAFETY TARGETED ASSESSMENT PROGRAM. Ground or strata failure NSW metalliferous mines. April

DeZURIK Double Block & Bleed (DBB) Knife Gate Valve Safety Manual

Traffic Calming Policy

POWER-OFF 180 ACCURACY APPROACH AND LANDING

CHAPTER 7: THE FEEDBACK LOOP

A study on the relation between safety analysis process and system engineering process of train control system

Safety-Critical Systems. Rikard Land

Holistic Atmosphere Management System (HAMS)

Improve the livability of our streets by

OBJECTIVE 6: FIELD RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING - AMBIENT RADIATION MONITORING

FixedWingLib CGF. Realistic CGF Aircraft Entities ware-in-the-loop Simulations

PROCEDURE. April 20, TOP dated 11/1/88

Safety Manual VEGAVIB series 60

FAI Sporting Code. UAV Class U. Section 12 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Edition. Effective 1st January 2018

AUSTRALIA ARGENTINA CANADA EGYPT NORTH SEA U.S. CENTRAL U.S. GULF. SEMS HAZARD ANALYSIS TRAINING September 29, 2011

RCM Applied to the CH-47 Chinook Heavy Lift Helicopter. For the Warfighter With the Warfighter

Simulation Analysis of Intersection Treatments for Cycle Tracks

Series 3730 and Series 3731 EXPERTplus Valve Diagnostics with Partial Stroke Test (PST)

Lesson: Airspeed Control

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Failure Modes Algorithm Modeling

2. USER INSTRUCTION. Table of contents: Pg.1/14 N:\FAP-2000: LWP

Transcription:

STPA Systems Theoretic Process Analysis 1

Agenda Quick review of hazard analysis Quick review of STAMP Intro to STPA hazard analysis 2

Hazard Analysis vs. Accident Model Dates back to Hazard Analysis Method Accident Model 1949 Failure Modes and Effect Analysis* Chain of events 1961 Fault Tree Analysis Chain of events 1967 Event Tree Analysis Chain of events 1960s Hazard and Operability Analysis Parameter deviation 2002 Systems Theoretic Process Analysis STAMP (Systems- Theoretic Accident Model and Process) *Technically a reliability technique, but sometimes used for safety analyses 3

Domino Chain of events Model Defective bearings Causes Inoperative hoist motor Causes Main hoist frozen Causes Main load held stationary Event-based 4

Systems approach to safety engineering STAMP Model (STAMP) Accidents are more than a chain of events, they involve complex dynamic processes. Treat accidents as a control problem, not a failure problem Prevent accidents by enforcing constraints on component behavior and interactions Captures more causes of accidents: Component failure accidents Unsafe interactions among components Complex human, software behavior Design errors Flawed requirements esp. software-related accidents 5

Example Safety Control Structure From Leveson, Nancy (2012). Engineering a Safer World: Systems Thinking Applied to Safety. MIT Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Used with permission. 6

STAMP and CAST CAST Accident Analysis How do we find inadequate control that caused the accident? STAMP Model Accidents are caused by inadequate control 7

STAMP and STPA CAST Accident Analysis STPA Hazard Analysis How do we find inadequate control in a design? STAMP Model Accidents are caused by inadequate control 8

STPA Hazard Analysis 9

STPA (System-Theoretic Process Analysis) STPA Hazard Analysis STAMP Model Identify the hazards Construct the control structure Step 1: Identify unsafe control actions Step 2: Identify causal factors Control Actions Controller Controlled process 10 Feedback

STPA Step 1: Identify Unsafe Control Actions Not providing causes hazard Providing causes hazard Incorrect Timing/ Order Stopped Too Soon / Applied too long (Control Action) 11

STPA Step 2: Identify Control Flaws Inappropriate, ineffective, or missing control action Delayed operation Controller Controller Actuator Inadequate operation Conflicting control actions Process input missing or wrong Inadequate Control Algorithm (Flaws in creation, process changes, incorrect modification or adaptation) Control input or external information wrong or missing Component failures Changes over time Process Model (inconsistent, incomplete, or incorrect) Controlled Process Unidentified or out-of-range disturbance Missing or wrong communication with another Controller controller Inadequate or missing feedback Feedback Sensor Delays Inadequate operation Incorrect or no information provided Measurement inaccuracies Feedback delays Process output contributes to system hazard 12

STPA Exercise a new in-trail procedure for trans-oceanic flights 13

Example System: Aviation Accident (Loss): Two aircraft collide 14

STPA Exercise Identify Hazards Draw the control structure Identify major components and controllers Label the control/feedback arrows Identify Unsafe Control Actions (UCAs) Control Table: Not providing causes hazard, providing causes hazard, wrong timing, stopped too soon Create corresponding safety constraints Identify causal factors Identify controller process models Analyze controller, control path, feedback path, process 15

Hazard Definition: A system state or set of conditions that, together with a particular set of worst-case environmental conditions, will lead to an accident (loss). Something we can control (accidents may depend on factors outside our control) Examples: Accident Satellite becomes lost or unrecoverable People are exposed to toxic chemicals People are irradiated People are poisoned by food Hazard Satellite maneuvers out of orbit Toxic chemicals are released into the atmosphere Nuclear power plant experiences nuclear meltdown Food products containing pathogens are sold 16

Accident (Loss): Two aircraft collide Hazard: Two aircraft violate minimum separation 17

Identifying Hazards Loss (accident) Two aircraft collide with each other Aircraft collides with terrain / ocean Hazards Two aircraft violate minimum separation Aircraft enters unsafe atmospheric region Aircraft enters uncontrolled state Aircraft enters unsafe attitude Aircraft enters prohibited area 18

STPA Exercise Identify Hazards Draw the control structure Identify major components and controllers Label the control/feedback arrows Identify Unsafe Control Actions (UCAs) Control Table: Not providing causes hazard, providing causes hazard, wrong timing, stopped too soon Create corresponding safety constraints Identify causal factors Identify controller process models Analyze controller, control path, feedback path, process 19

North Atlantic Tracks North Atlantic Track eastbound image removed due to copyright restrictions. See: http://www.turbulenceforecast.com/atlantic_eastbound_tracks.php No radar coverage. Pilots check in periodically; at any given time ATC can estimate where aircraft are. ITP video: (watch 0:44 to 3:18) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kfx9oghm_w 20

STPA application: NextGen In-Trail Procedure (ITP) Current State Pilots will have separation information Pilots decide when to request a passing maneuver Air Traffic Control approves/denies request Proposed Change 21

STPA Analysis High-level (simple) Control Structure What are the main components and controllers? Who controls who? Draw and label control actions / feedback arrows???? 22

STPA Analysis More complex control structure Image: Public Domain. Figure 7: Safety Control Structure for ATSA-ITP. Fleming, Cody Harrison, Melissa Spencer, Nancy Leveson et al. Safety Assurance in NextGen. March 2012. NASA/CR 2012-217553. 23

STPA Exercise Identify Hazards Draw the control structure Identify major components and controllers Label the control/feedback arrows Identify Unsafe Control Actions (UCAs) Control Table: Not providing causes hazard, providing causes hazard, wrong timing, stopped too soon Create corresponding safety constraints Identify causal factors Identify controller process models Analyze controller, control path, feedback path, process 24

STPA Analysis: Basic Unsafe Control Action Table Flight Crew Action (Role) Not providing causes hazard Providing causes hazard Incorrect Timing/ Order Stopped Too Soon Execute Passing Maneuver Pilot does not execute maneuver once it is approved???? 25

STPA Analysis: Basic Unsafe Control Action Table Flight Crew Action (Role) Execute passing maneuver Not providing causes hazard Pilot does not execute maneuver (aircraft remains In-Trail) Providing causes hazard* Perform ITP when ITP criteria are not met Perform ITP when request has been refused Incorrect Timing/ Order Crew starts maneuver late after having reverified ITP critera Pilot throttles before achieving necessary altitude Stopped Too Soon Crew does not complete entire maneuver e.g. Aircraft does not achieve necessary altitude or speed 26

Defining Safety Constraints Unsafe Control Action UCA 1: Pilot does not execute maneuver once it is approved UCA 2: Pilot performs ITP when ITP criteria are not met UCA 3: Pilot executes maneuver late after having reverified ITP criteria Safety Constraint SC 1: Maneuver must be executed once it is approved SC 2: ITP must not be performed when criteria are not met SC 3: Maneuver must be executed within X minutes of re-verifying ITP criteria 27

STPA Exercise Identify Hazards Draw the control structure Identify major components and controllers Label the control/feedback arrows Identify Unsafe Control Actions (UCAs) Control Table: Not providing causes hazard, providing causes hazard, wrong timing, stopped too soon Create corresponding safety constraints Identify causal factors Identify controller process models Analyze controller, control path, feedback path, process 28

STPA Analysis: Causal Factors Pilot Actuator failure Process Model UCA 1: Pilot does not execute maneuver once approved Sensor failure How could this action be caused by: Process model Feedback Sensors Etc? Controlled process HAZARD: ITP and reference aircraft violate minimum separation standard. Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. 29

STPA Group Exercise 30

STPA Group Exercise JAXA. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use/. Watch HTV grapple: (0:40 1:30) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl_wysc8eb0 International Space Station unmanned cargo vehicle View first 4 slides at: http://psas.scripts.mit.edu/home/get_pdf.php?name=1-4-htv-system-description.pdf 31

STPA Group Exercise Identify Hazards (15 min) Draw the control structure (15 min) Identify major components and controllers Label the control/feedback arrows Identify Unsafe Control Actions (15 min) Control Table: Not given, Given incorrectly, Wrong timing, Stopped too soon Create corresponding safety constraints Identify causal factors (next time) 32

MIT OpenCourseWare http://ocw.mit.edu 16.63J / ESD.03J System Safety Fall 2012 For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.