Argument: A1.2.2.3.3.4.4.3.1 - Collision Method 1 Using an Engineered SSC in the form of a guard. The guard has been designed, Hdbk, analysed, tested and shown to adequately mitigate Hazard 1 (Collision)

Argument A1.2.2.3.3.4.4.3.1 Collision Method 1 Using an Engineered SSC in the form of a guard. The guard has been designed, Hdbk, analysed, tested and shown to adequately mitigate Hazard 1 (Collision)

[Back to main map]

Parent nodes:

Supports Claim: C1.2.2.3.3.4.4.3 Hazard 1 is mitigated and managed (Collision)

Child nodes:

Has subclaim Claim: C1.2.2.3.3.4.4.3.1.1 The guard is adequate to prevent collision
Has subclaim Claim: C1.2.2.3.3.4.4.3.1.2 The (intelligent) control system has a tolerable failure rate
Has subclaim Claim: C1.2.2.3.3.4.4.3.1.3 Requirements for the SSC mitigating the collision hazard (guard) have been derived from the system level requirements and verified
Has support Other: O1.2.2.3.3.4.4.3.1.4 Assumptions

Views:

Has View Method 1

The adequacy of the deterministic and probabilistic safety claim for this hazard is based on that of the guard.

Under normal operation the robot collision avoidance will be provided by the (intelligent) control system.

The only claim made on the (intelligent) control system is that it will not fail at a rate exceeding 2 pdfy. i.e. it will not challenge the safety guard more than 2 /y.