Abstract: A reversibly connected battery pack is provided. The reversibly connected battery pack includes a pair of end frames, at least one frame, a plurality of battery cells, and at least one power connector. One end frame has a positive terminal, and the other has a negative terminal. The frame(s) is positioned between the pair of end frames. Each of the plurality of battery cells has a positive tab and a negative tab. The positive tab of one of the plurality of battery cells is electrically connected to the positive terminal in the end frame, and the negative tab of another one of the plurality of battery cells is electrically connected to the negative terminal in the end frame. The plurality of battery cells are positioned in the frame(s) and the end frames. The plurality of battery cells and the positive and negative tabs are supported by the frame and the pair of end frames.

Abstract: A reversibly connected battery pack is provided. The reversibly connected battery pack includes a pair of end frames, at least one frame, a plurality of battery cells, and at least one power connector. One end frame has a positive terminal, and the other has a negative terminal. The frame(s) is positioned between the pair of end frames. Each of the plurality of battery cells has a positive tab and a negative tab. The positive tab of one of the plurality of battery cells is electrically connected to the positive terminal in the end frame, and the negative tab of another one of the plurality of battery cells is electrically connected to the negative terminal in the end frame. The plurality of battery cells are positioned in the frame(s) and the end frames. The plurality of battery cells and the positive and negative tabs are supported by the frame and the pair of end frames.

Abstract: A method and system is provided for verifying and certifying the safety logic of a manufacturing automation system including safety logic, where the logic may include one or more safety modules, routines, programs and tasks or a combination thereof; testing specifications corresponding to the safety logic; one or more formal model generators adapted for automatically transforming the safety logic and testing specifications through a logic parser into their respective mathematical models, formatted for example, as a Petri-net or binary decision diagram; a safety logic verifier configured for automatically comparing the safety logic formal model against the testing specification formal model to verify the safety logic model for the purpose of certifying the safety logic. The testing specifications may include testing of safety logic behavior including reaching safe state, remaining in safe state without reset, recovering from safe state with reset and remaining active with false alarm detection.

Abstract: A method, system, and computer program product for automated root cause identification of a failure of a logic controller have been provided. The method includes receiving logic controller failure information, receiving a logic model of logic code for the logic controller, and mapping the logic controller failure information to the logic model to identify a logic failure model state. The method further includes determining a potential trigger of the failure of the logic controller as a root cause via tracing through at least one path in the logic model to reach the logic failure model state. The method also includes identifying the root cause in the logic code via mapping the root cause from the logic model to the logic code, and outputting the logic code with the identified root cause of the failure of the logic controller.

Abstract: A method is provided for certifying safety logic code in a manufacturing automation system. A plurality of safety related test scenarios is provided for testing the safety logic code in the manufacturing automation system. A processing unit is configured for communication with the logic controller. The processing unit generates logic input signals in response to the plurality of safety related test scenarios and provides the logic input signals to the logic controller. Execution of the plurality of safety related test scenarios via the safety logic code is triggered in response to the processing unit providing the logic input signals to the logic controller. Response output signals are generated by the logic controller in response to the safety related test scenarios being executed by the safety logic code. Compliancy of the safety logic code is determined by evaluating response output signals and associated logic input signals to a predetermined standard.

Abstract: A method, system, and computer program product for automated root cause identification of a failure of a logic controller have been provided. The method includes receiving logic controller failure information, receiving a logic model of logic code for the logic controller, and mapping the logic controller failure information to the logic model to identify a logic failure model state. The method further includes determining a potential trigger of the failure of the logic controller as a root cause via tracing through at least one path in the logic model to reach the logic failure model state. The method also includes identifying the root cause in the logic code via mapping the root cause from the logic model to the logic code, and outputting the logic code with the identified root cause of the failure of the logic controller.