Open Access

Advanced computational methods are needed both for the design of large systems and to compute high accuracy solutions. Such methods are efficient in computation, but the validation of results is very complex, and highly skilled auditors are needed to verify them. We investigate legal questions concerning obligations in the development phase, especially for technical systems developed using advanced methods. In particular, we consider methods of resilient and robust optimization. With these techniques, high performance solutions can be found, despite a high variety of input parameters. However, given the novelty of these methods, it is uncertain whether legal obligations are being met. The aim of this paper is to discuss if and how the choice of a specific computational method affects the developer’s product liability. The review of legal obligations in this paper is based on German law and focuses on the requirements that must be met during the design and development process.

Component failures within water supply systems can lead to significant performance losses. One way to address these losses is the explicit anticipation of failures within the design process. We consider a water supply system for high-rise buildings, where pump failures are the most likely failure scenarios. We explicitly consider these failures within an early design stage which leads to a more resilient system, i.e., a system which is able to operate under a predefined number of arbitrary pump failures. We use a mathematical optimization approach to compute such a resilient design. This is based on a multi-stage model for topology optimization, which can be described by a system of nonlinear inequalities and integrality constraints. Such a model has to be both computationally tractable and to represent the real-world system accurately. We therefore validate the algorithmic solutions using experiments on a scaled test rig for high-rise buildings. The test rig allows for an arbitrary connection of pumps to reproduce scaled versions of booster station designs for high-rise buildings. We experimentally verify the applicability of the presented optimization model and that the proposed resilience properties are also fulfilled in real systems.

Ultra-high-field MRI (7 Tesla (T) and above) elicits more temporary side-effects compared to 1.5 T and 3 T, e.g. dizziness or “postural instability” even after exiting the scanner. The current study aims to assess quantitatively vestibular performance before and after exposure to different MRI scenarios at 7 T, 1.5 T and 0 T. Sway path and body axis rotation (Unterberger's stepping test) were quantitatively recorded in a total of 46 volunteers before, 2 minutes after, and 15 minutes after different exposure scenarios: 7 T head MRI (n = 27), 7 T no RF (n = 22), 7 T only B₀ (n = 20), 7 T in & out B₀ (n = 20), 1.5 T no RF (n = 20), 0 T (n = 15). All exposure scenarios lasted 30 minutes except for brief one minute exposure in 7 T in & out B₀. Both measures were documented utilizing a 3D ultrasound system. During sway path evaluation, the experiment was repeated with eyes both open and closed. Sway paths for all long-lasting 7 T scenarios (normal, no RF, only B₀) with eyes closed were significantly prolonged 2 minutes after exiting the scanner, normalizing after 15 minutes. Brief exposure to 7 T B₀ or 30 minutes exposure to 1.5 T or 0 T did not show significant changes. End positions after Unterberger's stepping test were significantly changed counter-clockwise after all 7 T scenarios, including the brief in & out B₀ exposure. Shorter exposure resulted in a smaller alteration angle. In contrast to sway path, reversal of changes in body axis rotation was incomplete after 15 minutes. 1.5 T caused no rotational changes. The results show that exposure to the 7 Tesla static magnetic field causes only a temporary dysfunction or “over-compensation” of the vestibular system not measurable at 1.5 or 0 Tesla. Radiofrequency fields, gradient switching, and orthostatic dysregulation do not seem to play a role.