EN ISO 13849-1; 2008 - Are We Ready? - Part 2

Does anyone have an easy answer on how a safety application proof test can be accomplished with dissimilar tools and without the skilled resources for analysis? See table.

02/23/2011


Does anyone have an easy answer on how a safety application proof test can be accomplished with dissimilar tools and without the skilled resources for analysis?

JB Titus, CFSEIn January 2010 I blogged on this subject and talked about the kinds of companies that might encounter the need to comply with EN ISO 13849-1; 2008 and its new requirements for quantitative skills within your company. One year later this new standard is appearing more and more in our updated domestic standards and I believe it will soon become our basis for machine safety compliance. As this happens I further believe we will need some additional tools to bridge the compliance applications for the majority of our manufacturing industry. Could it be that in order to fully apply EN ISO 13849-1; 2008, your company will need to proof test safety certified products in your safety related circuits on your machine in order to fully mitigate the safety hazards identified by your risk assessment? I believe the answer is, Yes!

 

This issue potentially exists across industry here in the U.S. so let’s take a hypothetical walk through an example in real life industry. Let’s say the owner of a manufacturing company decides that they need to retrofit a forty year old machine with a new control system and machine guards. He asks one of his salaried employees to do the risk assessment according to an ANSI B11 standard and one of the hazards is identified as a Category 3 hazard. Separately his maintenance technician meets with their local electrical distributor and they select some parts off the shelf including the required safety rated controls and devices. These controls and devices used to be safety certified to SIL (Safety Integrity Levels) and Cat. (Category Levels), however, they are now safety certified to SIL and PL (Performance Levels) according to EN ISO 13849-1; 2008. Furthermore, these safety certified controls and devices also include basic wiring application drawings for their safety certified level of application for use.

 

Don’t worry, we’re quickly getting to the problem/opportunity. You see, in the past the maintenance technician simply applied the category certified product to the safety related circuit on his machine per the product’s wiring documentation. And, life was simple because he could show the business owner how he mitigated the Category 3 hazard from the risk assessment using a Category 3 safety certified product per the supplier’s documentation for use. Table 2 from EN ISO 13849-1; 2008 below shows a direct comparison between PL and SIL, however, that does not relate to this example. With Performance Level safety certified products how will the technician be able to convince his business owner that the applied PLc safety certified product fully and totally mitigates the Category 3 identified hazard from the risk assessment? I don’t see the US moving away from Category based hazards in risk assessments any time soon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe this situation is resolvable at the OEM and engineering firm level where there are tools from suppliers and loads of engineers on staff to perform the required design and related mathematical analysis. However, does anyone have an easy answer on how a safety application proof test can be accomplished with dissimilar tools (PLc safety certified control/device and related documentation for use vs the Category 3 hazard from the risk assessment) and without the skilled resources for analysis?

 

Doesn’t US industry need training for the transition to EN ISO 13849-1; 2008 and tools and training to apply this standard while maintaining Category based hazards per the risk assessment? Where’s the proof test plan?

 

Submit your ideas, experiences, and challenges on this subject in the comments section below. Click on the following text if you don't see a comments box, then scroll down: EN ISO 13849-1; 2008 – Are We Ready? – Part 2

 

Related articles:

 

Trouble Implementing ISO 13849-1; 2006 per the European Machinery Directive

 

EN 954-1: 1996 - Five Years Of Cessation

 

EN ISO 13849-1; 2006 - Are We Ready?

 

It's Official - EN 954-1:1996 Is Extended by the EU

 

Contact: www.jbtitus.com for “Solutions for Machine Safety”.

 



No comments
The Top Plant program honors outstanding manufacturing facilities in North America. View the 2013 Top Plant.
The Product of the Year program recognizes products newly released in the manufacturing industries.
The Leaders Under 40 program features outstanding young people who are making a difference in manufacturing. View the 2013 Leaders here.
The new control room: It's got all the bells and whistles - and alarms, too; Remote maintenance; Specifying VFDs
2014 forecast issue: To serve and to manufacture - Veterans will bring skill and discipline to the plant floor if we can find a way to get them there.
2013 Top Plant: Lincoln Electric Company, Cleveland, Ohio
Case Study Database

Case Study Database

Get more exposure for your case study by uploading it to the Plant Engineering case study database, where end-users can identify relevant solutions and explore what the experts are doing to effectively implement a variety of technology and productivity related projects.

These case studies provide examples of how knowledgeable solution providers have used technology, processes and people to create effective and successful implementations in real-world situations. Case studies can be completed by filling out a simple online form where you can outline the project title, abstract, and full story in 1500 words or less; upload photos, videos and a logo.

Click here to visit the Case Study Database and upload your case study.

Bring focus to PLC programming: 5 things to avoid in putting your system together; Managing the DCS upgrade; PLM upgrade: a step-by-step approach
Balancing the bagging triangle; PID tuning improves process efficiency; Standardizing control room HMIs
Commissioning electrical systems in mission critical facilities; Anticipating the Smart Grid; Mitigating arc flash hazards in medium-voltage switchgear; Comparing generator sizing software

Annual Salary Survey

Participate in the 2013 Salary Survey

In a year when manufacturing continued to lead the economic rebound, it makes sense that plant manager bonuses rebounded. Plant Engineering’s annual Salary Survey shows both wages and bonuses rose in 2012 after a retreat the year before.

Average salary across all job titles for plant floor management rose 3.5% to $95,446, and bonus compensation jumped to $15,162, a 4.2% increase from the 2010 level and double the 2011 total, which showed a sharp drop in bonus.

2012 Salary Survey Analysis

2012 Salary Survey Results

Maintenance and reliability tips and best practices from the maintenance and reliability coaches at Allied Reliability Group.
The One Voice for Manufacturing blog reports on federal public policy issues impacting the manufacturing sector. One Voice is a joint effort by the National Tooling and Machining...
The Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals an organization devoted...
Join this ongoing discussion of machine guarding topics, including solutions assessments, regulatory compliance, gap analysis...
IMS Research, recently acquired by IHS Inc., is a leading independent supplier of market research and consultancy to the global electronics industry.
Maintenance is not optional in manufacturing. It’s a profit center, driving productivity and uptime while reducing overall repair costs.
The Lachance on CMMS blog is about current maintenance topics. Blogger Paul Lachance is president and chief technology officer for Smartware Group.