SEARCH Archives
Loading
Sponsored by:

ISO 13849-1 Machine Guarding adoption, part 1

Let’s assume that adopting ISO 13849-1 for Machine Guarding is unavoidable. That said, the “professorial” view is to train/educate everyone in industry about the requirements for compliance and possible business advantages. Then, there’s the “practical” view...

J.B. Titus

08/19/2011


JB Titus, CFSELet’s assume that adopting ISO 13849-1 is unavoidable. That said, the “professorial” view is to train/educate everyone in industry about the requirements for compliance and possible business advantages. Then, there’s the “practical” view!

  The “professorial” view, in my opinion, makes no attempt to segregate the market based on size of company, personnel competence, OEM vs manufacturer, and other key market segments. The “practical” view conversely would address each segment individually as needed to develop tailored adoption methodologies. Whoa – does adoption mean the same thing to a Fortune 500 company and a small independent manufacturer with less than 50 employees? Probably not!

  In this part 1 discussion, let’s briefly review the small independent manufacturer's perspective. Does anyone have a clue how this manufacturer approaches this question here in the U.S.?

First let’s take a quick look at the roots of the international standard, ISO 13849-1. This standard was driven largely by our European colleagues, and 13849-1 is now listed under the European Machinery Directive, which legislates compliance to the standards. This fact transforms this consensus standard to an enforced legal standard in Europe. In the U.S., this consensus standard is enforced via “best practice,” through a company’s safety culture, and, regrettably, by litigation, on occasion.

Now - the “practical” discussion. The small manufacturer typically does not have the organizational technical staff needed to meet the additional compliance requirements of ISO 13849-1. Where will the small manufacturer get these needed competencies given that he operates on very thin margins? The supply chain? The small manufacturer also doesn’t usually install a complete control system retrofit. So, who will evaluate the complete safety circuit (motor, contactor, logic controller, actuator, interlock switch, for example) per the requirements of 13849-1? The performance level (PLa…..e) must be determined for the safety circuit even though only a new contactor is installed. This safety circuit conceivably will have a mixture of Cat, PL, and “non-existent” device safety ratings for each component.

   Does anyone have a recommendation or solution for this small manufacturer?

   What opinions, questions, or experiences can you add to this discussion?

   Your comments or suggestion are always welcome so please let us know your thoughts. 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: ISO 13849-1 Machine Guarding adoption, part 1.

   Did you see the Safety Integration Webcast?

   Related articles:

EN ISO 13849-1; 2008 – Are We Ready By December 2011?

Cover story: Machine Safety Integration

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

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



No comments
The Top Plant program honors outstanding manufacturing facilities in North America. The 2012 Top Plant winners have been named.
In 2012, Plant Engineering's Product of the Year program will celebrated its 25th anniversary. Read about the 2012 winners and nominate for 2013.
The Leaders Under 40 program features outstanding young people who are making a difference in manufacturing. View the 2012 Leaders here.
Investment in excellence: One plant's improved productivity and quality was repaid when their company expanded the facility
Strategic uptime, Increased capacity goes right to the bottom line
2013 Forecast Issue: A shift in manufacturing
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.

Alarm management tips, Power management, Building automation
Estimating data center PUE, Design tips for cost savings, Networked controls, NFPA 70E
Attacking Energy Costs: Strategies for showing financial return on energy management investments

2012 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

About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Subscribe to Magazine | Site Map | Privacy Policy
Home | Channels | New Products | Media Library | Connect | Industry News | Events and Awards | Newsletters | Blogs | Magazine
Control Engineering | Plant Engineering | Consulting-Specifying Engineer
All content copyright © 2010-2013 CFE Media. All rights reserved.