EN ISO 13849-1, the quantitative approach to machine safety begins with a qualitative process

EN ISO 13849-1 has now been fully in force since Jan. 1, 2012, without exception and EN 954 has fully been withdrawn. We’ve heard for four years or more that this change in direction equates to a paradigm shift for industry because it in part moves hazard level determination and mitigation from a qualitative process to a quantitative process. There’s more...

01/06/2012


JB Titus, CFSEEN ISO 13849-1 has now been fully in force since Jan. 1, 2012, without exception and EN 954 has fully been withdrawn. We’ve heard for four years or more that this change in direction equates to a paradigm shift for industry because it in part moves hazard level determination and mitigation from a qualitative process to a quantitative process. There’s more to this story!

   It’s true that the Performance Level (PL) system of EN ISO 13849-1 is quantitative based at the completion of the process. I’ve read that the “fathers” of this standard determined that a quantitative approach was needed to both have a direct comparison to the Safety Integrity Level (SIL) system for hazards and to provide the basis for the validation requirements of EN ISO 13849-2. With this system engineers can now calculate the performance level of the safety related parts of the control system (SRP/CS) for each selected safety function. However, this entire process begins (in part) by determining a required performance level (PLr) for each safety function using a qualitative process. In fact, let’s look at the actual 4.3 clause of EN ISO 13849-1 below:

4.3 Determination of required performance level (PLr) - performance level (PLr) for each safety function using a qualitative process, as noted in the 4.3 clause of EN ISO 13849-1.

4.3 Determination of required performance level (PLr)

 

   For each selected safety function to be carried out by a SRP/CS, a required performance level (PLr) shall be determined and documented (see Annex A for guidance on determining PLr). The determination of the required performance level is the result of the risk assessment and refers to the amount of the risk reduction to be carried out by the safety-related parts of the control system (see Figure 2). 

   The greater the amount of risk reduction required to be provided by the SRP/CS, the higher the PLr shall be.

    In Annex A you will find two pages that guides you through the qualitative process of asking three questions; severity of injury, frequency of exposure, and possibility of avoidance. Doesn’t this sound eerily like the three qualitative questions used to determine the hazard Categories of B, 1, 2, 3, and 4? The risk graph below looks very similar to the Category graph with the exception of Performance Levels a, b, c, d, and e. The standard goes on to say that the Performance Level (PL) (calculated) must be equal or greater than the PLr.

   So, for everyone who has already made the transition to EN ISO 13849-1 – please let us know your thoughts on how much the “fathers” have gained whereas it seems the basis can be argued we are still in a qualitative world of hazards! 

   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: EN ISO 13849-1, the quantitative approach to machine safety begins with a qualitative process! 

    Related articles:

How To Integrate Safety

Machinery Directive In 4 Days Drops EN 954 and EN ISO 13849-1 Is Fully In Force – What’s Your Impact?

Updating Minds About Machine Guarding

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



No comments
The Top Plant program honors outstanding manufacturing facilities in North America. View the 2015 Top Plant.
The Product of the Year program recognizes products newly released in the manufacturing industries.
The Engineering Leaders Under 40 program identifies and gives recognition to young engineers who...
2015 Top Plant: Phoenix Contact, Middletown, Pa.; 2015 Best Practices: Automation, Electrical Safety, Electrical Systems, Pneumatics, Material Handling, Mechanical Systems
A cool solution: Collaboration, chemistry leads to foundry coat product development; See the 2015 Product of the Year Finalists
Raising the standard: What's new with NFPA 70E; A global view of manufacturing; Maintenance data; Fit bearings properly
Special report: U.S. natural gas; LNG transport technologies evolve to meet market demand; Understanding new methane regulations; Predictive maintenance for gas pipeline compressors
Cyber security cost-efficient for industrial control systems; Extracting full value from operational data; Managing cyber security risks
Drilling for Big Data: Managing the flow of information; Big data drilldown series: Challenge and opportunity; OT to IT: Creating a circle of improvement; Industry loses best workers, again
Migrating industrial networks; Tracking HMI advances; Making the right automation changes
Understanding transfer switch operation; Coordinating protective devices; Analyzing NEC 2014 changes; Cooling data centers
Upgrading secondary control systems; Keeping enclosures conditioned; Diagnostics increase equipment uptime; Mechatronics simplifies machine design

Annual Salary Survey

After almost a decade of uncertainty, the confidence of plant floor managers is soaring. Even with a number of challenges and while implementing new technologies, there is a renewed sense of optimism among plant managers about their business and their future.

The respondents to the 2014 Plant Engineering Salary Survey come from throughout the U.S. and serve a variety of industries, but they are uniform in their optimism about manufacturing. This year’s survey found 79% consider manufacturing a secure career. That’s up from 75% in 2013 and significantly higher than the 63% figure when Plant Engineering first started asking that question a decade ago.

Read more: 2014 Salary Survey: Confidence rises amid the challenges

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.
This article collection contains several articles on the vital role that compressed air plays in manufacturing plants.