Machine Safety: 13 terms to know for compliance with functional safety, ISO 13849-1

Knowing these 13 machine safety terms will help in efforts to comply with the international standard, ISO 13849-1: 2006, Safety of machinery, Safety-related parts of the control system. Many large companies have become early adopters of the new quantitative approach for designing machine control systems.

01/01/2014


Table shows machine safety terms related to ISO 13849-1: 2006, Safety of machinery, Safety-related parts of the control system. Courtesy: Control Engineering Machine Safety Blog, J.B. Titus

Since the international community passed ISO 13849-1: 2006, Safety of machinery, Safety-related parts of the control system, many large companies have become early adopters of the new quantitative approach for designing machine control systems. In so doing technical design personnel within these companies have had to learn several new terms required for compliance with the new standard.

ISO 13849-1 enables all safety-related control circuits (electrical, pneumatic, and hydraulic) to be designed for designated safety functions to meet ascertained performance levels for mitigating a hazard level to an acceptable level. To achieve high reliability levels for each safety function, the complete circuit (SRP/CS) must be designed using algorithms. These algorithms account for all components and devices in a safety-related circuit [such as sensors, logic solvers, output devices, etc.] using these variable terms and the look-up charts and graphs included in the standard. The actual process is far more detailed, however, the goal is to derive a Performance Level (PLa, b, c, d or e) that equals or exceeds a PL required (PLr) for each safety function. The required terms are:

1. B10D value: number of switching operations on which 10% of the sample fails – Suppliers provide this value for their components because it’s required to calculate the overall performance level for a safety circuit. B10D only applies to the dangerous failures of the considered component and the value is usually given for a lifetime of 10 years.

2. CCF: Common Cause Failure – A common cause failure is generally when a single failure or condition affects the operation of multiple devices that would otherwise be considered independent.

3. DC: Diagnostic Coverage – This involves the combination of both hardware and software and testing of the related diagnostics. Diagnostic coverage is the ratio of the probability of detected dangerous failures to the probability of all dangerous failures.

4. DCavg: Diagnostic Coverage average – Average diagnostic coverage for the above.

5. SRP/CS: Safety-Related Parts of a Control System – This term refers to all safety-related control elements regardless of the type of technology (electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic, mechanical, etc.), for all kinds of machinery. It does not specify safety functions or performance levels.

 

6. Designated Architecture: Predetermined structure of an SRP/CS – One of the first steps in designing the SPR/CS is selecting the system architecture to be used for the safety system. ISO 13849-1 leads you through this process for the architecture and determining the PLr (Performance Level required) for each safety function.

7. MTBF: Mean Time Between Failure – This value should be provided by the component supplier and represents the mean time between two failures for that component.

8. MTTFd: Mean Time to Fail dangerous – The same as above except that this value is only concerned with dangerous failures.

9. PFH: Probability of Failure per Hour – This value should be provided by the component supplier and represents the probability of failure per hour for that component to help detect random hardware safety integrity.

10. PFHd: Probability of Failure per Hour dangerous – This value should be provided by the component supplier and represents the probability of failure per hour for that component to help detect random hardware safety integrity.

11. PL: Performance Level – The ability of SRP/CS to operate a safety function and reliably achieve that safety function. Typically a PLa, PLb, PLc, PLd, or PLe.

12. PLr: Performance Level required – The result of determining the designated architecture is to in part determine the performance level required for a safety function. The PLr effectively becomes the goal for designing the actual safety circuit for that safety function.

13. SIL: Safety Integrity Level – This term has historically been used by safety component and device manufacturers and in the process industry sector for several years when designing safety systems and circuits. It is a requirement of IEC 61508.

Safety organizations, automation suppliers, and consultants (to mention a few) can offer courses on the new ISO 13849-1 compliance requirements. Courses are also offered for professional certifications as an FSE (Functional Safety Engineer) or CFSE (Certified Functional Safety Expert). Collectively, I view these evolutionary steps in machine safety as positive advancements for increased safety and potentially increased profits. Having said that, I suggest that we don’t underestimate the related impact of functional safety on all industrial companies: domestic or international and small, medium or large. Advancing from a qualitative system designing safety-related circuits to a quantitative system involving algorithms with multiple terms is not a simple task for all participants across the spectrum. 

What are your best practice thoughts, suggestions or recommendations for any company considering evolving to complying with ISO 13849-1 for functional safety? 

Has this presented you with any new perspectives? Do you have some specific topic or interest that we could cover in future blog posts? Add your comments or thoughts to the discussion by submitting your ideas, experiences, and challenges in the comments section below.

Related articles:

The Buzz About ISO 13849-1: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (and a Possible Alternate Solution) by Mike Carlson.

Inside Machines: Does adopting ISO 13849-1:2006 change the U.S. model for compliance and enforcement?

Machine Safety: Domestic U.S. versus international standards

Machine Safety – incorporating “Functional Safety” as part of your machine safety plan – Part 3

Calculation of MTTFd for a pushbutton

Machine Guarding & The Hierarchy of Measures for Hazard Mitigation

Contact: http://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 Engineering Leaders Under 40 program identifies and gives recognition to young engineers who...
The true cost of lubrication: Three keys to consider when evaluating oils; Plant Engineering Lubrication Guide; 11 ways to protect bearing assets; Is lubrication part of your KPIs?
Contract maintenance: 5 ways to keep things humming while keeping an eye on costs; Pneumatic systems; Energy monitoring; The sixth 'S' is safety
Transport your data: Supply chain information critical to operational excellence; High-voltage faults; Portable cooling; Safety automation isn't automatic
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.

Maintaining low data center PUE; Using eco mode in UPS systems; Commissioning electrical and power systems; Exploring dc power distribution alternatives
Synchronizing industrial Ethernet networks; Selecting protocol conversion gateways; Integrating HMIs with PLCs and PACs
Why manufacturers need to see energy in a different light: Current approaches to energy management yield quick savings, but leave plant managers searching for ways of improving on those early gains.

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.