Machine safety: Does ISO 13849-1: 2006 weight severity, frequency, and probability equally?

New quantitative requirements for designing safety-related parts of the control system (SRP/CS) have created many discussions. Even with new requirements from ISO 13849-1, this updated standard begins with the same old qualitative approach to determine the “goal” (Performance Level required- PLr) for any safety function, asking about severity, frequency, and probability.

05/20/2013


New quantitative requirements for designing safety-related parts of the control system (SRP/CS) have created many related discussions about machine safety.  Yet, even with these new requirements from ISO 13849-1, this updated standard begins with the same old qualitative approach to determine the “goal” (Performance Level required- PLr) for any safety function. The same three questions are still asked; Severity, Frequency and Probability.

 

EN954-1 came out in 1996 with an amazing way to put more teeth into determining a hazard level and related mitigation solution for any recognized hazard. In so doing we had to analyze each hazard by evaluating the related potential injury by severity, frequency, and probability according to the graph below.

Two safety standards EN954-1 in 1996 and the 2006 ISO 13849-1 help with determining hazards and potential injury by looking at severity, frequency, and probability. Courtesy: Control Engineering Machine Safety blogTen years later in 2006 ISO 13849-1 was updated and released introducing Performance Levels and the requirement to develop the PLr, which I call the goal. To develop the PLr, we again use the qualitative approach by evaluating the related potential injury by severity, frequency, and probability also shown in the graph. There’s a whole lot more we could get into here but let’s keep it focused at the three questions.

What was the criteria for approaching these three questions in their order of severity, frequency and probability? Is severity weighted the most because it’s the first question? Such as; S = 50%, F = 30% and P = 20%? Or is probability asked last because of its greater impact? Such as; S = 25%, F = 35% and P = 40%? Or, does it matter at all? Can all three questions be equally interchanged?

J.B. Titus, CFSE

Can anybody provide some insight and background? Has this presented you with any new perspectives? Add your comments or thoughts to the discussion by submitting your ideas, experiences, and challenges in the comments section below.

 

Related articles:

Machine safety: Confusion amuck, quantitative circuit design versus qualitative risk assessment.

Machine Safety: Can end user companies comply with ISO 13849-1: 2006 without design engineering resources?

Machine Safety – incorporating “Functional Safety” as part of your machine safety plan – Part 1

 

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



Anonymous , 05/20/13 12:41 PM:

The way I see it the starting point in the 13849-1 diagram is 50%. We go up or down from there. If you treat the severity as 25% and the two other decisions as 12.5% each, you end up with the five levels representing 0, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%. Assuming that's what was intended, the F and P decisions can be treated as interchangeable, but S comes first. I don't know much about the rationale behind the decision process. The standard doesn't do a good job of explaining how the decision process relates to the risk reduction it shows in Figure 2.
Consulting-Specifying Engineer's Product of the Year (POY) contest is the premier award for new products in the HVAC, fire, electrical, and...
Consulting-Specifying Engineer magazine is dedicated to encouraging and recognizing the most talented young individuals...
The MEP Giants program lists the top mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection engineering firms in the United States.
High-performance buildings; Building envelope and integration; Electrical, HVAC system integration; Smoke control systems; Using BAS for M&V
Pressure piping systems: Designing with ASME; Lab ventilation; Lighting controls; Reduce energy use with VFDs
Smoke control: Designing for proper ventilation; Smart Grid Standard 201P; Commissioning HVAC systems; Boilers and boiler systems
Case Study Database

Case Study Database

Get more exposure for your case study by uploading it to the Consulting-Specifying Engineer 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.

Protecting standby generators for mission critical facilities; Selecting energy-efficient transformers; Integrating power monitoring systems; Mitigating harmonics in electrical systems
Commissioning electrical systems in mission critical facilities; Anticipating the Smart Grid; Mitigating arc flash hazards in medium-voltage switchgear; Comparing generator sizing software
Integrating BAS, electrical systems; Electrical system flexibility; Hospital electrical distribution; Electrical system grounding
As brand protection manager for Eaton’s Electrical Sector, Tom Grace oversees counterfeit awareness...
Amara Rozgus is chief editor and content manager of Consulting-Specifier Engineer magazine.
IEEE power industry experts bring their combined experience in the electrical power industry...
Michael Heinsdorf, P.E., LEED AP, CDT is an Engineering Specification Writer at ARCOM MasterSpec.