Machine safety risk level assessment priority: Possibility, severity, or frequency?

Which factor has the highest priority for assessing hazard risk levels: possibility, severity, or frequency? The ANSI B11.0 – 2010 standard may help.

12/07/2012


Are the three factors of possibility, severity, and frequency of equal importance in determining the risk levels for machine safety hazards? Industry safety standards seem to treat them as equal because they don’t address any relative importance. However, what’s your experience?

Doesn’t it seem that both international and domestic standards present these three required factors for assessing risk as independent variables? Although they’re independent, they are also related because when they’re combined they help to determine risk levels of hazards and their related remediation performance requirements. This is shown in the following graph from ANSI B11.0 – 2010. In this case the qualitative process is determining the Performance Level (PL) for the given hazard. 

Using this assessment approach, if you decided that severity (of injury) required a higher priority, would the derived outcome in the risk level be any different? Similarly, would giving the possibility or frequency factors greater priority or lesser priority change the answer? In my opinion, I don’t see it!

Figure D-2: Performance Levels from ISO 13849-1:2006. Reprinted with Permission: ANSI B11.0 – 2010, B11 Standards Inc.

Yet when I talk with users about this issue, they frequently present this example. If severity of harm for a given hazard is “death,” they always give that factor a higher priority (S2) and a higher risk level, which drives the highest circuit performance for machine guarding. The highest circuit performance is PLe, which requires the average probability of dangerous failures per hour of 10-8 to 10-7. PLe means control reliable circuits with redundant components and 24/7 monitoring.

So, here’s the dilemma as I see it: If severity is S2 and frequency and possibility are F1 and P1, respectively, your derived risk level is PLc by ISO 13849-1: 2006 standard requirements. After deciding on S2 and depending on your answers for F1 or F2 and P1 or P2, you could arrive at either PLc, Pld, or PLe, per the graph above. Specifically arriving at PLe by prioritizing severity (S2) is not straightforward. If using the category system, you could likewise arrive at either Cat 1, 2, 3, or 4 by deciding on S2. Perhaps you can prioritize severity by eliminating frequency and possibility and simply defaulting to PLe or Cat 4. But, by eliminating frequency and possibility in your risk analysis, are you in compliance with the standards? Therefore, aren’t all three factors equal in priority?

Does anyone have an answer for this dilemma? Your comments or suggestions are always welcome, so please let us know your thoughts. Submit your ideas, experiences, and challenges on this subject in the comments section below (online).

- J.B. Titus, Certified Functional Safety Expert (CFSE), writes the Control Engineering Machine Safety Blog. Reach him at jb(at)jbtitus.com; www.jbtitus.com. Edited by Mark T. Hoske, content manager, CFE Media, Control Engineering and Plant Engineering, mhoske(at)cfemedia.com.

Go Online

www.controleng.com/blogs   

http://www.b11standards.com.

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

See the related posts linked below.



No comments
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.