Category Archives: International

31-​​Dec-​​2011 — Are YOU ready?

This entry is part 8 of 8 in the series Circuit Architectures Explored

31-​​December-​​2011 marks a key mile­stone for machine builders mar­ket­ing their prod­ucts in the European Union, the EEA and many of the Candidate States. Functional Safety takes a pos­i­tive step for­ward with the manda­tory appli­ca­tion of EN ISO 13849–1 and –2. As of 1-​​January-​​2012, the safety–related parts of the con­trol sys­tems on all machin­ery bear­ing a CE Mark will be required to meet these standards.

This change started six years ago, when these stan­dards were first har­mo­nized under the Machinery Directive. The EC Machinery Committee gave machine builders an addi­tional three years to make the tran­si­tion to these stan­dards, after much oppo­si­tion to the orig­i­nal manda­tory imple­men­ta­tion date of 31-​​Dec-​​08 was announced.

If you aren’t aware of these stan­dards, or if you aren’t famil­iar with the con­cept of func­tional safety, you need to get up to speed, and fast.

Under EN 954–1:1995 and the 1st Edition of ISO 13849–1, pub­lished in 1999, a designer needed to select a design Category or archi­tec­ture, that would pro­vide the degree of fault tol­er­ance and reli­a­bil­ity needed based on the out­come of the risk assess­ment for the machin­ery. The Categories, B, 1–4, remain unchanged in the 2nd Edition. I’ve talked about the Categories in detail in other posts, so I won’t spend any time on them here.

The 2nd Edition brings Mean Time to Failure into the pic­ture, along with Diagnostic Coverage and Common Cause Failures. These new con­cepts require design­ers to use more ana­lyt­i­cal tech­niques in devel­op­ing their designs, and also require addi­tional doc­u­men­ta­tion (as usual!).

One of the main fail­ings with EN 954–1 was Validation. This topic was sup­posed to have been cov­ered by EN 954–2, but this stan­dard was never pub­lished. This has led machine builders to make design deci­sions with­out keep­ing the nec­es­sary design doc­u­men­ta­tion trail, and fur­ther­more, to skip the Validation step entirely in many cases.

The miss­ing Validation stan­dard was finally pub­lished in 2003 as ISO 13849–2:2003, and sub­se­quently adopted and har­mo­nized in 2009 as EN ISO 13849–2:2003. While no manda­tory imple­men­ta­tion date for this stan­dard is given in the cur­rent list of stan­dards har­mo­nized under 2006/​42/​EC-​​Machinery, use of Part 1 of the stan­dard man­dates use of Part 2, so this stan­dard is effec­tively manda­tory at the same time.

Part 2 brings a num­ber of key annexes that are nec­es­sary for the imple­men­ta­tion of Part 1, and also out­lines the com­plete doc­u­men­ta­tion trail needed for val­i­da­tion, and coin­ci­den­tally, audit. Notified bpdies will be look­ing for this infor­ma­tion when eval­u­at­ing the con­tent of Technical Files used in CE Marking.

From a North American per­spec­tive, these two stan­dards gain access through ANSI’s adop­tion of ISO 10218 for Industrial Robots. Part 1 of this stan­dard, cov­er­ing the robot itself, was adopted last year. Part 2 of the stan­dard will be adopted in 2012, and RIA R15.06 will be with­drawn. At the same time, CSA will be adopt­ing the ISO stan­dards and with­draw­ing CSA Z434.

These changes will finally bring North America, the International Community and the EU onto the same foot­ing when it comes to Functional Safety in indus­trial machin­ery appli­ca­tions. The days of “SIMPLE, SINGLE CHANNEL, SINGLE CHANNEL-​​MONITORED and CONTROL RELIABLE” are numbered.

Are you ready?

Compliance InSight Consulting will be offer­ing a series of train­ing events in 2012 on this topic. For more infor­ma­tion, con­tact Doug Nix.

Why I wear a Poppy on 11-​​Nov

Canadian Veteran's PoppyIn a recent arti­cle in the Independent, Robert Fisk writes that the poppy has become noth­ing more than a fash­ion state­ment in the UK. Merely a way to show that you are British, or to score points with the boss, or to make a polit­i­cal state­ment. He believes that wear­ing a poppy on 11-​​Nov mocks our war dead. He says that he doesn’t wear the poppy because he is not ‘wor­thy’ of wear­ing it. This makes me deeply sad. I don’t think that this is true in Canada, and I know that this is not the case for me.

I have not lost any­one in my fam­ily to war. I am not pro-​​military, but I under­stand why we must defend our­selves with lethal force at times. I believe that every­one who chooses a career in the Forces makes a major sac­ri­fice for me and for every other Canadian who does not serve, and I sup­port our troops in the work that they do. I believe that they are vital in ensur­ing that Canada can con­tinue to exist and pro­vide peace­ful lead­er­ship in the world.

I wear a poppy on Remembrance Day because I care deeply about the peo­ple involved. I care about every­one killed in these great con­flicts, not just our casu­al­ties, but those against whom we fought, and the civil­ians whose lives were destroyed because of these con­flicts. War is a waste. The vet­er­ans that I’ve met all want one thing: an end to war. So for me, the Poppy and Remembrance Day is about the peo­ple. It’s not about WHY we went to war. It’s not about the verac­ity of the rea­sons cited by our lead­ers. It’s about the courage of those that serve. Those that put them­selves in harm’s way. It’s about remem­ber­ing the loss. It’s about remem­ber­ing the sense­less­ness of war. It’s about choos­ing peace before arms. It’s about end­ing war.

That’s why I wear the Poppy, and it’s why Robert Fisk can write the things he writes. Today, I Remember.

Inconsistencies in ISO 13849–1:2006

This entry is part 7 of 8 in the series Circuit Architectures Explored

I’ve writ­ten quite a bit recently on the topic of cir­cuit archi­tec­tures under ISO 13849–1, and one of my read­ers noticed an incon­sis­tency between the text of the stan­dard and Figure 5, the dia­gram that shows how the cat­e­gories can span one or more Performance Levels.

ISO 13849-1 Figure 5

ISO 13849–1, Figure 5: Relationship between Categories, DC, MTTFd and PL

 If you look at Category 2 in Figure 5, you will notice that there are TWO bands, one for DCavg LOW and one for DCavg MED. However, read­ing the text of the def­i­n­i­tion for Category 2 gives (§6.2.5):

The diag­nos­tic cov­er­age (DCavg) of the total SRP/​CS includ­ing fault-​​detection shall be low.

This leaves some con­fu­sion, because it appears from the dia­gram that there are two options for this archi­tec­ture. This is backed up by the data in Annex K that under­lies the diagram.

The same con­fu­sion exists in the text describ­ing Category 3, with Figure 5 show­ing two bands, one for DCavg LOW and one for DCavg MED.

I con­tacted the ISO TC199 Secretariat, the peo­ple respon­si­ble for the con­tent of ISO 13849–1, and pointed out this appar­ent con­flict. They responded that they would pass the com­ment on to the TC for res­o­lu­tion, and would con­tact me if they needed addi­tional infor­ma­tion. As of this writ­ing, I have not heard more.

So what should you do if you are try­ing to design to this stan­dard? My advice is to fol­low Figure 5. If you can achieve a DCavg MED in your design, it is com­pletely rea­son­able to claim a higher PL. Refer to the data in Annex K to see where your design falls once you have com­pleted the MTTFd calculations.

Thanks to Richard Harris and Douglas Florence, both mem­bers of the ISO 13849 and IEC 62061 Group on LinkedIn for bring­ing this to my attention!

If you are inter­ested in con­tact­ing the TC199 Secretariat, you can email the Secretary, Mr. Stephen Kennedy  (kennedyatisodotorg)  . More details on ISO TC199 can be found on the Technical Committee page on the ISO web Site.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2011
Acknowledgements: ISO for sec­tions of ISO 13849–1 cited more…
Some Rights Reserved
All original content on these pages is fingerprinted and certified by Digiprove
Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE