Emergency Stop – What’s so confusing about that?

This entry is part 1 of 12 in the series Emergency Stop

I get a lot of calls and emails ask­ing about emer­gency stops. This is one of those decept­ively simple con­cepts that has man­aged to get very com­plic­ated over time. Not every machine needs or can bene­fit from an emer­gency stop. In some cases, it may lead to an unreas­on­able expect­a­tion of safety from the user, which can lead to injury if they don’t under­stand the haz­ards involved. Some product-​specific stand­ards

This entry is part 1 of 12 in the series Emergency Stop

Editor’s Note: Since we first pub­lished this art­icle on emer­gency stop in March of 2009, it has become our most pop­u­lar post of all time! We decided it was time for a little refresh. Enjoy, and please com­ment if you find the post help­ful, or if you have any ques­tions you’d like answered. DN-​July, 2017.

The Emergency Stop func­tion is one of those decept­ively simple con­cepts that have man­aged to get very com­plic­ated over time. Not every machine needs or can bene­fit from an emer­gency stop. In some cases, it may lead to an unreas­on­able expect­a­tion of safety from the user. Some product-​specific stand­ards man­date the require­ment for an emer­gency stop, such as CSA Z434-​14 [1], where robot con­trol­lers are required to provide emer­gency stop func­tion­al­ity, and work cells integ­rat­ing robots are also required to have emer­gency stop cap­ab­il­ity.

Defining Emergency Stop

Old, non-compliant, E-Stop Button
Photo 1 – This OLD but­ton is def­in­itely non-​compliant.

So what is the Emergency Stop func­tion, or E-​stop func­tion, and when do you need to have one? Let’s look at a few defin­i­tions taken from CSA Z432-​14 [2]:

Emergency situ­ation
an imme­di­ately haz­ard­ous situ­ation that needs to be ended or aver­ted quickly in order to pre­vent injury or dam­age.
Emergency stop
a func­tion that is inten­ded to avert harm or to reduce exist­ing haz­ards to per­sons, machinery, or work in pro­gress.
Emergency stop but­ton
a red mushroom-​headed but­ton that, when activ­ated, will imme­di­ately start the emer­gency stop sequence.

One more [2, 6.3.5]:

Complementary pro­tect­ive meas­ures
Protective meas­ures which are neither inher­ently safe design meas­ures, nor safe­guard­ing (imple­ment­a­tion of guards and/​or pro­tect­ive devices), nor inform­a­tion for use, could have to be imple­men­ted as required by the inten­ded use and the reas­on­ably fore­see­able mis­use of the machine.

Modern, non-compliant e-stop button.
Photo 2 – This more mod­ern but­ton is non-​compliant due to the RED back­ground and spring-​return but­ton.

An e-​stop is a func­tion that is inten­ded for use in Emergency con­di­tions to try to lim­it or avert harm to someone or some­thing. It isn’t a safe­guard but is con­sidered to be a Complementary Protective Measure. Looking at emer­gency stop func­tions from the per­spect­ive of the Hierarchy of Controls, emer­gency stop func­tions fall into the same level as Personal Protective Equipment like safety glasses, safety boots, and hear­ing pro­tec­tion. 

So far so good.

Is an Emergency Stop Function Required?

Depending on the reg­u­la­tions and the stand­ards you choose to read, machinery is may not be required to have an Emergency Stop. Quoting from [2, 6.3.5.2]:

Components and ele­ments to achieve the emer­gency stop func­tion

If, fol­low­ing a risk assess­ment, a machine needs to be fit­ted with com­pon­ents and ele­ments to achieve an emer­gency stop func­tion for enabling actu­al or impend­ing emer­gency situ­ations to be aver­ted, the fol­low­ing require­ments apply:

  • the actu­at­ors shall be clearly iden­ti­fi­able, clearly vis­ible and read­ily access­ible;
  • the haz­ard­ous pro­cess shall be stopped as quickly as pos­sible without cre­at­ing addi­tion­al haz­ards, but if this is not pos­sible or the risk can­not be reduced, it should be ques­tioned wheth­er imple­ment­a­tion of an emer­gency stop func­tion is the best solu­tion;
  • the emer­gency stop con­trol shall trig­ger or per­mit the trig­ger­ing of cer­tain safe­guard move­ments where neces­sary.

Note For more detailed pro­vi­sions, see ISO 13850.

Later in [2, 7.15.1.2]:

Each oper­at­or con­trol sta­tion, includ­ing pendants, cap­able of ini­ti­at­ing machine motion and/​or auto­mat­ic motion shall have an emer­gency stop func­tion (see Clause 6.3.5.2), unless a risk assess­ment determ­ines that the emer­gency stop func­tion will not con­trib­ute to risk con­trol.

Note: There could be situ­ations where an e-​stop does not con­trib­ute to risk con­trol and altern­at­ives could be con­sidered in con­junc­tion with a risk assess­ment.

The bold text in the pre­ced­ing para­graph is mine. I wanted to be sure that you caught this import­ant bit of text. Not every machine requires an E-​stop func­tion. The func­tion is only required where there is a bene­fit to the user. In some cases, product fam­ily stand­ards often called “Type C” stand­ards, includ­ing spe­cif­ic require­ments for the pro­vi­sion of an emer­gency stop func­tion. The require­ment may include a min­im­um PLr or SILr, based on the opin­ion of the Technical Committee respons­ible for the stand­ard and their know­ledge of the par­tic­u­lar type of machinery covered by their doc­u­ment.

Note: For more detailed pro­vi­sions on the elec­tric­al design require­ments, see CSA C22.2 #301, NFPA 79 or IEC 60204 – 1.

Download NFPA stand­ards through ANSI

This more modern button is still wrong due to the RED background.
Photo 3 – This more mod­ern but­ton is non-​compliant due to the RED back­ground.

If you read Ontario’s Industrial Establishments Regulation (Regulation 851), you will find that prop­er iden­ti­fic­a­tion of the emer­gency stop device(s) and loc­a­tion “with­in easy reach” of the oper­at­or are the only require­ment. What does “prop­erly iden­ti­fied” mean? In Canada, the USA and Internationally, a RED oper­at­or device on a YELLOW back­ground, with or without any text behind it, is recog­nized as EMERGENCY STOP or EMERGENCY OFF, in the case of dis­con­nect­ing switches or con­trol switches. I’ve scattered some examples of dif­fer­ent com­pli­ant and non-​compliant e-​stop devices through this art­icle.

The EU Machinery Directive, 2006/​42/​EC, and Emergency Stop

Interestingly, the European Union has taken what looks like an oppos­ing view of the need for emer­gency stop sys­tems. Quoting from the Machinery Directive [3, Annex I, 1.2.4.3]:

1.2.4.3. Emergency stop
Machinery must be fit­ted with one or more emer­gency stop devices to enable actu­al or impend­ing danger to be aver­ted.

Notice the words “…actu­al or impend­ing danger…” This har­mon­ises with the defin­i­tion of Complementary Protective Measures, in that they are inten­ded to allow a user to “avert or lim­it harm” from a haz­ard. Clearly, the dir­ec­tion from the European per­spect­ive is that ALL machines need to have an emer­gency stop. Or do they? The same clause goes on to say:

The fol­low­ing excep­tions apply:

  • machinery in which an emer­gency stop device would not lessen the risk, either because it would not reduce the stop­ping time or because it would not enable the spe­cial meas­ures required to deal with the risk to be taken,
  • port­able hand-​held and/​or hand-​guided machinery.

From these two bul­lets it becomes clear that, just as in the Canadian and US reg­u­la­tions, machines only need emer­gency stops WHEN THEY CAN REDUCE THE RISK. This is hugely import­ant and often over­looked. If the risks can­not be con­trolled effect­ively with an emer­gency stop, or if the risk would be increased or new risks would be intro­duced by the action of an e-​stop sys­tem, then it should not be included in the design.

Carrying on with [3, 1.2.4.3]:

The device must:

  • have clearly iden­ti­fi­able, clearly vis­ible and quickly access­ible con­trol devices,
  • stop the haz­ard­ous pro­cess as quickly as pos­sible, without cre­at­ing addi­tion­al risks,
  • where neces­sary, trig­ger or per­mit the trig­ger­ing of cer­tain safe­guard move­ments.

Once again, this is con­sist­ent with the gen­er­al require­ments found in the Canadian and US reg­u­la­tions. [3] goes on to define the func­tion­al­ity of the sys­tem in more detail:

Once act­ive oper­a­tion of the emer­gency stop device has ceased fol­low­ing a stop com­mand, that com­mand must be sus­tained by engage­ment of the emer­gency stop device until that engage­ment is spe­cific­ally over­rid­den; it must not be pos­sible to engage the device without trig­ger­ing a stop com­mand; it must be pos­sible to dis­en­gage the device only by an appro­pri­ate oper­a­tion, and dis­en­ga­ging the device must not restart the machinery but only per­mit restart­ing.

The emer­gency stop func­tion must be avail­able and oper­a­tion­al at all times, regard­less of the oper­at­ing mode.

Emergency stop devices must be a back-​up to oth­er safe­guard­ing meas­ures and not a sub­sti­tute for them.

The first sen­tence of the first para­graph above is the one that requires e-​stop devices to latch in the activ­ated pos­i­tion. The last part of that sen­tence is even more import­ant: “…dis­en­ga­ging the device must not restart the machinery but only per­mit restart­ing.” That phrase requires that every emer­gency stop sys­tem has a second dis­crete action to reset the emer­gency stop sys­tem. Pulling out the e-​stop but­ton and hav­ing power come back imme­di­ately is not OK. Once that but­ton has been reset, a second action, such as push­ing a “POWER ON” or “RESET” but­ton to restore con­trol power is needed.

Point of Clarification: I had a ques­tion come from a read­er ask­ing if com­bin­ing the E-​stop func­tion and the reset func­tion was accept­able. It can be, but only if:

  • The risk assess­ment for the machinery does not indic­ate any haz­ards that might pre­clude this approach; and
  • The device is designed with the fol­low­ing char­ac­ter­ist­ics:
    • The device must latch in the activ­ated pos­i­tion;
    • The device must have a “neut­ral” pos­i­tion where the machine’s emer­gency stop sys­tem can be reset, or where the machine can be enabled to run;
    • The reset pos­i­tion must be dis­tinct from the pre­vi­ous two pos­i­tions, and the device must spring-​return to the neut­ral pos­i­tion.

The second sen­tence har­mon­izes with the require­ments of the Canadian and US stand­ards. The last sen­tence har­mon­izes with the idea of “Complementary Protective Measures” as described in [2].

How Many and Where?

Where? “Within easy reach”. Consider the loc­a­tions where you EXPECT an oper­at­or to be. Besides the main con­trol con­sole, these could include feed hop­pers, con­sum­ables feed­ers, fin­ished goods exit points, etc. You get the idea. Anywhere you can reas­on­ably expect an oper­at­or to be under nor­mal cir­cum­stances is a reas­on­able place to put an e-​stop device. “Easy Reach” I inter­pret as with­in the arm-​span of an adult (pre­sum­ing the equip­ment is not inten­ded for use by chil­dren). The “easy reach” require­ment trans­lates to 500 – 600 mm either side of the centre line of most work­sta­tions.

How do you know if you need an emer­gency stop? Start with a stop/​start ana­lys­is. Identify all the nor­mal start­ing and stop­ping modes that you anti­cip­ate on the equip­ment. Consider all of the dif­fer­ent oper­at­ing modes that you are provid­ing, such as Automatic, Manual, Teach, Setting, etc. Identify all of the match­ing stop con­di­tions in the same modes, and ensure that all start func­tions have a match­ing stop func­tion.

Do a risk assess­ment. Risk assess­ment is a basic require­ment in most jur­is­dic­tions today.

As you determ­ine your risk con­trol meas­ures (fol­low­ing the Hierarchy of Controls), look at what risks you might con­trol with an Emergency Stop. Remember that e-​stops fall below safe­guards in the hier­archy, so you must use a safe­guard­ing tech­nique if pos­sible, you can’t just default down to an emer­gency stop. IF the e-​stop can provide you with the addi­tion­al risk reduc­tion then use it, but first, reduce the risks in oth­er ways.

The Stop Function and Functional Safety Requirements

Finally, once you determ­ine the need for an emer­gency stop sys­tem, you need to con­sider the system’s func­tion­al­ity and con­trols archi­tec­ture. NFPA 79 [4] has been the ref­er­ence stand­ard for Canada and is the ref­er­ence for the USA. In 2016, CSA intro­duced a new elec­tric­al stand­ard for machinery, CSA C22.2 #301 [5]. This stand­ard is inten­ded for cer­ti­fic­a­tion of indus­tri­al machines. My opin­ion is that this stand­ard has some sig­ni­fic­ant issues. You can find very sim­il­ar elec­tric­al require­ments to this in [4] in IEC 60204 – 1 [6] if you are work­ing in an inter­na­tion­al mar­ket. EN 60204 – 1 applies to the EU mar­ket for indus­tri­al machines and is tech­nic­ally identic­al to [6].

Download NFPA stand­ards through ANSI
Download IEC stand­ards, International Electrotechnical Commission stand­ards.

Functional Stop Categories

NFPA 79 calls out three basic cat­egor­ies of stop func­tions. Note that these cat­egor­ies are NOT func­tion­al safety archi­tec­tur­al cat­egor­ies, but are cat­egor­ies describ­ing stop­ping func­tions. Reliability is not addressed in these sec­tions. Quoting from the stand­ard:

9.2.2 Stop Functions

Stop func­tions shall over­ride related start func­tions. The reset of the stop func­tions shall not ini­ti­ate any haz­ard­ous con­di­tions. The three cat­egor­ies of stop func­tions shall be as fol­lows:

(1) Category 0 is an uncon­trolled stop by imme­di­ately remov­ing power to the machine actu­at­ors.

(2) Category 1 is a con­trolled stop with power to the machine actu­at­ors avail­able to achieve the stop then power is removed when the stop is achieved.

(3) Category 2 is a con­trolled stop with power left avail­able to the machine actu­at­ors.

This E-Stop Button is correct.
Photo 4 – This E-​Stop but­ton is CORRECT. Note the Push-​Pull-​Twist oper­at­or and the YELLOW back­ground.

A bit later in the stand­ard, we find:

9.2.5.3 Stop.

9.2.5.3.1* Category 0, Category 1, and/​or Category 2 stops shall be provided as determ­ined by the risk assess­ment and the func­tion­al require­ments of the machine. Category 0 and Category 1 stops shall be oper­a­tion­al regard­less of oper­at­ing modes, and Category 0 shall take pri­or­ity.

9.2.5.3.2 Where required, pro­vi­sions to con­nect pro­tect­ive devices and inter­locks shall be provided. Where applic­able, the stop func­tion shall sig­nal the logic of the con­trol sys­tem that such a con­di­tion exists.

You’ll also note that that pesky “risk assess­ment” pops up again in 9.2.5.3.1. You just can’t get away from it…

The func­tion­al stop cat­egor­ies are aligned with sim­il­ar terms used with motor drives. You may want to read this art­icle if your machinery uses a motor drive.

Functional Safety

Disconnect with E-Stop Colours indicates that this device is intended to be used for EMERGENCY SWITCHING OFF.
Photo 5 – Disconnect with E-​Stop Colours indic­ates that this dis­con­nect­ing device is inten­ded to be used for EMERGENCY SWITCHING OFF.

Once you know what func­tion­al cat­egory of stop you need, and what degree of risk reduc­tion you are expect­ing from the emer­gency stop sys­tem, you can determ­ine the func­tion­al safety require­ments. In Canada, [2, 8.2.1] requires that all new equip­ment be designed to com­ply with ISO 13849 [7], [8], or IEC 62061 [9]. This is a new require­ment that was added to [2] to help bring Canadian machinery into har­mon­iz­a­tion with the International Standards.

Emergency stop func­tions are required to provide a min­im­um of ISO 13849 – 1, PLc, or IEC 62061 SIL1. If the risk assess­ment shows that great­er reli­ab­il­ity is required, the sys­tem can be designed to meet any high­er reli­ab­il­ity require­ment that is suit­able. Essentially, the great­er the risk reduc­tion required, the high­er the degree of reli­ab­il­ity required.

I’ve writ­ten extens­ively about the applic­a­tion of ISO 13849, so if you are not sure what any of that means, you may want to read the series on that top­ic.

Extra points go to any read­er who noticed that the ‘elec­tric­al haz­ard’ warn­ing label imme­di­ately above the dis­con­nect handle in Photo 5 above is

a) upside down, and

b) using a non-​standard light­ing flash.

Cheap haz­ard warn­ing labels, like this one, are often as good as none at all. I’ll be writ­ing more on haz­ard warn­ings in future posts. In case you are inter­ested, here is the cor­rect ISO elec­tric­al haz­ard label:

Yellow triangular background with a black triangular border and a stylized black lighting-flash arrow travelling from top to bottom.
Photo 6 – Electric Shock Hazard – IEC 60417 – 5036

You can find these labels at Clarion Safety Systems.

Use of Emergency Stop as part of a Lockout Procedure or HECP

One last note: Emergency stop func­tions and the sys­tem that imple­ment the func­tions (with the excep­tion of emer­gency switch­ing off devices, such as dis­con­nect switches used for e-​stop) CANNOT be used for energy isol­a­tion in an HECP – Hazardous Energy Control Procedure (which includes Lockout). Devices for this pur­pose must phys­ic­ally sep­ar­ate the energy source from the down­stream com­pon­ents. See CSA Z460 [10] for more on that sub­ject.

Read our Article on Using E-​Stops in Hazardous Energy Control Procedures (HECP) includ­ing lock­out.

Pneumatic E-Stop Device
Photo 7 – Pneumatic E-​Stop/​Isolation device.

References

[1]  Industrial robots and robot sys­tems (Adopted ISO 10218 – 1:2011, second edi­tion, 2011-​07-​01, with Canadian devi­ations and ISO 10218 – 2:2011, first edi­tion, 2011-​07-​01, with Canadian devi­ations). Canadian National Standard CAN/​CSA Z434. 2014. 

[2]  Safeguarding of Machinery, CSA Standard Z432. 2016

[3]  DIRECTIVE 2006/​42/​EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  of 17 May 2006  on machinery, and amend­ing Directive 95/​16/​EC (recast). Brussels: European Commission, 2006.

[4]  Electrical Standard for Industrial Machinery. ANSI/​NFPA Standard 79. 2015.

Download NFPA stand­ards at ANSI

[5] Industrial elec­tric­al machinery. CSA Standard C22.2 NO. 301. 2016. 

[6] Safety of machinery – Electrical Equipment of machines – Part 1: General require­ments. IEC Standard 60204 – 1. 2016.  

Download IEC stand­ards, International Electrotechnical Commission stand­ards.

[7] Safety of machinery — Safety-​related parts of con­trol sys­tems — Part 1: General prin­ciples for design. ISO Standard 13849 – 1. 2015.

[8] Safety of machinery — Safety-​related parts of con­trol sys­tems — Part 2: Validation. ISO Standard 13849 – 2. 2012.

[9] Safety of machinery – Functional safety of safety-​related elec­tric­al, elec­tron­ic and pro­gram­mable elec­tron­ic con­trol sys­tems. IEC Standard 62061+AMD1+AMD2. 2015.

[10] Safety of machineryEmergency Stop — Principals for design. ISO Standard 13850. 2015.

Download IEC stand­ards, International Electrotechnical Commission stand­ards.
Download ISO Standards 

[11] Control of haz­ard­ous energy — Lockout and oth­er meth­ods. CSA Standard Z460. 2013.

 

 

Why Conventional EMC Testing is Insufficient for Functional Safety

At the recent PSES Symposium, I atten­ded a couple of inter­est­ing work­shops on EMC and Functional Safety. One was called “Workshop on EMC & Functional Safety” presen­ted by Keith Armstrong, Bill Radasky and Jacques Delaballe. The oth­er was a paper present­a­tion called “Why Conventional EMC Testing is Insufficient for Functional Safety” presen­ted by Keith Armstrong. 

For read­ers who are new to the idea of Functional Safety, this field deals

At the recent PSES Symposium, I atten­ded a couple of inter­est­ing work­shops on EMC and Functional Safety. One was called “Workshop on EMC & Functional Safety” presen­ted by Keith Armstrong, Bill Radasky and Jacques Delaballe. The oth­er was a paper present­a­tion called “Why Conventional EMC Testing is Insufficient for Functional Safety” presen­ted by Keith Armstrong.

For read­ers who are new to the idea of Functional Safety, this field deals with the abil­ity of a product or sys­tem to func­tion in it’s inten­ded use envir­on­ment, or in any fore­see­able use envir­on­ments, while reli­ably provid­ing the pro­tec­tion required by the users. Here’s the form­al defin­i­tion taken from IEC 61508 – 4:1998:


3.1.9
func­tion­al safety
part of the over­all safety relat­ing to the EUC and the EUC con­trol sys­tem which depends on the cor­rect func­tion­ing of the E/​E/​PE safety-​related sys­tems, oth­er tech­no­logy safety-​related sys­tems and extern­al risk reduc­tion facil­it­ies

3.2.3
equip­ment under con­trol (EUC)
equip­ment, machinery, appar­at­us or plant used for man­u­fac­tur­ing, pro­cess, trans­port­a­tion, med­ic­al or oth­er activ­it­ies

NOTE – The EUC con­trol sys­tem is sep­ar­ate and dis­tinct from the EUC.

Table 1: (E/​E/​PE) elec­tric­al /​ elec­tron­ic /​ pro­gram­mable elec­tron­ic

Reliability require­ments are found in two key stand­ards, ISO 13849 and IEC 61508. These two stand­ards over­lap to some degree, and do not define reli­ab­il­ity cat­egor­ies in the same way, which fre­quently leads to con­fu­sion. In addi­tion there is a Machinery Sector Specific stand­ard based on IEC 61508, called IEC 62061, Safety of machinery – Functional safety of safety-​related elec­tric­al, elec­tron­ic and pro­gram­mable elec­tron­ic con­trol sys­tems. These three stand­ards make ref­er­ence to EM effects on sys­tems but do not provide guid­ance on how to assess these phe­nom­ena. This is where IEC TS 61000−1−2 comes into play.

All three experts are mem­bers of IEC TC 77 and are dir­ectly engaged in writ­ing the second edi­tion of IEC TS 61000−1−2 (more info on this at the bot­tom of this post). This IEC Technical Specification deals with elec­tro­mag­net­ic (EM) effects on equip­ment that res­ult in func­tion­al safety prob­lems, like fail­ures in guard­ing cir­cuits, or fail­ures in some of the new pro­gram­mable safety sys­tems. This is becom­ing an increas­ingly import­ant issue as pro­gram­mable con­trols migrate into the tra­di­tion­ally hard­wired safety world. In fact, Keith poin­ted out that EM effects are present even in many of our “tried and true” cir­cuits, but the fail­ures have been incor­rectly attrib­uted to oth­er phe­nom­ena because most elec­tric­al engin­eers have not been used to think­ing about these phe­nom­ena, espe­cially in 24Vdc relay-​based con­trol cir­cuits.

In the work­shop, the presenters dis­cussed a typ­ic­al product life cycle, then went on to explore the typ­ic­al envir­on­ments that a product may be exposed to, includ­ing the EM and phys­ic­al envir­on­ments. They went on to dis­cuss the need for an EMC-​related Risk Assessment and then fin­ished up by look­ing at Electromagnetic Safety Planning. The whole work­shop took the entire second day of the Symposium.

A key point in the work­shop is that con­ven­tion­al EMC test­ing can­not prac­tic­ally prove that sys­tems are safe. This is due to the struc­ture of the EMC tests that are nor­mally under­taken, includ­ing the use of fixed mod­u­la­tion fre­quen­cies dur­ing immunity test­ing, fail­ure to assess inter­mod­u­la­tion effects and many oth­er issues. In addi­tion, EMC test­ing does not and can­not test for aging effects on per­form­ance, wear & tear and oth­er use-​related con­di­tions. The presenters dis­cussed a num­ber of ways that these prob­lems could be addressed and ways that test­ing could be exten­ded in select­ive ways to attack pre­dicted vul­ner­ab­il­it­ies. EMC test­ing does not con­sider the reli­ab­il­ity require­ments of the tested product (i.e. IEC 61508 – 1 SIL-​3 or SIL-​4).

On the fol­low­ing morn­ing, Keith Armstrong presen­ted his paper. In this paper, Mr. Armstrong went into con­sid­er­able detail on the short­com­ings of con­ven­tion­al EMC test­ing when it comes to Functional Safety. He sug­ges­ted some approaches that could be used by man­u­fac­tur­ers to address these issues in safety crit­ic­al applic­a­tions.

The work­shop present­a­tions and Mr. Armstong’s paper can be pur­chased through IEEE Xplore for those that did not attend the Symposium.

The IET has pub­lished a new book, avail­able for free from their web site, entitled Electromagnetic Compatibility for Functional Safety. This guide will be reviewed in a future post, so keep read­ing!

Keith Armstrong, Bill Radasky and Jacques Delaballe are mem­bers of IEC Technical Committee 77, writ­ing IEC TS 61000−1−2 Ed 2.0, ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY (EMC) – PART 1 – 2: GENERALMETHODOLOGY FOR THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE FUNCTIONAL SAFETY OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT WITH REGARD TO ELECTROMAGNETIC PHENOMENA. Edition 2 of this stand­ard should be pub­lished by Mar-​2009 accord­ing to the IEC.

Keith Armstrong is Principal Consultant at Cherry Clough Consultants in Brocton, UK.

Bill Radasky works with Metatech Corporation from his office in Goleta, California.

Jacques Delaballe works for Schneider Electric Industries SAS in Grenoble, France.