EU changes direction on EN ISO 13849–1

Update on EN ISO 13849–1 manda­to­ry imple­men­ta­tion date.

In a post on 15-Sep I report­ed that the Euro­pean Union had decid­ed to delay the manda­to­ry imple­men­ta­tion date of  EN ISO 13849–1 for an addi­tion­al three years. This report was based on infor­ma­tion obtained from an inter­nal source at the Euro­pean Com­mis­sion and has since been reversed by that same source.

Mr. Glyn Gar­side pro­vid­ed the fol­low­ing update to this impor­tant sto­ry:

It has been wide­ly report­ed, but nev­er con­firmed, that the EU com­mis­sion had accept­ed the CEN pro­pos­al to extend the date of ces­sa­tion of pre­sump­tion of con­for­mi­ty of EN 954–1:1996 until the end of 2012. THESE REPORTS HAVE NOW BEEN AUTHORITATIVELY DENIED.

(By the way, this dis­cus­sion of dates of ces­sa­tion of pre­sump­tion of con­for­mi­ty only affects the Euro­pean stan­dards, EN 954–1 and EN ISO 13849–1. Inter­na­tion­al stan­dard ISO 13849–1 is obvi­ous­ly con­trolled by ISO and not by CEN or the EU. The cur­rent edi­tion of ISO 13849–1 is 2006, essen­tial­ly iden­ti­cal to EN ISO 13849–1 : 2008.)

At this point the pos­si­bil­i­ty of an exten­sion of the tran­si­tion from EN 954–1 to EN ISO 13849–1 remains con­tro­ver­sial, con­fused and IMHO uncer­tain. (There’s been approx 3 years tran­si­tion peri­od already.) If I were still a man­u­fac­tur­er, I would not want to wait until Dec 29th to find out if I could still ship my prod­uct using EN 954–1!

The reports of an exten­sion were based on an email sent ear­li­er this month (3rd Sept) by a CEN employ­ee. How­ev­er, the EU Com­mis­sion nev­er con­firmed the report, and on Sep­tem­ber 24th the same CEN employ­ee, Marie Poidevin, has writ­ten,
—————–
> “We have been informed today by the Euro­pean Com­mis­sion […] that con­trary to what was expressed in
> my pre­vi­ous mes­sage sent on the 3rd of Sep­tem­ber, EN 954–1 will not give pre­sump­tion of con­for­mi­ty
>  to the new MD 2006/42/EC until fur­ther notice.
> “Indeed, due to dis­cus­sions fol­low­ing the announce­ment made below, the EC wish­es to gath­er experts’
> views and, there­fore, this issue will be dis­cussed at the next Machin­ery Work­ing group to be held on
> the 7–8th Decem­ber.”
—————–

A relat­ed email from Ian Fras­er (“EC Pol­i­cy Direc­tor for the Machin­ery Direc­tive”), dat­ed 2009-09-18 states,
—————–
“Fol­low­ing the dis­cus­sion at the meet­ing of the Machin­ery Work­ing Group held on 7 and 8
July 2009, we have received a num­ber of ques­tions con­cern­ing the tran­si­tion from stan­dard
EN 954–1 to stan­dard EN ISO 13849–1 on safe­ty-relat­ed parts of con­trol sys­tems.
At the meet­ing of the Machin­ery Work­ing Group, there was gen­er­al agree­ment on two
aspects:
1. Man­u­fac­tur­ers who apply stan­dard EN ISO 13849–1 ben­e­fit from a pre­sump­tion of
con­for­mi­ty, even if the har­monised C-type stan­dard relat­ing to the machin­ery con­cerned still
refers to the cat­e­gories of EN 954–1;
2. Har­monised C-type stan­dards that refer to the cat­e­gories of EN 954–1 con­tin­ue to con­fer a
pre­sump­tion of con­for­mi­ty until they are amend­ed to refer to stan­dard EN ISO 13849–1.
These con­clu­sions will be record­ed in the min­utes of the meet­ing.

Dur­ing the dis­cus­sion, sev­er­al par­tic­i­pants indi­cat­ed that more time was need­ed for the
indus­try, and in par­tic­u­lar for SMEs, to adapt to the new stan­dard. As Chair­man of the
meet­ing, I asked whether it might not be prefer­able to post­pone the date of ces­sa­tion of
pre­sump­tion of con­for­mi­ty for EN 954–1.
In response to this sug­ges­tion, on 30 July 2009, Mr. Steiger wrote to the Com­mis­sion, on
behalf of the CEN Machin­ery Sec­tor, to request that the date of ces­sa­tion of pre­sump­tion of
con­for­mi­ty for EN 954–1 be excep­tion­al­ly post­poned until 31 Decem­ber 2012 […].
The Com­mis­sion will reply to this request from CEN. How­ev­er, giv­en the com­plex­i­ty of the
issues involved, the Com­mis­sion intends to con­sult experts and to seek the opin­ion of the
Machin­ery Work­ing Group to be held on 7 and 8 Decem­ber 2009, before reach­ing a final
deci­sion.
Kind regards,
Ian FRASER
—————

Thanks again to Glyn Gar­side and the EMC-PSTC List Serv­er!

Emergency Stop — What’s so confusing about that?

This entry is part 1 of 13 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

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

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.

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

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.