Safe Machinery

Handbook

Contents
Introduction.........................................................4
Why safety?.........................................................6
Legal framework...............................................10
Risk assessment............................................... 16
Safe design and safeguarding.....................22
Functional Safety............................................ 30
Control system standards
including worked examples......................... 38
Sources of information.................................. 56
Annexes - architectures................................ 58

Introduction

There are various guides to machinery safety

legislation which tend to present a distorted view of the
requirements of that legislation.
This handbook is an attempt to provide information that is up-to-date and unbiased
in order to help machine builders and users to provide workers with machines that
are safe, legal, and efficient. It is not intended as an exhaustive guide to compliance
with safety legislation, nor as a replacement for referring to the relevant standards
themselves; it is to guide you through the logical steps and to point you to the relevant
sources of information.

Why safety

As well as the moral obligation to avoid harming anyone,

there are laws that require machines to be safe, and sound
economic reasons for avoiding accidents.
Safety must be taken into account right from the design stage and must be kept in mind at
all stages in the life of a machine: design, manufacture, installation, adjustment, operation,
maintenance and eventual scrapping.

Design/manufacture

Installation

Adjustment/operation

Maintenance

New machines - the Machinery Directive

The Machinery Directive 98/37/EC is to compel manufacturers to guarantee a minimum safety
level for machineryand equipmentsold within the European Union.
From 29 December 2009 the new Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC will be effective.
Machines have to comply with the Essential Health and Safety Requirements (EHSRs) listed in
Annex I of the Directive, thus setting a common minimum level of protection across the EEA
(European Economic Area).
Machine manufacturers, or their authorised representatives within the EU, must ensure that the
machine is compliant, the Technical File can be made available to the enforcing authorities on
request, the CE marking is affixed, and a Declaration of Conformity has been signed, before
the machine may be placed on the market within the EU.

Existing machines the Work Equipment Directive

The user has the obligations defined by the Use of Work Equipment directive 89/655/EEC
which can in the most cases be met by using machinery compliant with relevant standard.
It applies to the provision of all work equipment, including mobile and lifting equipment, in all
workplaces and work situations.
They require that all equipment is suitable for use, and is inspected and maintained as
necessary to ensure that it remains so.

The cost of accidents

Some of the costs are obvious, such as sick pay for injured
employees, whereas some costs are harder to identify. The Health
and Safety Executive in UK (HSE) give an example of an accident at
a drilling machine that resulted in costs to the business of 45 000
(~51 300 ) (HSE INDG355). However this does not include some of
the less obvious costs, and some estimates amount to double that
figure. An accident analysed by Schneider Electric Ltd, the outcome
of which was a reversible head injury, cost the employer some 90
000 (~102 600 ), of which only 37 000 (~42 200 ) was insurable.
The full financial impact can include increase in insurance premiums,
lost production, lost customers and even loss of reputation.

The regulations
apply to all
employers, the
self-employed,
and others who
have control of the
provision of work
equipment.

Some risk reduction measures can actually increase productivity;

for example the use of light curtains to protect access points of
machines can allow easier access for loading and unloading; zoning
of isolation devices can allow parts of a machine to be shut down for
maintenance while other parts remain productive.

99

Legal framework

EC Directive:

Legal instrument to harmonise the legislation of the European member states

Defines the essential health and safety requirements (EHSRs)

Transposed into national law (act, decree, order, regulations)

Standard:

A standard is a technical specification approved by a recognised standardisation body for

repeated or continuous application, with which compliance is not compulsory

Harmonised standard:

A standard becomes harmonised when published throughout the member states

Presumption of conformity:
When a product conforms to a harmonised European standard, the reference to which has
been published in the Official Journal of the European Union for a specific Directive, and which
covers one or more of the essential safety requirements, the product is presumed to comply
with those essential safety requirements of the Directive. A list of such standards can be
accessed at http://www.newapproach.org/Directives/DirectiveList.asp

10

It is of course
necessary to ensure
compliance with
all the other EHSRs
as well as those for
which a Presumption
of Conformity is
given by the use of a
specific standard.

11

When a Type-C standard deviates from one or more

provisions dealt with by a Type A standard or by a
Type B standard, the Type C standard takes precedence.
PrEN 12100 is Type A standards.

A B & C standards:
European standards for the Safety of machinery form the following structure:

B1

B2

C
Some examples of these types of standards are:
PrEN/ISO 12100

Safety of machinery - Principles for risk assessment and risk reduction

EN 574

Two-hand control devices - Functional aspects - principles for design

EN/ISO 13850

Emergency stop - Principles for design

Type A standards

(Basic safety standards) giving basic concepts, principles for design, and general aspects
that can be applied to all machinery;

Type B standards

(Generic safety standards) dealing with one safety aspect or one type of safeguard that can
be used across a wide range of machinery:

- Type B1 standards on particular safety aspects (e.g. safety distances, surface

temperature, noise);
- Type B2 standards on safeguards (e.g. two-hand controls, interlocking devices, pressure
sensitive devices, guards);

Type C standards

(Machine safety standards) dealing with detailed safety requirements for a particular
machine or group of machines.

EN/IEC 62061
B

Functional safety of safety-related electrical, electronic and electronic

programmable control systems

EN/ISO 13849-1
B

Safety of machinery - Safety-related parts of control systems Part 1 general principles for design

EN 349

Minimum gaps to avoid crushing of parts of the human body

Safety of machinery - Safety distances to prevent hazard zones being
reached by upper and lower limbs

EN/IEC 60204-1
B

Safety of machinery - Electrical equipment of machines - Part 1:

general requirements

EN 999/ISO 13855
B

Positioning of protective equipment in respect of approach speeds of

parts of the human body

EN 1088/ISO 14119
B

Interlocking devices associated with guards - Principles for design and

selection

EN/IEC 61496-1
B

Electro-sensitive protective equipment Part 1: General requirements

and tests

EN/IEC 60947-5-5
B

Low-voltage switchgear and control gear - Part 5-5: Control circuit

devices and switching elements - Electrical emergency stop device
with mechanical latching function

EN 842

Visual danger signals - General requirements, design and testing

EN 1037

Prevention of unexpected start-up

EN 953
B

General requirements for the design and construction of fixed and

movable guards

EN 201
C

Machinery for plastics and rubber - Injection moulding machines -

Safety requirements

EN 692

Machine Tools - Mechanical presses - Safety requirements

EN 693

Machine Tools - Hydraulic presses - Safety requirements

EN 289
C

Rubber and plastics machines - Safety - Blow moulding machines

intended for the production of hollow articles - Requirements for the
design and construction

EN 422
C

Blow moulding machines for producing hollow parts - Design and

construction requirements

EN/ISO 10218-1
C

Robots for industrial environments - Safety requirements - Part 1:

Robot

EN 415-4

12

EN/SO 13857
B

Safety of packaging machines - Part 4: palletisers and depalletisers

EN 619
C

Continuous handling equipment and systems - Safety and EMC

requirements for equipment for mechanical handling of unit loads

EN 620
C

Continuous handling equipment and systems - Safety and EMC

requirements for fixed belt conveyors for bulk material

13

Manufacturers responsibilities
Manufacturers placing machines on the market within the European Economic Area must
comply with the requirements of the Machinery Directive. Note that placing on the market
includes an organisation supplying a machine to itself, i.e. building or modifying machines
for its own use, or importing machines into the EEA.

Users responsibilities
Users of machines need to ensure that newly-purchased machines are CE marked, and
accompanied by a Declaration of Conformity to the Machinery Directive. Machines must be
used in accordance with the manufacturers instructions.
Existing machines taken into service before the Machinery Directive came into force do
not need to comply, although they need to comply with PUWER and be safe and fit for
purpose.
Modification of machines can be considered as manufacture of a new machine, even if for
use in-house, and the company modifying a machine needs to be aware that it might need
to issue a Declaration of Conformity and CE marking.

14

15

Risk assesment

In order for a machine (or other equipment) to be made

safe it is necessary to assess the risks that can result from
its use. Risk assessment and risk reduction for machines is
described in PrEN/ISO 12100.

There are various techniques for risk assessment, and none can be said to be the right way
to perform a risk assessment. The local Standard specifies some general principles but cannot
specify exactly what has to be done in every case. It would seem to be nice if the standard
could give a value or score for each risk, and then a target value for the maximum value that
must not be exceeded, but that is not the case for several reasons. The score that would be
allocated to each risk, as well as on the level of risk that can be tolerated, depend on a series
of judgements, and will vary with the person doing the judging as well as on the environment.
For example the risks that might be reasonable in a factory employing skilled workers might
be unacceptable in an environment where members of the public, including children, might be
present. Historical accident/incident rates can be useful indicators, but cannot give a reliable
indication of accident rates that can be expected.

16

17

Identify the limits of the machinery

Prioritise the risks according to their seriousness

That is, just what is being assessed? What are the speeds/loads/substances etc that
might be involved? For example how many bottles is the extruder blow moulding per hour,
and how much material is being processed at what temperature? Remember to include
foreseeable misuse, such as the possible use of a machine outside its specification. What
is the expected life of the machinery and its application? How is it likely to be disposed of
at the end of its life?

PrEN/ISO 12100 describes this stage as Risk Estimation. This can be done by multiplying
the potential harm that can come from the hazard by the exposure to the hazard,
remembering that there can be more than one person exposed.
It is difficult to estimate the potential harm, given the possibility that every accident can lead
to a fatality. However usually when there is more than one possible consequence, one will
be more likely than the others. All plausible consequences should be considered, not just
the worst case.

Identify the hazards

The result of the Risk Assessment process should be a table of the various risks that exist
at the machine, together with an indication of the seriousness of each. There is not a single
risk rating or risk category for a machine each risk must be considered separately.
Note that the seriousness can only be estimated Risk Assessment is not a precise
science. Neither is it an end in itself; the purpose of Risk Assessment is to guide Risk
Reduction.

What aspects of the machine might cause harm to a person? Consider the possibility of
entanglement, crushing, cutting from tools, sharp edges on the machine or on the material
being processed. Other factors such as the stability of the machine, noise, vibration, and
emission of substances or radiation also need to be considered, as well as burns from hot
surfaces, chemicals, or friction due to high speeds. This stage should include all hazards
that can be present during the lifecycle of the machinery, including the construction,
installation, and disposal.

Risk
related
to the
potential
hazard

Examples of typical hazards are illustrated below, though this is not an exhaustive list. A
more detailed list can be found in PrEN/ISO 12100.

Who might be harmed by the identified hazards, and when?

Who interacts with the machine, when, and why? Again remember foreseeable misuse
including the possibility of use of a machine by untrained persons, and persons who might
be present in the workplace; not just machine operators, but cleaners, security staff,
visitors, and members of the public.

18

Puncturing, stabbing,
shearing, severing, cutting

Catching, entanglement,
drawing in, trapping

Impact

Electrocution

Discharge of dangerous
substances

Burns

Crushing

Severity
of the
potential
harm

Probability
of
occurence
Frequency and
duration of exposure
Possibility of
avoiding or limiting
the probability of the
ocurence of an
event that could
cause harm

Examples of
typical hazards are
illustrated here,
though this is not
an exhaustive list. A
more detailed list can
be found in
PrEN/ISO 12100.

19

Start

Risk estimation

Risk Reduction

Risk evaluation

Risk evaluation

Identification of the
potential hazards

Risk analysis

Determination of
machine limits

Risk reduction is now included in PrEN/ISO 12100.

Risk reduction is defined in terms of eliminating risk: the aim of measures taken must be to
eliminate any risk throughout the foreseeable lifetime of the machinery including the phases
of transport, assembly, dismantling, disabling and scrapping.
In general, if a risk can be reduced then it should be reduced. This has to be tempered by
commercial realities though, and regulations use words like reasonable to indicate that it
might not be possible to eliminate some risks without a grossly disproportionate cost.
The process of risk assessment is iterative risks need to be identified, prioritised,
quantified, design steps taken to reduce them (first by safe design, then by safeguarding),
and then this process is to be repeated to assess whether the individual risks have been
reduced to a tolerable level and that no additional risks have be introduced. In the next
chapter we examine safe design and safeguarding.

20

Is the
machine
safe?
No

End
Yes

Risk reduction

21

Safe design & safeguarding

Inherently safe design measures

(as per PrEN/ISO 12100)

Some risks can be avoided by simple measures; can the task that results in the risk be
eliminated? Elimination can sometimes be achieved by automation of some tasks such as
machine loading. Can the hazard be removed? For example, the use of a non-flammable
solvent for cleaning tasks can remove the fire hazard associated with flammable solvents.
This stage is known as inherently safe design, and is the only way of reducing a risk to
zero.
Removing the drive from the end roller of a roller conveyor will reduce the possibility of
someone being caught up by the roller. Replacing spoked pulleys with smooth discs can
reduce shearing hazards. Avoidance of sharp edges, corners and protusions can help to
avoid cuts and bruises. Increasing minimum gaps can help to avoid body parts getting
crushed, reducing maximum gaps can eliminate the possibility of body parts entering.
Reduced forces, speeds and pressures can reduce the risk of injury.

Removal of shear traps by inherently safe design measures

Source: BS PD 5304

Take care to avoid substituting one hazard for another. For example air-powered tools
avoid the hazards associated with electricity, but can introduce other hazards from the use
of compressed air, such as injection of air into the body and compressor noise.

Standards and
legislation express
a distinct hierarchy
for controls. The
elimination of
hazards or reduction
of risks to a tolerable
level, by inherently
safe design
measures is the first
priority.

22

23

Safeguarding & complementary protective measures

(as per PrEN/ISO 12100)

Where inherently safe design is not practicable, the next step is safeguarding. This measure can include, for
example, fixed guarding, interlocked guarding, presence sensing to prevent unexpected start-up, etc.
Safeguarding should prevent persons from coming into contact with hazards, or reduce hazards to a safe state,
before a person can come into contact with them.
Guards themselves can be fixed to enclose or distance a hazard, or movable such that they are either self-closing,
power-operated or interlocked.

Typical protective devices used as part of

safeguarding systems include:
Interlock switches to detect the position of movable guards for control interlocking, usually
to permit tasks such as loading/unloading, cleaning, setting, adjustment etc.
Protection of operators is provided by stopping the machine when the actuator is
withdrawn from the head of the switch, when the lever or plunger is actuated, when the
guard is opened or the guard hinge rotates through 5 generally on machines with low
inertia (i.e. quick stopping times)

Light curtains to detect approach to dangerous areas

By finger, hand or body (upto 14mm, upto 30mm and above 30mm resolution)
Light curtains are typically used in material handling, packaging, conveyor,
warehousing and other applications. They are designed for the protection of persons
operating or working in the vicinity of machinery, by the stopping of dangerous
movement of parts as soon as one of the light beams is broken. They make it
possible to protect personnel whilst allowing free access to machines. The absence
of a door or guard reduces the time taken required for loading, inspection or
adjustment operations as well as making access easier.

Safety mats to detect persons

Approaching, standing in or climbing into the danger area
Safety foot mats are typically used in front of or around potentially
dangerous machines or robots. They provide a protection zone
between the machine operators and any dangerous movements.
They are mainly designed to ensure the safety of personnel, and
supplement safety products such as light curtains to enable free
access for the loading or unloading of machines. They work
by detecting persons stepping onto the mat and instigating a
stopping of the dangerous movement.

24

25

Solenoid interlocks (powered guards)

to prevent opening of guards
During dangerous phases of operation. Unlike non-solenoid interlocks, they
are used on loads with high inertia i.e. where the stopping time is long and it is
preferable to permit access only when the dangerous movement has stopped.
These are often used with either a time delay circuit (where machine stopping
time is defined and known) or actual detection of zero speed (where stopping
times can vary) to permit access only when safe conditions are met.
Interlocking devices should be selected and installed with regard to minimising
the possibility of defeat and failure, and the overall safeguard should not
unnecessarily impede production tasks. Steps to achieve this include:

Monitoring of safety signals control systems

The signals from safeguarding components are typically monitored using safety relays,
safety controllers or safety PLCs (collectively referred to as safety logic solvers), which in
turn are used to drive (and sometimes monitor) output devices such as contactors.
The choice of logic solver will depend upon many factors including the number of safety
inputs to process, cost, complexity of the safety functions themselves, the need to reduce
cabling through decentralisation using a fieldbus such as AS-Interface Safety at Work or
SafeEthernet, or even the need to send safety signals/data over long distances across
large machines or between machines on large sites. The now common use of complex
electronics and software in safety controllers and safety PLCs has, in part, driven the
evolution of the standards relating to safety related electrical control systems.

- devices fastened securely in a (fixed) place and requiring a tool to

remove or adjust;
- coded devices or systems, e.g. mechanically, electrically,
magnetically or optically;
- physical obstruction or shielding to prevent access to the interlocking device
when the guard is open;
Two such standards
available at time of
writing include
EN/ISO 13849-1
(directly replacing
EN 954-1 the first
January 2010) and
EN/IEC 62061.

- the support for devices shall be sufficiently rigid to maintain correct operation

Two hand control stations and footswitches

Used to ensure the operator is standing away from the danger
area when causing dangerous movements (e.g. down stroke in
press applications)
They provide protection primarily to the machine operator.
Supplementary protection to other personnel can be provided
through other measures, such as the positioning of light curtains.

Safety relay

Enabling switches to permit access under

specific conditions of reduced risk
To areas for fault-finding, commissioning etc (e.g. jogging and
inching), with a central position and 2 off positions (fully released
or clenched).

26

Safety controller

Compact safety PLC

Modular safety PLC

Safeguarding will usually involve the use of some kind of control system, and the Machinery
Directive gives various requirements for the performance of the control system. In particular
it states Control systems must be designed and constructed in such a way as to prevent
hazardous situations from arising. The Machinery Directive does not specify the use of any
particular standard, but the use of a control system meeting the requirements of
harmonised standard(s) is one means of demonstrating compliance with this requirement
of the Machinery Directive. Two such standards available at the time of writing are EN/ISO
13849-1 (replacing EN 954-1 the first January 2010) and EN/IEC 62061.

27

Complementary protective measures - Emergency stop

Although emergency stops are required for all machines (the Machinery Directive allows
two very specific exemptions) they are not considered to be a primary means of risk
reduction. Instead they are referred to as a complementary protective measure. They
are provided as a backup for use in an emergency only. They need to be robust,
dependable, and available at all positions where it might be necessary to operate them.
EN/IEC 60204-1 defines the following three categories of stop functions as follows:
Stop category 0: stopping by immediate removal of power to the machine actuators
(uncontrolled stop);
Stop category 1: a controlled stop with power available to the machine actuators to
achieve the stop and then removal of power when the stop is achieved;
Stop category 2: a controlled stop with power left available to the machine actuators.
However stop category 2 is not usually considered suitable for emergency stops.
Emergency stops on machinery must be trigger action. This means that their design
ensures that however slowly the button is pressed, or cable pulled, if the normally-closed
contact opens the mechanism must latch. This prevents teasing, which can cause
dangerous situations. The converse must also be true, i.e. latching must not take place
unless the NC contact opens. Emergency stop devices should comply with
EN/IEC 60947-5-5.

Residual risks
After risks have been reduced as far as possible by design, and then by safeguarding,
the risk assessment process should be repeated to check that no new risks have been
introduced (e.g. powered guards can introduce trapping hazards) and to estimate whether
each risk has been reduced to a tolerable level. Even after some iterations of the risk
assessment/risk reduction procedure, it is likely that there will be some residual risks.
Except for machines built to a specific harmonised standard (C Standard) it is for the
designer to judge whether the residual risk is tolerable or whether further measures need
to be taken, and to provide information about those residual risks, in the form of warning
labels, instructions for use, etc. The instructions might also specify measures such as the
need for personal protective equipment (PPE) or special working procedures, but these are
not as dependable as measures implemented by the designer.

28

29

Functional safety

Functional Safety
The IEC have published a series of FAQs related to Functional Safety at
http://www.iec.ch/zone/fsafety/
A number of standards have been published in recent years that use the concept of
functional safety. Examples include IEC 61508, IEC 62061, IEC 61511, ISO 13849-1, and
IEC 61800-5-2 which have all been adopted in Europe and published as ENs.
Functional safety is a relatively recent concept that replaces the old Categories of
behaviour under fault conditions that were defined in EN 954-1, and were often mistakenly
described as Safety Categories.

A reminder of the principles of EN 954-1

Users of EN 954-1 will be familiar with the old risk graph which many used to design
their safety related parts of electrical control circuits to the categories B, 1, 2, 3 or 4. The
user was prompted to subjectively assess severity of injury, frequency of exposure and
possibility of avoidance in terms of slight to serious, rare to frequent, and possible to
virtually impossible, to arrive at a required category for each safety related part.

S1
F1
S2
F2

P1
P2
P1
P2

The thinking is that the more the risk reduction depends upon the safety machine control
system* (SRECS), the more it needs to be resistant to faults (such as short circuits, welded
contacts etc).
The behaviour of the categories under fault conditions was defined as follows:
- Category B control circuits are basic and can lead to a loss of the safety function due to a fault.
- Category 1 can also lead to a loss of the safety function, but with less probability than
category B.
- Category 2 circuits detect faults by periodic testing at suitable intervals (the safety
function can be lost between the periodic tests)
KM1

KM1

KM1

*The safety machine control system is named:

- SRP/CS safety related parts of control system in EN/ISO 13849-1 standard
- SRECS Safety related electrical control system in EN/IEC 62061 standard

30

31

- Category 3 circuits ensure the safety function, in the presence of a single fault, for
example by employing two (redundant) channels, but a loss of the safety function can
occur in the case of an accumulation of faults
1

KM1
KM2

KM2

KM1

- Category 4 circuits ensure that the safety function is always available even in the case of
one or more faults, usually by employing both input and output redundancy, together with
a feedback loop for continuous monitoring of the outputs
1

KM1 KM2
KM1
KM2

KM2

KM1

Functional safety is 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. Note
that it is an attribute of the equipment under control and of the control system, not of any
particular component or specific kind of device. It applies to all components that contribute
to the performance of a safety function, including for example, input switches, logic solvers
such as PLCs and IPCs (including their software and firmware) and output devices such as
contactors and variable speed drives.
* EUC means Equipment Under Control
**Note E/E/PE means Electrical/Electronic/Programmable Electronic.
It should also be remembered that the words correct functioning mean that the function
is correct, not just what was expected, which means the functions have to be selected
correctly. In the past there has been a tendency for components specified to a high
category of EN 954-1 to be chosen instead of components that have a lower category, but
might actually have more suitable functions. This might be as a result of the misconception
that the categories are hierarchical such that for example, category 3 is always better
than category 2 and so on. Functional safety standards are intended to encourage
designers to focus more on the functions that are necessary to reduce each individual risk,
and what performance is required for each function, rather than simply relying on particular
components.

32

33

Which standards are applicable to the safety function?

Now that EN 954-1 is about to be withdrawn, the available alternatives are EN/IEC 62061
and EN/ISO 13849-1.
The performance of each safety function is specified as either a SIL (Safety Integrity Level)
in the case of EN/IEC 62061 or PL (Performance Level) in the case of EN/ISO 13849-1.
In both cases the architecture of the control circuit which delivers the safety function is a
factor, but unlike EN 954-1 these new standards require consideration of the reliability of
the selected components.

EN ISO 13849-1
EN ISO 13849-1 uses a combination of the Mean Time To Dangerous Failure (MTTFd),
Diagnostic Coverage (DC) and architecture (category) to determine Performance Level PL
(a, b, c, d, e), and a simplified method of estimating PL is given in Table 7 of the standard.
The categories are the same as those in EN 954-1, which are explained in Annex 2.

Category

B
None

DCavg

None

Low

Medium

Low

Medium

High

MTTFd of each channel

It is important to consider each function in detail; EN/IEC 62061 requires a Safety

Requirements Specification (SRS) to be drawn up. This includes a functional specification
(what it does, in detail) and a safety integrity specification, which defines the required
probability that the function will be performed under the specified conditions.
An example often used is stop the machine when the guard is open, which really needs
more detailed consideration, initially of the functional specification. For example, will the
machine be stopped by removing the coil voltage from a contactor, or by ramping-down
the speed using a variable speed drive? Is it necessary to lock the guard closed until the
dangerous movements have stopped? Will other equipment, upstream or downstream,
need to be shut down? How will the opening of the guard be detected?

In EN/IEC 62061, a safety integrity requirement is expressed as a target failure value for
the probability of dangerous failure per hour of each Safety related control function (SRCF).
This can be calculated from reliability data for each component or sub-system, and is
related to the SIL as shown in Table 3 of the standard:

Safety integrity level

(SIL)

Probability of a dangerous Failure per

Hour PFHD

3
2
1

>10 to <10
>10-7 to <10-6
>10-6 to <10-5
-8

Medium

b
Not
covered

Not
covered
Not
covered
c

Not
covered
Not
covered
e

Table 2: Simplified procedure for evaluating PL achieved by SRP/CS

From the table above it can be seen that only a category 4 architecture can be used
to achieve the highest PLe, but that is possible to achieve lower PLs using categories
depending upon the mix of MTTFd and DC of the components used.

Performance level EN ISO 13849-1

How often will the guard be opened? What might be the consequences of a failure of the
function? What will the ambient conditions (temperature, vibration, humidity, etc) be?

High

The safety integrity specification must consider both random hardware failures and
systematic failures. Systematic failures are those which are related to a specific cause, and
can only be avoided by removal of that cause, usually by a modification of the design. In
practice, most real-world failures are systematic and result from incorrect specification.
As part of the normal design processes, this specification should lead to the selection of
suitable design measures; for example, heavy and misaligned guards can lead to damaged
interlock switches unless shock absorbers and alignment pins are fitted, contactors should
be suitably rated and protected against overloads.

Low

3
Cat. B
Cat. 1
Cat. 2
Cat. 2
Cat. 3
DCavg =
DCavg =
DCavg =
DCavg = DCavg =
0
0
low
medium low
Safety category level EN/ISO 13849-1

Safety Integrity Level EN IEC 62061

EN/IEC 62061

Cat. 3
Cat. 4
DCavg =
DCavg =
medium high

MTTFd of each channel = low

MTTFd of each channel = medium
MTTFd of each channel = high

-7

Table 1: Relationship between SIL and PFHD

34

35

Which standard to use?

Index

MTTFd range

Low
Medium
High

>3 years to <10 years

>10 years to <30 years
>30 years to <100 years

Table 3: MTTFd levels

For the estimation of MTTFd of a component the following data can be used, in order of
preference:
1. Manufacturers data (MTTFd, B10 or B10d)
2. Methods in Annexes C and D of EN/ISO 13849-1

Unless a C-standard specifies a target SIL or PL, the designer is free to choose whether to
use EN/IEC 62061 or EN/ISO 13849-1, or indeed any other standard. Both
EN/IEC 62061 and EN/ISO 13849-1 are harmonised standards that give a Presumption
of Conformity to the Essential Requirements of the Machinery Directive, in so far as they
apply. However it should be remembered that whichever standard is chosen must be used
in its entirety, and they cannot be mixed in a single system.
Work is ongoing in a liaison group between IEC and ISO, to produce a common Annex for
the two standards with the aim of eventually producing a single standard.
EN/IEC 62061 is perhaps more comprehensive on the subjects of specification and
management responsibilities, whereas EN/ISO 13849-1 is designed to allow an easier
transition from EN 954-1.

3. Choose 10 years
Diagnostic coverage is a measure of how many dangerous failures the diagnostic system
will detect. The level of safety can be increased where sub-systems are tested internally
using self-diagnostics.

Index

Diagnostic coverage

Nil
Low
Medium
High

<60%
>60% to <90%
>90% to <99%
>99%

Certification
Some component products are available with certification to a specific SIL or PL. It should
be remembered that these certificates are only an indication of the best SIL or PL that can
be achieved by a system using that component in a specific configuration, and are not a
guarantee that a completed system will meet any specific SIL or PL.

Table 4: Diagnostic Coverage levels

Common Cause Failures (CCF) is when an external effect (such as physical damage)
renders a number of components unusable irrespective of MTTFd. Steps taken to reduce
CCF include:
- Diversity in the components used and modes in which they are driven
- Protection against pollution
- Separation
- Improved electromagnetic compatibility

36

37

Control system
standards worked
examples

38

Perhaps the best way to understand the application of

EN/IEC 62061 and EN/ISO 13849-1 is by way of the worked
examples on the following pages.
For both standards we will use the example where the opening of a
guard must cause the moving parts of a machine to stop, where if
it did not stop the resulting possible injury could be a broken arm or
amputated finger.

39

Worked example using standard

EN/IEC 62061
Safety of Machinery - Functional Safety of safety-related electrical,
electronic and electronic programmable control systems
Safety-related electrical control systems in machines (SRECS) are playing an increasing role
in ensuring the overall safety of machines and are more and more frequently using complex
electronic technology. This standard is specific to the machine sector within the framework
of EN/IEC 61508.
It gives rules for the integration of sub-systems designed in accordance with
EN/ISO 13849-1. It does not specify the operating requirements of non-electrical control
components in machines (for example: hydraulic, pneumatic).

The advantage of this approach is that it can offer a calculation method that incorporates
all the parameters that can affect the reliability of control systems. The method consists of
assigning a SIL to each function, taking into account the following parameters:
- The probability of a dangerous failure of the components (PFHD),
- The type of architecture (A, B, C or D), i.e.;

With or without redundancy,

With or without diagnostic features making it possible to control some of the

dangerous failures,
- Common cause failures (CCF), including;

Short-circuits between channels,

Overvoltage,

Loss of power supply, etc.,
- The probability of dangerous transmission errors where digital communication is used,
- Electromagnetic interference (EMI).

Functional approach to safety

The process starts with analysis of the risks (PrEN/ISO 12100) in order to be able to
determine the safety requirements. A particular feature of EN/IEC 62061 is that it prompts
the user to make an analysis of the architecture to perform the safety functions, then
consider sub-functions and analyse their interactions before deciding on a hardware
solution for the safety control system called safety related electrical control system (SRECS).

Designing a system is split into 5 steps after having drawn up the functional safety plan:

A functional safety plan must be drawn up and documented for each design
project. It must include:

3. List the safety requirements for each function block and assign the function blocks to
the sub-systems within the architecture,

A specification of the safety requirements for the safety functions (SRCF) that is in two
parts:

4. Select the components for each sub-system,

- A description of the functions and interfaces, operating modes, function priorities,

frequency of operation, etc.
- Specification of the safety integrity requirements for each function, expressed in terms
of SIL (Safety Integrity Level).
- Table 1 below gives the target maximum failure values for each SIL.

Safety integrity level

SIL

Probability of a dangerous
Failure per Hour, PFHD

3
2
1

>10-8 to <10-7
>10-7 to <10-6
>10-6 to <10-5

1. Based on the risk assessment, assign a safety integrity level (SIL) and identify the basic
structure of the electrical control system (SRECS), describe each related function (SRCF),
2. Break down each function into a function block structure (FB),

5. Design the diagnostic function and check that the specified safety integrity level (SIL) is
achieved.

In our example, consider a function which removes the power to a motor when a guard
is opened. If the function fails, it would be possible for the machine operators arm to be
broken or a finger amputated.

- The structured and documented design process for electrical control systems (SRECS),
- The procedures and resources for recording and maintaining appropriate information,
- The process for management and modification of the configuration, taking into account
organisation and authorised personnel,
- The verification and validation plan.

40

41

Step 1 - Assign a safety integrity level (SIL) and identify the

structure of the SRECS
Based on the risk assessment performed in accordance with PrEN/ISO 12100, estimation
of the required SIL is performed for each safety-related control function (SRCF) and is
broken down into parameters, as shown in the illustration below.

Risk
related
to the
identified
hazard

Severity of
the possible
harm
&
Frequency and
duration of
exposure

Probability of
occurrence of a
hazardous event

Probability of
avoiding or
limiting harm

42

Fr
Pr
Av

Se

Severity Se
The severity of injuries or damage to health can be estimated by taking into account
reversible injuries, irreversible injuries or death.
The recommended classification is shown in the table below.

Consequences

Severity (Se)

Irreversible: death, losing an eye or arm

Irreversible: broken limb(s), losing a finger(s)
Reversible: requiring attention from a
medical practitioner
Reversible: requiring first aid

4
3
2
1

Probability of the harm occurring

Probability of
occurrence
of that harm

Each of the three parameters Fr, Pr, Av is estimated separately using the least favourable
case. It is recommended that a task analysis is used in order to ensure that estimation of
the probability of the harm occurring is correctly taken into account.

Frequency and duration of exposure Fr

The level of exposure is linked to the need to access the hazardous zone (normal
operation, maintenance, ...) and the type of access (manual feeding, adjustment, ...).
It is then possible to estimate the average frequency and duration of exposure.
The recommended classification is shown in the table below:

Frequency of exposure

Duration
> 10 min

< 1 h
> 1 h to < 1 day
> 1 day to < 2 weeks
> 2 weeks to < 1 year
> 1 year

5
5
4
3
2

43

Probability of occurrence of a hazardous event Pr

SIL assignment:

Two basic concepts must be taken into account:

Estimation is made with the help of the table below.

the predictability of the dangerous components in the various parts of the machine in
its various operating modes (normal, maintenance, troubleshooting), paying particular
attention to unexpected restarting;

In our example, the degree of severity (Se) is 3 because there is a risk of a finger being
amputated; this value is shown in the first column of the table. All the other parameters
must be added together in order to select one of the classes (vertical columns in the table
below), which gives:

behaviour of the persons interacting with the machine, such as stress, fatigue,
inexperience, etc.

Probability of occurrence

Probability (Pr)

Very high
Likely
Possible
Rarely
Negligible

5
4
3
2
1

Probability of avoiding or limiting the harm Av

This parameter is linked to the design of the machine. It takes into account the suddenness
of the occurrence of the hazardous event, the nature of the hazard (cutting, temperature,
electrical), the possibility of physically avoiding the hazard, and the possibility for a person
to identify a hazardous phenomenon.

Probabilities of avoiding or limiting harm (AV)

Impossible
Rarely
Probable

5
3
1

Fr = 5 accessed several times a day

Pr = 4 hazardous event probable
Av = 3 probability of avoiding almost impossible
Therefore a class CI = 5 + 4 + 3 = 12
The safety-related electrical control system (SRECS) of the machine must perform this
function with an integrity level of SIL 2.

Severity (Se)

4
3
2
1

3-4

5-7

8-10

11-13

14-15

SIL 2

SIL 2
(OM)

SIL 2
SIL 1
(OM)

SIL 3
SIL 2
SIL 1
(OM)

SIL 3
SIL 3
SIL 2
SIL 1

Basic structure of the SRECS

Before going into detail about the hardware components to be used, the system is broken
down into sub-systems. In this example, 3 sub-systems are necessary to perform the
input, processing and output functions. The figure opposite illustrates this stage, using the
terminology given in the standard.

SRECS

Subsystem
elements

Input

44

Class (Cl)

Subsystems
Logic
solving

output

45

Step 2 - Break down each function into a function block structure (FB)
A function block (FB) is the result of a detailed break down of a safety-related function.
The function block structure gives an initial concept of the SRECS architecture. The safety
requirements of each block are derived from the safety requirements specification of the
corresponding safety-related control function.

Step 4 - Select the components for each sub-system

The products shown below are selected.

Guard Sensing
Subsystem 1 (SS1)

Logic Solving
Subsystem 2 (SS2)

Power Switching
Subsystem 3 (SS3)

SRECS

SIL target = SIL2

Subsystem 1

Subsystem 2

Subsystem 3

Guard Sensing

Logic Solving

Function block
FB1

Function block
FB2

Motor Power
Switching
Function block
FB3

Input

Logic

Output

Step 3 - List the safety requirements for each function block

and assign the function blocks to the sub-systems within the
architecture.
Each function block is assigned to a sub-system in the SRECS architecture. (The standard
defines subsystem in such a way that failure of any sub-system will lead to the failure
of a safety-related control function.) More than one function block may be assigned to
each sub-system. Each sub-system may include sub-system elements and, if necessary,
diagnostic functions in order to ensure that failures can be detected and the appropriate
action taken.
These diagnostic functions are considered as separate functions; they may be performed
within the sub-system, or by another sub-system. The sub-systems must achieve at least
the same SIL capability as assigned to the entire safety-related control function, each with
its own SIL Claim Limit (SILCL). In this case the SILCL of each subsystem must be 2.

Subsystem 1

Subsystem 2

Subsystem 3

Guard Sensing

Logic Solving

Motor Power
Switching

Interlock Switch 1
Subsystem
element 1.1
Interlock Switch 2
Subsystem
element 1.2

SILCL 2

46

SRECS

Safety
Controller

SILCL 2

safety Switch 1

Contactor 1

safety Switch 2

Contactor 2

(Subsystem elements)
SS1
SILCL 2

Component

Safety Relay
SS2
SILCL 2

Number of
operations (B10)

XCS safety limit switches

10 000 000

XPS AK safety logic module

PFHD = 7.389 x 10-9

LC1 TeSys contactor

1 000 000

(Subsystem elements)
SS3
SILCL 2

% dangerous
failures

Lifetime

20%

10 years

73%

20 years

The reliability data is obtained from the manufacturer.

The cycle length in this example is 450 seconds, so the duty cycle C is 8 operations per hour,
i.e. the guard will be opened 8 times per hour.

Contactor 1
Subsystem
element 3.1

Contactor 2
Subsystem
element 3.2

SILCL 2

47

Step 5 - Design the diagnostic function

The SIL achieved by the sub-systems depends not only on the components, but also
on the architecture selected. For this example, we will choose architectures B for the
contactor outputs and D for the limit switch (See Annex 1 of this Guide for explanation of
architectures A, B, C and D).

Guard Sensing

lD: rate of dangerous failures (l = x proportion of dangerous failures).

b: common cause failure factor: see Annex F of the standard.
T1: Proof Test Interval or life time, whichever is smaller, as specified by the manufacturer.
The standard states that designers should use a lifetime of 20 years, to avoid the use of an
unrealistically short proof test interval being use to improve the SIL calculation. However
it recognises that electromechanical components can need replacement when their
specified number of operations is reached. Therefore the figure used for T1 can be the
manufacturers quoted lifetime, or in the case of electromechanical components the B10D
value divided by the rate of operations C.
T2: diagnostic test interval.
DC: Diagnostic coverage rate = lDD / lDtotal, the ratio between the rate of detected
dangerous failures and the rate of total dangerous failures.

Subsystem element 3.1

l
l

l
l

= 0,1 C/B10

Subsystem element 1.2

l
l

= le 73%

Subsystem element 3.2

l
l

= 0,1 C/B10
e
De

= 0,1 C/B10

De

= le 20%

= 0,1 C/B10

De

= le 73%

Safety Relay

Subsystem SS1
PFHD = ?

(Architecture D)

Subsystem SS2

Subsystem SS3

PFHD = 7.389x10

PFHD = ?

-9

(Architecture B)
Feed back loop
not used

The failure rate, l, of an electromechanical subsystem element is defined as

le = 0,1 x C / B10 , where C is the number of operations per hour in the application and
B10 is the expected number of operations at which 10% of the population will have failed.
In this example we will consider C = 8 operations per hour.
SS1
2 monitored
limit switches

SS3
2 contactors
without
diagnostics

DC

99%

Not Applicable

Common cause
failure factor b

Assumed worst case of 10%

Failure rate for

each
element le

le = 0.1 C/B10

Dangerous failure
rate for each element lDe

lDe = le x
proportion of
dangerous failures

T1 min
(life time B10d/C)

T1 = B10D/C

Diagnostic test
interval T2
Dangerous failure
rate for each
subsystem

48

Subsystem 3 (SS3)

= le 20%
De

SS1: two safety limit switches in a sub-system with a type D (redundant) architecture;
SS2: a SILCL 3 safety logic module (determined from the data, including PFHD, provided
by the manufacturer);
SS3: two contactors used in accordance with a type B (redundant with no feedback)
architecture

B10: number of operations at which 10% of the population will have failed.
C: Duty cycle (number of operations per hour).

Power Switching

Subsystem 2 (SS2)

Subsystem element 1.1

e

In this architecture, the safety logic module performs self-diagnostics, and also checks the
safety limit switches. There are three sub-systems for which the SILCLs (SIL Claim Limits)
must be determined:

The calculation takes into account the following parameters:

Logic Solving

Subsystem 1 (SS1)

Formula for
architecture B:

Formula for
architecture D

lDssB =(1 b)2 x lDe1 x

lDe2 x T 1 + b x (lDe1 +
lDe2 )/2

lDssD = (1 b)2 {[ lDe2

x 2 x DC ] x T2/2 + [
lDe2 x (1 DC) ] x T1}
+ b x lDe

(10 000 000/20%)/8

= 87 600

(10 000 000/73%)/8

= 171 232

Each demand, i.e.

8 times per hour,
= 1/8 = 0.125 h

Not applicable
lDssB =(1 0.9)2 x
lDe1 x lDe2 x T 1 + b x
(lDe1 + lDe2 )/2

49

Looking at the output contactors in subsystem SS3 we need to calculate the PFHd. For the
type B architecture (single fault tolerant, without diagnostics) the probability of dangerous
failure of the subsystem is:
lDssB =(1 b)2 x lDe1 x lDe2 x T 1 + b x (lDe1 + lDe2 )/2
[Equation B of the standard]
PFHDssB = lDssB x 1h
In this example, b = 0.1
lDe1 = lDe2 = 0.73 (0.1 X C / 1 000 000) = 0.73(0.8/1 000 000) = 5.84 x 10-7
T1 = min( life time, B10D/C) = min (175 200*, 171 232) = 171 232 hours
* Life time 20 years min 175 200 hours

lDssB = (1 0.1)2 x 5.84 x 10-7 x 5.84 x 10-7 x 171 232 + 0.1 x ((5.84 x 10-7) + (5.84 x 10-7 ))/2
= 0.81 x 5.84 x 10-7 x 5.84 x 10-7 x 171 232 + 0.1 x 5.84 x 10-7
= 0.81x 3.41056 x 10-13 x 171 232 + 0.1 x 5.84 x 10-7
= (3.453 x 10-8) + (5.84 x 10-8) = 1.06 x 10-7
Since PFHDssB = lDssB x 1h, PFHD for the contactors in Subsystem SS3 = 1.06 x 10-7
For the input limit switches in Subsystem SS1 we need to calculate the PFHD. For the Type D
architecture, single fault tolerance with diagnostic function is defined.
This architecture is such that a single failure of any subsystem element does not cause a loss
of the SRCF, where

T2 is the diagnostic test interval;

T1 is the proof test interval or lifetime whichever is the smaller.
b is the susceptibility to common cause failures;lD = lDD + lDU; where lDD is the rate of
detectable dangerous failures and lDU is the rate of undetectable dangerous failure.
lDD = lD x DC
lDU = lD x (1 DC)
For subsystem elements of the same design:
lDe is the dangerous failure rate of a subsystem element;
DC is the diagnostic coverage of a subsystem element.
lDssD = (1 b)2 {[ lDe2 x 2 x DC ] x T2/2 + [lDe2 x (1 DC) ] x T1}

D.2 of the standard

PFHDssD = lDssD x 1h
le= 0,1 C / B10 = 0.1 x 8/10 000 000 = 8 x 10-8
lDe= le x 0.2 = 1.6 x 10-8
DC = 99%
b = 10% (worst case)
T1 = min (life time, B10D/C) = min[87600*,(10 000 000/20%)] = 87 600 hours
T2 = 1/C = 1/8 = 0.125 hour
* Life time 10 years min 87 600 hours
From D.2:
lDssD = (1 0.1)2 {[ 1.6 x 10-8 x 1.6 x 10-8 x 2 x 0.99 ] x 0.125 /2 + [1.6 x 10-8 x 1.6 x 10-8 x
(1 0.99) ] x 87 600} + 0.1 x 1.6 x 10-8
= 0.81 x {[5.0688 x 10-16] x 0.0625 + [2.56 x 10-16 x(0.01)] x 87 600} + 1.6 x 10-9
= 0.81 x {3.168 x 10-17 + [2.56 x 10-18] x 87 600} + 1.6 x 10-9
= 1.82 10-13
= 1.6 x 10-9
Since PFHDssD = lDssD x 1h, PFHD for the limit switches in Subsystem SS1 = 1.63 x 10-9
We already know that for Subsystem SS2, PFHD for the logic solver Function Block
(implemented by the safety relay XPSAK) is 7.389 x 10-9 (manufacturers data)
The overall PFHD for the safety related electrical control system (SRECS) is the sum of the
PFHDs for all the Function Blocks, and is therefore:
PFHDSRECS = PFHDSS1 + PFHDSS2 + PFHDSS3 =
1.6 10-9 + 7.389 10-9 + 1.06 10-7
= 1.15 x 10-7, which by referring to the table below from the standard, is within the
limits of SIL 2.

Safety integrity level

Probability of a dangerous
Failure per Hour, PFHD

3
2
1

>10-8 to <10-7
>10-7 to <10-6
>10-6 to <10-5

+ b x lDe
Note that if the mirror contacts on the contactors are used the architecture of the
power control function would become type D (redundant with feedback) and the
resulting SIL claim limit would increase from SIL2 to SIL 3.
This provides further risk reduction of the probability of failure of the safety
function, being in tune with the concept of reducing risk to be as low as
reasonably practical (ALARP)
LC1D TeSys contactors
feature mirror contacts

50

51

Worked example using standard

EN/ISO 13849-1

STEP 3: The same basic architecture as in the previous example for EN/IEC 62061 will be
considered, in other words category 3 architecture without feedback

Input

Logic

Output

Safety of machinery - Safety-related parts of control systems - Part 1:

General principles for design
As with EN/IEC 62061, the process can be considered to comprise a series of 6 logical steps.

Safety Switch 1
SW1

Contactor 1
CON1

STEP 1: Risk Assessment and identification of the necessary safety functions.

Safety relay
XPS

STEP 2: Determine the required Performance Level (PLr) for each safety function.
STEP 3: Identify the combination of safety-related parts which carry out the safety function.

Safety Switch 2
SW2

Contactor 2
CON2

STEP 4: Evaluate the Performance Level PL for the all safety-related parts.
STEP 5: Verify that the PL of the SRP/CS* for the safety function is at least equal to the PLr.
STEP 6: Validate that all requirements are met (see EN/ISO 13849-2).
*Safety related part of control system (name of safety machine control system in EN/ISO 13849-1 standard).

For more detail please refer to Annex 2 of this Guide.

STEP 1: As in the previous example, we need a safety function to remove the power
supply to the motor when the guard is open.
STEP 2: Using the risk graph from Figure A.1 of EN/ISO 13849-1, and the same
parameters as in the previous example, the required Performance Level is d
(note: PL=d is often compared to SIL 2 as equivalent).

52

H =

High contribution to reduction of the risk by the control system

Low contribution to reduction of the risk by the control system

S =

Severity of injury
S1 = Slight (normally reversible injury)
S2 = Serious (normally irreversible injury including death)

F =

Frequency and/or exposure time to the hazard

F1 = seldom or less often and/or the exposure time is short
F2 = frequent to continuous and/or the exposure time is long

P =

Possibility of avoiding the hazard or limiting the harm

P1 = possible under specific conditions
P2 = scarcely possible

SRP/CSa

SRP/CSb

SRP/CSc

STEP 4: The PL of the SRP/CS is determined by estimation of the following parameters:

(see Annex 2):
- The CATEGORY (structure) (see Clause 6 of EN/ISO 13849-1). Note that in this example
the use of a category 3 architecture means that the mirror contacts on the contactors are
not used.
- The MTTFd for the single components (see Annexes C & D of EN/ISO 13849-1)
- The Diagnostic Coverage (see Annex E of EN/ISO 13849-1)
- The Common Cause Failures (see score table in Annex F of EN/ISO 13849-1)

The manufacturer gives the following data for the components:

Example SRP/CS
Safety limit
switches
Safety logic
module XPSAK
Contactors

B10 (operations)

MTTFd (years)

10 000 000

99%
154.5

1 000 000

DC

99%
0%

Note that because the manufacturer does not know the application details, and specifically
the cycle rate of the electromechanical devices, he can only give B10 or B10d data for the
electromechanical components. This explains why no manufacturer should provide an
MTTFd figure for an electromechanical device.

53

The MTTFd for components can be determined from the formula:

STEP 5: Verify that the PL of the system matches the required PL (PLr)

MTTFd = B10d / (0.1 x nop)

Knowing that we have a category 3 architecture, a high MTTFd and a low average
Diagnostic Coverage (DCavg), it can be seen from the table below (fig. 5 of the standard) that
we have met PL=d, which meets the required PL=d.

Where nop is the mean annual number of operations.

B10 is number of operations at which 10% of the population will have failed.
B10d is the expected time at which 10% of the population will have failed in a dangerous
mode. Without specific knowledge of which mode in which a component is being used,
and hence what constitutes a dangerous failure, for a limit switch the % of dangerous
failure is 20%, therefore B10d = B10/20%
Assuming the machine is used for 8 hours a day, for 220 days per year, with a cycle time of
120 seconds, nop will be 52800 operations per year.

Just as in the EN/IEC 62061 worked example, it only takes the wiring of both contactors
normally closed auxiliary mirror contacts back to the external device monitoring input of the
safety relay to change the architecture to category 4. Doing this converts DCavg to 99% ;
this is high according to Table 4
Knowing that we have a category 4 architecture, a high MTTFd and a high average
Diagnostic Coverage (DCavg), referring to Table 7 of the standard shows that the resulting
Performance Level is PL=e, which matches the PLr.

Assuming that B10d = B10/20%, the table becomes:

Contactors

B10d

MTTFd (years)

DC

10 000 000

50 000 000

9469

99%

154.5

99%

259

0%

1 000 000

1 369 863

The MTTFd figures in bold red have been derived from the application data using the cycle
rates and B10d data.
The MTTFd can be calculated for each channel by using the parts count method in
Annex D of the standard.

SW1
MTTFd = 9469y

CON1
MTTFd = 259y

Channel 1

XPS
SW2
MTTFd = 9469y

CON2
MTTFd = 259y

MTTFd =
154.5y

Channel 2

3
Cat. B
Cat. 1
Cat. 2
Cat. 2
Cat. 3
DCavg = DCavg = DCavg = DCavg = DCavg =
0
0
low
medium low
Safety category level EN/ISO 13849-1

Safety Integrity Level EN IEC 62061

Safety limit
switches
Safety logic
module XPSAK

B10
(operations)

Performance level EN ISO 13849-1

Example
SRP/CS

Cat. 3
Cat. 4
DCavg = DCavg =
medium high

MTTFd of each channel = low

MTTFd of each channel = medium
MTTFd of each channel = high

In this example the calculation is identical for channels 1 and 2:

1
MTTFd

1
9469 years

1
154.5 years

1
259 years

1
95.85 years

STEP 6: Validation check working and where necessary test

(EN/ISO 13849-2 under revision).

The MTTFd for each channel is therefore 85 years; this is high according to Table 3
From the equations in Annex E of the standard we can determine that DCavg = 62.4% ; this
is low according to Table 4

54

55

Sources of
information

Legislation
European Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC
PrEN/ISO 12100 Safety of machinery principles of risk assessment and risk reduction
PD 5304:2005 Guidance on safe use of machinery
EN/IEC 60204 Safety of machinery. Electrical equipment of machines. General requirements
EN/IEC 13850 Safety of machinery. Emergency stop. Principles for design
EN/IEC 62061 Safety of machinery, Functional safety of safety-related electrical, electronic
and programmable electronic control systems
EN/IEC 61508 Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety related systems
EN/ISO 13849-1 Safety of machinery - Safety-related parts of control systems Part 1: General principles for design

Schneider Electric documents

Schneider Electric Safety Functions and solutions using Preventa Catalogue 2008/9,
Ref. MKTED208051EN

Schneider Electric documents

www.oem.schneider-electric.com

56

57

Annexes architectures

Annex 1
Architectures of EN/IEC 62061
Architecture A: Zero fault tolerance, no diagnostic function

Where: lDe is the rate of dangerous failure of the element

lDSSA = lDE1 + ... + lDen

PFHDSSA = lDSSA 1h

Architecture A
Subsystem element 1
lDe1

Subsystem element 1
lDen
Logical representation of the subsystem

Architecture B: Single fault tolerance, no diagnostic function

Where: T1 is the proof test interval or life time whichever is smaller

(Either from the supplier or calculate for electromechanical product by: T1 = B10/C)

b is the susceptibility to common cause failures

(b is determined using the Score Table F.1 from EN/IEC 62061)

lDSSB = (1 - b)2 lDe1 lDe2 T1 + b (lDe1 + lDe2)/2

PFHDSSB = lDSSB 1h

Architecture B
Subsystem element 1
lDe1
Common cause failure
Subsystem element 2
lDe2
Logical representation of the subsystem

58

59

Architecture C: Zero fault tolerance, with a diagnostic function

Where: DC is the diagnostic coverage = S lDD/lD

lDD is the rate of detected dangerous failure and lD is the rate of total dangerous failure

The DC depends on the effectivity of the diagnostic function used in this subsystem

lDSSC = lDe1 (1 - DC1) + ... + lDen (1 - DCn)

PFHDSSC = lDSSC 1h

Architecture C
Subsystem element 1
lDe1

Subsystem element n
lDen

Architecture D: Single fault tolerance, with a diagnostic function

For Subsystem elements of different design
lDe1 = dangerous failure rate of subsystem element 1; DC1 = diagnostic coverage of subsystem element 1
lDe2 = dangerous failure rate of subsystem element 2; DC2 = diagnostic coverage of subsystem element 2

lDSSD = (1-b)2 {[lDe1 lDe2 (DC1 + DC2)]T2/2 + [lDe1 lDe2(2-DC1-DC2)]T1/2}+b (lDe1+ lDe2)/2

PFHDSSD = lDSSD 1h

For Subsystem elements of the same design

lDe = dangerous failure rate of subsystem element 1 or 2; DC = diagnostic coverage of the subsystem element 1 or 2

lDSSD = (1-b)2 {[lDe2 2 DC] T2/2 + [lDe2 (1-DC)] T1} + b lDe

PFHDSSD = lDSSD 1h

Diagnostic function(s)

Logical representation of the subsystem

Annex 2
Categories of EN/ISO 13849-1

Architecture D: Single fault tolerance, with a diagnostic function

Where: T1 is the proof test interval or life time whichever is smaller

T2 is the diagnostic test interval

(At least equal to the time between the demands of the safety function)

b is the susceptibility to common cause failures

(To be determined with the score table in Annex F of EN/IEC 62061)

DC is the diagnostic coverage = S lDD/lD

(lDD is the rate of the detected dangerous failure and lD is the rate of the total dangerous

failure)

Architecture D

Category
Category B

When a fault occurs it can lead to the loss of the safety

function

Input

Category 1

When a fault occurs it can lead to the loss of the safety

function, but the MTTFd of each channel in Category 1 is
higher than in Category B. Consequently the loss of the safety
function is less likely.

Input

Category 2

Category 2 system behaviour allows that: the occurrence

of a fault can lead to the loss of the safety function between
the checks; the loss of the safety function is detected by the
check.

Subsystem element 1
lDe1

Diagnostic function(s)

Common cause failure

Category 3
Subsystem element 2
lDe2

Category 4
Logical representation of the subsystem

60

Description

SRP/CS to Category 3 shall be designed so that a single

fault in any of these safety-related parts does not lead to the
loss of the safety function. Whenever reasonably possible the
single fault shall be detected at or before the next demand
upon the safety function
SRP/CS to Category 4 shall be designed so that a single
fault in any of these safety-related parts does not lead to the
loss of the safety function, and the single fault is detected on
or before the next demand upon the safety functions, e.g.
immediately, at switch on, at end of a machine operation
cycle. If this detection is not possible an accumulation of
undetected faults shall not lead to the loss of the safety
function.

Input

Example
im

im

im

Logic

Logic

Logic

Test
Equipment
Input 1

im

Input 2

Input 1

im

im

im

im

Output

Output

Test
Output

im

Output 1

Monitoring

m
Logic 2

im

Output 2

m
Logic 1
Cross

Input 2

im

Output

m
Logic 1
Cross

im

im

im

Output 1

Monitoring

m
Logic 2

im

Output 2

61

62

63

Head Office
35, rue Joseph Monier CS 30323
F92506 Rueil-Malmaison Cedex
FRANCE
www.schneider-electric.com
ART. 837703

Due to evolution of standards and equipment, characteristics indicated in the text and images
in this document are not binding only after confirmation by our departments.
Design: BlueLoft
Photos: Schneider Electric
Print:
11 / 2009

DIA4ED1100102EN

Schneider Electric Industries SAS