From risks to requirements: Comparing the assignment of functional safety requirements

Timo Malm, Outi Venho-Ahonen, Marita Hietikko, Tor Stålhane, Charlotte de Bésche, Johan Hedberg

    Research output: Book/ReportReport

    Abstract

    Risks are categorized, e.g. to prioritize them and to select safety systems and devices with adequate safety properties. A functional safety level that is too high causes exaggerated costs, since more components and validation resources are required to reach a higher level of safety. A functional safety level that is too low leads to inadequate safety requirements and an increase in the risk of accidents. A questionnaire was conducted of the machinery sector to find out which methods were applied in risk assessment and about the functional safety SIL/PL assignment process in the machinery sector. The ISO 13849-1 method is the most common, but the IEC 62061 method is also applied. A round robin test was conducted to compare and check how well the methods matched each other. The assessors estimated the parameters of the risks and assigned the required SIL (Safety Integrity Level) and PL (Performance Level). Nine cases related to mobile work machines and nine cases to industrial robots were used in the experiment. There were 19 assessors in the mobile work machine experiment and 17 in the robot experiment. For each mobile work machine case there was also a standard example that resembled the test case, making it possible to compare the results with the standards. The study shows that in most cases the results correspond to each other, though there are some exceptions. The IEC 62061 method rarely results in SIL 1 but instead in SIL 0 or SIL 2. The IEC 62061 and ISO 13849-1 methods both result in at least a moderate risk level if the severity parameter is high, whereas some other standards (related to the vehicles) clearly drop the risk level if the probability parameter is low or the controllability good. The next ISO 13849-1 (2016), will have also probability parameter, which enables in this case low risk level. An Excel tool was presented to fine-tune the risk levels by applying the risk matrix. The aim was to calibrate the risk levels to match the case better without changing the parameters. Thus, the new risk levels were presented immediately according to the defined risk matrix.
    Original languageEnglish
    Place of PublicationEspoo
    PublisherVTT Technical Research Centre of Finland
    Number of pages58
    ISBN (Electronic)978-951-38-8384-3
    Publication statusPublished - 2015
    MoE publication typeNot Eligible

    Publication series

    SeriesVTT Technology
    Number241
    ISSN2242-1211

    Fingerprint

    Machinery
    Safety devices
    Industrial robots
    Experiments
    Controllability
    Security systems
    Risk assessment
    Accidents
    Robots
    Costs

    Keywords

    • functional safety
    • risk assessment
    • safety requirements
    • machinery

    Cite this

    Malm, T., Venho-Ahonen, O., Hietikko, M., Stålhane, T., de Bésche, C., & Hedberg, J. (2015). From risks to requirements: Comparing the assignment of functional safety requirements. Espoo: VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland. VTT Technology, No. 241
    Malm, Timo ; Venho-Ahonen, Outi ; Hietikko, Marita ; Stålhane, Tor ; de Bésche, Charlotte ; Hedberg, Johan. / From risks to requirements : Comparing the assignment of functional safety requirements. Espoo : VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, 2015. 58 p. (VTT Technology; No. 241).
    @book{557bd0d946174f21a87164b3bcc80e18,
    title = "From risks to requirements: Comparing the assignment of functional safety requirements",
    abstract = "Risks are categorized, e.g. to prioritize them and to select safety systems and devices with adequate safety properties. A functional safety level that is too high causes exaggerated costs, since more components and validation resources are required to reach a higher level of safety. A functional safety level that is too low leads to inadequate safety requirements and an increase in the risk of accidents. A questionnaire was conducted of the machinery sector to find out which methods were applied in risk assessment and about the functional safety SIL/PL assignment process in the machinery sector. The ISO 13849-1 method is the most common, but the IEC 62061 method is also applied. A round robin test was conducted to compare and check how well the methods matched each other. The assessors estimated the parameters of the risks and assigned the required SIL (Safety Integrity Level) and PL (Performance Level). Nine cases related to mobile work machines and nine cases to industrial robots were used in the experiment. There were 19 assessors in the mobile work machine experiment and 17 in the robot experiment. For each mobile work machine case there was also a standard example that resembled the test case, making it possible to compare the results with the standards. The study shows that in most cases the results correspond to each other, though there are some exceptions. The IEC 62061 method rarely results in SIL 1 but instead in SIL 0 or SIL 2. The IEC 62061 and ISO 13849-1 methods both result in at least a moderate risk level if the severity parameter is high, whereas some other standards (related to the vehicles) clearly drop the risk level if the probability parameter is low or the controllability good. The next ISO 13849-1 (2016), will have also probability parameter, which enables in this case low risk level. An Excel tool was presented to fine-tune the risk levels by applying the risk matrix. The aim was to calibrate the risk levels to match the case better without changing the parameters. Thus, the new risk levels were presented immediately according to the defined risk matrix.",
    keywords = "functional safety, risk assessment, safety requirements, machinery",
    author = "Timo Malm and Outi Venho-Ahonen and Marita Hietikko and Tor St{\aa}lhane and {de B{\'e}sche}, Charlotte and Johan Hedberg",
    year = "2015",
    language = "English",
    series = "VTT Technology",
    publisher = "VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland",
    number = "241",
    address = "Finland",

    }

    Malm, T, Venho-Ahonen, O, Hietikko, M, Stålhane, T, de Bésche, C & Hedberg, J 2015, From risks to requirements: Comparing the assignment of functional safety requirements. VTT Technology, no. 241, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo.

    From risks to requirements : Comparing the assignment of functional safety requirements. / Malm, Timo; Venho-Ahonen, Outi; Hietikko, Marita; Stålhane, Tor; de Bésche, Charlotte; Hedberg, Johan.

    Espoo : VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, 2015. 58 p. (VTT Technology; No. 241).

    Research output: Book/ReportReport

    TY - BOOK

    T1 - From risks to requirements

    T2 - Comparing the assignment of functional safety requirements

    AU - Malm, Timo

    AU - Venho-Ahonen, Outi

    AU - Hietikko, Marita

    AU - Stålhane, Tor

    AU - de Bésche, Charlotte

    AU - Hedberg, Johan

    PY - 2015

    Y1 - 2015

    N2 - Risks are categorized, e.g. to prioritize them and to select safety systems and devices with adequate safety properties. A functional safety level that is too high causes exaggerated costs, since more components and validation resources are required to reach a higher level of safety. A functional safety level that is too low leads to inadequate safety requirements and an increase in the risk of accidents. A questionnaire was conducted of the machinery sector to find out which methods were applied in risk assessment and about the functional safety SIL/PL assignment process in the machinery sector. The ISO 13849-1 method is the most common, but the IEC 62061 method is also applied. A round robin test was conducted to compare and check how well the methods matched each other. The assessors estimated the parameters of the risks and assigned the required SIL (Safety Integrity Level) and PL (Performance Level). Nine cases related to mobile work machines and nine cases to industrial robots were used in the experiment. There were 19 assessors in the mobile work machine experiment and 17 in the robot experiment. For each mobile work machine case there was also a standard example that resembled the test case, making it possible to compare the results with the standards. The study shows that in most cases the results correspond to each other, though there are some exceptions. The IEC 62061 method rarely results in SIL 1 but instead in SIL 0 or SIL 2. The IEC 62061 and ISO 13849-1 methods both result in at least a moderate risk level if the severity parameter is high, whereas some other standards (related to the vehicles) clearly drop the risk level if the probability parameter is low or the controllability good. The next ISO 13849-1 (2016), will have also probability parameter, which enables in this case low risk level. An Excel tool was presented to fine-tune the risk levels by applying the risk matrix. The aim was to calibrate the risk levels to match the case better without changing the parameters. Thus, the new risk levels were presented immediately according to the defined risk matrix.

    AB - Risks are categorized, e.g. to prioritize them and to select safety systems and devices with adequate safety properties. A functional safety level that is too high causes exaggerated costs, since more components and validation resources are required to reach a higher level of safety. A functional safety level that is too low leads to inadequate safety requirements and an increase in the risk of accidents. A questionnaire was conducted of the machinery sector to find out which methods were applied in risk assessment and about the functional safety SIL/PL assignment process in the machinery sector. The ISO 13849-1 method is the most common, but the IEC 62061 method is also applied. A round robin test was conducted to compare and check how well the methods matched each other. The assessors estimated the parameters of the risks and assigned the required SIL (Safety Integrity Level) and PL (Performance Level). Nine cases related to mobile work machines and nine cases to industrial robots were used in the experiment. There were 19 assessors in the mobile work machine experiment and 17 in the robot experiment. For each mobile work machine case there was also a standard example that resembled the test case, making it possible to compare the results with the standards. The study shows that in most cases the results correspond to each other, though there are some exceptions. The IEC 62061 method rarely results in SIL 1 but instead in SIL 0 or SIL 2. The IEC 62061 and ISO 13849-1 methods both result in at least a moderate risk level if the severity parameter is high, whereas some other standards (related to the vehicles) clearly drop the risk level if the probability parameter is low or the controllability good. The next ISO 13849-1 (2016), will have also probability parameter, which enables in this case low risk level. An Excel tool was presented to fine-tune the risk levels by applying the risk matrix. The aim was to calibrate the risk levels to match the case better without changing the parameters. Thus, the new risk levels were presented immediately according to the defined risk matrix.

    KW - functional safety

    KW - risk assessment

    KW - safety requirements

    KW - machinery

    M3 - Report

    T3 - VTT Technology

    BT - From risks to requirements

    PB - VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland

    CY - Espoo

    ER -

    Malm T, Venho-Ahonen O, Hietikko M, Stålhane T, de Bésche C, Hedberg J. From risks to requirements: Comparing the assignment of functional safety requirements. Espoo: VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, 2015. 58 p. (VTT Technology; No. 241).