On Jan. 25, 2012, Underwriters Laboratories will explain significant changes to the 2012 version of the NFPA 79 electrical standard for industrial machinery. Read this article for an overview of what will be presented, and to register.

Critical changes in the 2012 NFPA 79 include:

• New definitions and revised rules for expanded wireless and cableless technology that align with IEC 60204-1
• New sections recognizing deadly arc flash and stored energy hazards to protect workers and correlate with the 2012 NFPA 70E
• New rules for selecting overcurrent devices for motors, and the important addition of a 90 degree C temperature column to the conductor ampacity table
• A first-time section addressing concerns from the field details conditions where Appliance Wiring Material (AWM) can be used as special cables with clarifications on determining suitability for use under specific conditions

“Engineers and product developers are going to find a number of changes to the standard of particular interest,” says Kovacik . These include  short circuit ratings for control panels: the prospective symmetrical fault current at a nominal voltage to which an apparatus or system can be connected without sustaining damage exceeding defined acceptance criteria. There has long been a requirement for marking equipment with this rating, but the rating has never been defined well until now. This version of NFPA 79 has added a definition that was in the National Electrical Code to bring clarity to the issue.

“Short circuit current rating has been a very hot topic for the last decade,” says Kovacik . “A lot of people don’t know how to calculate it; if it is done wrong, it can be both limiting and dangerous. There have been many instances where a rating that underrates the equipment has been taken, the lowest possible rating, and that could pose a hazard in the field should a short circuit occur.”

Another important aspect of this rating is the perspective of the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ), as this is one item on their punch list for compliance. AHJs look very carefully at equipment to make sure the short circuit rating correlates with the available short circuit current being provided by the supply to the equipment.

According to Kovacik , the arc flash changes are another important aspect of the new version of NFPA 79. “It’s an issue for a number of different standards, not just this one,” he says. This would include the NEC and NFPA 70E.  “Arc flash is something that is becoming more important in terms of visibility, because people weren’t aware of the potential damage it can do, especially bodily harm,” continues Kovacik . During the webinar, Kovacik  will address its relevance to industrial machinery, specifically the additional requirements for warnings to make users aware of the potential for arc flash hazard.

Time to Get up to Speed

The changes in NFPA 79 are already in effect, as the new edition (2012) was published in July of this year. Standards organizations such as UL are in the process of incorporating the requirements of the NFPA 79 changes into their own standards, where applicable. “It’s important that customers are aware that these changes are coming so that they can react to them,” says Kovacik .

The new NFPA 79, the benchmark for industrial machinery safety, is aligned with the NEC® and NFPA 70E®.

Click here to register for the webinar.

A look at the multiple benefits of using wireless for industrial safety applications, along with a detailed discussion of implications and pitfalls to avoid when implementing the latest wireless security measures.

In recent years, wireless communication systems have become ubiquitous. A standard feature in your local coffee shop, wireless networks have also been increasing in industrial and manufacturing settings, delivering value and reliability even in the harshest environments. As such, their growth continues strong in this sector, particularly for safety applications.

“Historically, industrial safety involves three scenarios: when something is moving on its own, when something is moving on a piece of equipment, and when an individual is moving within an environment,” says Tom Elswick, principal systems engineer, Factory Automation Safety, Siemens Industrial. “These applications were handled a certain way ten or 15 years ago; but, with the prevalence of wireless networks in the industrial setting, wireless technology has become a means to solve safety problems more effectively or to add additional safety into the production process.”

According to Elswick, there are multiple benefits for taking a wireless approach to machine and industrial safety:

• Wireless fits seamlessly into a totally integrated automation approach. Using wireless does not preclude wired from being used in the same application; whether you locate your safety drives, starters, I/O, or other safety CPUs beyond a wireless link or on the wired system, it does not impact anything other than response time.
• Commissioning is faster, easier, and less expensive. There is less wiring to install and check when compared to running all individual wires back to a central station. Before the use of wireless, slip rings, brushes, and so on may have been required.
• Productivity gains can be expected due to better decision-making because of more granular information. Because of limitations with earlier safety approaches, the number of signals crossing a moving interface was likely to be limited. It might have been more appropriate to have different sensors provide special or even localized shutdowns to meet safety requirements. With a wireless approach, applications can be easily deployed to more closely match the ideal shutdown requirements.
• Flexibility is improved. “Siemens offers a full family of safety CPUs for factory automation,” says Elswick. “All of them can utilize I/O, drives, and so forth on wireless networks. So if you need a large system, then use one of the larger CPUs; but, if you just need a small, fast solution with a smaller system architecture, use a smaller CPU to drive down cost.”
• Wireless can easily leverage PROFIsafe to meet standards requirements. In the past, safety automation had to be “hard-wired” and based on relay technology because of existing international standards. This situation changed with the advent of IEC 61508, which specifies how controllers and software can be used in safety automation. This change triggered the development of PROFIsafe, which integrated safety into the existing standard PROFIBUS/PROFINET fieldbus technologies. Running PROFIsafe and PROFINET/PROFIBUS together provides a commonality of approach for safety implementations.
• PROFIsafe is the first open functional safety communication technology for distributed automation systems worldwide. PROFIsafe is the same whether used over wireless or not. From a pure communications standpoint, there is no difference, except that response times are typically slower over wireless. If a network is capable of doing PROFINET/PROFIBUS, then it is capable of doing PROFIsafe; PROFIsafe is transparent to the user.“Those using PROFIsafe over wireless can use Siemens’ wide range of I/O families, including, of course, safety I/Os,” says Elswick. This would include ET 200pro for outside cabinets, ET 200M for higher density inside cabinets, and ET 200S for lower density inside cabinets.
• High safety levels are attainable. Category 4/SIL 3/Performance Level e can be accomplished regardless of whether or not the network includes wireless. “You can do safety I/O in the same rack with the CPU—at Category 4, SIL3, or PL e—in S7-300 and ET 200s F-CPU approaches, with additional I/O located over both wired and/or wireless networks,” adds Elswick.

• To ensure uptime and faster commissioning, high levels of diagnostics are available across wireless networks, just as in wired.

When companies use wireless networks, they need to take a fresh look at security issues. While using wireless standards entails a few more security concerns, many of the steps taken to safeguard the technology are similar to those used for wired networking schemes. “”Every network needs to be professionally planned to be secure, it doesn’t matter whether wired or wireless., so with the standards, which are available today, a wireless network can reach the same security level as a wired network ” says Tim Pitterling, networking manager for Siemens Industry.

Companies can also easily segment wireless networks. Segmenting the network into zones or cells provides the ability to quarantine should unauthorized access or a virus affect a targeted system.

Take the Proper Steps

One of the first security steps to be taken is a comprehensive site survey to determine what wireless networks are already in place. Wireless networks in the company’s business offices should be examined to ensure that there aren’t any potential conflicts or unwanted openings. This survey will also detect any neighboring networks that could impact either performance or security. Potential signal dropouts and other communication problems are often detected in these site surveys.

Even when popular standards such as Wi-Fi are used, facility managers can still isolate their networks by using ruggedized hardware that’s not compatible with mainstream consumer equipment. Many industrial networks use versions of Wi-Fi that aren’t the same as those used in home and office environments. Their industrial nodes transmit on different frequencies to provide security, blocking intruders who have conventional notebooks.

“Most notebooks use 802.11g, which broadcasts over a 2.4 GHz frequency. IEEE 802.11a is used a lot in plants. It can run at 54 Mbps on a 5 GHz frequency,” says Pitterling.

While this “functional incompatibility” brings a certain amount of protection, it is not an indicator of any shift away from the trend to compatible standards. “Everyone wants to use IEEE standards,” says Pitterling. “Not many customers want to get locked into a proprietary wireless network.”

Though this frequency can prevent outsiders from gaining access, plant managers can communicate with both 2.4 and 5 GHz devices. Modern equipment can handle either multiple or single frequencies. Siemens has antennas that support all the current 802.11 standards, as well as ones that communicate only on a single channel.

Strategic Intent

Most companies will want to at least encrypt their most critical data. Many are encrypting all communications, making it difficult for unauthorized parties to monitor or pirate information from the network. From the many viable encryption techniques available, some of the most common use the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), a specification for the encryption of electronic data. AES has been adopted by the United States government and is now used commonly worldwide. The specification uses a symmetric key scheme with various key sizes. Users must pick one protection level from the three current offerings, which use key sizes of 128, 192, and 256 bits. Larger key sizes provide more protection, but they take more computing power to run.

One of the major alternatives to AES is the Temporal Key Integrity Protocol (TKIP). TKIP was developed specifically for use with Wi-Fi. As an upgrade over Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP), a weaker security algorithm introduced as part of the original 802.11 standard, it provides more security.

Users can further deter intruders by changing their encryption keys frequently and regularly. This is another basic decision largely determined by the potential for problems. Some companies change encryption keys daily, while others alter them every week. Still others make changes only when key personnel leave the company.

Many of the processes in wireless security are similar to those used in wired networks. Passwords are an important tool. Only certain IP addresses can be open to access; all others are blocked.

Limiting wireless access to certain IP and MAC addresses will block authorized personnel when they’re not logging in from remote sites (e.g., trade show hotels). But there is a secure way for them to gain remote access: virtual private networks can provide secure access so maintenance personnel can log in remotely without compromising security.

While many technical aspects will help provide layers of protection for wireless networks, experts worldwide note that the people side can be just as important.  This human element is pervasive; according to industry analyst Forrester Research, insiders are as insidious a threat as outsiders to security. Without fail, employees need to go through training so they clearly understand the need for vigilance and know what steps they’re expected to take.

Personnel procedures range from basics such as not pasting passwords on monitors to not plugging in USB memory sticks found in the work environment. With wireless communications, there is more of a need to ensure that any computer connected to the network is uninfected, showing no signs of malware or viruses.

Addressing both human and technical aspects are necessary steps towards securing any type of network. A few extra procedures are needed for wireless, but they are well worth the benefits gained—not the least of which is the capability of implementing better applications for machine and industrial safety.

To view a short YouTube video on this topic that was created in conjunction with Camotion, please click here.

Two prominent certification schemes are compared and contrasted to understand the nuances of getting equipment and automation systems certified for use in hazardous environments at high risk of fire or explosions.

ATEX consists of two European Union directives describing the equipment and work environments allowed in a potentially explosive atmosphere. ATEX derives its name from the French title of the 94/9/EC directive: Appareils destinés à être utilisés en ATmosphères EXplosives.

“The requirements for hazardous locations and for ATEX are similar, but there are distinct differences,” says Jim Dolphin, senior engineer for TÜV Rheinland. “The biggest difference is the environment, which is classified according to the division system for hazardous locations and the zone system for ATEX. Classification according to the zone system has been introduced into the NEC, but its implementation has been slow to develop in the United States.”

“When the zones were added into the code in 1996, the NEC committee did a great job in adding definitions and area classification schemes, but they didn’t develop the standards that were required to evaluate equipment,” says Dave Strycula, senior engineer for TÜV Rheinland. “Over the last 15 years, there has been a good push to have those standards developed, and they are well underway. However, division scheme area classifications still make up the majority of the locations in the U.S. So if you are looking for hazardous location certification for the U.S. market, use the division scheme and look to the zone scheme as an option for the future.”

Voluntary or Mandated

Another significant difference between the North American and European certification schemes is that the former is voluntary while the latter is mandated. Says Strycula, “if you want to use your equipment in those areas in Europe that are covered by the ATEX directive, you are legally bound to meet that directive.”

All countries that participate in the European Union have adopted not only the ATEX directive, but all the other directives that are used under the CE marking scheme throughout the European Union, such as the low‑voltage directive, EMC, and pressure equipment.

“There is no U.S. legislation that says that to sell your equipment, you have to have hazardous location certification,” says Styrcula. “However, many equipment buyers want to see that third‑party certification mark on the products they buy. So it may not seem voluntary, but it is. It’s more of a market‑driven requirement in the United States.”

The determination of the use of the equipment is generally left up to the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ), which could be electrical inspectors, fire marshals, or a plethora of other titles, depending on specific location. At last count, there were between 10,000 and 20,000 AHJs throughout the United States. The end user may also be involved in making that determination. For example, an authority that has jurisdiction over an installation site says that a division 2 piece of equipment is required, but the customer may say that they want a division 1 one, because they want to be more conservative and make sure that their bases are covered.

Where to Consult

According to Dolphin, the best source for information on hazardous locations is the National Electrical Code itself. Article 500 provides the general information about the classification of hazardous locations and the terminology used. It gives all the definitions that are referred to by the rest of the articles. Article 501 provides more detailed information about locations made hazardous by gases and vapors, and it specifies the type of protection required for those locations. Article 502 offers similar information regarding combustible dust, and article 503 discusses ignitable fibers and twine, such as those found in textile mills or sugar refineries. Article 504 provides information on the installation of intrinsically safe systems. Articles 505 and 506 introduce zones into the NEC: 505 for gases and vapors and 506 for combustible dust.

“The North American product standards for the division system are UL 1203 for explosion‑proof and dust‑ignition‑proof equipment, UL 913 for intrinsically safe and associated apparatus, NFPA 496 for purged and pressurized enclosures, and the new standard for division 2 equipment is ISA 12.12.01,” says Dolphin.

Most of the European standards for zones are in alignment with IEC 60079. Subsequently, the United States used the 60079 family of standards in the NEC to outline the requirements for the equipment that would be used in the corresponding zone locations. “The U.S. has essentially adopted the IEC 60079 series of standards with national deviations due to installation and marketing requirements in the country,” says Styrcula.

 Towards Further Standardization

Most of the standardization work being done in the United States is by Instrumentation Society of America (ISA) committees. “There are also ‘specialty’ standards, such as those used for gas detection,” notes Strycula. These are contained in other IEC and ISA standards.

The requirements for combustible dust are included in the 64241 family of standards; however, those requirements are gradually being moved into the specific protection schemes of the 60079 family.

Europe also has requirements for non‑electrical equipment, which can be found in the EN 13463 standards. As already noted, although much effort has been made to minimize the differences between IEC, EN, and the U.S. in all the 60079 series of standards, there generally are some deviations.

For more specific information on developments in hazardous locations, ATEX requirements, or how TÜV Rheinland can help you understand the requirements of any specific standard, email Jim Dolphin at jdolphin@us.tuv.com.

To view a recorded webinar on this topic, please click here.

SIMATIC STEP 7 Safety Advanced V11 provides intuitive operation, using the same operating concept and configuration employed for the generation of standard programs. This facilitates quick entry into the generation of fail-safe programs. Ready to start, the F-runtime group is set up automatically on insertion of the F-CPU.

Creation of the safety program is done in the FBD or LAD programming languages, and safety functions are easily implemented due to the integrated library with TÜV-certified function blocks.

“The library concept supports in-house standardization and simplifies the validation of safety-oriented applications, along with special signatures for device parameters,” says John D’Silva, business development manager for safety integration at Siemens Industry Automation.

The STEP 7 Safety Advanced V11 safety administration editor provides central support for the administration, display, and modification of safety-related parameters. Standardized and integrated identification of safety-related resources simplify the overview process.

STEP 7 Safety Advanced V11 requires SIMATIC STEP 7 Professional V11 SP1, which has been available since July 2011. For supported operating systems and required hardware, please refer to STEP 7 Professional V11 – entry ID: 51774795. Compatibility with other SIMATIC products is the same as for STEP 7 Professional V11.

A primer on the newly updated ISO 12100 machine safety standard, the three types of standards it encompasses, and how it helps designers identify risks during the design stage of machine production, reducing the potential for accidents.

ISO 12100:2010 (ISO 12100) specifies basic terminology, principles, and a methodology for achieving safety in the design of machinery. It specifies principles of risk assessment and risk reduction to help designers achieve this objective. These principles are based on knowledge and experience of the design, use, incidents, accidents, and risks associated with machinery. Within the standard, procedures are described for identifying hazards and estimating and evaluating risks during relevant phases of the machine life cycle, and for the elimination of hazards or sufficient risk reduction. Guidance is given on the documentation and verification of the risk assessment and risk reduction process.

ISO 12100 defines three types of standards representing different levels of granularity: type A standards establish general, overarching guiding principles, type B standards have specific design principles for a specific technology, and type C standards are application-specific standards. “A type A standard itself, ISO 12100 is also intended to be used as a basis for the preparation of type B and type C safety standards,” says Thomas Maier, principal engineer, functional safety at Underwriters Laboratories (UL).

“ISO 12100 provides the risk management framework for machinery,” says Anura Fernando, research engineer, predictive modeling and risk analysis at UL. “It defines the principles of how to do risk management for machinery: the different scenarios in which machines can operate in an unsafe manner, and so forth. It is those principles that are then applied at the technology level and the application level to make sure that the right risk management process has been followed, and that the risk controls implemented on the technology are appropriate to the specific hazards that may occur due to an application.”

Overall, ISO 12100 applies to the system level, but specific elements trace down to the product or component level. “ISO 12100 is a type A standard that applies to everything that is defined as a machine under the European Machinery Directive,” Maier continues. “It is to be used for machines for which there is no type C standard—that is, no standard dedicated to the specific product or machine under consideration.”

According to Maier, many specific machines have no associated type C standard. In these cases, ISO 12100 applies to identify hazards and risks not yet identified by a type C standard. “To emphasize an important point, this applies to any machine as defined in the Machinery Directive,” he says. “It is a harmonized standard with the directive.”

Supporting Risk Management

ISO 12100:2010 (Safety of Machinery — General Principles for Design — Risk Assessment and Risk Reduction) replaces ISO 12100-1:2003, ISO 12100-2:2003, and ISO 14121-1:2007. The new standard will help designers identify risks during the design stage of machine production, reducing the potential for accidents.

“UL has broad and deep experience in applying hazard identification and risk analysis methods and in implementing hazards-based safety engineering,” says Maier. “We can strongly support machine builders by assuring that their hazard and risk analysis is compliant with ISO 12100, as well as ensuring they understand the principles of the standard and apply it in an efficient, cost-effective manner.”

The risk assessment guidelines provided in ISO 12100 are presented as a series of logical steps. These will help designers to systematically determine the limits of the machinery; identify risks of hazards such as crushing, cutting, electric shock, or fatigue; and estimate potential dangers ranging from machine failure to human error.

“For those running a manufacturing plant, when you are buying equipment, regardless of who manufactures the product, you need to consider whether it will integrate well and support ISO 12100 compliance and the dictates of the Machinery Directive,” says Fernando.

ISO 12100 will serve as a driver for system integrators to look at the application they are addressing, determine whether risk management has been addressed down to the application level, and verify that products specified support the risk controls that have been established. “For example, if you have a machine installation that is required to fall under ISO 12100, and it has a safety-related part that may be primarily electronic, then ISO 13849 or IEC 62061 will support the management of risk as identified in ISO 12100,” says Fernando.

In many instances—specifically for ISO 13849 and IEC 62061—the presence of the UL Functional Safety Mark will indicate the appropriate compliance that supports the management of risk as defined by ISO 12100.

By providing a best practices framework at the international level, ISO 12100 will help eliminate technical barriers to trade while maintaining the safety and health of users of machinery, in line with requirements of national legislations of countries around the world. “This is an important standard for machine builders,” concluded Maier. “The fact that they can rely on UL to support them in all aspects of 12100 compliance, from education to design to implementation, should add to their confidence moving forward.”

In those cases where there is no specific standard that applies to the machine, UL can help support the manufacturer’s claims of CE marking compliance per the machinery directive by providing standards-based tools and techniques for identifying hazards and analyzing risks, and then putting these in the context of ISO12100 to help show compliance with the Essential Requirements of the machinery directive.

When considering how to demonstrate compliance to the CE marking requirements, machine builders and system integrators should take into consideration that the learning curve on a risk analysis can be long and difficult.  It is possible to either implement unnecessary solutions, or overlook hazards or minimize the impact of those hazards.  UL can provide several services to help customers in this area. UL can provide classroom based training, which will help introduce the Hazard Based Safety Engineering concepts, or UL can provide on-site guidance to assist manufacturers in identifying risks and applying risk assessment techniques that can help them to demonstrate compliance to ISO 12100.

UL can strongly support machine builders by supporting hazard and risk analyses to demonstrate compliance with ISO 12100, as well as helping manufacturers to understand the principles of the standard and apply it in an efficient, cost-effective manner.  For more information on how UL can assist with ISO 12100 certification, please contact Kevin Connelly at 631-546-2691 or kevin.connelly@us.ul.com.

An arc flash is an electrical explosion that results from a low impedance connection to ground or another voltage phase in an electrical system. In other words, an arc flash is an electrical breakdown of the resistance of air resulting in an electric arc. This can occur when there is sufficient voltage in an electrical system and a path to ground or lower voltage.

“An arc flash is a potential disaster,” says Tim Rowland, automation specialist at Industrial Electronic Supply. “A high energy arc flash can cause substantial damage, fire, injury, and/or death.”

The energy released in an arc flash rapidly vaporizes the metal conductors involved, blasting molten metal and expanding plasma outward with incredible force. The result can cause destruction of equipment, fire, and injury—not only to workers working on the equipment, but also to others nearby.

According to CapSchell, Inc., a Chicago-based research firm focused on workplace safety issues, between five and ten arc flash incidents occur on a daily basis in the United States. A good percentage of these are related to racking circuit breakers. Despite provisions in the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations requiring the dissemination and use of proper personal protective equipment, arc flash accidents result in injuries ranging from minor burns to loss of hearing to death.

Move Back!

“Move back” are two words every child hears from a parent when moving towards some danger. inoLECT, a Baton Rouge, La.-based provider of integrated electrical system solutions for the power generation, utility, industrial and electrical engineering fields, has created a remote racking device, the inoRAC™, which greatly reduces the risk of arc flash injuries by allowing operators to remotely rack breakers at distances of over 75 feet from the equipment. A simple idea—move the person away from the potential danger—has been effectively realized in the inoRAC robotic device.

“Standard practice has been for a technician to first don an arc flash suit, essentially a fire suit,” says Rowland. “Then he gets the toolset, goes to the unit, and hand cranks the breaker until it engages. Hopefully, nothing adverse happens, however, statistics show that things do.”

Enter the InoRAC. A small, motorized robotic device, the inoRAC uses Siemens technology and a long communications cable to enable the operator to be out of the area of potential arc flash while doing the breaker service.

Safety for Operators and Equipment

While workplace safety was the driving factor behind the development of the inoRAC, protecting equipment assets is an associated benefit. “In many competitive racking systems, torque wrenches are used,” says Josh Norton, business development manager at inoLECT. “Torque values must be set manually.”

On these units a dial is set to determine the amount of torque put onto each breaker. If a breaker is over-torqued, it can be damaged, making the plant less reliable. “With our unit, the operator never has to do that, because the proper values are already programmed into the PLC and touchscreen,” Norton continues. “When the end user details what breakers they have on their site, we program all the information into the inoRAC. It’s never a question. It’s already set.”

Further, the unit can be programmed to match established racking procedures, important because each customer has specific procedures to rack their breakers. The inoRAC can incorporate these specifics, a huge benefit to customers by ensuring compliance with standard operating procedures, even by inexperienced personnel.

“The new guy is always the one who gets nominated to rack breakers,” says Norton. So even from day one, he can follow the steps. As long as he uses the unit, he will always be doing the correct procedure, which increases his safety.

Norton points to the use of a Siemens variable frequency drive as an important part of ensuring equipment integrity. “We use a variable frequency drive that allows us to speed up and slow down the racking process,” he says. The device slows down the racking process just prior to insertion to protect the equipment.

“We sell remote racking devices to protect the operator, which is priority number one,” says Norton. “But we also want to protect the customer’s equipment, because if we tear up their breakers, our device is not going to be used. We go one step further than everyone else by truly protecting equipment by doing torque monitoring, position monitoring, and revolution profiling.”

By monitoring torque, the linear position of the breaker as it goes on the stabs and the number of revolutions the breaker has turned, the inoRAC provides triple redundancy to protect the equipment.

“We want to see all three in operation at the right level and time,” he says. “If I know a breaker takes 20 revolutions to rack it in, at around 18 revolutions I want to slow it down, to ensure that I’m not tearing anything or hitting it at full speed. I want to slow it down and ease it up to the stop.”

Universal Application, Continuing Development

Norton says that one of the advantages of the Siemens components in inoRAC is the flexibility they provide. “They help this product achieve its goal of being a universal product,” he says.  The inoRAC can work across the electrical spectrum from 480 volts to 38 kV and with a wide range of make and model of breakers.

According to Norton, inoLECT’s next generation of remote racking devices will incorporate Siemens’ next generation micro PLC, the Simatic S7-1200. “This PLC will allow us to do wireless operation,” concludes Norton. “That is definitely something customers will want. We see the market wanting remote operation for anything electrical, and we want to be a part of doing remote operation across the entire electrical spectrum within a facility, not just racking breakers. That’s where we are headed.”

To see the inoRAC in action, click here to view a short YouTube video.

In a challenge to conventional wisdom that increasing safety adds cost, new research and evidence reveals the opposite.

In a recent survey conducted by Aberdeen Group, best-in-class companies created a safer working environment for their employees, and in doing so were able to gain a competitive edge in the marketplace by improving productivity and achieving higher operational efficiencies.

Separately, IMS Research reported that global revenues for discrete machine safety components would increase by more than 43 percent between 2010 and 2015, exceeding $2.5 billion in 2015, up from $1.5 billion.¹ Changes in machine safety laws are one reason the analyst cited for the growth, but also that end users increasingly see machine safety as a way to increase productivity, rather than being a cost.

Tallying Revenues, Not Costs

Companies that implement safety functions, perform functional safety evaluations, and implement safety in manufacturing processes are finding benefits where few expected to—on the bottom line. Where companies once saw up-front costs, downstream revenues are being tallied.

According to Aberdeen, best-in-class manufacturers were able to effectively manage safety incidents by realizing a 0.05 injury frequency rate while performing at a 90 percent overall equipment effectiveness (OEE). These manufacturers were also able to achieve a 2 percent unscheduled asset downtime rate while their peers experienced a 14 percent rate.² Such advantages ultimately accrue to the bottom line.

“When safety equipment is put into place, it increases the potential for manufacturing processes to change in a more efficient and effective way,” says Anura Fernando, research engineer, predictive modeling and risk analysis, at UL.

For example, if you have the potential for greater human interaction with the automated equipment, you can improve productivity. Consider the need to supply parts to a robot. The robot is picking parts from two locations to populate a product on a production line. Currently, without safety systems in place, if one of those two batches of parts were to run out, the robot would need to be completely turned off for a human to enter and restock that part supply. With safety requirements such as “safely-limited speed” and other ones that allow for closer human/machine interaction, the robot can continue operation from the remaining batch of parts while the empty batch is replenished.

Additionally, when downtime and maintenance issues are looked at from a safety perspective, in terms of safety-related reliability, things may be put in place that decrease the system downtime from a production perspective. “An example of this is the calculations that are done to support how often the equipment needs to be tested to ensure certain failure rates can be factored into the equipment from a productivity perspective as well as a safety perspective,” says Fernando.

The IMS report echoes Fernando’s point: if suppliers can provide safety components that can be easily integrated with control components, then overall system performance will increase. Machine safety should be marketed as a benefit because operators are protected from hazards and machine downtime is minimized.

Sometimes the results from a simple change are remarkable: by installing a new safety system in its body shop, Kia Motors (Slovakia) was able to cut downtime and increase productivity dramatically.³ A safety system with safety-related programmable controllers and a network, instead of traditional safety relays, helped create lean, quick, adaptable manufacturing processes to help keep operators safe. The ability to identify failures and solve problems quickly has increased productivity by reducing up to 70 percent of the safety breakdown time.

The Power of the Mark

The dual nature of UL’s Functional Safety Mark can be a key contributor for those companies leveraging top-end safety for bottom-line benefits. “The mark covers both traditional fire and shock assessment as well as functional safety requirements,” says Thomas Maier, principal engineer, functional safety, at UL.

“From the installation and commissioning perspective of a factory, that aspect of the mark allows the organization to get through the AHJ (Authority Having Jurisdiction) inspection faster and more cost efficiently. From the traditional perspective of equipment installation, the mark speeds the process of getting assets up and running by addressing safety issues related to the equipment.” The functional safety aspects are layered on top of this.

Many plants have not only loss prevention issues to consider but also things like union requirements for safety of workers. The UL Functional Safety Mark provides a quick means of verifying that a third party has been involved in ensuring that these requirements have been met. The mark itself can be used to minimize the time necessary to evaluate the equipment, system design, and so on in detail.

“Another reason it makes sense to have third-party evaluation of safety relates to the nature of the process,” continues Maier. “To think about safety and to design safety into your systems means to go about things in a different way. You have to think about what can go wrong, what can fail, and so on. You have to ask “what if…?”, and “could it ever happen that…?” in a systematic way, applying techniques such as FMEA (Failure Modes Effects Analysis) and FTA (Fault Tree Analysis). In its essence, it is about assuming a kind of ‘negative view’ on these systems that you have built. This is why it is important to have an independent third party to help you do this—and to make sure that the safety thoughts are present throughout the whole life cycle of system design and machine design. That’s the role of UL. Basically, it is also what the UL Functional Safety Mark represents: that safety, and functional safety, has been thought about from the very start of system development.”

Final Considerations

Two other financial benefits of implementing safety standards should be mentioned. First and most importantly, is that safety compliance opens up markets or keeps them open. Manufacturers can use data used to attain the UL Functional Safety Mark to support their case for compliance with the EU’s Machinery Directive. EN/ISO 13849-1 (“Safety of machinery – Safety-related parts of control systems – Part 1 General principles for design”) has been harmonized under the EU Machinery Directive as the successor to EN 954-1. The deadline for compliance with EN/ISO 13849-1 is December 31, 2011, and those who fail to meet the new requirements will have the European market effectively closed to them.

Second, insurance companies are inclined to look favorably on enterprises that have implemented safety products and processes, and may lower premiums or discount rates accordingly.

“I’ve worked with manufacturers under the ATEX directive, where employers that implement gas detection equipment for ships’ hold workers receive reduced workers’ compensation insurance premiums,” notes Fernando. (The ATEX directive consists of two EU directives describing what equipment and work environment is allowed in an environment with an explosive atmosphere. ATEX derives its name from the French title of the 94/9/EC directive: Appareils destinés à être utilisés en atmosphères explosibles). The employers used handheld gas detectors that were evaluated for functional safety as part of their ATEX certification.”

For further information on how safety can have a positive impact on your bottom line, please contact Kevin Connelly at UL: call 631-546-2691 or e-mail kevin.connelly@us.ul.com

© 2011 Underwriters Laboratories Inc.  All rights reserved.

NOTES

1.    Hoske, Mark T., “Cover Story: Machine Safety Integration,” Control Engineering, April 12, 2011

2.    Ismail, Nuris and Littlefield, Matthew, “A Roadmap for a Safe and Productive Plant,” December 2010, http://www.automation.com/resources-tools/articles-white-papers/machine-process-safe-guarding/a-roadmap-for-a-safe-and-productive-plant

3.    Hoske, Mark T., ibid

A networking expert takes a look at how networked machine safety has evolved, examining the implications of Ethernet-based machine safety networks as a replacement for field buses.

The rate of evolution exemplified, and perhaps driven, by Moore’s Law is not limited to computers and consumer products like tablets, PCs and phones. The same innovative wave has splashed across all aspects of technology, including the automation industry, which has been inundated with constantly changing standards, new product developments and new possibilities.

One area that has seen a dramatic sea change in both technology and the drive to deploy it is machine safety. Many new approaches, regulations and options have emerged – often being replaced themselves in a fit of Darwinism in a matter of a few short years – making it even more difficult to keep up with the state of the art and determining what is right for you and how to apply it.

“Machine safety can seem to be very complicated given the number of changes to standards as well as implementations by different vendors over the past decade,” says Ming Ng, PROFINET manager for Siemens Industry. “There are several different approaches that can save money while increasing productivity that may be appropriate for a given operation. The benefits are compelling. The challenge is figuring out where to start and what you need to do.”

According to Ng, the first step is to be aware of all the relevant regulations that apply to you and then conduct a risk analysis. That may be made more complicated if your operation is international as different regions have their own regulatory bodies which, in turn, have different regulations. “In general, the European safety standards tend to be the most rigid. In the US, when an incident occurs in the plant, OSHA typically issues a fine. However in Europe, when an incident occurs criminal charges are brought up against the party found to liable for the safety hazard or the system that failed to protect against the hazard” Over the past years, there has been a movement to standardize internationally to avoid legal issues as equipment with safety systems are shipped internationally between countries.

Once you have an idea which standards apply to you, you can start looking at automation technologies that deliver functional safety on the plant floor. Systems that deliver functional safety are focused on the following basic goals: avoiding systematic faults, controlling systematic faults and controlling random faults or failures.

Says Ng, “The safety-relevant parts of the protective and control systems must function correctly and must respond in the event of a fault in such a way that the system remains in a safe state or is brought into a safe state.”

A key element of that process is the plant network. One of those aforementioned evolutionary technologies, Ethernet, is rapidly emerging as the de facto network for the plant floor communications, replacing field buses in the factory while also providing a link to front office systems.

“Ethernet has enough speed for manufacturing environments, and it’s been enhanced with real time capabilities for the most demanding applications. Using Ethernet greatly simplifies installation and maintenance while opening the door to many advances in communication technology. Compatible wireless technologies can be installed easily, and safety networks can also coexist with standard data over a single cable. All these benefits can be gained at lower costs than those of proprietary field buses.”

There are many reasons to choose Ethernet throughout the networking hierarchy, adds Ng. One of the key driving factors in many organizations is the desire to create compatible networks throughout the entire facility. Automating operations is a critical factor for success in lean manufacturing environments. Linking the management systems that bring in orders directly to the manufacturing equipment that fulfills those orders makes it simpler to streamline and control operations.

“With Ethernet it’s easier to collect information from different kinds of networks and field busses. It’s all the same technology and uses a variety of common protocols, including TCP/IP, HTTP, SNMP, OPC and real time I/O, so it becomes easy to monitor and control individual pieces of equipment.”

“Not only does using Ethernet add efficiency to operation, it also pays off when problems arise,” says Ng. “For instance, traditionally it was difficult to notify maintenance staff if a wire on an I/O device’s sensor broke. The automation controller would have to recognize that there was an issue on one of its I/O devices on the dedicated field bus then it would send an alarm to an HMI over another network to notify the machine operator. Next, the machine operator would alert the maintenance staff which would then have to plug their programming device directly into the automation controller and its field bus to investigate the problem.”

With Ethernet this situation is simplified. Information about the fault can be pushed onto the network by the I/O device itself the second it is detected. The diagnostic can then be read in multiple locations by a variety of devices. For example, the HMI can let the machine operator know that there is a broken wire. The MES can read the message and record the issue into its quality database. The maintenance staff can be informed via an SMS or email sent directly from the automation system. The maintenance staff can even collect further diagnostics directly from the I/O device regardless of where the programmer is located in the plant. This sort of Ethernet connectivity extends plant network visibility, bringing many new possibilities for delivering real time information and keeping equipment running at peak performance.

Using Ethernet is also extremely helpful when adopting wireless technology. Going wireless can be a real boon for industrial applications. Eliminating the physical constraints of cabling means equipment can be reconfigured more easily. Distributed I/O can be connected to field devices such as sensors, and motors can be installed in hard-to-reach spots – spots that weren’t practical with hardwired solutions.

“Because you can now monitor machines, devices and processes that you couldn’t before because the wired solutions weren’t practical wireless technology actually enhances the safety of your environment. You can have a more comprehensive view of your operation, meaning you can pick up on possible problems that in the past you would not have seen before they festered into a safety issue.”

With the standards and the networking in place it is time to install an application protocol to enable the devices to talk to each other. For this, Ng recommends Profinet. “You need a common language in order to have a conversation, and that is exactly what these devices are doing. They are telling each other what’s going on and for those messages to be understood they have to be in the same language. That’s where Profinet comes in.”

Profinet satisfies the real-time determinism requirements of an industrial system while still allowing standard communication such as video to coexist over the same network. More importantly, safety-specific protocols have been developed that are designed specifically to address safety issues.

“The PROFIsafe profile exists as part of the application layer, so safety I/O can be utilized in conjunction with standard I/O. The safety related data is included in the process data information in the protocol. And it doesn’t matter if it’s a Profibus or Profinet protocol. This makes it easier to implement safety on a network.”

According to Ng, there are several benefits to combining safety over a wireless Profinet network. “Doing away with dedicated safety circuits and eliminating wiring provide significant benefits in plants where expansion and equipment upgrades are common. When safety signals are sent over Ethernet, safety circuits can be handled in ladder logic that runs on automation controllers. Safety equipment like light curtains are typically linked to failsafe input cards that send alerts to automation controllers over PROFINET. Using PROFINET to carry these safety signals also makes it simpler to keep a plant up and running. In an exception situation conventional safety relays shut down power to broad areas, regardless of the type of problem. With PROFINET connectivity to all equipment, it’s straightforward to program systems to shut down only equipment that’s related to the safety alert and minimize the impact to the operation. The system can do some root cause analysis to ascertain the cause of a safety alert, then determine whether some sections of the system can continue running without danger. Since PROFINET is truly compliant with the Ethernet standards, it supports communication via Wi-Fi, these benefits extend to all equipment linked to the safety system even with a wireless connection.

“The added element of control and intelligence you get from a networked safety approach results in significant cost savings and productivity increases for the end user.”

This article addresses important changes that are being made to UL standards to address the increasing complexity of modern hardware while taking efforts to limit the number of design variations necessary for manufacturers to reach all markets.

With the implementation of the EU Machinery Directive and evolution of North American machinery safety requirements, national and international standards are being updated so that manufacturers have ease of market access and can limit the number of design variations necessary to reach all markets addressed. UL is at the forefront of this move to align requirements and harmonize standards, especially with respect to functional safety.

As systems rely more and more on sophisticated hardware and software, safety is increasingly dependent on the relationship between products and their responses to safety-related inputs. Functional safety depends on equipment or a system operating correctly in response to its safety-related inputs. Neither overall product safety nor functional safety can be determined without carefully evaluating a product’s systems context and assessing the environment in which interactions occur. UL 508A and UL Outline of Investigation 2011 are currently being updated to reflect developments in functional safety.

UL 508A and UL Outline of Investigation 2011

UL 508A is a standard covering industrial control panels. Its scope covers such panels intended for general industrial use, supplied from a voltage of 600 volts or less. This equipment is intended for installation in ordinary locations, in accordance with the National Electrical Code (NEC), ANSI/NFPA 70, where the ambient temperature does not exceed 40° C (104° F). UL 508A also covers industrial control panel enclosures and industrial control panels intended for flame safety supervision of combustible fuel type equipment, elevator control, crane or hoist control, service equipment use, marine use, air conditioning and refrigeration equipment, as well as for control of industrial machinery such as metalworking machine tools, power press controls, and plastic injection molding equipment.

UL Outline of Investigation 2011 covers factory automation equipment. Its scope covers production equipment for attended or unattended assembly of products or subassemblies, in accordance with NFPA 79. The production equipment covered by UL Outline of Investigation 2011 is designed to be programmed for a specific manufacturing application such as the assembly of components, packaging, sorting, counting of parts, or hole punching or cutting. Such equipment may also incorporate manufacturing processes involving heating or cooling, drying, or gluing of parts.

Both UL 508A and UL Outline of Investigation 2011 are being examined for the addition of requirements based on functional safety standards IEC 61508 (“Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems”), IEC 61800-5-2 (“Adjustable speed electrical power drive systems – Safety requirements – functional”), IEC 62061 (“Safety of machinery – Functional safety of safety-related electrical, electronic, and programmable electronic control systems”), and ISO 13849 (“Safety of machinery”).

John Kovacik, principal engineer, at Northbrook, Ill.-based UL, explains the process of updating the standards:

“UL staff constructs a plan to revise these documents, both 508A and 2011. We draw on our expertise, as well as on expertise available from outside individuals, particularly our customers who build the equipment and who would be affected. We then draft a proposal and submit it to our Standards Technical Panel (STP).

“We have a panel that is responsible for both UL 508A and UL Outline of Investigation 2011; it is composed of a balanced group of individuals who are involved in manufacturing and using the type of equipment that would be affected by the requirements. The STP process is ANSI‑approved (American National Standards Institute). Through that process, we are able to revise our standards and, at the same time, have them become ANSI standards for the particular product or products that they affect.

“The STP members review all the proposed changes. They comment on any revisions they think would be necessary to the proposed changes. Then the revisions are circulated among the members of the STP, and the STP body as a whole, together with UL, decides if any further changes are needed to the proposal. If more changes are needed, then the proposal is circulated again for another iteration of review and comment. We circulate it as many times as necessary until we are comfortable that we have consensus and approval on what is going to go into the standards. Then we submit it for ballot, and the STP vote on it, and again we have to follow ANSI procedures. The proposed requirement has to be approved by two-thirds of the members of the STP, including more than 50 percent of the members voting affirmative. If we reach that point, then we are able to publish the requirements in the standard.”

The full process may take as long as two years to complete.

Preparing for the Change

Smart manufacturers are preparing for functional safety requirements now. “This process starts with risk assessment for machinery when we look at standards such as ISO 12100 and ISO 14121, for high-level machinery risk assessment; then we start to drive down a specific path toward functional safety,” says Anura Fernando, research engineer, predictive modeling and risk analysis, at UL.

“From the Machinery Directive side in Europe,” Fernando continues, “we also start getting into IEC 60204, for example, for safety of machinery on the electrical side of things, which is very closely tied to NFPA 79. UL 508A and UL Outline of Investigation 2011—are very closely tied to the NEC.”

Part of what a manufacturer gains in meeting UL 508A requirements in its custom design is meeting the NEC installation requirements. As these requirements begin to converge globally, manufacturers looking at the functional safety-related systems that they are planning to introduce into the global market would likely want to reach that market with a single design. This means looking at the NEC while also considering, for example, the European Low-Voltage Directive and the Machinery Directive requirements.

“What it means for design and manufacturing organizations is that, to be proactive, they should begin to start familiarizing themselves with functional safety standards,” concludes Fernando. “It may be more complex than other safety certifications. For example, management audits are involved. But the time put in now will pay off in the future.”

© 2011 Underwriters Laboratories Inc. All rights reserved.

The impact of food and drink recalls in the U.S. is huge, both for those who ingest contaminated products and for the companies that make them. The number of food and beverage recalls more than doubled from 2006 to 2008, soaring from 240 to 565.

The impact of these recalls is enormous. Millions of Americans get sick from contaminated food or drinks every year. More than 300,000 are hospitalized and 5,000 of them die, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Controls.

The impact on corporations is potentially devastating.  The average recall costs $10 million, some cost as much as $100 million, delivering a significant blow to the company’s income.

The problems expand far beyond the cost of recalls. One day after an announcement, a producer’s stock price typically drops an average 2.3 percent compared to their sector index. If a recall is handled poorly, that share price drops on average 22 percent in the two weeks after a recall announcement.

Tracking is one of the techniques used to reduce the number of recalls as well as their impact. Tracking can help them ensure that outdated or questionable materials are not used. Efficient tracking can also help reduce the impact of a recall, making it easier to pull potentially contaminated products out of the supply chain.

Improved product tracking also addresses some of the current trends in the food and beverage arena. The growing complexity of the supply chain is a key factor that is making it difficult for producers to track ingredients and end products. Globalization of the food supply, exploding numbers of in-store SKUs, error-prone (and unscalable) human processes make it more difficult to trace product movement. Improved tracking can also help companies combat the growing number of counterfeiters and malcontents intent on compromising the food and beverage safety.

Government regulators are also adding to the challenge. The U.S. appears likely to pass two laws that will directly impact this field. H.R.2751, the Food Safety and Modernization Act, and S.510, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Safety Modernization Act, have both moved through preliminary steps and are moving forward. Both will require improvements in product management.

Meeting all these demands requires companies to continuously to reassess their food safety risk profiles. Prudence and good business practices suggest writing a Food Defense Plan. It should identify all the gaps in facility and food security that might exist both inside and outside a plant, including storage and shipping and receiving – general points of vulnerability.

A central part of this defense plan is to conduct a hazard analysis, listing all possible food safety hazards and identifying steps that can prevent them. Once that’s finished, managers must identify critical control points (CCPs) where effective controls can help prevent, eliminate or reduce hazards to acceptable levels.

After these CCPs are identified, teams must establish critical limits for these critical control points. These limits set maximum or minimum values for food safety hazards. Once they’re in place, constant monitoring must occur, and corrective actions must be established so corrections can be made when monitors pinpoint potential problems. Creating record-keeping procedures is the final step before running through some scenarios that validate the CCP system to ensure that plants operate as designed.

There are many more aspects of these plans. Many experts suggest creating a plan for hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP).  HACCP is a systematic, preventive approach to food and beverage safety that originated in the 1960s when the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration was developing food for space flights.

Today, the U.S. government mandates meat, seafood and juice producers to employ HACCP programs. HACCP’s principles are the basis of the International Organization for Standardization’s food safety standard, ISO 22000.

RFID technology tracking egg shipments

Implementing a HACCP program is no small task. Plants may have hundreds of critical control points, with huge potential for human error. That’s prompting people to adopt information technology such as Totally Integrated Automation (TIA) and Manufacturing Execution Systems (MES) that can provide an electronic HACCP system.

TIA is a comprehensive process control system that includes both the necessary process line controller and the human machine interface. It can help optimize the overall performance of food and beverage production facilities while helping to address health threats by monitoring CCPs in their processes.

An MES can complement TIA’s “watch” on production by linking food and beverage plant processes with enterprise resource planning systems like SAP, Oracle and others. An MES can capture hundreds of CCP data points every minute and display key indicators in full-color graphs, charts and dashboards.

In its role as an interface between real-world automation systems and upper level planning and financial systems, the MES layer provides production monitoring and modeling. It can also provide a view into overall equipment effectiveness as well as downtime monitoring and inventory control. This inventory control can be handled by different technologies.

Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology enables manufacturers to manage and track products through all processes: raw materials, blending and mixing, packaging and finished goods handling.  RFID tagged raw materials can assure that the correct ingredients are being used, track physical assets used during production, and manage the shipment of finished product to the end customer – all without requiring people for data collection.

Enlarged sample of 2D Data Matrix Code

2D Data Matrix Codes (DMC) are 2 dimensional, typically printed, bar codes that can be used in packaging lines.  DMCs are used to track packaging through filling, packaging, and finished goods processes.  Using DMC enables manufactures to provide low cost printing technologies to verify that products are inserted in the correct packaging, the correct labels are installed on all sides of containers, and for item level packaging verification.

These technical steps will support good operating practices. These practices are critical elements when the food defense plan is being built and implemented. This plan should include the steps that must be taken to reduce the likelihood that important tasks will fall through gaps. It should provide oversight to a person or team who is in charge of the plan, and the plan should be enhanced with contingent operational specifics such as internal and external contact lists of those who should be called in case of a crisis. It should also include an issue escalation protocol and provide staff training in the plan itself.

Technical support for these programs can come from Siemens, a company that has served food and beverage manufacturers worldwide since the dawn of automation. The company has a wealth of best-practice knowledge and applied knowledge, plus an engineering staff with hundreds of years of combined experience.

A portfolio of proven, advanced solutions can optimize food and beverage plant operations and maximize the company’s profitability and market share. SIMATIC PCS7 provides food and beverage producers with Totally Integrated Automation. It enables full integration of all plant automation systems including process, batch, discrete and safety and all field devices.

For more information on food safety, please click here.