Search

Various safety-related standards associated with the machinery design phase, such as ISO 14119:2013, emphasize the appropriate design and selection of protective devices to prevent bypassing. Despite such standards, bypassing safeguards is a common issue at the machinery use phase. ISO 12100:2010 indicates, "experience has shown that even well-designed safeguarding can fail or be violated". This unsafe practice can cause serious injuries or fatalities. This paper presents an improved version of a bypassing-related assessment tool initially inspired by ISO 14119. The improvement results from testing its performance through industrial case studies to explore how the tool works in reality. Five occupational health and safety (OHS) practitioners apply this tool in four plants in Quebec to 18 machines and 37 activities. Afterwards, the OHS practitioners provide feedback using a questionnaire. The findings reveal that the tool is appropriate for the machine usage phase to prevent bypassing with an overall 82% satisfaction score. The probability levels of bypassing given by the tool enable a safety improvement prioritization method for the machines and safeguards. The tool was improved, redefining some incentives to bypass and its layout. The findings explain how practitioners could influence decision-making to minimize incentives to bypass and the probability of bypassing to prevent accidents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Industrial machines are known to possess many hazards. There are many laws, regulations, standards and practices that aim at ensuring that machines are safe for different workers performing various tasks including operation and maintenance. Safeguards protect workers by stopping hazardous motion when actuated. Those safeguards are integrated into machinery using two widely used international standards for functional safety. However, these standards have some significant differences although they are both based on similar principles. This paper explores those differences and their potential impacts. Subjectivity in the specification and design of safety systems, based on the differences, can lead to different levels of reliability in the safety systems even when considering the same hazard zone of machinery based on which standard is used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]