Department of Mechanical and Physical Risk Prevention, Institut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du Travail (IRSST), 505 De Maisonneuve Blvd. West, Montreal, QC H3A 3C2, Canada
Damien Burlet-Vienney
Department of Mechanical and Physical Risk Prevention, Institut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du Travail (IRSST), 505 De Maisonneuve Blvd. West, Montreal, QC H3A 3C2, Canada
Réal Bourbonnière
Consultation Réal Bourbonnière, 58, rue de la Crête, Orford, QC J1X 0C5, Canada
Benyamin Karimi
Department of Mathematics and Industrial Engineering, Polytechnique Montreal, P.O. Box 6079, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, QC H3C 3A7, Canada
Abdallah Ben Mosbah
Department of Mathematics and Industrial Engineering, Polytechnique Montreal, P.O. Box 6079, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, QC H3C 3A7, Canada
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.
