Including Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) in Functional Safety Risk Assessments

  • Keith Armstrong
Conference paper

Abstract

EMI is a potential cause of malfunctions and failures in all electronic technologies. A safety-related system must therefore take EMI into account in its risk assessment. This paper discusses some of the major issues associated with including EMI in an IEC 61508 functional safety risk assessment.

Keywords

Dust Europe Torque Beach Resis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson AF (2007) Reliability in electromagnetic systems: the role of electrical contact resis-tance in maintaining automobile speed control system integrity. IET Colloq Reliab Electro-magn Syst, ParisGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson AF (2008) Presentation to the 20th Conference of the Society of Expert Witnesses, Al-exander House, Wroughton, UKGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong K (2004) Why EMC immunity testing is inadequate for functional safety. IEEE IntEMC Symp, Santa ClaraGoogle Scholar
  4. Armstrong K (2005) Specifying lifetime electromagnetic and physical environments - to helpdesign and test for EMC for functional safety. IEEE Int EMC Symp, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  5. Armstrong K (2006) Design and mitigation techniques for EMC for functional safety. IEEE IntEMC Symp, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  6. Armstrong K (2007a) Validation, verification and immunity testing techniques for EMC forfunctional safety. IEEE Int EMC Symp, HonoluluGoogle Scholar
  7. Armstrong K (ed) (2007b) The First 500 Banana Skins. Nutwood UK. www.theemcjournal.com.Accessed 19 September 2011
  8. Armstrong K (2008a) EMC for the functional safety of automobiles - why EMC testing is insuf-ficient, and what is necessary. IEEE Int EMC Symp, DetroitGoogle Scholar
  9. Armstrong K (2008b) Absence of proof is not proof of absence. The EMC Journal, Issue 78:16-19Google Scholar
  10. Armstrong K (2009) Why increasing immunity test levels is not sufficient for high-reliability andcritical equipment. IEEE Int EMC Symp, Austin, TXGoogle Scholar
  11. Armstrong K (2010a) The new IET guide - how to do emc to help achieve functional safety. In:Dale C, Anderson T (eds) Making systems safer. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Armstrong K (2010) Including EMC in risk assessments. IEEE Int EMC Symp, Fort Lauderdale,FloridaGoogle Scholar
  13. Armstrong K (2011) Opportunities in the risk management of EMC. IEEE Int Symp EMC, LongBeach, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  14. Boyer A, Ndoye AC, Ben Dhia S, Guillot L, Vrignon B (2009) Characterization of the evolutionof IC emissions after accelerated aging. IEEE Trans EMC 51:892–900Google Scholar
  15. Brewer R (2007) EMC failures happen. Evaluation Engineering magazine. http://www.evaluationengineering.com/index.php/solutions/emcesd/emc-failures-happen.html. Accessed27 September 2011
  16. EC (2004) The EU’s Directive on electromagnetic compatibility. 2004/108/EC. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/l_390/l_39020041231en00240037.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2011
  17. Grommes W, Armstrong K (2011) Developing immunity testing to cover intermodulation. IEEEInt Symp EMC, Long Beach, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  18. Hendrikx I (2007) The future of market surveillance for technical products in Europe. Conformi-ty magazine. http://www.conformity.com/artman/publish/printer_158.shtml. Accessed 16 September 2011
  19. Hollnagel E (2008) The reality of risks. Safety Critical Systems Club Newsletter 17(2)20-22. http://www.scsc.org.uk/newsletter_17_2_h.htm?pid=103&pap=748&m1=Newsletters&m2= &sort=p1d. Accessed 19 September 2011
  20. HSE (2003), Out of control - why control systems go wrong and how to prevent failure. UKHealth and Safety Executive. www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/hsg238.pdf. Accessed 19 Sep-tember 2011
  21. IBM (2011) IBM and the Space Shuttle. www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/space/space_shuttle.html. Accessed 16 September 2011Google Scholar
  22. IEC (2006a) Assessment techniques for system reliability - procedure for failure mode and ef-fects assessment (FMEA). IEC 60812. International Electrotechnical CommissionGoogle Scholar
  23. IEC (2006b) Fault tree assessment (FTA). IEC 61025. International Electrotechnical Commis-sionGoogle Scholar
  24. IEC (2008) Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) - Part 1–2: General - Methodology for theachievement of the functional safety of electrical and electronic equipment with regard toelectromagnetic phenomena. IEC/TS 61000-1-2 Ed.2.0Google Scholar
  25. IEC (2010a) Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety relatedsystems. IEC 61508, edn 2.Google Scholar
  26. IEC (2010b) Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) - Part 6–7: Generic standards - Immunityrequirements for safety-related systems and equipment intended to perform functions in asafety-related system (functional safety) in industrial environments. IEC 61000-6-7 Commit-tee Draft 77/389/CD, date of circulation 2010-11-19Google Scholar
  27. IET (2008) EMC for Functional Safety, edn 1. www.theiet.org/factfiles/emc/emc-factfile.cfm.Accessed 16 September 2011
  28. IET (2009) Computer based safety-critical systems. www.theiet.org/factfiles/it/computer-based-scs.cfm?type=pdf. Accessed 16 September 2011
  29. ISO (2007) Medical devices - application of risk management to medical devices. ISO 14971edn 2Google Scholar
  30. ISO (2009) Road vehicles - Functional safety. ISO 26262 (draft)Google Scholar
  31. Kelly T (2008) Are ‘safety cases’ working? Safety-Critical Systems Club Newsletter 17(2)31-33. http://www.scsc.org.uk/newsletter_17_2_l.htm?pid=103&pap=752&m1=Newsletters&m2=& sort=p1d. Accessed 19 September 2011
  32. Leveson, N (2004) A new accident model for engineering safer systems. Saf Sci 42:237–270.http://sunnyday.mit.edu/accidents/safetyscience-single.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2011Google Scholar
  33. Nitta S (2007) A proposal on future research subjects on EMC, from the viewpoint of systems design. IEEE EMC Society Newsletter, Issue 214:50–57.Google Scholar
  34. Petrowski H (2006) When failure strikes. New Scientist. www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19125625.600-the-success-that-allows-failure-to-strike.html. Accessed 16 September 2011
  35. Redmill F (2009) Making ALARP decisions. Safety-Critical Systems Club Newsletter 19(1)14-21. http://www.scsc.org.uk/newsletter_19_1_d.htm?pid=110&pap=819&m1=Newsletter s&m2=&sort=p1d. Accessed 16 September 2011
  36. Van Doorn M (2007) Towards an EMC technology roadmap. EMC Directory & Design Guide.Interference Technology. http://www.interferencetechnology.com/no_cache/technologies/testing/articles/features-single/article/towards-an-emc-technology-roadmap.html. Accessed 16 September 2011
  37. Vick R, Habiger E (1997) The dependence of the immunity of digital equipment on the hardwareand software structure. Proc Int Symp EMC, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  38. Warwicks (2005) Ensuring compliance with trading standards law. Warwickshire County Coun-cil. www.warwickshire.gov.uk/corporate/SmallBus.nsf/WebPrint/A0379B1341F8AD588025701300566FD2?opendocument. Accessed 16 September 2011. Geoffrey Garret vBoots Chemist Ltd (1980) is the most relevant case in the context of this paper.
  39. Wikipedia (2011a) Redundancy (engineering). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundancy_ (engineering). Accessed 16 September 2011
  40. Wikipedia (2011b) Ariane V. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5. Accessed 19 September2011
  41. Wikipedia (2011c) Risk management tools. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_management_tools Accessed 19 September 2011

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keith Armstrong
    • 1
  1. 1.Cherry Clough Consultants LtdStaffordUK

Personalised recommendations