- Who we are
- Capabilities
- Industries
- Solutions & Products
- Partners
- Resources
- Careers
- Finance
- Contact
With the publication of EN ISO 13849‑1:2023, our industry has entered a transition period that runs until 15 May 2027, after which the 2015 edition will be formally withdrawn.
For anyone involved in machine safety, controls engineering, or risk assessment, the message is clear: new projects should now be aligned with the 2023 edition. And there’s good reason for that; this revision brings clarity, structure and a stronger emphasis on engineering discipline.
Below is a breakdown of the most important updates and what they mean for our day‑to‑day work at iconsys.
One of the most significant shifts is the elevated role of the Safety Requirements Specification. The standard now requires a far more explicit definition of each Safety Function, ensuring that design intent is unambiguous from the start.
Each Safety Function must now include:
Functional description (trigger event, reaction, safe state)
Required PLr
Related operating modes
Response times
Fault reaction and behaviour
Priority
Interfaces with other safety functions
This is a major step forward. A well‑defined SRS reduces ambiguity, strengthens validation and improves traceability. These are all essential for demonstrating compliance and engineering robustness.
The 2023 edition introduces clearer guidance for determining P, one of the key parameters in establishing the required Performance Level.
Instead of relying on broad judgement, the standard now directs engineers to consider five specific factors:
Experience level of the machine user
Speed of the hazardous part
Spatial possibility of avoiding the hazard
Possibility of recognising the hazard
Complexity of the operation and interactions
These factors are then assessed against a structured table to determine whether P1 or P2 is appropriate.
The result: more consistent PLr determinations and better alignment across teams and projects.
Historically, validation lived exclusively in EN ISO 13849‑2:2012. While Part 2 remains unchanged, the 2023 revision brings validation into Section 10 of Part 1, signalling its importance.
Key reminders:
Validation must be performed by individuals independent from the design.
It should begin as early as possible, ideally in parallel with design activities.
Late‑stage validation often uncovers issues when design changes are costly or impractical.
This integration reinforces a message many of us have been championing for years: validation is a core part of the safety lifecycle.
Category 2 has long been one of the more misunderstood architectures. The 2023 edition provides much‑needed clarification, particularly around:
The correlation between the functional channel and the test channel
The requirement to test the sub‑function, not the entire safety function
This helps remove ambiguity and supports more consistent subsystem design and assessment.
Update your browser to view this website correctly. Update my browser now