FEATURE MACHINE SAFETY GOING MODULAR? THE EVOLUTION OF A DIRECTIVE
‘to a small extent’ and ‘not at all’, while 45% agreed that it would be able to deal with such changes to a large extent or entirely. So, the figures would suggest that
while half of respondents are upbeat about how the Machinery Directive will be able to support innovation in the machinery industry, there is another half who are not quite so convinced. Currently, the majority of machines in
Paul Taylor, Head of Industrial Products (UK) at TÜV SÜD, examines the relevance of the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC, and how it may evolve to support innovation in the machinery industry with the advent of developments such as Industry 4.0
T
he Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC aims to guarantee the free movement
of machinery within the European Union (EU), while ensuring a high level of protection for users and other exposed persons. Consequently, all machines supplied in the European Economic Area must comply with it. The Machinery Directive came into full
effect in 2009, when its scope was significantly extended, going beyond what might once have been considered a ‘machine’. For example, it was extended to include lifting accessories, chains, ropes, webbing and safety components. For the first time, designers were also having to take into consideration the full lifecycle of the machine. The machinery industry once again
faces massive disruption with the advent of Industry 4.0, as we move towards the smart factories of the future. Finding the answer to a new machinery safety approach will require the Machinery Directive to be more relevant, effective and efficient than ever before. The European Commission’s open
public consultation, to evaluate the performance of the Machinery Directive, raises some key issues around the future state of the machinery sector and how effective it will be in helping industry achieve Industry 4.0 goals. The public consultation assessed
whether the Machinery Directive has achieved its goals effectively, efficiently and coherently, and if it remains relevant to industry. The evaluation process
32 MAY 2019 | PROCESS & CONTROL
gained feedback from a range of stakeholders, including notified bodies, industry associations, workers, consultancies and a standardisation body. Feedback included a focus on whether the Directive was fit for purpose to support new technological developments, such as Industry 4.0 and the Internet of Things. This was all assessed against the extent to which the Machinery Directive contributed to the five areas of relevance, effectiveness, coherence, efficiency, and EU added value. Part of this research looked at
innovation. When asked “to what extent does the current Directive sufficiently allow for innovation?”, the jury was quite evenly split. 44% of respondents felt that to a small or moderate extent the Machinery Directive had been able to deal with new innovations and technologies since its introduction, while 56% were slightly more positive and declared that this had been achieved to a larger extent, or entirely. Similarly when asked whether the Directive was likely to be able to deal with new innovations and technologies over the next 10 years, 52% came out on the side of a ‘small’ or ‘moderate extent’, while 49% answered that the Machinery Directive would support this to a large extent, or entirely. However, when asked how likely the
Directive would be able to deal with changes to the business environment over the next 10 years, while split, respondents erred on the side of caution, with 55% citing ‘to a moderate extent’,
Industry 4.0 principles permit highly flexible, automated ‘plug and produce’ manufacturing, where machinery and production lines can be quickly reconfigured. This will mean a shift from static risk assessment to one of dynamic risk
factories are unconnected, and machinery safety can be comfortably assessed in a static environment. If a machine has a substantial change made, a full CE marking and assessment process must be completed before it can be returned to service. However, Industry 4.0 principles permit highly flexible, automated ‘plug and produce’ manufacturing, where machinery and production lines can be quickly reconfigured. Of course, as machine configurations change, so do risks. Industry 4.0 will therefore see a shift from static risk assessment to one of dynamic risk, which means that the Machinery Directive’s static risk assessment approach will not meet future requirements. One answer could be a modular method
of certification that delivers integrated support for machinery end users as they progress towards Industry 4.0. The key benefit of modular certification is the major cost and time savings it contributes to the operation of adaptive self-configuring Industry 4.0 production systems. Our experts are therefore developing a modular certification scheme for smart factory components, addressing issues such as interface standards, interoperability, functional safety and IT security. Directives, including the Machinery
Paul Taylor, Head of Industrial Products (UK) at TU
V SU Service D Product
Directive, have not yet addressed the needs of an industry 4.0 environment, which brings ever more agile and automated approaches. In the new world of Industry 4.0, machines will autonomously self-optimise and the approach to machinery safety must reflect and support this. A dynamically reconfigurable Industry 4.0 system therefore requires a new and integrated approach to machine safety assessment. While ongoing digital transformation will drive innovation across a wide range of industries, machinery safety experts will face significant challenges as we move towards fully connected, self-organising intelligent factories.
TÜV SÜD
www.tuv-sud.co.uk
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
