Complete Learning Module

Cross-Standard Comparison

Navigating ISO 26262, IEC 61508, DO-178C, EN 50128, and ISO 13849 across industries

14
In-depth chapters
5
Standards compared
SIL vs ASIL
Risk levels
Cross-industry
Coverage

What You'll Learn

Build complete competency in cross-standard comparison through structured, progressive learning.

Navigate multiple standards

Understand the structure, scope, and key requirements of the five major functional safety standards

Map integrity levels

Correctly translate between SIL, ASIL, DAL, and PL risk classification systems for multi-domain projects

Plan multi-standard compliance

Develop a harmonized compliance strategy when products must satisfy two or more functional safety standards

Reuse safety evidence

Identify and justify evidence reuse opportunities to reduce certification costs across standards

Qualify tools across standards

Understand tool qualification frameworks from each standard and maximize qualification reuse

Support joint assessments

Prepare documentation packages that satisfy assessors from multiple standard domains simultaneously

14 Comprehensive Chapters

Each chapter builds your cross-standard comparison expertise systematically from foundations to advanced application.

1

Overview

Introduce the landscape of functional safety standards across industries and explain why cross-standard knowledge is essential for modern safety engineers.

Standards landscapeIndustry domainsCommon heritageEngineer value
2

ISO 26262 (Automotive)

Review the structure, scope, and key requirements of ISO 26262 as the reference standard for automotive functional safety.

12-part structureASIL A-DHARA methodologyV-model development
3

IEC 61508 (Generic)

Examine IEC 61508 as the parent generic standard, its SIL 1-4 integrity levels, and how domain-specific standards derive from it.

SIL 1-4 definitionE/E/PE systemsSafety function conceptSector-neutral scope
4

DO-178C (Aerospace)

Analyze DO-178C for airborne software, its Design Assurance Levels A-E, and how evidence requirements compare to automotive software.

DAL A through EObjectives-basedMC/DC coverageTool qualification DO-330
5

EN 50128 (Railway)

Explore EN 50128 for railway software, its SIL 0-4 integrity levels, and the independence and V&V process requirements.

Railway SILSoftware lifecycleIndependence requirementsTechniques table
6

ISO 13849 (Machinery)

Understand ISO 13849 for machinery safety functions, its Performance Level categories, and the simplified probabilistic approach using categories B, 1-4.

PL a through eCategory B,1,2,3,4MTTFd / DCavgCommon cause failure
7

Risk Classification Comparison

Map SIL, ASIL, DAL, and PL risk classification systems onto a common risk scale and highlight structural similarities and differences.

Risk matrix comparisonSIL to ASIL mappingPL to SIL mappingQuantitative limits
8

Architecture Requirements

Compare architectural requirements across standards including redundancy mandates, single-point failure limits, and independence of channels.

Redundancy requirementsSingle-point fault toleranceChannel independenceSafe-state requirements
9

Safety Mechanisms Across Standards

Examine which safety mechanisms are recommended or required by each standard and identify common patterns that satisfy multiple standards.

Watchdog timersCRC checksVoting logicCross-standard acceptance
10

Verification & Coverage

Compare testing rigor, code coverage requirements, and formal verification expectations across automotive, aerospace, and railway standards.

Statement/branch/MC-DCStructural coverageFormal methodsCoverage tool qualification
11

Tool Qualification Comparison

Contrast tool qualification frameworks across standards: TQL/TCL (ISO 26262), DO-330, and EN 50128 methods for qualifying development tools.

DO-330 TQL 1-5ISO 26262 TCL/TQLEN 50128 tool classesQualification reuse
12

Harmonization Strategies

Develop strategies to harmonize safety processes when a product must comply with multiple functional safety standards simultaneously.

Gap analysis approachSuperset processCommon documentationJoint assessment
13

Multi-Standard Compliance

Work through a multi-standard compliance planning exercise for a complex system operating across automotive and industrial domains.

Compliance matrixPriority standard selectionEvidence mappingAssessor coordination
14

Evidence Reuse

Identify opportunities to reuse safety evidence, analyses, and work products across multiple certification or compliance activities.

Evidence equivalencyAnalysis reuse criteriaCross-certification argumentsAssessor acceptance
5 Standards

6 Cross-Standard Comparison Diagrams

Experiment with visual tools that bring cross-standard comparison concepts to life.

Risk Level Mapping

Visual mapping of SIL 1-4, ASIL A-D, DAL A-E, and PL a-e onto a common risk reduction axis showing equivalencies and gaps

Standards Heritage Tree

Genealogy diagram showing how IEC 61508 spawned domain-specific standards across automotive, aerospace, railway, and machinery sectors

Architecture Requirements Matrix

Side-by-side matrix of architectural requirements (redundancy, independence, channel separation) across all five standards

Code Coverage Comparison

Bar chart comparison of mandatory software code coverage levels per integrity level across ISO 26262, DO-178C, and EN 50128

Tool Qualification Framework

Process flow showing how tool qualification evidence from one standard can be mapped and partially reused for another standard

Multi-Standard Compliance Roadmap

Timeline-based roadmap showing how to sequence multi-standard compliance activities to minimize duplication and rework

Multi-Domain Case

Autonomous Mobile Robot: ISO 26262 + IEC 61508 + ISO 13849

A robotics company integrating automotive LIDAR sensors with industrial robot arms faced simultaneous compliance demands from ISO 26262 (vehicle electronics), IEC 61508 (programmable controller), and ISO 13849 (safety functions). A superset process reduced total compliance effort by 40%.

  • Mapped 340 requirements across three standards with 67% overlap identified
  • Single FMEA and FTA analysis accepted as evidence for all three standards
  • Tool qualification evidence reused across ISO 26262 TQL-3 and DO-330 equivalently
  • Joint assessment conducted by two assessors from automotive and industrial domains

Multi-Standard Compliance Matrix

Req-001: System shall detect sensor failure within 10ms [ISO 26262 ASIL C / IEC 61508 SIL 2]
82 additional mapped requirements (unlock Advanced plan)

Master Cross-Standard Safety

Expand your expertise beyond ISO 26262 to navigate multiple functional safety standards across automotive, aerospace, railway, and machinery domains

Start Learning Now
14 chapters5 standards comparedMulti-standard compliance