In functional safety discussions, the term “SIL Verification” is widely used. It appears in presentations, project documentation, training material, and professional profiles.

However, the term is often used incorrectly.

In many cases, what is called SIL Verification is actually only a PFD calculation. While PFD calculations are essential, they are not the same as verification of functional safety work.

This article explains the difference — and why it matters.

What a PFD calculation actually verifies

A PFD calculation verifies the design performance of a safety function.

It is used to answer questions such as:

• Does the safety function provide sufficient risk reduction?
• Is the selected architecture appropriate for the target SIL?
• Are proof test intervals consistent with the required risk reduction?

PFD = Probability of Failure Dangerous

It expresses the likelihood that a safety function fails dangerously when it is required to act.

Depending on the mode of operation, this is expressed as:

• PFD_avg — average probability of dangerous failure on demand
• PFH — probability of dangerous failure per hour

These values describe design integrity. They do not confirm that the work was done correctly.

Verification is about the work — not just the result

Functional safety standards require that work is verified.

A PFD calculation is work. And that work must be verified.

Verification typically includes checking:

• Assumptions used in the calculation
• Input data sources and justification
• Failure rates and diagnostic coverage
• Architectural constraints
• Applied methods and tools
• Independence of the verifier

Producing a number — even a correct one — is not sufficient.

Verification ensures that the calculation is appropriate, justified, and defensible. This principle applies across the entire functional safety lifecycle.

“SIL Verification” is not a defined term

Another common misconception is that SIL Verification is a formally defined activity. It is not.

In standards such as IEC 61511 (with IEC 61508 as the generic standard):

• SIL is defined
• Verification is defined

But the combined term “SIL Verification” is not.

Using informal terminology is not necessarily wrong, but it often leads to:

• Different meanings to different people/companies
• Narrow interpretation of scope
• Overemphasis on calculations
• Underestimating lifecycle verification activities

Precision in language supports precision in execution.

Tools do not equal functional safety competence

Many professionals described as SIL Verification experts are, in reality:

• Highly skilled in PFD calculation tools
• Limited in broader functional safety lifecycle knowledge

Being a tool expert is valuable. But it is not the same as being a functional safety verifier.

Verification requires:

• Lifecycle understanding
• Standards interpretation
• Independence
• Professional judgement

Confusing these roles introduces risk.

Why this distinction matters

Functional safety is about confidence:

• Confidence in the design
• Confidence in the work performed
• Confidence in independent verification

Reducing functional safety to a single PFD value undermines that confidence.

Verification exists to ensure that safety decisions are robust, justified, and defensible.

Final thought

PFD calculations are essential. Verification is essential.

They are not the same thing.

Understanding the difference is a fundamental step toward mature functional safety practice.

Want to learn more about SIL Verification and Calculation. Contact us. We have trainings, we have tools.