Mike Kunkle from MEK Consulting - Owner
mekconsulting [at] comcast [dot] net (717) 578-9875
The answer to your question can be found in the ANSI/RIA R15.06-1999 Industrial Robot Safety Standard.

Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com (734) 354-0272
Hell Patrick. I am affraid it is not possible to use a removable guard. The guard must be interlocked. Possible alternative methods would be to install a transparent panel in the guard or to use a video camera to view the part.

Jeff Fryman from Robotic Industries Association - Director, Standards Development
jfryman [at] robotics [dot] org (734) 994-6088
The new 2012 edition of R15.06 introduces the concept of "collaborative" robot operation using new robots with special features, and lists four methods of this operation. The first, or safety-rated monitored stop, feature calls for a (safe) stop to be issued when the robot is waiting for the human to interact, or a protective stop if the human enters the collaborative work space at the wrong time. A variation of this would be to allow the robot to move in coordination with the human; similar to the second method, hand guiding. These two methods have well spelled out guidelines. Two new methods are identified, but do not have sufficient guidance yet. That work is expected in a new ISO TS15066 to come out later this year or early next year. The tow methods are speed an separation monitoring (but we don't have adequate separation monitoring yet); and power and force limiting. Again, we do not have sufficient data for what appropriate force and power is yet. The SHALL stop statement is not applicable to these methods, but full guidance is yet to come.

Eric Esson from Frommelt Safety Products - National Sales & Marketing Manager
eesson [at] ritehite [dot] com (262) 574-1126
Brad, I do not know of any video providing detailed information, however, there are many product videos that contain a lot of information. Our video on the Guardian DEFENDER by Frommelt Safety provides information on all the important codes and regulations and how this product can be applied.

Flossie Mohler from Miller Edge, Inc. - Vice President Sales & Marketing
fmohler [at] milleredge [dot] com (602) 738-8279
Hello Brad, I'm not quite clear. Are you are looking for safety training video or safety product vendors. We are based in PA and manufacture safety mats and sensitized bumper switches. You can view more about us at www.MillerEdge.com or call. Can we help you? Flossie

Mike Kunkle from MEK Consulting - Owner
mekconsulting [at] comcast [dot] net (717) 578-9875
Please contact me for information.

Jeff Fryman from Robotic Industries Association - Director, Standards Development
jfryman [at] robotics [dot] org (734) 994-6088
One absolute in robot safeguarding is that the perimeter guarding (establishing the safeguarded space) may not be placed any closer to the hazard than the restricted space. Further, no one may be able to reach over, under, around or through (an opening) and reach the hazard. This means that the robot may NOT reach out beyond the perimeter guarding in any circumstance. The restricted space must be established using limiting devices (usually hard stops). While considered bad design, the enclosure, as you inquired, could be the restricting device if strong enough. You were informed correctlya about ordinary electrical devices. There is a new optional feature available on some new robots called "safety-rated soft axis and space limiting". The various manufacturers have their own names for this optional feature; but it is a safety-rated software feature that limits robot travel and can be used as the limiting device to establish the restricted space (but again this has to be inside the perimeter guarding). In the new R15.06 (2012) the clearance requirement is changed to 20 inches instead of 18, but is now applicable only in areas where there are required tasks and the hazard of a pinch point from an obstruction not supporting the robot task, such as a perimeter guard (fence).

Mike Kunkle from MEK Consulting - Owner
mekconsulting [at] comcast [dot] net (717) 578-9875
Chad, The second person must have an active three position secondary enabling device in his/her position. There are wireless secondary enabling switches and e-stops now available.

Eric Esson from Frommelt Safety Products - National Sales & Marketing Manager
eesson [at] ritehite [dot] com (262) 574-1126
Everybody will interpret this document slightly different. After selling robot guarding for Frommelt Safety Products for over 12 years I always recommended no more than 3" of sweep space. With that said later in that same document you will find a specification stateing that the gap from the walking surface to the bottom of the fixed barrier fencing be no greater than 12" . You are probably safe but if you would like, I could arrange to have our Regional Manager visit your facility. Please give me a call or visit our webwite at frommeltsaefty.com

Mike Kunkle from MEK Consulting - Owner
mekconsulting [at] comcast [dot] net (717) 578-9875
Kyle, The "sweep space" you speak about is 7" in the R15.06-1999 standartd, but has changed to 5" in the R15.06-2012. The barrier openings of 132.00mm are areas where you may reach through the perimeter guarding as long as the robot work envelope is out of reach.

Flossie Mohler from Miller Edge, Inc. - Vice President Sales & Marketing
fmohler [at] milleredge [dot] com (602) 738-8279
You could use safety mats inside the robot cell to prevent the robot from moving while a person is standing inside the cell. Please visit our web site at www.MillerEdge.com to learn more about your options and feel free to contact us. Best Regards, -Flossie

Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com (734) 354-0272
For the "home" button on the pendant to be active you must be in teach mode. When in teach mode, the "home" button on the HMI should no longer be active.

Wade Hickle from Motoman Robotics - Sr. Manager Project Solutions Group
wade [dot] hickle [at] motoman.com (937) 440-2615
There is currently a working group creating a technical report on this subject. While the release date has not been defined, I would expect the document will be publish this year. Overall look and feel is the similar.

Frank Claude from Dunwoody College of Technology - Principle Instructor
fclaude [at] dunwoody [dot] edu (612) 374-5800, x8206
Sounds like this question is related to OSHA's Control of Hazardous Energy LOTO rather than the safety systems on the robot. Anyone who needs to be in the workcell, but is not working specifically with the robot, should have a lock on the primary power to the workcell.

Eric Esson from Frommelt Safety Products - National Sales & Marketing Manager
eesson [at] ritehite [dot] com (262) 574-1126
Yes. Effective January 1, 2012, machine builders and integrators must use EN ISO 13849-1:2008 to prove presumption of conformity with the Machinery Directive. On January 1, 2012, EN 954-1:1996 and EN ISO 13849-1:1999 may no longer be used for this purpose.

Jeff Fryman from Robotic Industries Association - Director, Standards Development
jfryman [at] robotics [dot] org (734) 994-6088
I would draw your attention to clause 4.5.4 and clause 8.1. If you have a new robot that complies with ANSI/RIA/ISO 10218-1-2007 I would call your attention to clause 5.4. This is also similar to the requirement that will be stated in the ISO Part 2 document when it is published later this year, and ultimately in the next edition of R15.06.

Vern Mangold from Kaysafety - President
vmangold [at] ameritech [dot] net (937) 433.1320
Submitted By: Philip Wilson - Application Engineer Submitted Company: McAlister Design, Inc. Mr. Wilson: There are several documents that I can send you. Keep in mind that the key to selecting safety control equipment is the Risk Assessment... Regards, vmangold@ameritech.net

Jeff Fryman from Robotic Industries Association - Director, Standards Development
jfryman [at] robotics [dot] org (734) 994-6088
No. Common sense (and appropriate access needs) applies.

from WireCrafters LLC - President
sdiebold [at] wirecrafters [dot] com (800) 626-1816
There are no requirments concerning width for a robotic cell door.

Chris Anderson from Motoman Robotics - Technology Leader - Thermal Products
chris [dot] anderson [at] motoman.com
Ken, The standard specifies 18 in. of clearance between the robot restricted envelop and barrier at full speed and between operating envelop and barrier at safety speed for teaching. You would want a presence sensor that would be actuated this entire 18 in. distance. An alternate approach is to use the maximum stopping distance of the robot and be sure to place the presence sensing device beyond this distance to allow the robot to stop when the sensor is activated. The Robot Safety Standard has illustrations on how presence sensors should be oriented to properly detect persons entering a field. They have their own stopping time and sensing field distances that need to be factored in to ensure the presence field is activated prior to reaching the robot envelop.

Flossie Mohler from Miller Edge, Inc. - Vice President Sales & Marketing
fmohler [at] milleredge [dot] com (610) 869-4422
The European prEN-999 formula for floor mounted Safe-Guarding Mats is: S = (1600 x T) + 1200mm S is the minimum safety distance is millimeters. The factor of 1600 is based on the standard assumption of 1600mm/s as the approach speed. T is the overall stopping time in seconds. The added 1200mm take into account stride length and arm reach. The overall stopping time T is made up of two parts: T = t1 + t2 (t1) is the maximum time between actuation of the sensing function and the output signal switching devices being in the OFF state. For the RT6, t1 = 20mS (t2) is the response time of the machine i.e. the time required to stop the machine of remove the risks after receiving the output from the ME151-4 Safe-Guarding Mat. The response time of the machine used is the calculations needs to be the worst case time. Some machines have inconsistent response times, which are dependent upon mode of operation, nature of the workpiece and point in the operating cycle at which stopping is initiated.

Gary Bruner from WireCrafters LLC - Production Direction
gbruner [at] wirecrafters [dot] com (800) 626-1816
Ken, The ANSI for Robot and Robot Systems (ANS/RIA R15.06-1999) uses the following formula to determine the safety distance for your presence sensing safeguarding devices Ds = [ K x (Ts + Tc + Tr)] + Dpf Where: Ds = minimum safe distance between safeguarding device and the hazard K = speed constant: 1/6 m/sec (63 inches/sec) minimum based on the movement being the hand/arm only and the body being stationary Ts = worst stopping time of the machine / equipment Tc = worst stopping time of the control system Tr = Response time of the safeguarding device including its interface Dpf = maximum travel towards the hazard within the presence sensing safeguarding devices field that may occur before a stop is signaled. Depth penetration factors will change depending on the type of device and application. That ANS/RIA R15.06-1999 also has several charts and tables that are pretty handy concerning this topic and probably not a bad idea to take a look at.

Vern Mangold from Kaysafety - President
vmangold [at] ameritech [dot] net (937) 433.1320
Submitted By: Ken - Director, Engineering My Company Is: User of robotics technology My Company’s Primary Product or Service is: Plastic packaging My Company is Located: Atlanta, GA USA Ken: You have received the stock answers concerning the distance calculations provided by the various standards that apply. However all of the respondents ignore several other very critical considerations; 1- Single Point of Control 2- Second actor phenomenon 3- Enabling devices 4- Deliberate restart function 5- Hazard avoidance by design 6- Collaborative safeguards 7- OSHA 1910.147 alternative requirements This subject is far more complicated that a simple recitation of the prevailing distances requirements. A Risk Assessment must be performed to assess the risk involved in your specify application. For more information you can contact me at vmangold@ameritech.net Regards, Vern Mangold

Chris Anderson from Motoman Robotics - Technology Leader - Thermal Products
chris [dot] anderson [at] motoman.com
Rob, The "safety clutch" is designed to protect the torch and minimize damage to the TCP. It is not used or designed to safeguard personnel, therefore, I do not think there are any safety standards that would prevent you from changing colors of the cable cover. Alert your customers because they may interpret a change in cable color as a change in design/compatibility.

Chris Anderson from Motoman Robotics - Technology Leader - Thermal Products
chris [dot] anderson [at] motoman.com
Motoman has equipped our turntables with sheet metal guards shaped as semi-circles to "fill" the turning diameter. This creates a round table top profile which fills the entire width of the cell during positioner rotation. Therefore, it eliminates the hazard by not creating the open space when turning. The sheet metal guards reduce the inertia of trying to turn a solid table top.

Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com
Paragraph 8 in ANSI B11.TR3 provides a list of the hierarchy of safeguarding controls. The application of signs and warnings is considered an administrative measure and falls very low in the hierarchy. Depending on the shape of the table, either guards attached to the table as described by Mr. Anderson or fixed curved guards the enclose the open space (as in a revolving door) would seem the most cost effective. Electronic sensing devices would be difficult to apply because they would be interrupted by the table unless muting is applied.

Chris Anderson from Motoman Robotics - Technology Leader - Thermal Products
chris [dot] anderson [at] motoman.com
Motoman completes our rotary table tops with sheet metal sides. These half circle guards create a round shape that blocks access by personnel regardless of the tables indexing position, and eliminates the pinch point hazard. It also does not add to the inertia of the table top. The perimeter of a turning table would present a hazard. I assume your company is concerned that the severity of injury from a pinch point is far greater which is understandable. Without knowing the diameter of the table, it is difficult to determine if guards are practical. We do safeguard the turning table by using presence sensing light curtains spaced far enough away to stop the table when the field is broken. This should require personnel to exit the field prior to re-initiating motion to prevent being trapped in the pinch point.

Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com
I am not aware of and have been unable to find standards that address this topic. The approaches suggested by Mr. Anderson are valid in addressing the hazards. The speed, energy, shape, and hardness of the moving hazard all contribute to the severity of the potential injury as does the point of impact on the body. Even compliant projectiles that leave no physical sign of injury are known to cause death in certain instances when impacting the chest. Impact injuries to the head that may seem insignificant at the time frequently have severe consequences as well. The robot standard addresses robot motion hazards by the application of safeguards and the reduction of speed to a maximum of 250 mm/s. Reduction of speed and energy, elimination of corners and edges, and the application of safeguards should all be considered and applied when practicable.

Mike Jones from Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. - Industrial Skills Instructor
john [dot] m.jones [at] spiritaero.com
If I understand your question correctly, your looking for actual movement stoppage after a shutdown device has been actuated. RIA-15.06, section 9, require that the robot power be shut off to stop its actions upon one of the safety devices, such as light curtains, laser sensing devices have been actuated. The only definition I know of as an actual motion limit would be a hard mechanical stop. This would be an actual hard limit set by the manufacture. Since there are many designs which may effect travel after power down, this would be hard to judge until actual testing on a particular robot has been done. This type of test would be valuable information for the robot end user. In reality, a robot could have more than a few inches of movement after power has been removed during operation, due to the speed, weight and system power design. Very good question and I hope one of hte manufacurers will share some test data on this subject.

Chris Anderson from Motoman Robotics - Technology Leader - Thermal Products
chris [dot] anderson [at] motoman.com
There were several questions regarding safeguarding positioners and this is referencing stopping time of the tooling. The only true test is to place a presence sensor in the path of the rotating tool and measure how far it travels after breaking the sensing field. At Motoman, we publish stopping times for our standard positioners and safeguard standard workcells based on the worst case (max payload, max tool diameter). End Users are advised to adjust the final position of the presence sensors at installation based on the actual diameter of their tooling. Motoman and other Robot suppliers do have published stopping times for their robots. This is based on full rated payload at full rated speed. Users/Integrators should consider end effector dimensions when determining placement of presence sensors.

Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com
One method to determine the stopping time is to use a camera to record the actuation of the safeguarding device (light curtain) and the robot motion. Count the frames, starting with and including both the first frame in which the light curtain indicator displays the interruption and the final frame after which there is no longer any apparent robot motion. The standard frame rate of a digital camera is 30 frames per second or 33.3 ms per frame. If you then add the response time of the light curtain from the manufacturer's data sheet you will have determined the stopping time of the robot. The 33 ms resolution of this method provides a 2.1 inch resolution for the safe distance calculation at an approach speed of 63 inches per second. 1. The light curtain should be triggered at the point of the highest speed of the robot. 2. Use multiple measurements and average the result. 3. If higher resolution is desired, there are high speed cameras available.

Jeff Fryman from Robotic Industries Association - Director, Standards Development
jfryman [at] robotics [dot] org (734) 994-6088
Clearance requirements in the Z434 have to do with the distance between a hazard and an obstruction that could create a pinchpoint. Openings below a perimeter guard may be no larger than 6 inches, but can be zero.

Vern Mangold from Kaysafety - President
vmangold [at] ameritech [dot] net (937) 433-1320
Submitted By: Stephen - Sr. Research Engineer My Company Is: User of robotics technology My Company’s Primary Product or Service is: Applied Research My Company is Located: San Antonio, TX 78238 Stephen: This question is rather difficult to answer without some type of scale schematic. Of course, it may be necessary to create the drawing in a generic form to protect confidentiality. If a schematic is available please send it to my e-mail address, vmangold@ameritech.net Regards, Vern Mangold

Jeff Fryman from Robotic Industries Association - Director, Standards Development
jfryman [at] robotics [dot] org (734) 994-6088
The Z434 document should be sufficient to place the fencing. Key elements to consider are the Restricted Space and the necessary clearance (500mm). Fence may be no closer to the hazard than that dimension. The Z432 standard will probably also be useful as it provides general guarding information.

Jeff Fryman from Robotic Industries Association - Director, Standards Development
jfryman [at] robotics [dot] org (734) 994-6088
If you ask the Brazilians the answer will probably be the applicable ISO standards, which in the case of robots is ISO 10218. Typically US companies will use the US standard - ANSI/RIA R15.06; and if you do, you will be in compliance with the international standards.

Chris Anderson from Motoman Robotics - Technology Leader - Thermal Products
chris [dot] anderson [at] motoman.com
The fact you are asking the question is an indication that you consider it a Risk. At Motoman, we had a door latch that we used as our signal that the door was closed. We changed it to allow it to be opened from the inside for the reason you state (low freq. of exposure, but potentially severe injury). Now, we are using a non-latching door catch that can be opened from inside or out with simple pull force. Non-contact safety rated prox-switches provide the indication the door is closed.