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.

from Robotic Industries Association

Not exactly. R15.06 has a defined "slow" speed, and ISO 10218-1 has a "reduced" speed. Two terms meaning the same thing - 250mm/sec or less (10 inches/sec). That doesn't necessarily mean it is a "safe" speed only that it is a consensus that at or below that speed you should have time to see, perceive, and respond to an empending hazard (assuming you can see the motion). Any speed above that is definitely unsafe.

from Robotic Industries Association

The 1999 standard does not use the term “dual channel”, but rather “control reliable”. The most realistic applications of “control reliable” are circuits that are dual channel with monitoring. That is what the Canadian Z434 standard calls out. The e-stop circuit does not have to be more than single channel electromechanical as called out in NFPA 79. However, safety stop circuits (the circuit used for the safeguarding devices) as called for in the R15.06 do have to be control reliable or in other words dual channel with monitoring.

from Robotic Industries Association

This is not exactly a correct understanding. The OSHA training manual which discusses robot safety says that compliance officers must follow the guidance in R15.06 in instances of robot installations. Since the OSHA document was written in January 1999 and the R15.06 1999 version was published in June 1999, the OSHA document has the (then current) 1992 date for R15.06. Other guidance on the OSHA website will tell you that the current edition of R15.06 is the 1999 standard and the one that needs to be followed. The 1992 document can be purchased from our office as a reference document; but it is no longer the standard for robot safety in the US. Any new installation (or moving of old installations) must comply with the 1999 edition. The 1992 document would be useful to determine if a robot cell installed prior to 2002 is compliant or not. If such a cell is not compliant, then the 1999 standard requires that it be brought up to current standards.

from Robotic Industries Association

You will not find such information in OSHA standards, but rather in the American National Standard for Robot and Robot Systems Safety; the ANSI/RIA R15.06-1999. The 1999 standard “grandfathered” existing robots, that is, robots (and only the robot) that existed prior to 2001 only had to meet the requirements of the standard in effect on their date of manufacture. Any updating to the 1999 standard was voluntary, and old robots can be installed in new systems. New robot installations or cells (and moving of existing cells), on the other hand, have to comply with the 1999 standard. That means any deficiency in compliance caused by using an older (non-complying) robot has to be compensated for. You have identified the most common deficiency in using an old robot. A single run chain robot is not compatible with a category 3 control system. Depending on the design and system architecture, the necessary changes to the control systems may be possible, difficult, not possible, and/or not cost effective. These considerations must be factored into your business case when designing new systems. Is it cost effective (given the necessary additional design work) to use older robots, or would it be more cost effective in the long term to obtain new, more capable, more efficient robots for new installations.

from WireCrafters LLC

I am not sure of the exact requirements to comply with OSHA regulation for guarding such an opening. In all of the robotic cells we have provided, we have never supplied a tunnel to protect an opening. We have provided a mechanized gate that opens when a box passes by a photocell, allows the box to pass through the opening, then closes after the box clears a photo cell outside the opening. Your solution is much more cost effective than the mechanical door, however if an operator really wanted to get into the cell, the tunnel would not keep him out. With a mechanical door, logic could be programmed into the controller to shut the machine down if the door was opened without a box passing by the appropriate photo cell. S Diebold WireCrafters LLC wirecrafters.com

from Robotic Industries Association

No, however there have been suggestions that the colors of machines and guards should contrast for better visibility.

from WireCrafters LLC

Wayne We provide barriers for a number of companies and OEM's. There are no standard colors for the safety guarding. Many people spec black mesh in the barrier fence with yellow posts. The contrast provides a good visual warning, yet the black mesh allows you eye to focus on the equipment behind it. Steve Diebold WireCrafters www.wirecrafters.com

from Robotic Industries Association

Yes, the American National Standard for Robot Safety, ANSI/RIA R15.06-1999 spells out very clearly the clearance requirements inside the robotic work cell as well as other safeguarding requirements. The CSA, in their Z434 standard also has requirements similar to the ANSI document. OSHA references the ANSI document when it needs specifics for a robot cell.

from WireCrafters LLC

Not sure if you are asking about the distance between modules inside of a workcell, or the distance necessary between the barrier fence and the modules inside the workcell. RIA standard 15.06.1999 Table 5 has the answers regarding distances between the fence barrier, and the machines in the cell. Our standard product will allow the fence to be placed as close as 6-1/2 inches to the outside reach of the enclosed equipment. To reduce that distance you would have to spec a tighter mesh in the barrier fence. Steve Diebold WireCrafters 800-626-1816 www.wirecrafters.com

from Robotic Industries Association

The Canadian Machine Guarding Standard is CSA Z432. For robots it is Z434. In Ontario the green book may have additional information or requirements.

from Motoman Robotics

This is not addressed by specific robot standards. It is better addressed by your local gas supplier and is covered in AWS Safety in Welding and Cutting, Z49.1. Chris Anderson Motoman Inc.

from Robotic Industries Association

The system you are describing is strictly prohibited by the current American National Standard for robot safety, ANSI/RIA R15.06-1999. Though I understand you mean well, it would be specifically non-compliant with the existing standard. I would recommend redirecting your effort in a rethink of the design and developing a concept that would be safe and efficient. You may have heard of the "collaborative" robot being considered in the international standard ANSI/RIA/ISO 10218-1-2007. That will not be usable in the US until part 2 of that standard is completed (currently targeted for 2010); and even then, the scenario you are describing would not be allowed based on the current wording of the draft document. I wish you good luck in redesigning your application.

from Pilz Automation Safety L.P.

The ANSI/ISO 10218-1 defined the requirements for safety-rated software defined axes limits. The recent RIA TR15.206 technical report allows the use of this new technology for limiting motion and defining the restricted space. To be considered safety-rated, this function must have a third party certification to category 3. The ABB EPS carries this certification. Therefore, you may use it in place of hard stops. The real advantage is that it can be used on any of the six axes and in logical combinations. The system may also be used in place of 1st axis zone switched in muting applications.

from Robotic Industries Association

The possibility of a modern servo-electric robot running away is a myth; it did not, does not, and will not happen. This is not to say that there might not be unexpected motion because of a programming (human) error. Old, obsolete hydraulic robots could experience failures that made them unsafe.

from Pilz Automation Safety L.P.

The only run-away situations that I know are quite old, dating to the hydraulic robot days. However this does not mean that it has not happened, only that I do not know of any such instance. Roberta Nelson Shea Pilz Automation Safety , L.P.