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.

Chris Anderson from Motoman Robotics - Technology Leader - Thermal Products
chris [dot] anderson [at] motoman.com (937) 847-6200
You should confirm with the robot manufacturer the safety rating of the particular "fence open" circuit. On a Motoman robot, the nomenclature is different, but the safety circuit is Category 3 and it will remove drive power when open in Automatic Operation. In Teach mode, it will allow drive power to be applied with enabling device and motion is limited to slow speed control.

Chris Anderson from Motoman Robotics - Technology Leader - Thermal Products
chris [dot] anderson [at] motoman.com (937) 847-6200
It is a subtle difference, but Table 2 is meant to be used prior to safeguards being applied and directly effects the safeguarding selection. Table 4 is meant to be applied after the safeguards are in place to determine their effectiveness. If you need to do a task on a large robot inside the safeguarded space while drive power is applied; it might result in the S2, E1, A1 criteria you described. This warrants a safeguard such as an interlocked barrier on the safeguarded space (can be single channel with monitoring). With the safeguard in place and using Table 4 you have E1, A1, and still have the potential for S2, but the safeguard has reduced exposure and increased ability to avoid resulting in Risk Reduction Category of R3B which is acceptable. If you would have a remaining condition that made it difficult to avoid the hazard, then it would push you into R2B and you would have to apply additional safeguarding.

Eric Esson from Frommelt Safety Products - National Sales& Marketing Manager
eesson [at] ritehite [dot] com (262) 574-1126
Andrew: My company has dealt with a number of applications with other auto manufacturers in the US similar this application. They have addressed this issue by using our interlocked automated barrier doors in conjunction with area scanners to restrict/prevent or control access to this potentially hazardous application. Please feel free to contact me at eesson@ritehite.com

Flossie Mohler from Miller Edge, Inc. - Vice President Sales & Marketing
fmohler [at] milleredge [dot] com (610) 869-4422
I'd like to gain a better understanding of the situation. I'm wondering if a safety mat placed on the floor in the danger zone would help? Based on your brief description it's hard to tell for sure. Please call me or perhaps email a photo?

Miles Purvis from ProSafe Inc. - General Manager
mpurvis [at] prosafeinc [dot] ca (519) 272-0486 x201
Andrew. While the equipment may have been installed before the introduction of Pre-Start Health and Safety reviews it does not exempt the company from making these lifts safe. If the operation and motion of these lifts expose personnel to hazardous motion then Section 24 and 25 of the Ontario Regulation 851 would require that fixed guarding or safeguarding be installed. If a safeguarding devices (i.e. light curtain, safety mat etc.) were installed to meet these requirements it would trigger the requirement for a Pre-Start Health and Safety review to be performed on the modification (in accordance with Ontario Regulation 851 Section 7).

Kevin Harris from ProSafe Inc. - Safety Associate
kharris [at] prosafeinc [dot] ca (519) 272-0486
Hi, You may be able to use the CSA Standard, CSA Z460-05, Control of Hazardous Energy Lockout and Other Methods, section 7.4 Other hazardous energy control methods. This section allows the use of engineering safeguards as an alternative to full zero energy lockout. Appropriate tasks as listed in 7.4.2 To be considered integral to production, designed tasks shall exhibit most of the following characteristics: (a) of short duration; (b) relatively minor in nature; (c) occurring frequently during the shift or production day; (d) usually performed by operators or others functioning as operators; (e) represent predetermined cyclical activities; (f) minimally interrupt the operation of the production process; (g) exist even when optimal operating levels are achieved; and (h) require task-specific personnel training. I would recommend you review this standard and the applicable sections to determine whether your tasks meet the criteria and whether an engineering safeguard is applicable.

Chris Anderson from Motoman Robotics - Technology Leader - Thermal Products
chris [dot] anderson [at] motoman.com (937) 847-6200
The Robot Safety Requirements - Part 1 ANSI/RIA/ISO 10218-1-2007 does not have any clauses related to date of implementation. It does equate the Part 1 of ISO standard to Clause 4 of the R15.06-1999 Standard for Manufacture of Robots. The Draft 2 of R15.06-201x does have narrative text in the Introduction that basically aligns with 1.3. Existing cells are under R15.06-1999 until publication of the new standard. They allow a "grace" period for cells in planning at time of publication and installed prior to a TBD date. I was involved in the draft of earlier standards and we included the 1.3 clauses under the Scope in the body of the standard. This was so it would carry declarative weight similar to Resolutions in Minutes. Enforcement weight is not given to information in the Introduction or Annexes.

Chris Anderson from Motoman Robotics - Technology Leader - Thermal Products
chris [dot] anderson [at] motoman.com (937) 847-6200
You don't reference the payload of the gantry or is the gaging table involves manual intervention or is an automatic operation. If the part is a suspension, then the gantry likely has the payload to cause serious injury. If the inspection is automated, then it is an infrequent exposure for an operator. You can use these criteria to complete a risk assessment as outlined in Robot Safety Standard, R15.06, to determine safeguarding category. The interlocked barrier should obviously stop the robot when it is opened.

Jeff Fryman from Robotic Industries Association - Director, Standards Development
jfryman [at] robotics [dot] org (734) 994-6088
I generally don't respond to robot type specific questions, but found this one interesting so I referred it to a friend with good knowledge of the FANUC robots. His response: "Good question. First North American release of the R-J2 controller/software was June 1995, or roughly 4 years before R15.06-1999 was adopted. I checked the controller manual for R-J2 and I did not see any reference to an optional product interface for Dual Chain to Single Chain. It is not possible to replace the control system of the R-J2 single chain robot with a dual chain implementation (as far as I know). They would be better off buying a later generation robot if robot must be Control Reliable. FANUC does have conversion interfaces (single to dual) for later controllers (R-J3 and R-J3iB) but they are not available for R-J2 (dual to single), to my knowledge. On the PSHSR requirements I can’t say if the Canadians will allow for older single chain equipment to be used in a cell such as this. The R15.06 standard is clear you don’t need to upgrade the robot, but they need to make provisions for the entire cell following the current standard and it must be reflected in the Risk Assessment. Ideally there are no interactions that require Control Reliable interface, only single channel engineering controls." I hope this helps with your planning. His reference to the R15.06 in the USA is identical to the requirements in the Z434 in Canada, and the Ontario MOL recognizes both.

Roberta Nelson Shea from Safety Compliance Services, LLC - Consultant
robertanelson [at] shea [dot] us (248) 719-8242
You will have to add another channel to the stop circuitry and another contactor. There are various ways to implement this. Whoever you use for Pre-start reviews should be able to help you with the most cost effective solution.

Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com (734) 354-0272
R15.06-1999, clause 1.3.2 specifies that rebuilt or redeployed robots are required to meet the standard in effect on the date of original manufacture. Once in place, however, they must meet clause 1.3.4 which calls out clause 10.3.2 and must be retrofitted to include an enabling device (not necessarily to a 3 position switch).

Roberta Nelson Shea from Safety Compliance Services, LLC - President / Consultant
RobertaNelson [at] Shea [dot] us (248) 719-8242
If you use the teach pendant inside the safeguarded space, then you are required to have an enabling device. Existing robots that do not have an enabling device, are not required to integrate a 3 position enabling switch. However you are required to have an enabling device (2 position) for each person who would be inside the safeguarded space when power is available. Contact Motoman and request an upgrade of the Teach pendant, so that includes an enabling device.

Chris Anderson from Motoman Robotics - Technology Leader - Thermal Products
chris [dot] anderson [at] motoman.com (937) 847-6200
You do not need to retrofit an enabling device to your MRC robot. While 10.3.2 specifies that pendants w/o enabling device be retrofitted, it adds in the last sentence, "Pendants with a motion function which requires continuous activation to allow robot motion also meet the intent of this requirement". All Motoman robots have required continuous activation of motion keys and they do not support High Speed APV. Most welding workcells are installed such that they comply with 1.3.4 a) and interrupt automatic cycle when restricted space is intruded (most drop drive power).

Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com (734) 354-0272
The CEC requires that overcurrent devices "be enclosed in cut-out boxes or cabinets unless they form part of an approved assembly that affords equivalent protection, or unless..." Yes, they must be enclosed. C22.1-09, 14-108.

Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com (734) 354-0272
Whether in automatic or manual mode, it is still a robot cell. The requirements of clause 10.9 will apply. There is no specific clause for manual operation except those found in 10.10 for maintenance but the requirements should apply including the requirements of 10.8.5, clearance for high speed attended Program verification.

Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com (734) 354-0272
Please keep in mind that EN 954-1 will expire this year. Clause 9 of RIA 15.06-1999 provides: " A number of methoda are available to do a risk assessment. Any method is acceptable which prescribes safeguarding equivalent to or more stringent than the requirements of this clause." The parameters for severity, frequency of exposure, and possibility of avaoidance in 954-1 are not clearly defined and depending on the actual values applied, may not meet the requiresment of RIA 15.06.

Chris Anderson from Motoman Robotics - Technology Leader - Thermal Products
chris [dot] anderson [at] motoman.com (937) 847-6200
The robot safety software was introduced in the ISO 10218-1 standard. The use of the function will be addressed in the part 2 release of ISO 10218-1. RIA has published a Technical Report - Guidelines for Implementing ANSI/RIA/ISO 10218-1-2007 (RIA TR15.206-2008. It is helpful for connecting dots between R15.06 and ISO 10218-1. It basically equates safety categories between 15.05 clause 4.5 Safety circuit performance and recreates table 3 for clause 9.5 with both 15.06 and ISO ratings. The Clause 6.4 of R15.06 specify testing by National Lab, but the TR indicates testing to ISO standard by International Lab satisfies clause 6.4. This would be available from Robot Mfg.

Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com (734) 354-0272
Great question and Chris' answer is right on target. We are going to see a lot more embeded safety, not just in robots. With a typical 5 year cycle for standards revision, it's going to be a while until they catch up with technology.

Roberta Nelson Shea from Safety Compliance Services, LLC - President
robertanelson [at] shea [dot] us (248) 719-8242
Chris is correct about the standards (R15.06 and ISO 10218) and the technical report (R15.206). If the software has approval to ISO 13849-1 pl D, structure category 3, then it can be used and relied on for safety. If you are referring to Fanuc's DCS, Fanuc has told me that DCS has the required approval. Just make sure that you understand exactly which portion of the robot system has safety approvals. It might only be the emergency stop or might be for restricting the robot space or more.