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.

Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com (734) 354-0272
In terms of RIA 15.06, exposure is either frequent or infrequent. Frequent exposure is defined as more than once per hour and infrequent as less than once per day or shift. Use your own judgement for exposures with frequency between those limits. The European standards tend to look at both frequency and duration. Frequent might for instance be defined as more than twice per shift or of duration more than 10 minutes depending on the example provided in the standards. The examples are not requirements, however.

Jeff Fryman from Robotic Industries Association - Director, Standards Development
jfryman [at] robotics [dot] org (734) 994-6088
In addition to whatever requirements the MOL legislation says about safe work places, the specific answer to your question is in Clause 2.5 (a) of the current Canadian National Standard CSA Z434-03. You had until 2004 to bring your robot cells in compliance.

Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com (734) 354-0272
15.06-1999 provides the same requirements in clause 1.3.4 as those in Z434, clause 2.5.

Jeff Fryman from Robotic Industries Association - Director, Standards Development
jfryman [at] robotics [dot] org (734) 994-6088
The guidance you need is in the ANSI/RIA/ISO 10218-1-2007 and the RIA TR R15.206-2008 which provides guidance for using the new ISO standard in lieu of Clause 4 of the R15.06. This guidance has not been specifically adopted in Canada, but the guidance would be the same to the Z434 which contains the same requirements. The manufacturer is required to provide the capability of a hard stop on the primary axis, but if the user chooses to employ the optional soft stops described in 5.12.3 of ISO 10218-1 (Dual Check Safety per one vendor) then they do not have to use the hard stop.

Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com (734) 354-0272
A sample risk assessment is provided in Annex C of ANSI/RIA 15.06-1999.

Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com (734) 354-0272
I will have to admit that I have never seen one actually used in this manner but essentially it would provide the same protection as a light curtain. The standard does not limit the application and at least one supplier indicates his device may be used in this fashion. Resolution is limited to hand, arm or full body so this needs to be taken into account when calculating the safe distances.

Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com (734) 354-0272
The standard itself provides a pretty good overview, especially clauses 7, Safeguarding of personnel - Introduction, and 8, Safeguarding of personnel - Prescribed method. Annex A provides further graphical aids to understanding the standard.

Jeff Fryman from Robotic Industries Association - Director, Standards Development
jfryman [at] robotics [dot] org (734) 994-6088
Those are still the latest documents for the robot system. If you are working with new robots, you might want a copy of ISO 10218-1:2006; or the ANSI/RIA/ISO 10218-1-2007 that describe new robot features, but not system integration.

Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com (734) 354-0272
Hard limits restrict the robot maximum operating envelope and thereby reduce the safeguarded area required. The robot movement is "restricted". For high speed attended verification, the minimum distance between the robot maximum operating envelope and the perimeter guarding is 18 inches if hard stops are not provided. When hard limits are in place, the effective robot operating area is reduced. Refer to figure A.2 in the standard for a graphic representation. Also refer to clauses 10.2 Limiting robot motion, 10.7 Safeguarding the teacher, and 10.8 Safeguarding personnel during program verification.

Robin Schmidt from ABB Inc. - Chief Engineer
robin [dot] r.schmidt [at] us.abb.com (248) 391-9000
Any robot cell requires the restricted space of the robot (typically the Hard stop protected area) to we within the perimeter guarding, the primary exception is when the structure can withstand ( is an engineered solution) the full force of the robot. Recently the standards allow a Safety Rated control alternative to hard stop called "Safety Rated Axis Limiting or Safety Rated volume limiting" to define the restricted space. This solution is considered equivalent to Hard stops but only the latest generation of robots have this feature offered typically as an option. These new features can allow you to reduce or shape the restricted space in a way that was impossible with mechanical hard stops. It allow you to define the restricted space just as you need it, within the guarding you have.

Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com (734) 354-0272
From a safety perspective the issue is to prevent robot motion rather than just keeping the door open. Many methods are available but a couple of the simplest are: 1. Captive key control so that the operator maintains possession of the key until he leaves the area 2. A lockable cover over the reset button for the access door on which the operator can apply his personal lock. 3. Some safety gate switches have an actuator tongue that will accept a lock to prevent the guard from being closed. I hope this helps.

Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com (734) 354-0272
Light curtains may be muted when the robot is operating away from the operator provided robot motion into the space occupied by the operator is prevented by safeguards that meet the requirements determined by the risk assessment, such as additional light curtains or cam operated limit switches. Requirements for software and firmware based controllers are clearly defined in clause 6.4 of the 1999 standard (and other machinery safety standards).

Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com (734) 354-0272
The term "interlock" applies to the use of movable guards. Where guards are movable, they must be interlocked either to prevent access during hazardous motion or to stop hazardous motion when the guard is moved. Example 1: A gate that provides access into a robot cell may be interlocked to prevent openning the gate until motion has stopped. Determination of the cessation of motion may be by means of a speed sensor or by a time delay that is sufficient to assure the motion has stopped after removal of power. Example 2: A gate interlock (switch) that signals a stop to the robot and associated equipment when the gate is opened. The gate is positioned far enough from the exposed hazards to ensure they have stopped before they can be reached.

Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com
The standards do not specify procedures. Each application is different and the requirements would be dependent on the types of energy present. There is a sample policy and procedure in ANSI/ASSE Z244.1. You could also contact the robot manufacturer, but all sources of hazardous energy within the robot cell needs to be controlled as well.