What standards or regulations define someone being locked in robot enclosure?
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.
» close answers
Can a panel of the cell guarding be manually removed while operating a semi-automated machine? The locating tolerance of the part being placed is within 1mm & changes with every part. Removing the panel will allow the operator to visually inspect the location while operating the controller.
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.
» close answers
In the new R15.06-1 2012 collaborative section, it states that the robot SHALL stop when the human is in the collaborative workspace. Later there is a section on power/force limiting, but there is no specification on what the force is, nor whether that if the force is limited, will the initial "SHALL stop" statement be void. If the robot must stop when a human is near, what is the point of the safety rated power/force limiting?
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.
» close answers
Source? Training DVD video (generic) on Industrial robot safety awareness. Could you give me vendor contacts? Could not find, via Goggle and Utube search. Limited to product Infoads.
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.
» close answers
A turn-key equipment supplier recently gave us a proposal which had a large robot in a relatively narrow self-contained enclosure to perform finish grinding on castings. The robot must use 90%+ of its forward reach capacity to get to the part. However, as the robot spins 180 degrees for a tool change, due to the forward reach requirements, the restricted space goes well outside of the enclosure (by 20+ inches). I asked the supplier if the enclosure was designed to stop the robot and their answer was "no". In my previous experience, there was a requirement of 18" clearance between the restricted envelope and any obstruction or guarding with the hard stops on the robot. Is this still a typical industry standard?
Can electrical devices be installed on the robot to prevent that penetration of the enlcosure and possibly hit someone standing outside of it? I was always told to not trust the electrical safety devices and place the robot cell guarding 18" away from the part / end effector / robot.
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).
» close answers
In a multiple robot cell. When two people are required for a teaching operation (1 teaching,1 spotter). If a second tm is holding another robot teach pendant with an E-stop does this satisfy the requirement for an enabling device or does it have to be a three position deadman switch? This is provided that the second robot teach pendant E-stop will stop the robot being taught as well.
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.
» close answers
ANSI-RIA R15.06-1999, page 29, letter B, states: "Barrier openings shall not be greater than 132.00mm (5.0 inches) unless a risk assessment is performed." Does this apply to the opening underneath permeter guarding, sometimes referred to as a "sweep space"?
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.
» close answers
We have set up a robot cell with pure mechanical interlocks. All doors will be locked and keys pulled off the locks and keys need to stay with the controller to activate the robot. Just realised that somebody will be locked during programming because of this safety system. Is there any other way to solve this and still comply with safety regulations?
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
» close answers
We are designing a HMI Screen that is currently mirroring our robots Teach Pendant program. The only way to manually jog the robot is still through the Teach Pendant. We do, however, have a "home" button on the HMI screen and on the Teach Pendant to send the robot into a safe position before anyone can enter the robotic cell. What can be done to prevent both devices from being "active" at the same time in order to be in compliance with with 10218-1 (single point of control)?
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.
» close answers
Is the Risk Assessment in ANSI R15.06-2012 going to be the same as the Risk Assessment in ISO 10218? Is the draft copy of ANSI R15.06-2012 available?
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.
» close answers
Can an employee enter a work envelope by locking the gate open to mop floors or perform set up on a machine not associated with the robot, e.g, a lathe, etc.. The interlock is wired in safe mode and requires the gate to be closed and two start up buttons to be engaged prior to the robot engagement.
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.
» close answers
Safety Standards - Is EN ISO 13849-1 relevant in North America, specifically the U.S.?
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.
» close answers
We currently have a robotic inspection cell. There is a monument parallel to a robot on a track. If we could mount a second monument on the other side of the robot we could have two inspection cells with one robot. Inspection cell A could be unloaded and loaded by personel while inspection cell B is inspecting.
The robot has an electronic work envelope that limits where it can go. If we set up two electronic work envelopes and light curtains outside of those envelopes to isolate the two sides/work cells, does this meet the ANSI safety standards? One rep said yes, others say no.
Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com
You certainly can but care must be taken that the electronic motion limit (dynamic limiting) meets the safguarding performance criteria established by your risk assessment so that the robot will be stopped reliably if it enters the other zone.
» close answers
During the RIA Conference it was stated that a means of egress shall be made available from inside a robot cell. Does this apply to single robot cells and where is it located? In What Standard?
Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com
There is no specific requirement for means of egress in the current 15.06 standard. There are several requirements, however, the personnel must exit the hazardous area prior to startup or resumption of automatic mode and that while in the area an enabling device must be used when power is available to the robot.
Normal means of egress are the same as the means of entry.
» close answers
How close can a robot come to a service gate? Is there a minimum distance or law that states how far it can come towards the gate?
Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com
The distance between the robot envelope and a physical obstruction are dependent on the motion.
At slow speed the requirement is 18 inches from the operating envelope, while at high speed it is 18 inches from the restricted envelope.
» close answers
I should have been less ambiguous in my question. Section 11.1 of RIA15.06:1999, it states in section (e) that fixed barriers shall require the use of tools to remove any fixed portion.
Can a barrier be considered "fixed" if it has the ability to be locked? The key to the lock would only be available to trained maintenance personnel. In this sense, the key would be a tool. It would require a deliberate action by someone to gain access through the barrier.
Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com
Technically no, you are trying to stretch the definition. A lock and key is used only for movable guards. They provide simple and fast access. You are creating a gate in an otherwise fixed guard. Movable guards must be interlocked.
» close answers
Section 11.1 of RIA15.06:1999, it states in section (e) that fixed barriers shall require the use of tools to remove any fixed portion.
Does the key in "key-lock" fixed barrier fulfill the requirements of a "tool." There is no definition for what a tool is, in the definitions.
In other words, is a "key" a tool?
Thanks
Jeff Fryman from Robotic Industries Association - Director, Standards Development
jfryman [at] robotics [dot] org (734) 994-6088
Definitions in the robot safety standard are only included for terms that have a specific contextual requirement in the standard. Common terms such as "tool" are adequately (and appropriately) defined in standard dictionaries. For the purpose of Clause 11.1, a tool would be a wrench, pliers, or screwdriver. A "hex key" or "Allen wrench" used to remove a cap screw would be an example of a tool and fixing system for fixed barriers.
What is intended to be prohibited by this clause would be fence panels that are only hung on hooks, wing nuts that could be removed by hand, or other type "snap" closures.
Removing a fixed barrier is intended to require a deliberate action. Moveable barriers (those designed to be moved by hand and not require tools) need to be interlocked.
Chris Anderson from Motoman Robotics - Technology Leader - Thermal Products
chris [dot] anderson [at] motoman.com
Keys are normally associated with interlocks. In your description the key is required to remove the barrier, so yes, it is a tool.
» close answers
I need to write a robotics safety policy for our company and need some direction or sample policies to go off of. Can I get some help or direction with this?
Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com
Suggest you try the OSHA web site. They have published Guidelines for Robotics Safety, STD 01-12-002. You can find it at
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=DIRECTIVES&p_id=1703
» close answers
What do the standards say about distance between the entry/exit safeguarding into and out of a robot paint booth and the part?
Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com
Very good question as there are obviously potential crushing / shearing hazards at these points. Safeguardingsuch as light curtains with muting or profile gates should be provided to prevent access to these areas.
A good reference standard would be EN 349, SAFETY OF MACHINERY - MINIMUM GAPS TO AVOID CRUSHING OF PARTS OF THE HUMAN BODY
» close answers
Is there a safety standard available for using limit switches to limit motion of a six axis robot?
Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com
15.06 provides the requirements for safeguarding performance based on a risk assessment. This would apply to limiting the robot motion using "limit" switches as well.
You'll have to look to the Euro standards for a specification for the actual switch device, however. In general, it should be positve acting, meaning the contacts are mechanically forced open.
» close answers
Regarding fixed barrier guards, what kind of impact from a robot would a fixed barrier guard have to sustain? In other words, if somebody is standing next to the fixed barrier guard outside the safeguarded space and the robot impacts fixed barrier guarding through some mishap how much deflection should fixed barrier guard allow to protect person standing next to it?
Jeff Fryman from Robotic Industries Association - Director, Standards Development
jfryman [at] robotics [dot] org (734) 994-6088
First of all, the R15.06 safety standard clearly states that the perimeter guarding shall be no closer than the restricted space. Therefore the robot should never impact the guard. If (and I always preface this with the comment "bad design") the guard is the limiting device setting the restricted space, then the limiting device must stop the robot at full rated speed and load. Depending on the size of the robot and the mass of the object being carried, this force value could be a large number on the order of 3000 N or more. The amount of deflection allowed is zero. Anyone standing outside of a robot enclosure must be assured of no danger.
Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com
As Mr. Fryman has stated, if the barrier guard is the limiting device no deflection should be allowed.
Some standards, however, use a limit of 150 Newtons force for significant risk.
» close answers
As far as a load area surrounding a tool, what is the minimum height for any low barrier fencing that guards against migration into the cell around the tool? Assuming the robot work path is not a concern for interference.
Chris Anderson from Motoman Robotics - Technology Leader - Thermal Products
chris [dot] anderson [at] motoman.com
Minimum height is 1.5 m or 60 in. per 11.1.f. If it is lower, then you need additional safeguards to prevent access into the cell.
At a 60 in. height, persons can reach over the barrier. Additional safeguarding needs to be provided if reaching into the cell will create a hazard. The remainder of clause 11.1 and Table 5 in the Standard are similar to OSHA fencing guidelines.
Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com
The general requirement for guarding is a minimum height of 1.5 meters. The minimum height at a loading area is not specified in either RIA 15.06 or ISO 10218.
ANSI B11.19 Annex D and ISO13857 provide tables for guard height vs distance to the hazard. Guards below 1.0 meter height are not listed becuase they do not provide sufficient body restriction. It is required for gurds less than 1.4 meters in height that additional safety measures are used.
» close answers
Is there an internationally recognized safety symbol for an industrial robot?
I am looking for approvals documentation on using a wireless pendant in an industrial safety application.
Vern Mangold from Kaysafety - President
vmangold [at] ameritech [dot] net (937) 433.1320
Mr. Dan Junker
Your question is a good one considering that cordless teach pendants are curently not allowed for use in the US market. I would be happy to forward toyou the ISO statutes that govern the use of these devices in Europe and other parts of the world.
Vern Mangold
Kaysafety
vmangold@ameritech.net
» close answers
Email This Page
Print This Page
