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 have a number of die casting machines that are robot loaded and unloaded. The machines have light curtians on both the front (operator) area and side (robot) area. When the operators have to tilt the cope it breaks the front light curtians which e-stop the robot. To reset, the operator must hold an opto-touch and press a reset button together. I have been asked to add a bypass key switch for the front light curtians which will bypass only the front light curtians for the cope tilt. The robot would receive a cycle stop to finish it's task. The robot side light curtians would remain active and latch if broken e-stopping the robot. My question is if this is in compliance with the 15.06 standard?
Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com
Bypassing or muting the light curtain should only be accomplished by a safety-related circuit of equivalent performance.
If your objective is to alleviate the reset procedure, I would suggest this can be accomplished by a request to enter function to allow the robot to complete the current task. After completion of the robot task, the robot can be placed in a safe state and the light curtain bypassed while tilting the cope.
Vern Mangold from Kaysafety - President
vmangold [at] ameritech [dot] net (937) 433.1320
Tommy Hahn:
Your sitaution is common in the die casting and related foundry industries. During my career I have designed and installed over 400 robot die casting systems. In addition I was chairman of the North American Die Casting Association safety committee that produced and published the current ANSI B152 Safety standard. I have a collection of specific designe options for improving your current process. Please e-mail me at vmangold@ameritech.net
Regards, Vern Mangold
» close answers
I work for a die cast company and use many robots to load, unload from the die cast, place scrap in tubs etc. The guarding around the robot cell is hard fastened to the floor and fully interlocked gates for entry into the work space. We have openings to move in and out scrap tubs. When the tubs are in place, the entire opening is closed off as to not allow anyone from entering the robot work area. The robots do not run when the tub is out as the scrap would end up on the floors and extra time would be needed to clean the floor area within the robot cell.(LOTO would be required to do this). The question is: Is having the tubs in place when the robot is running a sufficient method of keeping people out of the robot work space or do I need to put in a light curtain, some type of interlock between the fencing and the tubs or other method to meet ANSI robot guarding standards?
Chris Anderson from Motoman Robotics - Technology Leader - Thermal Products
chris [dot] anderson [at] motoman.com
The question is a form of a Risk Assessment (what-if). You indicate you do not run the cell without the tubs in place for practical reasons. However, there is no information on how you prevent the cell from running when the tubs are removed. It sounds like an interlock to make sure the tubs are present would both safeguard personnel and prevent the robot from making a mess. The areas around the opening of the tub should be guarded such than personnel can not access the hazard and parts can not hit personnel.
» close answers
A guard, to contain the full energy of a robot, needs to be carefully designed and be very substantial. What deflection of the guard is permissible under full impact conditions? Zero deflection would be unrealistic but if a person is leaning on the outside of the guard, opposite the point of impact, even a small deflection could cause injury? Can Safety-rated soft axis and space limiting software, offered with some of the latest robots, be used to minimise the risk of the Robot running into the guard and potentially people? Can a lower strength guard like a perimeter fence guard style be used in combination with this dual processor zone check software? Are there other options where the work envelope is small or irregularly shaped and mechanical limits are not possible to contain the robot motion without using a fortress style guard?
Regards, James
Chris Anderson from Motoman Robotics - Technology Leader - Thermal Products
chris [dot] anderson [at] motoman.com
Most robot installations use commercial fencing for perimeter guarding. It is unintended operation that would cause the robot to contact the barrier, so frequency is low and exposure is low. With the fencing anchored to the floor, it will stop most robots by causing the motors to overload. The fence may deflect, but it will certainly reduce severity of injury.
There are clearance requirements between the robot envelop and barrier that may prevent contact. You are right that the dual processor zone check software in robots is allowable as a limiting device in the new release of 10218-1 and can be used to provide this clearance. The clearance between restricted envelop and barrier is mandated when the robot is equipped with high speed attended program verification.
Vern Mangold from Kaysafety - President
vmangold [at] ameritech [dot] net (937) 433.1320
James:
Your question is long but suffice it to say, they analsis remains simple. Always consider answerein the question""Does a risidual hazard remain?" As a past chairman of the RIA safety committee and current Chairman of the AWS safety committee I have collected a significant amount of safety stanadard inforamtion that I would be happy to share with you. My former manufacturing company, KOHOL Systems designed, manufactured and installed over $54 million of robots and and advanced automation. If you e-mail me I can send you inforamtion concerning your specific questions but this format unfortunately does not allow me to include important attachments.
Regards,
Vern Mangold, vmangold@ameritech.net
» close answers
Do you forsee requirements for redundant valves in pneumatic systems or some similar impact on pneumatic systems in the upcomming release of R!A 15.06?
Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com
The safety-related controls performance requirements of RIA 15.06 is not limited to only electrical/electronic circuits. It applies equally to pneumatics and hydraulics. If your risk assessment requires Control Reliable performance, your valves will also have to be redundant and monitored.
Vern Mangold from Kaysafety - President
vmangold [at] ameritech [dot] net (937) 433.1320
Gary:
Redundancy is a matter of Risk Assessment analysis. Elimination of hazards is the issue. Of course, if a hazard can be eliminated without redundancy then there should no need to incorporate a redundant system. The R15.06 will not make a statutory requirement for redundancy.
I can send more information on this subject if you wish.
Regards,
Vern Mangold vmangold@ameritech .net
» close answers
What does the standard say about fencing around a robot and its height?
Steve Diebold from WireCrafters LLC - President
sdiebold [at] wirecrafters [dot] com (800) 626-1816
The generic answer is …All safeguarding devices shall be securely installed and located at a distance such that the hazard can not be accessed.
When using barriers the minimum safe distance for fixed barriers with openings (like Wire Mesh) is determined by the barrier opening smallest dimension. So if the mesh opening is:
.626" – 1.25" Minimum Distance 6.5 inches (1 ¼ x 3 welded or 2" x 1" woven meet this standard)
1.251" – 1.875" Minimum Distance 17.5 inches
1.876" - 5" Minimum Distance 36 inches
Also, the barrier must contain parts and tooling (e.g. loose objects, flying projectiles) so the robots function, parts handled, work done, etc all have an effect on determining the composition and height of the guard.
Hope this helps
Steve Diebold
WireCrafters
Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com
Clause 11.1 f requires that barriers shall:
"f) be positioned so the bottom of the barrier is no more than 0.3 m (12 inches) above adjacent walking surfaces, that the top of the barrier be no lower than 1.5 m (60 inches) above adjacent walking surfaces" unless additional safeguarding devices are supplied to prevent access.
Vern Mangold from Kaysafety - President
vmangold [at] ameritech [dot] net (937) 433.1320
Ralph:
Fence Heights are provided in r15.06, ASME B11.15, and AWS D16.2 as well as others. If you send me an e-mail I will forward additional information concerning specific paragraphs of the relevant standards.
Regards,
Vern Mangold vmangold@ameritech.net
» close answers
Are there new emerging standards for robot safety?
We have have heard from customers that they require their existing system reviewed for compliance with the 2010 standards.
Could you refer me to a location where I can acquire the most recent standards?
Steve Diebold from WireCrafters LLC - President
sdiebold [at] wirecrafters [dot] com (800) 626-1816
Yes, new standards for robotic safety are emerging. However they are under development, and have not been put out for comment. So it should be some time before they are finalized.
The current standard is 1999 ANSI standard. You can get that from ANSI, or any professional guarding manufacturer should be able to help you with a design.
Hope that helps
Steve Diebold
WireCrafters
Vern Mangold from Kaysafety - President
vmangold [at] ameritech [dot] net (937) 433.1320
Dave:
To date the prevailing standard is the R15.06-1999 standard. The current US standard is currently undergoing the rewrite process. If you want the ISO standards information that was adopted in 2009 please e-mail me at vmangold@ameritech.net.
Regards,
Vern Mangold
» close answers
I am using the 15.06 risk assessment on some of our equipment. I am new to this task, having inherited it from another engineer who left. So far, I have performed the initial assessment, selected and applied the appropriate safeguarding; now I am validating my guarding using Table 4. Some of my tasks are maintenance tasks whose initial assessments were in the R2 range. The safeguarding for these tasks is locking out the machine power - as long as power stays locked out, the machine cannot start and the hazards do not really exist. How do I show that in the post-safeguarding section of my risk assessment? From the 15.06 sample form, it looks like I set Exposure and Avoidance to E1 and A1, respectively, but I want to be sure - is that all I must do, or am I reading it wrong?
Chris Anderson from Motoman Robotics - Technology Leader - Thermal Products
chris [dot] anderson [at] motoman.com
Yes; Exposure, Avoidance, and Severity will all drop down if the machine is locked out. The main point is the Risk Category shown in the right most column on the example in Annex C. For my use, if the hazard is eliminated, then I note R4 in Risk Category. The factors of Exposure, Avoidance, and Severity help classify the Category when assessing the hazard.
Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com
Your interpretation is correct as it is the only way to apply the chart.
Technically, by locking out you have eliminated the robot hazard if you also verify removal of power before proceding with the task..
Vern Mangold from Kaysafety - President
vmangold [at] ameritech [dot] net (937) 433.1320
Douglas Hauck:
If you examine the Clause Nine language carefully you will notice that the explanatory notes declaration that the tables are not exclusively determinant. The RIA example is merely one example that can be used. I assume that your robots are of the high energy, high payload variety. For more definitive I recommend that you read the AWS Risk Assessment D16.3. I can send you a copy if you e-mail me at vmangold@ameritech.net.
Regards,
Vern Mangold vmangold@ameritech.net
» close answers
What are the current options for camera based, robot safety systems? Is there anything else besides PILZ SafetyEYE?
Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com
Not at this time. A competitive product was expected in 2009, but there has been no activity or news since late 2008.
Vern Mangold from Kaysafety - President
vmangold [at] ameritech [dot] net (937) 433.1320
Submitted By: Darcy Simpson - Electrical Engineer
Submitted Company: Ministry of Labour, Ontario, Canada
Darcy:
Yes, there are a number of high quality machine vision systems available from companies such as Cognex, etc. Of course any vision system must comply with R15.06 standards or equivalent CSA standards. The Pilz equipment is advertised as "safety Rated' but that claim alone does not make the system safe for its intended application. Risk Assessment must be performed to adequately determine the use of any safeguard technology.
For more information you can e-mail me at vmangold@ameritech.net
» close answers
My question is about the strength of the guard around a robot. We are building a machine that an operator will be within the reach of a robot. There will be a guard door with a interlock switch that is tied into the robot E-Stop. If the door is open the robot will stop. The problem is that the robot could break through the door guard. My question is, does the guarding system around a robot need to be stronger than any force the robot can apply or is it enough that the door interlock switch will trip if the door is broke through?
Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Training Coordinator
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com
In your application, the guarding defines the restricted space. In that case, it definitely must be able to contain the robot motion. Even if the robot breaking through the door would generate a stop it is already too late. Any individual standing adjacent to the door would be struck by the door and the robot.
» close answers
I am adding unload robots to some existing industrial X-ray machines. While doing the electrical engineering for this project I became aware that the existing safety circuit is single channel E-stops in series interrupting the MCR latch. My question is in updating this to control reliable with monitoring for the robot additions, if I incorporate a second N/C E-stop chain and run each chain to a safety rated relay (AB 700S-CF620DC) then monitor each relay through the PLC (SLC5/05) for channel imbalance, then add both safety relays N/O and the PLC controlled imbalance relay N/O (requiring reset if channel imbalance is detected), would this satisfy the definition of a control reliable system with monitoring (type 3 or better)? If a schematic is desired, e-mail me at hahnt@divmi.com.
Jeff Fryman from Robotic Industries Association - Director, Standards Development
jfryman [at] robotics [dot] org (734) 994-6088
As this is a "controls" question, I invited one of controls engineers to comment. This is his response.
A copy of the schematic would be helpful here, but to answer based on the available information:
Series E-stops are OK only if you use fault exclusion. The operation of more than 1 E-stop would mask existing faults. Normally it can be assumed that only 1 E-stop would be operated at a given time. This cannot be assumed for interlocked access!
Monitoring the contactors using a standard PLC is not acceptable. The problem is the diagnostic coverage using the PLC is zero (less than 60%) according to ISO 13849-1. It will fail to an unknown state. If you check the graph below from 13849, the safety performance level is indeterminate .
Nothing is mentioned about the final power switching devices. Are they safety rated, redundant and monitored? The entire circuit must be evaluated.
Our recommendation is to use a safety relay to monitor the series connected, dual channel emergency stop switches. Any output buffering contactors as well as the final power switching devices must be monitored by the relay.
Vern Mangold from Kaysafety - President
vmangold [at] ameritech [dot] net (937) 433.1320
Tommy Hahn:
I beleve that I responded to you previously. Yes, a schematic would certainly help the analysis process. Please forwad the shematic to vmangold@ameritech.net
Regards,
Vern Mangold
» close answers
Under 1910.147 a 2 ii, we enter the robotic cell to change tips on robotic weld guns by using a master controls switch that interrupts the control circuitry. Robots cannot be placed into teach mode to move the robot nor can other ancillary equipment in the cell will move.
Two questions: Can this procedure be used during non-production periods of time to enter a robotic cell to perform routine and repetitive tip changes?
If during production time we need to perform non-routine or non-repetitive work on a single robot in the cell and we lockout all energy sources to THAT robot, can we consider the work as two activities: a) service a robot using lockout and b) passing through or working with the operating envelope of adjacent robot(s) by using the above procedure because the activity of passing through the cell is routine and repetitive.
Chris Anderson from Motoman Robotics - Technology Leader - Thermal Products
chris [dot] anderson [at] motoman.com
Your question does not specify if your master controls switch removes drive power from the robots or not. It should, as well as interlocks to enter the safeguarded space. Your question appears to be related to multiple robots in the same safeguarded space. I recommend you review the Technical Report from RIA that addresses Multiple Robots in the Same Safeguarded Space. It gives some specific examples from different manufacturers on how they implemented the standard. I don't think passing through the cell should ever be considered routine and repetitive. Clause 10.10 of the Safety Standard addresses safeguarding of maintenance personnel.
Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com
Mr. Anderson is correct. The fact that multiple tasks may require passing through the cell does not make that action routine or repetitive. An added consideration would be the increased frequency of exposure to the hazards present in the cell.
Vern Mangold from Kaysafety - President
vmangold [at] ameritech [dot] net (937) 433.1320
For more information you can e-mail me at vmangold@ameritech.net
Submitted By: Tim McDaniel - EHS Manager
Submitted Company: Navistar, Inc.
Mr. McDaniel
Great caution must be exercised whenever the 147 alternative LOTO methods are implemented. By Risk Assessment, the most prudent, efficient and cost effective process is the use of a fault recovery mode that requires a deliberate act to resume production. For more information concerning the proper methods of implementing a fault recovery system you can e-mail me at:
vmangold@ameritech.net
» close answers
RIA 15.06 mentions "Existing Installations" and New Installations. If I move an existing robot cell to another facility, does that now become a new installation?
Jeff Fryman from Robotic Industries Association - Director, Standards Development
jfryman [at] robotics [dot] org (734) 994-6088
Very simply stated - YES.
Chris Anderson from Motoman Robotics - Technology Leader - Thermal Products
chris [dot] anderson [at] motoman.com
Mr. Shoup,
I respectfully disagree with Mr. Fryman. I am familiar with your operation and it is common for JCI to move robotic welding cells within or between plants. The key to your question was "existing robot CELL". JCI moves robots, welders, positioners, and Safeguarding as originally installed. While part tooling may be changed, the robot "cell" remains intact as originally installed. Motoman has also supplied rebuilt robots to go back into these cells as they were originally installed and safeguarded.
Should JCI remove robots from these cells to be redeployed or use a rebuilt robot in a new cell configuration, then these should be treated as new installations.
Lee Burk from Pilz Automation Safety L.P. - Manager, Training & Standards
l [dot] burk [at] pilzusa.com
Actually, Jeff Fryman is correct.
1. The robot need only meet the standard in place at the time of manufacture.
2. The cell is considered a new cell and needs to meet the current standard requirements. This is normally accomplished by the addition of external safeguarding controls, not by modification of the robot controller.
Vern Mangold from Kaysafety - President
vmangold [at] ameritech [dot] net (937) 433.1320
Question: RIA 15.06 mentions "Existing Installations" and New Installations. If I move an existing robot cell to another facility, does that now become a new installation?
Submitted By: Stephen Shoup - Manufacturing Controls Engineer
Submitted Company: Johnson Controls
Mr. Shoup
Two considerations:
1- Did the robot comply with R15.06 1999 when it was originally installed?
2- You must comply with the new standards as they apply to the installation conditions.
As a long time Johnson Control supplier I can tell you that have addressed these types of questions on previous occasions. My point of contact at JCI is Rob Noch, Kalamazoo.
For more information you can e-mail me at vmanvold@ameritech.net
Regards,
Vern Mangold
» close answers
Email This Page
Print This Page
