ASK THE EXPERTS
More Answers From Roberta Nelson Shea
Global Technical Compliance Officer at Universal Robots A/S
- Email: rns [at] universal-robots [dot] com
- Tel: (631) 610-9664
RIA R15.06-2012 Part 2 5.10.7 references ISO13857 Annex C. This annex does not exist in the current document from the 2008 literature. Can you please provide guidance regarding the stated reference? Thank you,
Annex C is in R15.06 Part 2, not an annex in ISO 13857. If it were an Annex in ISO 13857, the reference would have been "ISO 13857 Annex C".
(See ISO 13857 for partial body entry and Annex C
How many people can be in the safeguarded space for each available teach pendant? Does everyone in the space need an enabling device?
1 person per enabling device. Each person is to have an enabling device UNLESS there is complete and total safeguarding such that there are NO risks to people. Make sure that you know the span-of-control of the enabling device(s). It is possible that they ONLY control a portion of the hazards. The safety standard requires that the enabling device control (have ability to stop) all hazards to which each person, with the enabling device, would be exposed.
Are there any "grandfather clauses" regarding robot guarding, integration, or risk assessment for industrial robots? If so, where is this information?
No. There is no grandfathering. If you are trying to figure out what to do with EXISTING ROBOTS or EXISTING CELLS, I suggest that you use RIA TR R15.506. This is help you determine the course to take for various scenarios.
When did RIA or ANSI first implement the requirement for a Risk Assessment industrial robots in the US?
It was first put forth in 1986, but greatly expanded in the 1999 edition. However the 1999 edition allowed for EITHER a risk assessment or a "prescribed methodology". In recognition that there could be no full prescribed method, the 2012 edition requires risk assessment with no alternate. See R.15.06-2012, part 2, clause 4.3.1. There is NO mandatory methodology, however RIA offers one through their technical report RIA TR R15.306.
Regarding redeployment of an older robot into a new system the RIA R15.06 1999 standard is pretty clear stating that as long as the robot was to standard when it was manufactured, it does not need to be upgraded. The rest of the system needs to be to the most current standard. Unfortunately, the 2012 standard does not specify anything about redeployment as far as I can find. Is the 1999 standard still valid? Is this spelled out in another standard or TR? If so please advise where I may find it.
The 2012 standard only addresses NEW. RIA issued a Technical Report to address the issue of existing robots, existing systems and changes. I suggest you get RIA TR R15.506.
If I have a robot with a failsafe control unit, but it is not specifically a power and force limited model, can I myself build the necessary speed and torque limits into its motion to allow it to be used in a power and force limited operation?
The robot manufacturer has to answer this question. I presume it is Yaskawa because of the name "FSU". The robot manufacturer has to state whether they have safety functions for the purpose of power and force limiting.
We have several robotic palletizing cells. Each cell has a variety of case sizes that are being brought into the cell by roller conveyor. Some of our cases are large so the openings through the perimeter fencing are large enough for a person to crawl through if they got onto the in-feed conveyor. According to ANSI/RIA R15.06 - 2012 is there a safety standard that dictates what level of safety we need to have at these in-feed openings?
Please look at R15.06:2012, part 2's ANNEX titled "Safeguarding material entry and exit points"
Hi. We are a robot integrator and also we design the robot cells(mechanical/guarding and electrical/safety circuits). I understand how to do the risk assessment part, but I'm confused about the checklists Part 1: Annex F and Part 2:Annex G of ANSI-RIA R15.06. We once hired a professional safety assessment firm on our behalf, and they only completed Part 1:Annex F. But we are now going to do our own assessments, and I feel as though we should be doing both. Any suggestions from another integrator/OEM? Do you fill out one of them or both? Thanks in advance.
The Part 1 Annex is for robot manufacturer. The integrator completes Part 2 annex.
When training a new robot tech, we have 2 employees inside the work area. One has the pendant, in teach mode and the other is around them learning. My question is,"Does the other employee need a deadman switch?" Same thing with Maintenance personnel, "Do we need a deadman for each one in the cell?"
Each person needs to have an enabling device (3-position type). The teach pendant has a 3 position enabling device, so 1 person is all set. Each additional person needs an enabling device. The enabling devices need to integrated to control (stop) ALL hazards to which people can be exposed - not just robot motion.
It is permissable to guard a robot using only a laser scanner to detect operator approach and stop movement or is a barrier (such as a fence) required?
The safety laser scanner is sufficient. Perimeter safeguarding would then be provided the the scanner making a guard not required.
I am a safety specialist and I am trying to find any recommendations/requirements related to a robot brake test and the periodicity of such a check? I know the new KUKA robots come with an installed brake test. I write safety specifications and I am just trying to set some criteria. I would like to do more than just say "comply with the manufacturer's requirements for periiodic brake tests" if possible. Any thoughts or help would be appreciated.
This question is really left to the manufacturer's recommendation combined with policy within the user facility. If the robot has stopping time and/or stopping distance limiting safety functions, then brake testing is not required at all because the monitored is done by the robot safety control system.