• Font Size:
  • A
  • A
  • A

Ask the Experts on Robotics Online

Ask a Question


Find the Answers You Need. Ask Questions that Matter to You.

Ask one of our experts a question or search below to see Q & A threads in your area of interest.

Category: Safety

I have a question relating to minimum gaps for non-collaborative robots. I don't see any specific provisions in R15.06 that require a minimum gap between the robot and perimeter fencing. The only real reference to minimum gaps I could find was "Minimum gaps to prevent crushing comply with ISO 13854," but there is no specific requirement that crushing be prevented though any specific means. For a example, it is not uncommon for there to be a situation where there is no minimum gap, presence sensing is prohibitively difficult or expensive, and therefore procedural controls are put in place (e.g. visually clear the cell) to prevent crushing. So, I guess my question is twofold: 1) How do other people assess the risk of crushing between robot and perimeter fencing? and 2) are there any significant requirements in R15.06 that i'm missing?

2 Replies » Click Here

Is there a minimum safe access opening dimension (i.e. interlocked door) for a robotic cell? This opening is used for maintenance of the robot and/or machine it is tending.

1 Reply » Click Here

What resolutions/accuracy's are available for you force sensors?

1 Reply » Click Here

Hello, I am proposing an overhead gantry style Cartesian robot (3 axes of travel) to depalletize 3 sections sequentially, each containing a pallet of boxes. The entire opening is supervised by a light curtain. The customer wants the ability to enter 1 of the 3 pallet areas and be able to change out an empty pallet for a full one without stopping the machine. This is an obvious "no-no" being that humans shouldn't be allowed to enter an automated cell with moving equipment. Is there any documentation that supports my case?

2 Replies » Click Here

We are trying to find ways to make it easier for maintenance personnel to utilize multiple enabling devices. Right now, we seem to either have the option of using detachable enabling devices (which is detected by our control system), or to use enabling devices with really long cables that can reach across the cell. The problem with the detachable option, is that the extra required step of plugging them in massively reduces how frequently they are used. The perfect solution in my mind would be wireless enabling devices. Do these exist? If not, what ways have other people solved this problem?

1 Reply » Click Here

Please offer clarification on point 5.5.3. The definition of hazard zone is in question. We have examined the robot motion and the interaction with product and agreed that the hazard is at this interface. A DCS zone is defined as well - this is not at the position where the robot interfaces with the product but at some distance away. This allows the robot to function without hitting this soft limit. The measurement for risk analysis was made to the interface point - as we understand to be the hazard. Can you please offer clarification on the term 'hazard zone'. Further to the question for safeguarding material flow in 5.10.7. This directs us to ISO 13857 as well as Annex C. There is no recommended safe distance provided for openings larger than 120mm and reaching through an opening. Please advise.

1 Reply » Click Here

Where can I find a Stop Distance Measuring Device that will work for industrial robots?

3 Replies » Click Here

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,

3 Replies » Click Here

I'm trying to figure out how to determine stopping times for safeguarding distance calculations... As an integrator, we often use robots capable of very high speeds but utilize less than 30% of the maximum rated speed. I'm trying to determine whether we are required to have speed monitoring consistent with R15.06 Part 2, 5.2.2 "Performance requirement" to use the actual speeds for safeguarding distances. The closest thing to a direct reference to this I could find was in R15.06 Part 2, 5.4.3, which references "maximum speed," but i'm not entirely clear on what that means. Here's where my confusion comes in: I was reading through a presentation on robotics.org by Tom Eastwood "Practical Application of Robot Safety" and it seemed to imply that when determining stopping speed, we should just be taking real measurements of the system in action. It seem practical to me that simply measuring the actual stopping time would be sufficient, except in cases where you implement variable maximum speeds depending on location/activity.

1 Reply » Click Here

By the new standard can the key switch to select automatic-teach mode be located inside the restricted area?

1 Reply » Click Here

ANSI/RIA R15.06-2012, Part 1, 5.9.2 requires an indication, clearly visible from within the safeguarded space, of those robot(s) that have been activated shall be provided. How is this normally accomplished?

1 Reply » Click Here

I'm looking for solutions for presence sensing that can be mounted from above. My first thought was some sort of 2D image recognition that could compare the current image to the "safe" image. We can paint the floor if contrast is required. The only product I could find that was similar to what I was looking for is the Pilz SafetyEYE. We don't need three dimensional monitoring, and the the zone it is looking at is probably too small. We would normally use laser scanners for this, but there are not any good locations to mount them on the floor. All help is appreciated.

1 Reply » Click Here

I am working through a risk assessment and I'm trying to reconcile a situation where where a forge tending robot may hit somebody working within the die space of the press. This would be a hazard during die change, servicing the tool, prep, etc... I've identified this to be a medium risk. The obvious solution is to require that the robot be locked out during these activities but that seems like it would fall under the categories of Admin. Controls and/or Complementary Protective Measures which means they are not good enough for a medium risk. Any advice on this or perspective would be greatly appreciated.

3 Replies » Click Here

Can Presence Sensing Device Initiation (PSDI) be used in the US? Not a Mechanical Power Press.

3 Replies » Click Here

We are migrating from the R1506-1999 standard to the R1506-2012 format. So several questions. 1. Can we continue to use the R1506-1999 standard if we choose to do so? 2. With the R1506-2012 standard, do we need to attempt to gain a “negligible” status, or is “low” suffice? Or is that for us to define? 3. Can we apply the term “prevented” or “effectively mitigated by design” to physical barriers, someone can overcome, defeat or remove them if they really want. Even if they are at the defined standard of 55". Thanks. Your review and feedback is appreciated.

2 Replies » Click Here

According to RIA 15.06-2012, Part 1, Section 5.13, the manufacturer is required to design the robot so the "axes are capable of being moved without the use of drive power in emergency or abnormal situations". Some manufacturers elected to make this feature as a purchase option. Who is responsible to ensure that this feature is available to the operators? The robot manufacturer? ...the Integrator? ...or the end user/purchaser?

2 Replies » Click Here

Have a manual load station in body shop, loading area is inside a safeguarded area protected by vertical and horizontal light screens as well as internal fencing preventing the operator from entering the actual robot area from this space. The opening for part loading into a fixture is minimized on the sides to the part size but it is open above due to the size of the part and ergo reasons to allow the operator to load. The fencing just in front of the 1m wide loading area is only 1.2m high (not the minimum 1.4m) due to ergo reasons, while the fence on either side is ~2.5m tall. We do not have a reach over/under/through hazard as the robot is a Safe Robot and interlocked through our safety PLC to prevent entry while an operator is loading. Question is, does this area need to be protected to prevent someone from climbing or clambering over this 1.2m fence? There is nothing on the operator side which acts as a step, we do have a full lock/tag/test program in place and have fully integrated gates and safety systems installed (latest Euchner MGB system). I could not find anything in the standard or questions which talks about this type of entry.

1 Reply » Click Here

I would like to install a collaborative robot in my facility. I need to safeguard the floor around the robot and plan to use 4 safety area scanners. I plan to use three zones (a machine slow zone via the warning zone, a collaborative zone with one set of OSSDs, and a stop zone with another set of OSSDs. Is this an acceptable safety set up?

1 Reply » Click Here

I design automation cells and regularly have conveyor openings in fencing. I've read through the RIA safeguarding manual but can't seem to figure out the proper distance I need to have hazards from the fence/tunnel end. The best I've come up with is treating a hole in the fence bigger than 4.7" as a reaching over scenario which doesn't quite seem correct.

3 Replies » Click Here

If a European Cobot integrator developes a Robot or Cobot system and he develops it in accordance to the ISO/TS 15066:2016 standards would that be enough to integrate it at a US customer site or is an additional safety assessment in ANSI standards required?

3 Replies » Click Here

Browse by Product:



Browse by Company:


Browse by Services: