JUL-AUG 2017

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 22 of 53

INTECH JULY/AUGUST 2017 23 features of the robot's design. Again, no matter how "safe" or "collaborative" your robot arm, it needs to be assessed as in- tegrated into a complete robot system— and the system as a whole may not be safe for collaborative use. For instance, if the operation requires your robot to ma- nipulate sharp objects, then it is not safe to have a human beside it—no matter how small, rounded, or padded the robot arm itself might be—without additional protective safety measures. Another case is if the robot is handling a heavy ob- ject, which could cause injury if it were dropped, or could become a projectile at a higher rate of speed. These issues are covered in the ANSI- registered technical report RIA TR R15.306-2016, Task-based Risk Assess- ment Methodology. TR 306 describes one method of risk assessment that complies with requirements of the 2012 R15.06 standard and was updated in 2016. Gripper safety guidelines still to come Although in the works by the ISO com- mittee, currently there are no specific safety guidelines for robot end effectors or end-of-arm tooling in collaborative applications. In the interim, designers and integrators should follow the guide- lines in TS 15066, such as requirements that an operator must not be trapped under any circumstances by the robot. If there is no power to the robot and a per- son is trapped, the person must be able to escape by applying minimal force to the robot to remove the part of the body that is trapped. This applies to the grip- per as well; for instance, if a person's fin- gers are stuck between the gripper jaws, he or she must be able to escape from the jaws to avoid danger, such as a fire. What about cybersecurity? With the rise of Industry 4.0 and the Industrial Internet of Things, robots and other automation equipment are increasingly being connected to each other and to other computer systems, networks, and applications. And with continued news of hackers taking control of financial or indus- trial systems, medical devices, and vehicles, we are increasingly aware of the tight connection between secu- rity and safety—not to mention pro- tecting sensitive company data being collected by automated systems. But now that robots are no longer isolated devices, serious information technol- ogy concerns are arising. There is an entire body of standards describing requirements for cyberse- curity developed through decades of experience with software. For exam- ple, a good place to start is IEC 62443, a set of standards describing cyber- security in an industrial setting. RIA will offer at least one presentation on cybersecurity and industrial robots at this year's National Robot Safety Con- ference, set for 10–12 October 2017, in Pittsburgh, Penn. New standard provides data-driven safety guidance to manage risk When robots work alongside humans, companies have a responsibility to en- sure that the application does not put a human in danger. Until the release of ISO/TS 15066, robot system suppliers and integrators only had general infor- mation about requirements for collabor- ative systems. Now they have the specific, data-driven safety guidance they need to evaluate and control risks. n ABOUT THE AUTHOR Carole Franklin ( is the director of standards development for the Robotic Industries Association. She leads RIA's standards development activities for the ANSI and ISO robot safety standards. Before joining RIA, Franklin was at the manage- ment consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton, where she led projects on business process improvement, internal communications, and executive communications. Before Booz Al- len, Franklin worked for Ford Motor Com- pany for 10 years in the market research department, leading consumer research projects, and also served as project man- ager for the North American customer sat- isfaction tracking study. Her career has been spent translating the needs of end users into actionable guidance for engineers and lead- ers—and vice versa. She holds BA and MBA degrees from the University of Michigan. View the online version at FACTORY AUTOMATION A study of pain thresholds for PFL applications was done at the University of Mainz in Germany. It covered 100 human test subjects of both gen- ders and a wide range of ages and body dimensions. Annex A: "The Body Model" incorporates important data from the study, with maximum permissible pressure values that repre- sent the 75th percentile. Sources: ISO/TS 15066:2016, Annex A and roboter/schmerzschwellenkataster/index-2.jsp

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of InTech - JUL-AUG 2017