Ask the Experts

A3 Member Company

Member Since 2015

LEARN MORE

SEARCH QUESTIONS

Back to All Questions

Ask a Question

Viewing Answers from experts at JHN Group

Show Per Page:

Now displaying: 1-10 of 24 questions

When am I required to update a robotic cell to current RIA standards?


In the Introduction to the current standard it indicates the applicability of the new standard. In R15.06 it states: Existing robot system installations which are physically moved after publication of this standard but are re-installed exactly as they were installed (relative positions, layout, functionality, specification and safeguarding) require review to determine if any new or revised hazard(s) have been introduced, but need no further action provided they were and remain fully compliant with the requirements of clauses 4 through 11 of R15.06-1999. Installations changed subsequent to the publication of this (R15.06-2012) edition are subject to the requirements of this edition. This does not preclude the voluntary updating of the industrial robot systems and cells to the requirements of this edition.

Regards

Jim Norton


James Norton - President
jamesnorton@jhngroup.com
(617) 448-9649

We are installing an automated ultrasonic scanning system (5-axis) that only has one function - ultrasonic scanning. The definition of robot in R15.06 Is this considered to be an industrial robot? We were told not because it doesn't have a multipurpose manipulator - it just does ultrasonic scanning. Does R15.06 apply? Gary, 310-331-7191


Hi Gary,

From what you say it appears it does not at least as it is configured the question is can the robot be re-programmed to do anything else. If so It would be an Industrial robot, otherwise I would agree with Lee Burk and his recommendation.


James Norton - President
jamesnorton@jhngroup.com
(617) 448-9649

I have a question about the risk estimation methodology outlined in TR15.306. In Table 1 "Injury severity, exposure, and avoidance factors" it gives the guidance: "Choose most likely." This sounds to me like even if it is somewhat possible for a higher rating to apply, if a lower rating is significantly more likely to apply we should go with that one. For example, consider the risk of a large industrial robot striking an operator. Even moving at full speed, a reversible injury is much more likely than death/dismemberment. For this, I would select S2, but I was curious about how others are interpreting this table. Another example might be the situation where an operator is validating a program using a teach pendant. In this case, as long as reduced speed is applied and the operator is using the enabling device on the pendant, I would consider giving this an S1 rating. Yes, it is hypothetically possible for the operator to be crushed (S2 or S3) between the robot and the workpiece, but it is much, much more likely that an operator will drop/squeeze the enabling device before any significant injury occurs. A counterpoint to this would be the risk of reaching into a moving drive system. This would be S3 regardless, considering that should the person actually make contact with the drive system, it might have a high likelihood of drawing in and severing their hand. If this interpretation of the table isn’t correct, I would be very interested in learning how other people address these situations.


I think you are misreading the table, what it is saying is not the "most likely to occur" but rather the injury that you would "most likely sustain" if it did occur. In your example the operator is using the pendant control with an enabling device. That is a safety device and you are not supposed to consider safety devices at this stage. Your risk reduction method may be the use of a control pendant with an enabling switch. That is the risk reduction method you have applied to prevent the occurence

Regards

Jim Norton


James Norton - President
jamesnorton@jhngroup.com
(617) 448-9649

If I have a material handling cell that the robot can reach higher than the 8' fence panel with a part, does this require then 12' fence panels? To prevent a possible thrown part from the EOAT? This has been a mater of debate for a long time for the actual height of the fence.


The new edition of EN 953/ISO 14120, now named EN ISO 14120 “Safety of machinery - Guards - General requirements for the design and construction of fixed and movable guards” – is including an informative annex, Annex C, on how a fencing system can be tested. The tests will simulate: A person walking in to the fence. Throwing of objects from within the cell

Your risk assessment should determine if someone "could be injured" by an object from the cell leaving the cell over the fence, If so you would then have to address the issue in what ever way works. This may mean a Higher fence or net or perhaps extending the protective zone so that I would retain the object.

Do the risk assessment and determine what you must do


James Norton - President
jamesnorton@jhngroup.com
(617) 448-9649

I am reviewing standards or information pertaining to stack lights and or indicator lights. Isn't there a requirement that there is an indicator light for when the light curtains are muted?


See IEC 62046:2018 that should answer your questions


James Norton - President
jamesnorton@jhngroup.com
(617) 448-9649

How many people can be in the safeguarded space for each available teach pendant? Does everyone in the space need an enabling device?


As many as needed provide each has an enabling device that can stop the robot in sufficient time to prevent injury. So yes each would need an enabling device or the system would need to be LOTO


James Norton - President
jamesnorton@jhngroup.com
(617) 448-9649

ANSI/RIA R16.06-2012 5.3.15 says that when more than one person is required to be protected within the safeguarded space, that an enabling device shall be provided to each person. Does this mean that if only a singular person is entering the safe guarded space, they are not required to bring a teach pendant / enabling device into the cell with them?


No it does not. It means, in short, that everyone in that cell must have an enabling device or the cell must be LOTO


James Norton - President
jamesnorton@jhngroup.com
(617) 448-9649

Would a safety gate interlocked door with a pl=d category 3 interlock, that stops robot motion, allow operators to enter a robot cell without LOTO or an enabling device, provided that their work won't require interaction with the robot and the gate key was placed into a lock box with the operators lock placed on the box?


Before this can be answered you must consider "OSHA requirements " The OSHA Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout) standard (29 CFR 1910.147) covers the servicing and maintenance of machines and equipment in which the unexpected energization, start up of the machines or equipment, or release of stored energy could cause injury to employees. Energy sources may include: electrical, mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic, chemical, nuclear, thermal or other energy. Or you may want to look at "ANSI/ASSE Z244.1-2016" this standard establishes guidelines for the control for hazardous energy associated with machinery, equipment, or processes that could do harm to the personnel. Specifically, it does this by establishing lockout, tagout, or alternative methods to control the hazardous energy.


James Norton - President
jamesnorton@jhngroup.com
(617) 448-9649

If I'm not using any safety devices in my robot cell, what equation do I use for safety distance? I believe S = K*T + C is only for used with safety devices, due to the variables dealing with human interaction speeds. Is there a general equation for safety distance with regards to fencing and so maintenance personnel can't get pinned?


What you need to look at is ANSI/RIA R15.06-2012 (for industrial robots and robot systems - Safety Requirements) Which requires you do to a risk assessment. to do that see RIA R15.306-2016 (Task-based Risk Assessment Methodology). You will find that the minimum safe distance for guards "Shall" meet the requirements of ISO 14120 and the minimum distance from any hazard "shall" be determined according to the relevant requirements of ISO 13857.

I would strongly recommend that you conduct a Risk Assessment in accordance with all appropriate standards before you use your system again, otherwise you may find yourself exposed to serious fines and/or litigation if an injury were to occur, but most importantly a person will have been injured in what may well have been a preventable incident


James Norton - President
jamesnorton@jhngroup.com
(617) 448-9649

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.


You should look at ANSI/RIA R15.06-1999 section 1.3.1;1.3.2;1.3.3 and 1.3.4 I think you will find this pertinent to your question.

I would strongly recommend that you do a new risk assessment regardless.


James Norton - President
jamesnorton@jhngroup.com
(617) 448-9649