Ask the Experts
Show Per Page:
When am I required to update a robotic cell to current RIA standards?
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
How many people can be in the safeguarded space for each available teach pendant? Does everyone in the space need an enabling device?
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?
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?
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?
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
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.
I would strongly recommend that you do a new risk assessment regardless.