The Fabricator - November 2013

;is revised regulation does not loosen any guidelines previously in place (see Figure 1), but it does provide several new capabilities as a result of improving technology. ;ese new capabilities could not have been anticipated when the former incarnation of R15.06 was created. It allows for many advantages that streamline fabricating processes.

Space-saving Advantages

Some of the biggest changes in the new R15.06 industrial robot standard have to do with safety-rated motion and the use of advanced programmable safety devices. What this means is software is now allowed “safety-rated” control of various aspects of the robot’s function, limiting the area in which the robot operates and the speed of robot motion. ;is is a departure from older standards in that programmable safety controls were not allowed.

;anks to technological advances in safety controls, these long overdue applications now can be implemented safely. In the past, engineers designing these systems guarded for the maximum space, speed, and load of the robot (see Figure 2). With these changes, the physical footprint of new robot cells should shrink. Coupled with the proper point-of-interaction safety devices, including automated barrier doors, scanners, or light curtains, these cells may realize significant floor space savings.

Increasing Efficiency

Saving space is not the only potential benefit realized through R15.06. Advanced robots with “safety-rated” control now can operate in the same areas as their human counterparts. ;is collaborative operation allows operators to interact during an automatic robot operation, greatly increasing productivity. Workers can now load and unload robots, as well as manually drive the robot in some instances.

It is important to understand that not all robotic processes are safe enough for workers to interact with. ;rough risk assessments, a company can consider secondary hazards associated with the process and reduce or eliminate exposure. A collaboration between a fabricating or welding robot and a human worker is not suggested by R15.06. ;ose processes are best contained by automated barrier doors, which also minimize the robotic cell footprint, or some other limiting safeguarding device.

Managing Risk

Another key component of R15.06 is the use of risk assessments. Because every robotic system is di;erent and has its own set of guidelines, it’s important to realize what guidelines are before risk assessment is conducted. Specifications such as space and cycles need to be known. Integrators of new robotic systems will be required to perform these risk assessments in an attempt to identify potential dangers and ways to limit and eliminate them.

R15.06 is similar to ISO 10218-2 in that it takes a quantitative approach to hazard identification. ;ese steps follow in line with the changes made to ISO 13849-1 last year.

A performance level “d,” a quantitative level that specifies the ability of the safety-related parts of the control system to perform as designed, is required of all robotic systems, as well as Category 3, dual-channel architecture, unless a risk assessment determines otherwise. Performance level safety and category ratings o;er a much more measurably reliable way to gauge safety.

As technology changed and improved, it became necessary to update safety. ;e ratified R15.06 upholds the safest regulations that are already in place, provides a more quantitative approach, and looks to improve e;ciency by streamlining interactions between operators and robotic systems through a collaborative method.