Robotics

Collaborative robot safety misconceptions

A survey from the Global Robotics Report 2019 highlights a general lack of knowledge about collaborative robot safety requirements, which can be dangerous for workers on the plant floor.
By Nigel Smith August 4, 2019
Courtesy: TM Robotics/Control Engineering Europe

Results from the Global Robotics Report 2019 identified that 79% of automation distributors do not believe their customers understand the safety requirements of installing a collaborative robot. As one of the fastest growing sectors of the robot market, this lack of knowledge could be dangerous.

Collaborative robots have been heavily marketed as unguarded and easy to integrate machines that can work seamlessly alongside human workers. However, this does not necessarily make these machines exempt from the safety regulations associated with regular industrial robots.

Standards for collaborative robot safety

While there are significant differences between collaborative robots and their industrial counterparts, the industry does not acknowledge collaborative robots as a separate entity. As far as safety is concerned, collaborative robots are subject to the same stringent regulations as traditional robot variations such as SCARA, six-axis and Cartesian models.

Robots for use in manufacturing are subject to two distinct standards, ISO 10218-1:2011 Robots and Robotic Devices – Safety Requirements for Industrial Robots and ISO 10218-2:2011 – Part 2: Robot Systems and Integration. At present, there is no comprehensive standard that has been exclusively developed for the safety collaborative robots, but there is plenty of guidance available.

Collaborative robot end users should adhere to the most relevant published guidance contained in the ISO 10218 standards, a report entitled “Collision and Injury Criteria When Working with Collaborative Robots.”

Additionally, a technical specification released in February 2016 – ISO/TS 15066 – provided safety guidelines for the use of robots in collaborative applications and this determines guidelines for force limitation, maximum allowable robot power and speed.

Risk assessment

There is plenty of literature available on the safety requirements of collaborative robots, but the problem is that this information is often overlooked. Due to the way collaborative robots have been marketed, many plant managers mistakenly assume that all collaborative robots are automatically safe for use alongside their employees. After all, they are ‘collaborative’. However, this misconception simply is not true.

Deploying a collaborative robot safely requires a comprehensive risk assessment. This should consider the risks that may occur while the robot is in operation, performing the tasks required of it, as well as the potential risks when the collaborative robot is between tasks.

Unlike traditional variations, collaborative robots are often lightweight and portable. Therefore, they are ideal to be used for various tasks within a factory. Used in such applications, the plant manager must assess how the safety may be compromised when the collaborative robot is in transit. For example, being moved from one section of the production line to another. In addition, an assessment is required for every separate activity and task the collaborative robot will perform.

Taking packaging applications as an example – a risk assessment may find, in order to operate at full speed and meet palletizing key performance indicators (KPIs), fencing around the collaborative robot is required to maintain worker safety. Albeit standard practice with traditional industrial robots, fencing usually isn’t considered when purchasing a collaborative robot. Therefore, these additional safety features often are not budgeted for.

Know when to use collaborative robots

Motivation for most automation investments is to increase productivity and output. Therefore, reducing a collaborative robot’s operating speed in order to remove safety fencing does not make sense from a business or manufacturing perspective. What’s more, physically separating the robot from human workers removes the entire nature of the machine. Put simply, it is no longer collaborative.

In these instances, it is worth considering whether a collaborative robot is what you really need or if a traditional robot might be more suitable. Six-axis robots, for example, have long been used to increase productivity in packaging applications. For many of these packaging and palletizing tasks, there is no real need for human interaction with the robot. As a result, enabling this collaboration through investment in a collaborative robot does not assist productivity or output.

There is no doubt collaborative robots have their place in the factory and reports suggest that the global collaborative robot market is growing. However, as the Global Robotics Report 2019 suggests, understanding of these machines and their safety requirements is lacking and this is an issue that must be addressed.

This article originally appeared on the Control Engineering Europe website. Edited by Chris Vavra, production editor, Control Engineering, CFE Media, cvavra@cfemedia.com.


Nigel Smith
Author Bio: Nigel Smith is managing director at TM Robotics, a Toshiba Machine partner.