Brian, Thanks for assigning me to TC184 - I would be happy to serve with that group. Alas I am not directly involved with ISO/IEC at the TC level...
-- Doug Nix, A.Sc.T. IEEE PSES Toronto Chapter Toronto Section, Ontario, Canada [email protected] mobile (519) 729-5704 fax (519) 653-1318 Find me LinkedIn at http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougnix Fostering Technological Innovation and Excellence for the Benefit of Humanity. On 10-May-10, at 11:51 , Brian O'Connell wrote: > Mr Nix is a member of TC184, so will defer to his comments on > industrial robotic safety as authoritative. The following comments > are for those of us that do not have Mr. Nix's background. > > The OP referenced mobile robotic (software) safety for a non- > technical (residential ?) environment. > > ISO10218-1 is scoped for arms/manipulators used in the industrial > environment - where human exposure is not mobile, the device has > predictable and constrained limits of motion, and the operator is > assumed to have some level of skill and knowledge. ISO10218-2 seems > to be intended for the 'collaborating' robot, but the scope is still > industrial and the operator is trained/skilled. > > Three or four years past, TC-184/SC-2 said they would tackle safety > standards for 'service' robots. There were/are discussions that > attempted to describe if the human or the inanimate material is the > robotic target. I read several discussions with differing opinions > on the "point of operation" for human-service robotics when the > device is operating on equipment/material for and in the presence of > a non-skilled and/or disabled human. I do not know if the SC > addressed the assumption that software complexity for systems that > must make considerations for primary/secondary/tertiary points of > operation is not deterministic. Perhaps Mr Nix can help us > understand where the TC is on this subject. > > I do not have this standard available here and now, and I cannot > remember any reference to non-industrial use in the table at the > beginning of ISO13849-1. Please advise otherwise. > > Brian > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf >> Of Doug Nix >> Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2010 6:16 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [PSES] Robotics Operational Safety Standarads >> >> All, >> >> I have followed this discussion with interest, and I have a few >> comments. >> >> 1) ISO 14971 is scoped for risk assessment of medical >> devices and may >> not provide the guidance that is needed relative to this area of >> practice; >> 2) ISO 14121-1 and -2 are the industrial risk assessment >> standards and >> in my opinion provide a more easily generalizable approach to risk >> assessment, albeit one with a 'machinery' feel to it; >> 3) ISO 10218-1 is the new international standard for the industrial >> robot. It does not cover the application as yet, but it does >> provide >> for new features, such as programmable safety zones which >> are intended >> to replace hard stops and axis limit switches on these >> machines. The >> safety related parts of these robots, including the >> programmable limit >> controller, are typically qualified to ISO 13849-1 PLd or >> PLe, roughly >> equivalent to ISO 61508-1 SIL-2 or SIL-3. Pretty reliable for most >> applications. BTW, ISO 10218-1 has been adopted by ANSI as ANSI/RIA/ >> ISO 10218-1 and replaces Clause 4 of the venerable ANSI/RIA R15.06 >> standard. >> 4) ISO 10218-2, currently in work, is rumoured to provide for >> interactive robotic applications where humans and robots >> work safely >> in the same environment without te need for barriers and >> interlocks. >> This standard is expected to be published sometime in the next 12 >> months. I don't know if ANSI/RIA will adopt it once published. >> >> Regarding Brian O'Connell's comment: >> >> 1. Areas of danger >> 2. Rate of motion >> 3. Human-prediction of motion >> >> This is essentially a partial risk assessment model. Risk >> assessment >> normally is considered to include: >> >> A) Hazard Analysis: including hazard identification and evaluation >> (figuring out the extent of the hurt); >> B) Probability Analysis: including frequency of access to >> the hazard, >> exposure duration, avoidability of the hazard, exposure >> circumstances, >> probability of the hazardous event, training and expertise. >> >> These together permit you to estimate the risk involved. The >> avoidability factor encompasses the rate of motion and the >> capability >> of a human to detect and predict the motion. The exposure >> circumstances might include how frequently a particular task >> needs to >> be done, as well as the environment in which the work is done. >> >> The three main standards currently available for robotics are: >> ISO 10218-X, >> ANSI/RIA R15.06, and >> CSA Z434 >> >> Unfortunately, the last two include 'risk assessment' tools >> that have >> holes that you could fly the space shuttle through. Apart from that >> they have some great information and should be considered in >> the work >> you are undertaking. Watch for the publication of ISO 10218-2! >> >> -- >> Doug Nix, A.Sc.T. >> IEEE PSES Toronto Chapter >> Toronto Section, Ontario, Canadad >> >> [email protected] >> mobile (519) 729-5704 >> fax (519) 653-1318 >> >> Find me LinkedIn at http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougnix >> >> Fostering Technological Innovation and Excellence for the >> Benefit of >> Humanity. >> >> On 6-May-10, at 14:42 , Robert Macy wrote: >> >>> Ladies, Gentlemen, >>> >>> Safety from mobile robots operating within a non-technical >> group of >>> users >>> are/will be of concern to agencies, companies, and individuals >>> involved in >>> this industry. I've been tasked with seeking information >> about such >>> Safety >>> Standards - find standards, contact organizations/individuals, etc. >>> >>> I know there exists a plethora of related industrial robotic >>> standards, >>> but those standards seem like Class A versus Class B. Does anyone >>> know of, >>> or is anyone pursuing, any "Class B" standards? >>> >>> Who at IEEE is responsible for these standards and would >> actively take >>> part in creating/extending operational safety standards? >>> >>> Who within any country? >>> >>> Feel free to reply 'off line' >>> >>> Regards, >>> Robert Macy, PE > > - > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc- > pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e- > mail to <[email protected]> > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc > Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to > that URL. > > Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ > Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html > List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Scott Douglas <[email protected]> > Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> > David Heald: <[email protected]> - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> David Heald: <[email protected]>
