Here is a link to an article that I discovered this weekend that is timely with regard to this discussion, but a bit sensationalistic I'm afraid. They mention IEEE ICRA 2010 which took place last week. Apparently the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society is looking into these issues as well, though no specific standards were mentioned in the article.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20004513-1.html?tag=mncol;title Dan From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 11:52 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PSES] Robotics Operational Safety Standarads 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]>
