Re: [PSES] Reduce Speed of Moving Part to Reduce Risk

[John Woodgate]

I am a very insignificant part of TC108: The big guns are mostly in USA 
and some lurk here.


On 2024-02-02 17:07, Douglas Nix wrote:

Hey John,

If you are part of TC 108, you might want to suggest to the 
appropriate convenor(s) that they reach out to TC 199 about this 
potential JWG. There might be some powerful synergies to be had there.


Doug Nix
Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
d...@mac.com
+1 (519) 729-5704




On Feb 2, 2024, at 11:35, John Woodgate  wrote:

Thanks, Doug. I understand your position. It seems to me that IEC 
TC108 is also interested in this subject, because its scope includes 
large equipment that can be entered and may have moving parts.


On 2024-02-02 16:29, Doug Nix wrote:

Hi John,

You are correct, of course, about the content of a TR. The ISO 
Directives Part 1, clause 3.3 lays it out very clearly.


The work on 21260 has been going on for quite a few years. Looking 
at ISO Documents, I can see the original NWIP in 2016. In the 
intervening years, it went from an IS to a TR for several reasons. 
The data included represents the state of the art. The WG is 
resolving the last of the comments from the CD ballot, and I think 
they will be recommending to TC 199 that the document proceed 
directly to stage 50 and on to publication in short order.


Their plenary meeting report shows that they are proposing a JWG 
with ISO/TC 299 to develop a document entitled "/Safety of machinery 
- Test methods to validate safe physical contacts between moving 
machinery or moving parts of machinery and persons.”/ This logical 
next step will allow the test methods and equipment described in 
ISO/TR 15066 and the data from ISO/TR 21260 to come together in an 
IS that will be useful to both the robotics sector and the general 
machinery sector. The project has not been formally proposed yet, 
and considering that the JWG has not been formed, there is no 
timeline for developing that document yet.


As for consultation with other experts outside the WG, I think that 
the WG members who are actively involved have that in hand. I am 
only peripherally involved in the WG, as I chair the Canadian Mirror 
Committee, and I am aware of the work that some Canadian experts are 
doing in that WG.


Best regards,

Doug Nix
d...@ieee.org
+1 (519) 729-5704




On Jan 31, 2024, at 18:37, John Woodgate  wrote:

Indeed, you can't share it with the list, but, as I expect you 
know, you can consult anyone in private communication who can 
contribute to the work. It is a Technical Report, and recent rules 
changes closely restrict what a TR can include. It is more or less 
confined to statements of fact. Not even recommendations are 
permitted.


On 2024-01-31 23:02, Doug Nix wrote:

List members,

There is currently a draft in development, ISO/TR 21260, /Safety 
of machinery — Mechanical safety data for physical contacts 
between moving machinery or moving parts of machinery and 
persons./ This document has a planned publication date that has 
already slipped by. The importance of this document is high, so I 
don’t think there is any likelihood of the work being lost, but 
the development of the document has taken a lot more time than was 
originally foreseen.


Unfortunately, the document is in the Committee Draft stage, so I 
can’t share anything with the list now. When it gets to the public 
review stage, that will change.


I think this document will prove to be very important.

Best regards,

Doug Nix
d...@ieee.org
+1 (519) 729-5704




On Jan 29, 2024, at 19:50, sgbrody  wrote:

That standard is ISO 15066 which is Collaborative Robots.  After 
measuring force and then determining the surface areas of the 
part contacting whatever, you can determine the pressure.


This standard provides tables for allowable forces and pressures 
- both are needed - to determine if the robot 'crash' is within 
acceptable range.


For example, I have two clients using robots which are billed by 
their manufacturers as collaborative, but it is the end effector 
when tested for the 'crash' force and pressure, that will confirm 
they are collaborative in that specific application.


In both cases they were confirmed collaborative.

However, if the flat surface of the end effector was replaced 
with a needle,  they would not be collaborative.   They would be 
dangerous and guarding would be required.


Thanks,




Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device


 Original message 
From: Douglas Powell 
Date: 1/29/24 7:05 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Reduce Speed of Moving Part to Reduce Risk

All valid points; however, I was taking my information from the 
established ISO/IEC standards for machinery, with which I am 
familiar. I do recall another standrd some years ago, mentioning 
contact surface area when I was looking into finger crush as well 
as sharp edges. And the original question was solely about speed, 
so that's how I responded.


All the best,  ~ Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, 

Re: [PSES] Reduce Speed of Moving Part to Reduce Risk

[Douglas Nix]

Hey John,

If you are part of TC 108, you might want to suggest to the appropriate 
convenor(s) that they reach out to TC 199 about this potential JWG. There might 
be some powerful synergies to be had there.

Doug Nix
Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
d...@mac.com
+1 (519) 729-5704



> On Feb 2, 2024, at 11:35, John Woodgate  wrote:
> 
> Thanks, Doug. I understand your position. It seems to me that IEC TC108 is 
> also interested in this subject, because its scope includes large equipment 
> that can be entered and may have moving parts.
> 
> On 2024-02-02 16:29, Doug Nix wrote:
>> Hi John,
>> 
>> You are correct, of course, about the content of a TR. The ISO Directives 
>> Part 1, clause 3.3 lays it out very clearly. 
>> 
>> The work on 21260 has been going on for quite a few years. Looking at ISO 
>> Documents, I can see the original NWIP in 2016. In the intervening years, it 
>> went from an IS to a TR for several reasons. The data included represents 
>> the state of the art. The WG is resolving the last of the comments from the 
>> CD ballot, and I think they will be recommending to TC 199 that the document 
>> proceed directly to stage 50 and on to publication in short order.
>> 
>> Their plenary meeting report shows that they are proposing a JWG with ISO/TC 
>> 299 to develop a document entitled "Safety of machinery - Test methods to 
>> validate safe physical contacts between moving machinery or moving parts of 
>> machinery and persons.” This logical next step will allow the test methods 
>> and equipment described in ISO/TR 15066 and the data from ISO/TR 21260 to 
>> come together in an IS that will be useful to both the robotics sector and 
>> the general machinery sector. The project has not been formally proposed 
>> yet, and considering that the JWG has not been formed, there is no timeline 
>> for developing that document yet.
>> 
>> As for consultation with other experts outside the WG, I think that the WG 
>> members who are actively involved have that in hand. I am only peripherally 
>> involved in the WG, as I chair the Canadian Mirror Committee, and I am aware 
>> of the work that some Canadian experts are doing in that WG.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Doug Nix
>> d...@ieee.org 
>> +1 (519) 729-5704
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 31, 2024, at 18:37, John Woodgate  
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Indeed, you can't share it with the list, but, as I expect you know, you 
>>> can consult anyone in private communication who can contribute to the work. 
>>> It is a Technical Report, and recent rules changes closely restrict what a 
>>> TR can include. It is more or less confined to statements of fact. Not even 
>>> recommendations are permitted.
>>> 
>>> On 2024-01-31 23:02, Doug Nix wrote:
 List members,
 
 There is currently a draft in development, ISO/TR 21260, Safety of 
 machinery — Mechanical safety data for physical contacts between moving 
 machinery or moving parts of machinery and persons. This document has a 
 planned publication date that has already slipped by. The importance of 
 this document is high, so I don’t think there is any likelihood of the 
 work being lost, but the development of the document has taken a lot more 
 time than was originally foreseen.
 
 Unfortunately, the document is in the Committee Draft stage, so I can’t 
 share anything with the list now. When it gets to the public review stage, 
 that will change.
 
 I think this document will prove to be very important.
 
 Best regards,
 
 Doug Nix
 d...@ieee.org 
 +1 (519) 729-5704
 
 
 
> On Jan 29, 2024, at 19:50, sgbrody  
>  wrote:
> 
> That standard is ISO 15066 which is Collaborative Robots.  After 
> measuring force and then determining the surface areas of the part 
> contacting whatever, you can determine the pressure.
> 
> This standard provides tables for allowable forces and pressures - both 
> are needed - to determine if the robot 'crash' is within acceptable range.
> 
> For example, I have two clients using robots which are billed by their 
> manufacturers as collaborative, but it is the end effector when tested 
> for the 'crash' force and pressure, that will confirm they are 
> collaborative in that specific application. 
> 
> In both cases they were confirmed collaborative.
> 
> However, if the flat surface of the end effector was replaced with a 
> needle,  they would not be collaborative.   They would be dangerous and 
> guarding would be required.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
> 
> 
>  Original message 
> From: Douglas Powell  
> Date: 1/29/24 7:05 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 

Re: [PSES] Reduce Speed of Moving Part to Reduce Risk

[John Woodgate]

Thanks, Doug. I understand your position. It seems to me that IEC TC108 
is also interested in this subject, because its scope includes large 
equipment that can be entered and may have moving parts.


On 2024-02-02 16:29, Doug Nix wrote:

Hi John,

You are correct, of course, about the content of a TR. The ISO 
Directives Part 1, clause 3.3 lays it out very clearly.


The work on 21260 has been going on for quite a few years. Looking at 
ISO Documents, I can see the original NWIP in 2016. In the intervening 
years, it went from an IS to a TR for several reasons. The data 
included represents the state of the art. The WG is resolving the last 
of the comments from the CD ballot, and I think they will be 
recommending to TC 199 that the document proceed directly to stage 50 
and on to publication in short order.


Their plenary meeting report shows that they are proposing a JWG with 
ISO/TC 299 to develop a document entitled "/Safety of machinery - Test 
methods to validate safe physical contacts between moving machinery or 
moving parts of machinery and persons.”/ This logical next step will 
allow the test methods and equipment described in ISO/TR 15066 and the 
data from ISO/TR 21260 to come together in an IS that will be useful 
to both the robotics sector and the general machinery sector. The 
project has not been formally proposed yet, and considering that the 
JWG has not been formed, there is no timeline for developing that 
document yet.


As for consultation with other experts outside the WG, I think that 
the WG members who are actively involved have that in hand. I am only 
peripherally involved in the WG, as I chair the Canadian Mirror 
Committee, and I am aware of the work that some Canadian experts are 
doing in that WG.


Best regards,

Doug Nix
d...@ieee.org
+1 (519) 729-5704




On Jan 31, 2024, at 18:37, John Woodgate  wrote:

Indeed, you can't share it with the list, but, as I expect you know, 
you can consult anyone in private communication who can contribute to 
the work. It is a Technical Report, and recent rules changes closely 
restrict what a TR can include. It is more or less confined to 
statements of fact. Not even recommendations are permitted.


On 2024-01-31 23:02, Doug Nix wrote:

List members,

There is currently a draft in development, ISO/TR 21260, /Safety of 
machinery — Mechanical safety data for physical contacts between 
moving machinery or moving parts of machinery and persons./ This 
document has a planned publication date that has already slipped by. 
The importance of this document is high, so I don’t think there is 
any likelihood of the work being lost, but the development of the 
document has taken a lot more time than was originally foreseen.


Unfortunately, the document is in the Committee Draft stage, so I 
can’t share anything with the list now. When it gets to the public 
review stage, that will change.


I think this document will prove to be very important.

Best regards,

Doug Nix
d...@ieee.org
+1 (519) 729-5704




On Jan 29, 2024, at 19:50, sgbrody  wrote:

That standard is ISO 15066 which is Collaborative Robots.  After 
measuring force and then determining the surface areas of the part 
contacting whatever, you can determine the pressure.


This standard provides tables for allowable forces and pressures - 
both are needed - to determine if the robot 'crash' is within 
acceptable range.


For example, I have two clients using robots which are billed by 
their manufacturers as collaborative, but it is the end effector 
when tested for the 'crash' force and pressure, that will confirm 
they are collaborative in that specific application.


In both cases they were confirmed collaborative.

However, if the flat surface of the end effector was replaced with 
a needle,  they would not be collaborative.   They would be 
dangerous and guarding would be required.


Thanks,




Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device


 Original message 
From: Douglas Powell 
Date: 1/29/24 7:05 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Reduce Speed of Moving Part to Reduce Risk

All valid points; however, I was taking my information from the 
established ISO/IEC standards for machinery, with which I am 
familiar. I do recall another standrd some years ago, mentioning 
contact surface area when I was looking into finger crush as well 
as sharp edges. And the original question was solely about speed, 
so that's how I responded.


All the best, ~ Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado, USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn 

(UTC-06:00, US-MDT)


On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 4:41 PM Richard Nute  wrote:


Hi Doug and Brian:


I thought I would offer my (radical) point of view on the issue
of “speed of moving parts.”


Consider moving aluminum foil and moving aluminum block, both
at the same speed.  The aluminum foil has very little mass,
while the aluminum block has relatively 

Re: [PSES] Reduce Speed of Moving Part to Reduce Risk

[Doug Nix]

Hi John,

You are correct, of course, about the content of a TR. The ISO Directives Part 
1, clause 3.3 lays it out very clearly. 

The work on 21260 has been going on for quite a few years. Looking at ISO 
Documents, I can see the original NWIP in 2016. In the intervening years, it 
went from an IS to a TR for several reasons. The data included represents the 
state of the art. The WG is resolving the last of the comments from the CD 
ballot, and I think they will be recommending to TC 199 that the document 
proceed directly to stage 50 and on to publication in short order.

Their plenary meeting report shows that they are proposing a JWG with ISO/TC 
299 to develop a document entitled "Safety of machinery - Test methods to 
validate safe physical contacts between moving machinery or moving parts of 
machinery and persons.” This logical next step will allow the test methods and 
equipment described in ISO/TR 15066 and the data from ISO/TR 21260 to come 
together in an IS that will be useful to both the robotics sector and the 
general machinery sector. The project has not been formally proposed yet, and 
considering that the JWG has not been formed, there is no timeline for 
developing that document yet.

As for consultation with other experts outside the WG, I think that the WG 
members who are actively involved have that in hand. I am only peripherally 
involved in the WG, as I chair the Canadian Mirror Committee, and I am aware of 
the work that some Canadian experts are doing in that WG.

Best regards,

Doug Nix
d...@ieee.org
+1 (519) 729-5704



> On Jan 31, 2024, at 18:37, John Woodgate  wrote:
> 
> Indeed, you can't share it with the list, but, as I expect you know, you can 
> consult anyone in private communication who can contribute to the work. It is 
> a Technical Report, and recent rules changes closely restrict what a TR can 
> include. It is more or less confined to statements of fact. Not even 
> recommendations are permitted.
> 
> On 2024-01-31 23:02, Doug Nix wrote:
>> List members,
>> 
>> There is currently a draft in development, ISO/TR 21260, Safety of machinery 
>> — Mechanical safety data for physical contacts between moving machinery or 
>> moving parts of machinery and persons. This document has a planned 
>> publication date that has already slipped by. The importance of this 
>> document is high, so I don’t think there is any likelihood of the work being 
>> lost, but the development of the document has taken a lot more time than was 
>> originally foreseen.
>> 
>> Unfortunately, the document is in the Committee Draft stage, so I can’t 
>> share anything with the list now. When it gets to the public review stage, 
>> that will change.
>> 
>> I think this document will prove to be very important.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Doug Nix
>> d...@ieee.org 
>> +1 (519) 729-5704
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 29, 2024, at 19:50, sgbrody  
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> That standard is ISO 15066 which is Collaborative Robots.  After measuring 
>>> force and then determining the surface areas of the part contacting 
>>> whatever, you can determine the pressure.
>>> 
>>> This standard provides tables for allowable forces and pressures - both are 
>>> needed - to determine if the robot 'crash' is within acceptable range.
>>> 
>>> For example, I have two clients using robots which are billed by their 
>>> manufacturers as collaborative, but it is the end effector when tested for 
>>> the 'crash' force and pressure, that will confirm they are collaborative in 
>>> that specific application. 
>>> 
>>> In both cases they were confirmed collaborative.
>>> 
>>> However, if the flat surface of the end effector was replaced with a 
>>> needle,  they would not be collaborative.   They would be dangerous and 
>>> guarding would be required.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  Original message 
>>> From: Douglas Powell  
>>> Date: 1/29/24 7:05 PM (GMT-05:00)
>>> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
>>> Subject: Re: [PSES] Reduce Speed of Moving Part to Reduce Risk
>>> 
>>> All valid points; however, I was taking my information from the established 
>>> ISO/IEC standards for machinery, with which I am familiar. I do recall 
>>> another standrd some years ago, mentioning contact surface area when I was 
>>> looking into finger crush as well as sharp edges. And the original question 
>>> was solely about speed, so that's how I responded.
>>> 
>>> All the best,  ~ Doug
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Douglas E Powell
>>> Laporte, Colorado, USA
>>> doug...@gmail.com 
>>> LinkedIn 
>>> 
>>> (UTC-06:00, US-MDT)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 4:41 PM Richard Nute >> > wrote:
  
 Hi Doug and Brian:
 
  
 I thought I would offer my (radical) point of