Ask the Experts

Roboworld has several options you might consider. All involve cloaking the robot (or portions of it) in a protective suit/sleeve.

The Robosuit performs two functions: 1) it protects your investment from splash/splatter generated during the welding process, and 2) it can be adapted to cool/heat all (or select portions) of the robot (motors, joints, etc).

Please visit www.roboworld.com to explore options, and/or request a quote.

If I may be of personal assistance, you may contact me directly,

Chris Tur President/CEO Roboworld, LLC (513) 633-2585 www.roboworld.com

Philip--

Kuka offers a line of robots termed "arctic" which are rated to -30C. If you find that your ambient temperatures require even lower thermal compliance, you may need to consider a protective suit (with forced air heating) to raise the robot's operating environment to OEM-published minimum temperatures.

Roboworld has been manufacturing customized suits for these environments for nearly 25-yrs. We would be happy to assist if you find that you require additional capability beyond what a bare robot is capable of tolerating.

While my TEDx presentation addresses only a portion of what you seek--you may find it insightful, and it may give cause for you to explore avenues you may not have considered before.

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXO7mYR2wsk

In the Introduction to the current standard it indicates the applicability of the new standard. In R15.06 it states: Existing robot system installations which are physically moved after publication of this standard but are re-installed exactly as they were installed (relative positions, layout, functionality, specification and safeguarding) require review to determine if any new or revised hazard(s) have been introduced, but need no further action provided they were and remain fully compliant with the requirements of clauses 4 through 11 of R15.06-1999. Installations changed subsequent to the publication of this (R15.06-2012) edition are subject to the requirements of this edition. This does not preclude the voluntary updating of the industrial robot systems and cells to the requirements of this edition.

Regards

Jim Norton

Hi Gary,

From what you say it appears it does not at least as it is configured the question is can the robot be re-programmed to do anything else. If so It would be an Industrial robot, otherwise I would agree with Lee Burk and his recommendation.

I think you are misreading the table, what it is saying is not the "most likely to occur" but rather the injury that you would "most likely sustain" if it did occur. In your example the operator is using the pendant control with an enabling device. That is a safety device and you are not supposed to consider safety devices at this stage. Your risk reduction method may be the use of a control pendant with an enabling switch. That is the risk reduction method you have applied to prevent the occurence

Regards

Jim Norton

The new edition of EN 953/ISO 14120, now named EN ISO 14120 “Safety of machinery - Guards - General requirements for the design and construction of fixed and movable guards” – is including an informative annex, Annex C, on how a fencing system can be tested. The tests will simulate: A person walking in to the fence. Throwing of objects from within the cell

Your risk assessment should determine if someone "could be injured" by an object from the cell leaving the cell over the fence, If so you would then have to address the issue in what ever way works. This may mean a Higher fence or net or perhaps extending the protective zone so that I would retain the object.

Do the risk assessment and determine what you must do

See IEC 62046:2018 that should answer your questions

As many as needed provide each has an enabling device that can stop the robot in sufficient time to prevent injury. So yes each would need an enabling device or the system would need to be LOTO

If any "grandfather exclusions" exist they generally apply only to a robot that it was in full compliance with all standards in effect on that date they were placed in service, and provided that no changes to the robot or the work cell have been made since the effective date of the new standard.

I think you would find it difficult to argue to a jury that you failed to bring your system into compliance with the latest standard if you have an employee sustain a serious injury more than 4 years after the effective date of the new standard Hope this helps