Rank: Forum user 
|
Hi ,
Im looking for infromation to help me produce assessments for this task:
Guidance for conducting risk assessment of collaborative robot applications to ISO/TS15066 specifications
I would apprecaite any advice from H&S Practitioners whos woked on this subject matter
thanks very much
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Can I assume that you have read this research report from the HSE https://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr906.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Actually no I have not , I will do now thanks very much for the guidance
Regards
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Morning John The Research Report that AK refers to discusses the fairly moot point as to how severe an injury a robot has to inflict. I would be inclined to treat this in exactly the same way that you would treat any other risk assessment of a new machine. Most OSH professionals have probably never investigated a robot accident. I've done ONE and been in the vicinity of where another one was being investigated by someone else. In both circumstances, it really came down to the basics. So, in the one I investigated the robot was housed in an area enclosure with human entry controlled by time delay interlock. The key failed, so the organisation came up with what in the process industries is called a "work around". They got the master key and told the setter operator to only go in to the enclosure with the set up isolated. But the robot was jamming at least twice an hour and the inevitable happened. Jam occurred, operator didn't isolate, went in, cleared the blockage and the robot restarted and gave the operator a smack on the head. Not that badly hurt, but it went to Court and the employer pleaded guilty. The other was in a car production factory which a party of HSE Inspectors got to visit during a course on "CNC Machinery and Robot Safety" - never did understand why organisations would INVITE(!!) numerous HSE Inspectors in at the same time,, but the invitation in this case would have been made months in advance of the accident. Anyway, we were given a brief talk and then given authority to wander around, talk to whoever we wanted and generally given a free run. I happened to lean against part of what I suppose was at least £0.5m of sophisticated guarding but it parted at a corner of the (much less sophisticated) perimeter fencing. The manufacturing manager saw this happen and sheepishly commented "I see you have found where our workers get in when there is a problem". I don't know but I guess that the investigation resulted in a prosecution. So, your risk assessment is about a series of What Ifs. May be it needs something like a HAZID or HAZOP team study, may be not.
|
 1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I think that the issue with collaborative robots is that traditional industrial robots are kept in an enclosure and full PUWER process is applied to keep dangerous moving parts away from human bodies. A collaborative robot works along side a person and as such must be designed to fail safe if it gets too close to a person. An example of that sort of machine are the delivery robots that have been trialled in Leeds. Of course, these machines are small and are unlikely to injure someone, but a larger machine used to move engine parts around a factory for example might cause a more serious injury. Imagine an automated FLT. Yes. It is all down the risk assessment but establishing what is reasonably practical is not straightforward.
|
1 user thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.