2007 CSA/RIA Robotic Safety Conference Report


The afternoon of the first day included sessions on Risk Assessment, Basic Safety Circuit Design and an RIA Risk Assessment Exercise.

...Morning sessions included discussion of on-going work by CSA in standardization, developments in robot safety standardization and a variety of case studies on the application of safeguarding devices to real-world installations.

...John Salmon presented a case study showing AR Milne ’s approach to developing a system, including correct specification of equipment in the purchase specification, engineering development of the system and inclusion of risk assessment as part of the design review process through final integration of the system.

...In the afternoon there were three sessions available, CSA Z432, Using Risk Assessment in Safeguarding Automated Systems and Advanced Safety Circuit Design.

...If you are using robots in your facility and you are not intimately familiar with CSA Z434 and CSA Z432 (for Canadian users) or ANSI RIA R15.06 and the ANSI B11 family of standards, you need to make the time to attend.

The 2007 CSA/RIA Robotic Safety Conference was held 26/28-Mar-07 at the Holiday Inn Select on Dixon Road, Toronto.
Day 1
The morning of the first day of the conference was taken up with training sessions covering the current CSA Z434, CSA Z460 and the ‘Essentials of Conducting a PHSR’. I attended portions of both the Z434 session and the PSHSR session.
Jeff Fryman of the RIA did a great job of explaining the essentials of this important and complex standard. It was really great to see the interest in the attendees at the session.
Currently the CSA Z142 Press standard is under revision and will be published in the near future. The expectation is that much of the ISO standards for mechanical, pneumatic and hydraulic power presses will be incorporated in the revised standard, further harmonizing the Canadian standard with the international standards.
Jim van Kessel (JVK Industrial Automation) and Tom Eastwood (IAPA ) expressed the opinion that machinery exemptions could be achieved with a risk assessment and suitable documentation from the manufacturer. They also indicated that non-P.Eng. personnel involved in conducting reviews should included details of their special professional or technical expertise that qualifies them to conduct the review.
The afternoon of the first day included sessions on Risk Assessment, Basic Safety Circuit Design and an RIA Risk Assessment Exercise. I did not attend any of these sessions.
Day 2
Day 2 was the first day of the full conference. Morning sessions included discussion of on-going work by CSA in standardization, developments in robot safety standardization and a variety of case studies on the application of safeguarding devices to real-world installations.
The US has recently adopted the ISO 12100 standards into their national standards strategy. This is a very significant change in the US direction, since it opens the door for further harmonization with the EU and Asia.
The RIA R15.06 standard is currently in revision by RIA. The next iteration of this standard is expected to be an adoption of ISO 10218, with some national deviations. This is very important, since it will open the doors to the implementation of safe motion, safe speed and soft limits in robots. There have been a number of technical innovations by European corporations that are recognized in the ISO standard that would be difficult to accommodate under the existing standards.
The exhibit hall was open during the two-hours provided for lunch and at the end of the day. A number of interesting safeguarding products were shown, the most exciting being a new vision-based safeguarding system produced by Pilz . Vision based systems first came to my attention as a research project being carried out in Japan about 5 years ago. The Pilz system uses three cameras installed in a single head that can be mounted above the area to be safeguarded. The system develops a pair of 3D images and then compares the images in near real time. The system can be programmed with 3D safeguarding volumes within the monitored space. This system will allow for safeguarding of systems that were previously extremely difficult to guard. Response times will be similar to area scanners (50-100 ms). This product has not been officially released yet, so watch the Pilz home page for this exciting development.
Afternoon sessions continued with presentations including a Case Study by Marvin Winrich , formerly of UL and now working with Rockwell Automation . This cell was reminiscent of many I have seen, with the owner taking some amazing risks with personnel in the daily operation of the equipment.
Ian Brough of SICK presented on application of safeguarding devices, including a very basic review of safe-distance calculation.
Tom Doyle discussed Process Safety and Loss Management and illustrated the issues with some Excel calculations of the approximate magnitude losses of a number of representative occurrences within a manufacturing environment.
Day 3
Day 3 started with a presentation by Dave Shanahan reviewing the progress CSA is making in developing a wide variety of OHS standards. CSA is broadening their scope, adding new standards covering emergency preparedness as well as the 'usual' occupational health and safety topics.
Dave’s presentation was followed by my presentation on developments in ISO 13849-1. I will be posting the audio of this presentation over the weekend.
John Salmon presented a case study showing AR Milne ’s approach to developing a system, including correct specification of equipment in the purchase specification, engineering development of the system and inclusion of risk assessment as part of the design review process through final integration of the system.
The morning wrapped up with a demonstration of Safe Distance Measurement vs. Calculation by Roberta Nelson Shea, Jim Van Kessel, Tom Vardon, Ian Brough and Tom Eastwood.
In the afternoon there were three sessions available, CSA Z432, Using Risk Assessment in Safeguarding Automated Systems and Advanced Safety Circuit Design.
I attended the Advanced Safety Circuit Design session led by Gil Dominguez of Rimrock Automation . The session provided plenty of examples of various types of safety circuits used in robotic work cells, and added integration of safety rated programmable controls and networks to the hardwired approaches. Gil collaborated with Ron Roepke of Pilz and Ina Brough of SICK in these discussions. Gil wrapped up the afternoon with some examples of ISO 13849-1 calculations and how they affected the selection of components and the architecture of the safeguarding systems.
Networking
One of the key reasons to attend any conference is the opportunity to network. This conference presented great opportunities to meet people working with robot systems and providing solutions to companies using robotics in their operations.
Conclusion
The attendance at the conference this year was fairly limited by comparison to previous years. The exhibit hall was larger and better attended by exhibitors, making for a much more interesting show. Innovative guarding products were being shown by some of the industry leading companies, including Pilz, SICK, Fortress , Jokab and many others.
If you are using robots in your facility and you are not intimately familiar with CSA Z434 and CSA Z432 (for Canadian users) or ANSI RIA R15.06 and the ANSI B11 family of standards, you need to make the time to attend. There is much to be learned and you will get the chance to discuss your questions and concerns with industry experts.
Join me there next year!

Posted: Fri - March 30, 2007 at 07:45 PM          

©