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 <sgbr...@comcast.net> 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 <doug...@gmail.com> > 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 <mailto:doug...@gmail.com> > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/> > > (UTC-06:00, US-MDT) > > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 4:41 PM Richard Nute <ri...@ieee.org > <mailto:ri...@ieee.org>> 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 high mass. The foil is not likely to cause injury, while the >> block may cause injury. >> >> >> >> Consider an aluminum needle and an aluminum block, both having the same >> speed and mass. The needle is likely to cause injury, while the block is >> not likely to cause injury. >> >> >> >> Consider the time of contact with a moving part. If the time is long, then >> injury is not likely. If the time is short, then injury is likely. >> >> >> >> So, in addition to speed, we must consider mass of the block, contact area, >> and duration of the contact in predicting injury. >> >> >> >> In other words, energy per area (mv2 per area in this case) whether >> mechanical, thermal, radiant, chemical, or electrical, transferred to a body >> part for a (usually short) period of time, causes injury. The same energy >> magnitude transferred over a long period of time is not likely to cause >> injury. >> >> >> >> An injury occurs only when energy per contact area of sufficient magnitude >> and duration is imparted to a body part. Both the safety science article >> and the IRSST paper discuss energy of moving parts and area, but do not >> address the other parameters. Both introduce (to me) the concept of “force” >> on various body parts. I’m not sure of how this fits into this safety >> discussion. >> >> >> >> Consideration of speed alone is over-simplification. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Rich >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Doug Nix <d...@ieee.org <mailto:d...@ieee.org>> >> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2024 11:16 AM >> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> >> Subject: Re: [PSES] Reduce Speed of Moving Part to Reduce Risk >> >> >> >> Hi Brian, >> >> >> >> In the machinery sector, 250 mm/s has long been used as the threshold for >> avoidability. This figure comes from the robot standards and has been used >> for about 30 years. Studies done at the Polytechnique de Montréal [1] and >> IRSST [2] have shown that a speed closer to 140 mm/s is more universally >> avoidable by people working in various environments, but the long use of 250 >> mm/s has entrenched that higher speed. Related to that is the IRSST’s Repoer >> R-956. I’ve attached copies of these documents for you. >> >> >> >> You can find the 250 mm/s number quoted in most machinery safety standards >> where reduced speed is considered for risk reduction. The origin is in >> ANSI/RIA R15.06 1992, which made its way into CSA Z434 and then eventually >> to ISO 10218. >> >> >> >> [1] Y. Chinniah, B. Aucourt, and R. Bourbonnière, “Study of Machine >> Safety for Reduced-Speed or Reduced-Force Work R-956,” IRRST - Institut de >> recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail, Montreal, 2017. >> >> >> >> [2] Y. Chinniah, B. Aucourt, and R. Bourbonnière, “Safety of >> industrial machinery in reduced risk conditions,” Safety Science, vol. 93, >> pp. 152–161, Mar. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2016.12.002. >> >> >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Doug Nix >> >> d...@ieee.org <mailto:d...@ieee.org> >> +1 (519) 729-5704 >> >> >> >> 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 >> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>All emc-pstc >> postings are archived and searchable on the web at: >> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ >> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> >> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to >> unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> >> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html >> >> For help, send mail to the list administrators: >> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> >> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org> >> For policy questions, send mail to: >> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: >> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 >> > > 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 > EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ > > Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> > Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to > unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> > List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> > Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org> > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> > To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: > https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 > > 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 > EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ > > Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> > Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to > unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> > List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> > Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org> > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> > To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: > https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 > - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org> _________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
