gerod
Guest
I leave you some useful links on complex machines.http://www.machinebuilding.net/n/n2630.htmhttp://www.hse.gov.uk/work-equipment-machinery/manufacturer-in-situ.htm?ebul=hsegen&cr=14/6-may-12
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Fulvio Romano
Guest
It's hard to read. . .the machinery directive 2006/42/ec applies to assemblies of machines as well as to individual complete machines where they are:
- assembled together to carry out a common function,
- the constituent parts are functionally linked in such a way that each unit affects the operation of other units so that a risk assessment of the whole assembly is necessary, and
- the constituent units have a common control system.
I have a process plant on which some operations must be carried out. for example a sampling of material, a cleaning, adding materials, etc.
I use a robot that:
- is installed in the plant
- is subjected to a series of interlocks, to avoid collisions between robots and plant
- the interlocks are made by the same plc of the plant
after the installation of the robot, should the plant be certified?
I would say no, and I think the key to time and that bold phrase. . .
Fulvio Romano
Guest
I think it's just like that. two machines are to be certified as a whole if they generate risks that they themselves do not generate.
Right?
Right?
gerod
Guest
not even the time to write and already comments! ! !
the key is here:
(from the guidelines, §38)
if you introduce new risks, you must mark.
If you don't control the robot, could you generate dangerous situations? if you then disagree with you because you use a system to avoid the dangerous situation that has been identified (this is risk analysis) - point 2 of the affirmative list
In addition, your case tells me that there is interaction between the various systems (plc of the plant) and therefore point 3 is affirmative
remains point 1 but it is quite obvious that it is affirmative (it is installed in the plant).
I'd say we have to analyze case by case to figure out whether or not we are.
Hi.
the key is here:
(from the guidelines, §38)
If you do risk analysis and do not add risks then you do not have to mark there the plant.the definition of machine sets indicates that sets are arranged and commanded in order to have a solid functioning, to achieve the same result. To ensure that a group of machines or machines is considered as a set of machines must be satisfied, all the following criteria:
− the constitutive units are mounted together in order to perform a common function, such as the production of a given product;
− the constitutive units are functionally linked so that the operation of each unit directly affects the functioning of other units or the whole of the unit, and therefore a risk assessment is necessary for the whole;
− the constitutive units of the whole have a common command system – see §184: comments on point 1.2.1, and §203: comments on point 1.2.4.4 of Annex i.
a group of machines connected to each other, but in which each machine works independently from the others is not considered a set of machines in the sense indicated.
if you introduce new risks, you must mark.
Let's talk about it.after the installation of the robot, should the plant be certified?
If you don't control the robot, could you generate dangerous situations? if you then disagree with you because you use a system to avoid the dangerous situation that has been identified (this is risk analysis) - point 2 of the affirmative list
In addition, your case tells me that there is interaction between the various systems (plc of the plant) and therefore point 3 is affirmative
remains point 1 but it is quite obvious that it is affirmative (it is installed in the plant).
I'd say we have to analyze case by case to figure out whether or not we are.
Hi.