robot strangeness of the new machine directive

[Fulvio Romano]

First of all I ask that what I say is the result of experience (voices of corridor) and not of thorough study of the documentation.

until last month I was more than convinced that an automatic machine, for example a robot, when it goes in block, for example by pressing an emergency fungus, must be rearmed like this:

- removes the emergency
- You press something to rearm the car.

the second point is important, because the operator confirms the desire to restart the machine.

I saw an application at a manufacturer, in which a access control stops the robot when the operator enters the maximum space, does not turn off the engines because with a particular technology it is possible to guarantee safety even with the motors on.
now comes the beautiful...the operator moves away from the guarded area, and the robot starts alone.

I was told that with the old directive this was not possible, with the new one instead yes. However I saw the guy who told me in manifest panic when I asked him the question, and the answer was given stuttering... so I don't believe much.

What do you think?

 

[stevie]

It seems to me that there is a fund of truth, even I have read (velociously on a magazine while I was in the waiting room by a client) that the new directive allows maintenance on plants in operation, as long as special measures are taken.
sincerely I will continue with the old school or if the locking machine stops everything until manually rearms the plant.

 

[stevie]

I add that in particular sectors, already from before you could operate on moving machines. for example in some machines the working area is divided into two or more parts, the movement of the machine can be interrupted by operating in a certain area where the operator, for example, can carry out tooling and loading/unloading operations.

 

[gerod]

point 1.2.3 of Annex 1 of 2006/42/ce reads:

start-up
the start of a machine must be possible only through a voluntary action on a command device intended for this purpose.
the same said:
— for the remittance after an arrest, regardless of origin,
— to make a significant change in operating conditions.However, provided that this does not generate dangerous situations, the remittance or modification of operating conditions can be carried out through a voluntary action on a device other than the control device provided for this purpose.for automatic operation machines, starting the machine, remittance after stopping or changing the operating conditions can be carried out without external intervention, if
This does not produce dangerous situations.
when the machine is equipped with various starter control devices and operators can therefore put themselves mutually in danger, additional devices must be installed to eliminate such risks. If for security reasons starting and/or stopping must be carried out in a specific sequence, appropriate devices must ensure that these operations are carried out in the correct order.

The problem is to understand what that device does. If it were a photocell that detects the presence of man (perimetric photocell) then I say that this system cannot start the machine (unless the damage is slight) because the photocell cannot know if the man has left or entered another one.
differently the case where you have only one access (e.g. an electronic component press) with your hands inside a dangerous area. when you go out with your hands from the dangerous zone the machine can start again.
the important thing is to ensure, 100% that there is no risk.

on the tool generally by-pass the security (with appropriate key selector) but it must be clear that those who must operate must act with the utmost shortness, must be formed and must be aware of the residual risks associated with the above operations.

So it's true, but it's not always worth it! attention then to the magic word "voluntary".

 

[Fulvio Romano]

If it were a photocell that detects the presence of man (perimetric photocell) then I say that this system cannot start the machine (unless the damage is slight) because the photocell cannot know if the man has left or entered another one.
differently the case where you have only one access (e.g. an electronic component press) with your hands inside a dangerous area. when you go out with your hands from the dangerous zone the machine can start again.
the important thing is to ensure, 100% that there is no risk.

the case is a cell with a single access point controlled by a laser scanner. so actually if this says "free" the risks are not there.

on the tool generally by-pass the security (with appropriate key selector) but it must be clear that those who must operate must act with the utmost shortness, must be formed and must be aware of the residual risks associated with the above operations.

Not always. There is a whole theory of interchange warehouses where there is a system to share the same area to the machine and operator, but never at the same time.

Anyway, as usual, we don't talk about security here, but about paperwork. that the car should be safe is a fact. being able to prove it is not always a linear reasoning. . .

 

[Er Presidente]

in cuffs assemble 600,000 cars a year.

 

[Fulvio Romano]

in cuffs assemble 600,000 cars a year.

in cuffs do not assemble "vetture", unless the fiat do not want to call them "vetture" :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

apart from jokes. I didn't understand the statement. What do you mean?

in car assembly chains, operators often enter the room only for programming and maintenance. especially in the phases of painting.