AuTOMATIOn & ROBOTICS
WAnT A ROBOT BuT DOn’T knOW WHERE TO START?
Industrial or collaborative? This is the question everyone is asking. We all want to get the most out of our production, however the demarcation line between the two options is not as clear as you might think. It all depends on the setting in which the machine operates, how operators need to interact with the robot and its main functions. Barry Weller, solutions marketing manager – OEM at Mitsubishi Electric, looks at how to identify what type of robot best suits your application and how to integrate it.
T
he first question that companies interested in automating their processes should ask is: what do we
want to achieve? The answer to this will determine the role and type of robot needed. Consequently, conducting a comprehensive risk assessment will shed light on the safety requirements. For example, if speeding up operations
is the main objective behind deploying a robotic solution, conventional industrial robots, such as Mitsubishi Electric’s MELFA RV articulated arm and RH series SCARA robots, are quite likely to be the most suitable option. As the application will dictate, these robots move at high speed which means they are suitable for applications where workspace is to be shared with human operators only by adopting additional safety provisions. The options to integrate them are to construct physical safety perimeter guards or implement systems that allow automated speed control when humans approach the robot working area. Conversely, if the main goal is assisting
employees in their activities, for example by passing or holding parts, the application would be considered collaborative. As a result, any conventional physical separation between humans and robots would obstruct the application. In this case, the ISO/TS 15066:2016 standard supports the development of suitable safety measures, as highlighted by the risk assessment. An example of a robot designed for collaborative applications is Mitsubishi Electric’s MELFA RV series Assista articulated arm robot. The guidelines indicate different types of
collaborative applications which include safety-rated monitored stop, speed and separation monitoring, hand guiding as well as power and force limiting. This is where the grey area between the two types of robot starts to appear. With
the increase in safety options now available, industrial robots can also achieve many of the requirements needed in a collaborative application.
IndusTrIal Or cOllaBOraTIvE rOBOT? Designed to work alongside humans collaborative robots or ‘cobots’, can provide a safe solution. However, there are some obvious caveats. The term collaborative, as specified by ISO/TS 15066:2016, actually refers to systems or applications where automatically operated robots share the same workspace with humans. This means that robots for collaborative applications, just like any other type of robot, still require a risk assessment. There are different industrial operations whose risk assessment would support the use of cobots, for example, if the robot is required to work alongside the human as part of the assembly process to pass objects to operators. Here the risk of a collision between the two is high and so this application would fall into the category of power and force limiting. Features such as safe torque range to detect the impact and prevent injury are needed. There are situations where the use of
robots would require additional safety measures. For example, if potentially harmful chemicals, sharp edges or extremely hot items need to be handled, the robot would need to be enclosed by physical safety perimeter guards to protect human operators. Because of this, the use of a conventional robot is likely to be the right choice for these applications.
In other situations humans may need to
infrequently enter a robot’s workspace to briefly interact with the application or there could be a limited area of interaction. These systems will run as fast as possible under normal operation and only slow down when
20 JuLy/AuguST 2021 | FACTORy&HAnDLIngSOLuTIOnS
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74
