Hey John, If you are part of TC 108, you might want to suggest to the appropriate convenor(s) that they reach out to TC 199 about this potential JWG. There might be some powerful synergies to be had there.
Doug Nix Kitchener, Ontario, Canada [email protected] +1 (519) 729-5704 > On Feb 2, 2024, at 11:35, John Woodgate <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks, Doug. I understand your position. It seems to me that IEC TC108 is > also interested in this subject, because its scope includes large equipment > that can be entered and may have moving parts. > > On 2024-02-02 16:29, Doug Nix wrote: >> Hi John, >> >> You are correct, of course, about the content of a TR. The ISO Directives >> Part 1, clause 3.3 lays it out very clearly. >> >> The work on 21260 has been going on for quite a few years. Looking at ISO >> Documents, I can see the original NWIP in 2016. In the intervening years, it >> went from an IS to a TR for several reasons. The data included represents >> the state of the art. The WG is resolving the last of the comments from the >> CD ballot, and I think they will be recommending to TC 199 that the document >> proceed directly to stage 50 and on to publication in short order. >> >> Their plenary meeting report shows that they are proposing a JWG with ISO/TC >> 299 to develop a document entitled "Safety of machinery - Test methods to >> validate safe physical contacts between moving machinery or moving parts of >> machinery and persons.” This logical next step will allow the test methods >> and equipment described in ISO/TR 15066 and the data from ISO/TR 21260 to >> come together in an IS that will be useful to both the robotics sector and >> the general machinery sector. The project has not been formally proposed >> yet, and considering that the JWG has not been formed, there is no timeline >> for developing that document yet. >> >> As for consultation with other experts outside the WG, I think that the WG >> members who are actively involved have that in hand. I am only peripherally >> involved in the WG, as I chair the Canadian Mirror Committee, and I am aware >> of the work that some Canadian experts are doing in that WG. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Doug Nix >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> +1 (519) 729-5704 >> >> >> >>> On Jan 31, 2024, at 18:37, John Woodgate <[email protected]> >>> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Indeed, you can't share it with the list, but, as I expect you know, you >>> can consult anyone in private communication who can contribute to the work. >>> It is a Technical Report, and recent rules changes closely restrict what a >>> TR can include. It is more or less confined to statements of fact. Not even >>> recommendations are permitted. >>> >>> On 2024-01-31 23:02, Doug Nix wrote: >>>> 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 >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> +1 (519) 729-5704 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jan 29, 2024, at 19:50, sgbrody <[email protected]> >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>> Date: 1/29/24 7:05 PM (GMT-05:00) >>>>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>> 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 >>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/> >>>>> >>>>> (UTC-06:00, US-MDT) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 4:41 PM Richard Nute <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2024 11:16 AM >>>>>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>> +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 [email protected] >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>All emc-pstc postings are archived >>>>>> and searchable on the web at: >>>>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ >>>>>> 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: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>> Rick Linford at: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>> For policy questions, send mail to: >>>>>> Jim Bacher at: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>> 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 >>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>All >>>>> emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: >>>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ >>>>> >>>>> 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: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>> Rick Linford at: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>> For policy questions, send mail to: >>>>> Jim Bacher at: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>> 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 >>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>All >>>>> emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: >>>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ >>>>> >>>>> 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: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>> Rick Linford at: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>> For policy questions, send mail to: >>>>> Jim Bacher at: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>> 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 >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>All emc-pstc >>>> postings are archived and searchable on the web at: >>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ >>>> 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: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> Rick Linford at: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> For policy questions, send mail to: >>>> Jim Bacher at: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: >>>> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 >>>> >>> -- >>> OOO - Own Opinions Only >>> John M Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK >>> Keep trying >> > -- > OOO - Own Opinions Only > John M Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK > Keep trying > 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 > [email protected] > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > 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: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Rick Linford at: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher at: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > 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 [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ 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: [email protected] Rick Linford at: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> _________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
