Robots and Cobots

CLOSE ALL
What are robots and cobots?
Robots and related devices are common in some workplaces, but technological advances have
begun to allow for a greater diversity of robotic systems. Innovations in safety assurance
mechanisms and intuitive interaction technologies are allowing closer robot-human interactions
than ever before.
Industrial robots include powerful, heavyweight automated arms that perform tasks such as
welding, painting, or assembling components within a physical enclosure such as a cage. Robots
offer considerable safety benefits by performing tasks that are dangerous or undesirable for
human workers. For example, robots perform tasks that are repetitive or require awkward
motions or postures, protecting workers from being exposed to risks of developing
musculoskeletal injuries. Robots also work in environments that are hazardous to humans, such
as cleaning up chemical spills.
Collaborative robots, or cobots, also perform these types of tasks, but they have built-in safety
mechanisms that allow them to work more closely with humans. Cobots can assist with complex
tasks that cannot be fully automated. Human-cobot interactions could involve workers handing
off parts and materials to cobots, or workers “teaching” the cobot by guiding it through a desired
motion, which the cobot then repeats. Collaborative robot systems allow robots and humans to
use their strengths – robot’s power, precision, endurance, and consistency, and human’s
creativity, intelligence, adaptability, dexterity, touch sensitivity, and problem-solving ability.

Are there safety standards for robots and cobots?

Robots and cobots are subject areas that are still growing. Currently Canada’s CAN/CSA-Z434-
03 (R2013) standard “Industrial Robots And Robot Systems - General Safety Requirements”
applies to the manufacture, remanufacture, rebuild, installation, safeguarding, maintenance and
repair, testing and start-up, and personnel training requirements for industrial robots and robot
systems.
International safety standards for industrial robots include ISO 10218-1 and -2, “Robots for
industrial environments – Safety requirements Parts 1 and 2”, and ANSI/RIA R15.06, “Industrial
Robots and Robot Systems – Safety Requirements”. These standards describe hazards associated
with industrial robots and provide guidelines for eliminating or reducing risks associated with
those hazards.
International safety standards for cobots include ISO/TS 15066, “Collaborative Robot Safety”;
and ANSI/RIA R15.606, “Collaborative Robot Safety”. These standards provide important
information on how to implement a collaborative robot system in a way that maintains safety for
the human collaborator.
Some jurisdictions have also included requirements for robots in their health and safety
legislation. For example, Alberta’s Occupational Health and Safety Code requires industrial
robot systems to comply with CSA Standard CAN/CSA-Z434-03 (R2013) and sets specific
employer duties for when a worker is teaching (or programming) a robot.

What hazards and concerns are associated with robots and

cobots?
Potential hazards associated with using robot systems include:
Impact, collision, or other “struck by or caught-between” hazards: unexpected movements,
malfunctions, or program changes could result in contact between the robot system and workers,
which may lead to injuries depending on the force of contact.
Crushing and trapping hazards: parts of a worker’s body can be trapped within or between
components of a robotic system.
Struck by projectiles hazards: mechanical failure of the robot system could cause parts to be
released, gripper mechanisms to fail, or power tools to malfunction, leading to projectile objects.
Hydraulic and pneumatic hazards: rupturing of hydraulic and pneumatic lines can create
dangerous high-pressure cutting streams and whipping hoses that can cause physical injury.
Ruptures and leaks can also result in exposure to hazardous fluids that may be toxic or
flammable. Pressure losses due to ruptures or leaks could also result in struck-by or crushing
hazards if a component of the robot system falls onto or swings into a worker.
Electrical hazards: the robot system’s power supply and cords could be a source of electrical
hazards such as arc flash, electrical shock, or fire.
Slipping, tripping, and falling hazards: spills or leaks, equipment, power cables, and hoses can
all be tripping and falling hazards.
Other hazards: Other hazards could stem from systemic issues such as mechanical failures,
power system malfunctions, or faults within the robot control system due to errors in software or
electromagnetic or radio frequency interference. Hazards could also be caused by human error
when integrating or programming the robot, improper assembly and installation, unauthorized
access to the robot area, exposure to environmental factors such as water and dust, and time
constraint and other workplace pressures.
Additional hazard considerations for collaborative robots:
Whereastraditional industrial robots are physically separated from human workers to prevent
contact, collaborative robots, or cobots, can work in close proximity with workers, sometimes
even making contact with workers as part of their normal functions. Cobots have built-in safety
controls to prevent hazardous contact. For example, a cobot could be designed to slow down or
stop when it detects a worker nearby to prevent injury.
In ISO/TS 15066:2016 “Collaborative Robot Safety” (R2019), the International Organization for
Standardization requires collaborative robots to use one of four safety measures:
 1. Speed and separation monitoring: This safety feature uses sensors tell the
cobot that a worker is nearby. Depending on its proximity to the worker, the
robot may slow down, change direction to move away from the worker, or
stop completely.
2. Hand-guided controls: This safety feature allows the cobot to move only
when it is under an operator’s control. For example, a worker can guide the
cobot to grasp and place a heavy box onto a vehicle. In this case, the cobot
will not move without the worker pressing a hold-to-run control device and
physically directing its movements.
3. Power and force limiting: This safety feature limits the pressure and force
that can be applied when the cobot makes contact. Limiting speed, force, and
power of the cobot allows physical contact between cobots and workers.
These limitations also reduce the amount of force cobots can exert if they
strike a person unintentionally. Cobots with power and force limiting
functions are typically much slower and handle lighter objects. These cobots
also tend to have rounded edges and softer surfaces to reduce the risk of injury
when there is contact.
4. Safety-rated monitored stop: The cobot will stop moving when it senses a
worker enters its workspace, similar to approaches used with more traditional
industrial robots.

“Speed and separation monitoring” and “power and force limiting” technologies are commonly
used together so cobots can function at high speeds when workers are not in the area but slow
down when workers enter the area so contact can happen without causing injury.
While these internal features facilitate safer robot-human interactions, it is important to keep in
mind that collaborative robots are not inherently safe. How the cobot is configured, programmed,
and used in the workplace can create potential hazards. For example, a cobot could be tasked
with picking up objects or components that are sharp, which could injure workers if contact is
made. A cobot’s interaction with other equipment or robots can also present additional hazards.
Therefore, it is crucial to assess the hazards and risks associated with cobot and also how it will
be used in the workplace.
Research has shown that introduction of human-robot collaboration has the potential to both
positively and negatively affect the stress level and workload of workers. Workers may also feel
pressured to keep up with the cobot’s pace and level of productivity, potentially leading to
musculoskeletal risks. Increased collaboration with robots may also reduce workers’ contact with
their peers and impact their social support at work. This isolation may have a negative impact on
workers’ mental health.

What should be considered when assessing the hazards and

risks of robots and cobots?
To ensure the safety of everyone involved, hazard identification and risk assessments should be
performed for each stage of the process, including integrating, operating, and maintaining the
robot. A good time to conduct a comprehensive hazard analysis and risk assessment is when the
robot is first integrated into the workplace. Individuals who are responsible for integrating and
programming the robot should have thorough training and knowledge of what needs to be
programmed, how to interface with the robotic system, and the control functions of the robot and
associated equipment. Therefore, they would be an asset to the risk assessment team.
A task-based approach to the risk assessment is recommended. Identify all the tasks that will be
performed as part of programming, operating, and maintaining the robotic system. Then, identify
the hazards and assess the risks associated with each task.
When assessing risks and hazards of a robot system, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration’s (OSHA’s) Technical Manual on Industrial Robot Systems recommends
considering:

 Tasks that will be programmed

 Start-up and command or programming procedures
 Environmental conditions
 Location and installation requirements
 Possible worker errors
 Scheduled and unscheduled maintenance
 Possible robot and system malfunctions
 Normal mode of operation and procedures
 Emergency conditions and procedures
 All worker functions and duties
 Hazards typical of the specific robot application

Similar robot systems in the same workplace should each have their own risk assessments.
Though the robot is identical, they may be working on different parts or processes. Additionally,
their physical placement in the facility may introduce unique hazards (e.g., a particular robot
may be next to a wall, while another otherwise-identical robot is next to a walkway).
Risk assessments for robotic systems should be conducted by leaders and workers with
knowledge of workplace process operations, the specific robotic system, and risk assessment
techniques. Workers and third-party consultants with relevant specialized expertise should also
be invited to participate.
Worker involvement in the hazard and risk assessment is especially important for collaborative
robots. Operators have insights into how they will be using the cobot system so they may be able
to identify hazards that would be otherwise missed.  
Additional risk and hazard assessment considerations for collaborative robots
Risk and hazard assessment for cobots must also consider instances where the worker and robot
come into contact. Determine when the contact may happen, which part of the body might be
affected, the type of contact, and the allowable force for that type of contact. For each of contact
type, ANSI/RIA standard R15.606-2016 provides a permissible biomechanical limit for force
and contact pressure based on the body part being contacted. These limits are intended to avoid
pain during contact events.
Consider hazards involved in both transient and quasi-static contacts.
Transient contact occurs when the worker’s movement is not restricted at the time of the
contact.
Quasi-static contact occurs when a part of the worker’s body cannot move at the time of the
contact because it is being restricted (e.g., trapped or pinched between the robot and another
object).

What are some possible control measures for robots and

cobots?
Hazard control measures can vary based on industry, robot type, work process, and work
practices. Each risk reduction measure has its own benefits and limitations. However, effective
control measures will align with the hierarchy of controls . This hierarchy help workplaces
prioritize control methods from the most effective level of protection to the least effective level
of protection. Workplaces will likely need to use a combination of different control measures
including safeguarding devices, regular inspections and testing, standard operating procedures,
education and training, and personal protective equipment.
Safeguarding devices
Safeguarding devices reduce risks by physically separating workers from robot systems during
automatic operations. When the robot is in automatic mode, all safeguarding devices should be
activated, and at no time should human operators have access to the area.
Examples of safeguarding devices include:

 Presence-sensing devices such as light curtains, safety mats, safety scanners, and
safety vision systems
 Fixed barrier or perimeter guards such as fences
 Interlocked barrier guards

In most cases, the robot is programmed to automatically assume a safe state such as stopping
when a worker enters the safeguarded space. However, there are some circumstances in which
workers need to interact with a robot that is still active (e.g., when a worker is programming or
teaching the robot, or during the testing phase after maintenance or repairs). When this
interaction must happen, the industrial robot should be on manual mode where its movements are
completely controlled by the worker inside the safeguarded space through an enabling device,
and the robot will operate at a reduced speed to decrease the likelihood of contact and minimize
injury potential.
Awareness devices can be used with safeguards by visually alerting workers of zones with higher
hazards. Typical awareness devices include fencing, chain or rope barriers with supporting
stanchions, flashing lights, signs, whistles, or horns.
Inspections, maintenance, and testing
Regular inspections, maintenance, and testing of the robot system should be performed to verify
that robot conditions and programming are operating as desired. The robot’s safety function
settings, automatic stop ability, and the appropriateness of the robot's safety distances should also
be verified and tested regularly.
When creating an inspection program, consider the hazards and risks identified in your
assessment and the manufacturer’s recommendations. As with all inspection and maintenance
activity, it is important to apply appropriate lockout/tagout procedures to maintain worker safety.
Keep a record of the maintenance activities as well as tests and inspections performed and their
results. This record can help workplaces track the safety performance of the robotic system and
flag any leading indicators of new hazards.
Don’t forget to conduct pre-operation tests as required and appropriate. For example, site
acceptance testing is usually performed to confirm the robot is operating as expected after being
integrated into the workplace.
Operating procedures
Develop programs and procedures for each robot system in your workplace. At a minimum,
procedures should be written for:

 Activities that must be done in a specific sequence to maintain safety such as entering
and exiting the safeguarded robot area.
 Activities that can create unusual or significant hazards such as start-ups, shutdowns,
or emergency events.
 More complex activities such as equipment programming, maintenance, testing, and
lockout/tagout procedures.

Make sure to communicate and provide training for the program and procedures.
Education and training
Employers and workers involved in setting-up, operating, and maintaining robot systems should
have knowledge of the system and applicable safety standards. Everyone involved should also
understand not only the nature and severity of potential hazards, but also how these hazards are
addressed. Everyone involved should also be able to demonstrate competency to perform their
jobs safely. Workplaces can develop and implement a robot safety training program to help
workers develop relevant skills before they perform robot-related work.
Personal protective equipment
Workplaces should select appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) based on the hazards
and risks identified in the assessment. PPE may include:

 Hardhats
 Hand protection for the intended use (sharp edges, heat, cold)
 Safety glasses
 Protective footwear
 Hearing protection
 Arc-flash protection
 Respirators
Confirm control measures
Lastly, it is always important to make sure that the control measures do not create new hazards.
For example, make sure safeguards selected will not impede the vision of workers if a clear line
of sight is necessary for safety. If viewing is important but the safeguard cannot be modified
without compromising safety, the workplace can consider using a camera system to enable
viewing from a distance.
Additional risk reduction considerations for collaborative robots
Following the hierarchy of controls principle, first consider whether human-robot collaboration
is necessary and to what extent. For example:

 Can the process be performed without a human collaborator?

 Does the human and robot need to work on the same item simultaneously?
 Does the human need to be in physical contact with the robot or the item being
worked on while the robot is in motion?

Because of hazards that could result from robot-worker contact, only use human-robot
collaboration if it is truly necessary.
If human-robot collaboration is necessary, make sure the robot used is designed for
collaboration. More specifically, make sure the robot has the appropriate safety features for the
task, such as speed and separation monitoring, hand-guided controls, power and force limiting,
or safety-rated monitored stop.
The cobot may need additional control measures to reduce risks, including:

 Rounded corners and edges

 Padding on sharp corners and edges
 Eliminating projections on surfaces
 Compliant elements such as springs that limit force
 Smooth protective covers

Workplaces can also use administrative control measures such as clearly marking the
collaborative space where workers may come into contact with robot systems. Signs that warn
workers that they are about to enter a robot collaborative space can also be used.
Potential psychosocial hazards of introducing human-robot collaboration can be mitigated by
involving workers (and unions if applicable) in the planning and implementation process. Build
trust by being clear about why the organization is bringing in cobots and provide everyone with a
chance for input. Encourage worker acceptance by providing education about how the cobot can
benefit their safety or job quality, and make it clear that the cobot is not going to replace
workers. More information on this topic can be found in the OHS Answers on Introducing New
Technology at the Workplace.
 Guidelines for the Safe Collaborative
Robot Design and Implementation
Overview of the Guidelines

The Guidelines for Safe Collaborative Robot Design and Implementation are divided
into six
individual documents. The following list describes the intention and purpose of each of
the
documents:

 The first two documents listed below (i.e. “Introduction” and “Cobot Safety Flyers”) are
designed
to be informative introductory documents that assist in understanding how to use the
guidelines.
They also educate readers about the meaning and general safety aspects of human-
cobot
collaboration.
 The two documents that follow (i.e. “Guidance on Safe Human-Cobot Interaction” and
“Designing
a Safe Cobot Workplace”) assist in the creative planning of an upcoming or amended
workplace.
Finally, the last two documents (i.e. “Cobot Workplace Safety Checklists” and “Cobot
Work Health
and Safety Risk Assessment”) are analytical in nature to assess an existing (or a
planned)
workplace’s safety features.

Introduction

This document provides an overview of the comprehensive guidelines. It describes

relevant
definitions of working with collaborative robots, summarises important cobot-specific
hazards
and safety measures, and outlines the five design principles to create a cobot-safe
workplace.
Cobot Safety Flyers

These flyers are designed to be easy-to-read one-pagers that summarise key

information for
non-technical experts/stakeholders. In addition, two example workplace flyers. The
flyers are
intended to educate and remind operators about basic safety aspects related to their
own
workplace. Organisations can use these flyers as a basis to create their own workplace-
specific
cobot safety flyers.

The purpose of these flyers is to be printed and shared separately from the rest of the
guideline,
e.g. as hand-outs, workplace posters, or part of your workplace-specific work health and
safety
trainings and inductions.

Guidance on Safe Human-Cobot Interaction

This part of the guidelines provides a comprehensive explanation of what human-cobot

interaction
means and how to safely program and test a cobot for interactive tasks.

Designing a Safe Cobot Workplace

This part of the guidelines outlines the individual roles and responsibilities of people
involved in
the planning and management of a safe cobot workplace over its whole life cycle.

Cobot Workplace Safety Checklists

This document includes intuitive, step-by-step checklists that highlight important safety
aspects
of human-cobot collaboration in a shared workplace. They should be completed as a
preliminary
measure to the “Cobot Work Health and Safety Risk Assessment” during the planning
and
management of a cobot workplace.

Cobot Work Health and Safety Risk Assessment

This assessment is closely aligned with the “Cobot Workplace Safety Checklists”. It is
designed
to identify and control potential risks in a human-cobot collaborative shared workplace
across
its lifecycle. You can also download an A3 risk assessment matrix here.

Improving workplace health and safety with

cobots
Universal Robots
By Peter Hern, Country Manager, Oceania, Universal Robots
Monday, 10 December, 2018

Share Tweet Share Email
Employees can be exposed to multiple occupational health and safety (OHS) hazards from
heavy lifting, repetitive tasks and other manual handling tasks. While it is important for
manufacturers to up their production capabilities and remain competitive, workplace safety
for employees needs to be taken into consideration.
In Australia, time lost to health and safety incidents overall cost the economy over $61bn
between 2012 and 2013. While the state of Australian workplace health and safety is
improving, Safe Work Australia conducted a study which found a total of 5.6 serious incidents
occur for every one million hours worked, leading to an average of 5.2 weeks of labour time
being lost.
Workplace health and safety incidents not only have a detrimental impact on the economy
and worker productivity, but also on employees’ overall health and wellbeing. It is vital that
steps are taken towards improving workplace health and safety for Australians in today’s
technological age. In terms of transforming working environments, collaborative robots (or
cobots) are leading the charge of this shift by working in unison with humans.
The most frequent cause of injury is that of body stressing and this occurs 39.3% of the time,
over 15% more than any other incidents in the workplace. Body stressing most commonly
occurs through labour that is repetitive in nature, resulting in musculoskeletal injuries. It
should come as no surprise that the manufacturing sector has some of the highest levels of
workplace injury, coming in at the second most frequent of all industries, at 8.4 per million
hours worked, or 15.5 per 1000 employees.
Manufacturers can improve workplace health and safety to a significant extent by automating
work that is hazardous, dusty, dull and repetitive. Leading global management and
consulting firm McKinsey & Company (McKinsey) discovered that 59% of the roles people
perform in the manufacturing industry could be automated. This is where cobots come in.
Cobots are able to radically alter more traditional working environments by allowing humans
to work closely alongside them. This in turn alleviates employees from the tasks that can
most frequently cause injuries. The technology that characterises cobots has many in-built
safety features, including fixed and adjustable force limits, as well as sensors and automatic
stopping. Manufacturers can effectively reduce health and safety incidents, essentially saving
time and money, by deploying cobots in a three-step process. This process involves
organisations identifying hazardous jobs, completing thorough risk assessments and
implementing control measures.
ASSA ABLOY New Zealand, a global leader in door hardware solutions, is a prime example of a
company that has used cobots to alleviate workers from repetitive work using this three-
stage process, ultimately leading to improved workplace health and safety conditions.
Firstly, hazardous jobs were identified in its workplace, these being the onerous physical
tasks of its production staff having to assemble locks and screw face plates. At the time,
operational staff were rotated every two hours, due to the demands of repetitive wrist and
shoulder movements.
Secondly, a thorough risk assessment was undertaken and the company concluded
automating these processes would relieve its production staff. In contrast to traditional
robotic solutions, the risk assessment revealed the cobots’ small and lightweight robotic
arms would work safely alongside staff without the need for any safety barriers, creating a
truly united human-cobot workforce. Knowing that employees can work in very close
proximity to the cobots without safety guarding provides ASSA ABLOY NZ with peace of mind.
Lastly, the company implemented cobots, automating the final step on the lock bodies
production line and relieving operators of work hazards. Staff reaction to the cobots has been
extremely positive and they have upskilled as a result of cobot integration. New roles are
being created for the team which are more focused on quality and process monitoring of
material supply, compared to the role of a traditional assembly worker.
With productivity, competitiveness and sustainability being at the forefront of the
manufacturing industries’ minds, cobots are a logical way for companies to revolutionise
their production lines. By eliminating multiple OHS hazards from the workplace, not only do
cobots enable greater safety for employees, but also increase productivity and provide
economic value by alleviating cases of workplace injury, reducing loss of hours and revenue.