Safety is a key element of building trust when it comes to industrial automation deployments.
For end users, the ISO
10218 upgrade means even safer working environments for humans in and around robot applications and cells.
INDUSTRY MARKETS ROBOTICS
Warning! Explicit Content: Robot Safety Standards
Get a Makeover
ISO 10218 sets out safety requirements for robotic equipment, robot applications and
robot cells—and it has just received its first major upgrade since 2011. Teradyne
Robotics’ Global Technical Compliance Officer, Roberta Nelson Shea, explains what it
means for robot manufacturers, integrators and end-users.
Roberta Nelson Shea
Related To:
Teradyne
I don’t know of any other machinery or equipment safety standard with the
breadth of global acceptance and adoption enjoyed by the ISO 10218 series. The
expert group responsible for the update includes people from across Europe, North
America, Mexico, Brazil, Japan, Korea, China, India, Australia and, by
correspondence, Russia.
Of its 160 members, most are from industry, including robot manufacturers,
integrators, accessory suppliers and end-users. We also have people from testing
laboratories and academia. This global aspect is something we’re very proud of.
Introducing ISO 10218
Part 1 and Part 2 of ISO 10218 are foundational documents for safety in the world
of industrial robotics. Part 1 covers the safety requirements associated with the
robot itself and is of particular interest to robot manufacturers.
Part 2 covers the requirements associated with robot applications and robot cells.
A “robot application” includes the robot’s end effector, the robot’s defined intended
use, the task program and the workpiece(s). A robot cell refers to when a robot
application is safeguarded so that people are protected.
When you have completed applying the Part 2 standard, you have a “robot cell.”
Note that this does not necessarily mean that it has guards, fences or cages. It
means that the cell is safeguarded so people are protected from risks. You could
use a guard or fence, but there are many other ways to do it, such as safety
scanners and light curtains. Alternatively, you could use the safety functions of the
robot itself to implement a collaborative robot cell.
Remember that ISO 10218 may be adopted in different jurisdictions under
different names and on different timelines. For example, European Union adoption
is automatic after publication. Meanwhile, work is underway to adopt and release
the new 10218 revision in the United States and Canada (as ANSI R15.06 and CSA
Z434, respectively) later in 2025.
Roberta Nelson Shea, Teradyne Robotics’ global technical compliance
officer, is the recipient of the Joseph F. Engelberger Robotics Award, also
dubbed “The Nobel Prize of Robotics.” Nelson Shea won the award for her
outstanding work related to robotics safety across the world.
What’s New?
The biggest conceptual upgrade for people to consider is that requirements that
were implied—to careful readers—in the 2011 version of ISO 10218 are stated
explicitly in the 2025 version.
For example, the new version has a requirement that talks about “capability of
lifting.” When an industrial robot lifts and moves a part around in space, a range of
forces, accelerations and torques are placed on the robot arm. Before the upgrade
to ISO 10218, we didn’t have a requirement of a “safety factor for lifting” or a
“safety factor for moving dynamically.” It was never stated.
Was that a problem for robot manufacturers? We’re not aware of it ever being a
problem, because otherwise industrial robots simply wouldn’t work. But it is
explicitly laid out in the 2025 version.
Clarity evens the playing field. If everybody can say they're meeting the standard,
we can at least form a meaningful baseline comparison from the safety point of
view.
Applications and Cells
Most of the major improvements are in Part 2. For example, we separated out and
emphasized the robot application and the robot cell, whereas the 2011 version
covered robot systems with end effectors, which was implied to cover the parts, the
intended use and the safeguarding. Those elements are explicitly covered now.
Meanwhile, ISO/TS 15066, which specifies safety requirements for collaborative
industrial robot systems and the work environment has been incorporated into the
upgraded standard. In due course, ISO/TS 15066 will become its own standard.
There are also added requirements for cybersecurity.
The new Part 1 contains a few important changes. For example, there’s a lot more
clarity around safety functions. The 2011 document requires just a few safety
functions, while the 2025 version requires more than 20.
Safety is a key element of building trust when it comes to industrial
automation deployments. For end users, the ISO 10218 upgrade means
even safer working environments for humans in and around robot
applications and cells.
Manufacturers and Integrators Prepare
All robot manufacturers have some work to do in light of the 2025 upgrade. For
some it will be less than others, but all robot manufacturers are going to be making
improvements. The dominant robot brands have tried to do a good job around
functional safety.
All of us have provided some of the new safety functions required, but there are
now gaps for every robot manufacturer to address. The 2011 version of the
standard will be withdrawn, likely in Spring 2027. Manufacturers need to be in
compliance with the revised standard by that date.
Head Scratchers
There are some head scratchers for industrial robot manufacturers to consider. For
example, one of the new requirements relates to external axes. All manufacturers
offer external axes and all credible manufacturers offer a safety function for speed
limiting.
However, according to the new Part 1 standard, manufacturers are required to
externalize some of the safety functions for an external or auxiliary axis. For
example, they might explain how to use the robot’s safety functions to do axis
limiting of an external axis and how to have the robot’s speed limit apply to the
motion with the external axis when the whole base is moving.
Manufacturers have to tell integration folks how to accomplish this. Can it be
done? Certainly. All manufacturers will have to update their user manuals. But it’s
a head scratcher.
Meanwhile, Part 2 establishes new requirements for integration and it explicitly
lays out many more safety functions than the previous edition. The upgraded Part
2 has a large number of informative annexes with lots of illustrations.
End-user Benefits
Safety is a key element of building trust when it comes to industrial automation
deployments, and for end-users the ISO 10218 upgrade means even safer working
environments for humans in and around robot applications and cells.
End-users should make sure to read the section called “Information for Use” in the
upgraded Part 2, which describes everything that they are supposed to receive from
their integrator (or whoever provided the robot cell).
This includes an instruction handbook—or User Manual—that explains the whole
robot cell, its intended use and the limits of range of motion. This document
should describe what’s needed for installation, how to set the robots and the robot
cell up for first use, and training recommendations.
Be aware that many end users will buy equipment and put it together themselves.
They may not think that Part 2 applies to them, but it does. Part 2’s requirements—
including the User Manual—relate to the integration—not to a specific entity.
Learning More About Safety
I recommend end-users to look at Universal Robots’ free, online risk assessment
training, which takes you through the risk assessment process.
Integrators should explore Part 2 carefully and in depth. Soak in it, put it aside,
then pick it up again and start asking questions.
Meanwhile, safety professionals and control engineers should consider attending
the International Robot Safety Conference in early November 2025 in Houston.
The conference will feature expert speakers, case study presentations, and the new
standards will be introduced to the world.
About the Author
Source URL:
Roberta Nelson Shea | Global Technical Compliance Officer, Universal Robots
https://www.machinedesign.com/markets/robotics/article/55289249/teradyne-warning-
explicit-content-robot-safety-standards-get-a-makeover
Roberta Nelson Shea is the global technical compliance officer at Universal Robots
responsible for product safety and reducing barriers to global acceptance and
deployment. She has spent more than 40 years as a manufacturing automation
professional, 23 of them additionally chairing the American National Robot Safety
Committee. Most recently, as chair of the committee ISO/TC 299 WG3 (previously
known as ISO/TC 184/SC2/WG3), Nelson Shea led the introduction of ISO/TS
15066, an extension of the established ISO 10218 standards. ISO/TS 15066 is the
first document defining standardized safety requirements with human-robot
collaboration.
