Siemens Productivity Machines

CONTENTS

Machine Safety Standards & Strategies

Tactical Brief

Sponsored by

02. The Changing Landscape of Modern Safety

07. Adapting to the New Machine Safety Standard

11. Packaging Machine Safety Turns Dynamic

15. PackSafe Improves Risk Assessment

16. Two Trends Impacting Motion Controls

18. OEMs and the Export Model for Safety

http://www.automationworld.com

http://leadwise.mediadroit.com/redirect/11518/32931/

2/18Sponsored byTACTICAL BRIEF

Machine safety has seen a lot of changes in the past few years. Once considered a circumscribed and relatively simple matter,

that’s no longer the case.“Historically speaking, machine safety systems in the industrial

automation market have been comprised of individual components such as electromechanical safety relays, safety interlocks, safety switches, fencing, light curtains and safety mats,” says Richard Gib-son, product manager for ABB Jokab Safety.

But this component-based approach is no longer enough, Gibson says. “It must be understood that the machine safety components are merely some of the tools needed to achieve a successful machine safety system,” he says. “The components themselves are not the end result. There needs to be an overall goal set, assessment of what is needed, and a strategy created to accomplish it.”

Gibson is signaling a veritable sea change in the traditional ap-proach to machine safety, a move away from yesterday’s on/off, go/no-go paradigm toward a functional approach that looks at all of the safety-related parts of the protective and control systems and seeks to ensure that they function correctly and respond correctly in the event of a fault. He’s not alone. The systems-based, functional ap-proach is now the consensus among safety experts. In large part, that’s because of the interactive, push-pull relationship between

changing market demands and evolving technology.“The rapidly changing nature of today’s markets drives automation

users to demand machines with higher speeds, faster changeovers and reduced downtimes,” observes John D’Silva, factory automation, Siemens Industry Sector. “Advancing technology, especially innova-tive solutions with digital technology, enables that to happen.” The safety systems are an integral part of these innovative solutions, he adds. They both call for and permit greater flexibility than was pro-vided by the traditional perspective.

The practice of zoning is a case in point. This is the ability to safely control speeds, motion and torques in targeted sections or zones of machines or lines for maintenance or changeover without stopping the entire line, and to cycle devices such as robot arms at controlled speeds and torques. Consequently, the system can be safely slowed rather than e-stopped and restarted, typically resulting in less down-time and less lost production.

Key standardsJust because something can be done doesn’t mean it will be done

safely. That’s where standards come in. The overarching standards for all U.S. businesses are the regulations promulgated by the Occu-pational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), as these have the

The Changing Landscape of Modern SafetyToday’s functional approach to industrial safety can yield significant benefits for machine builders and users, but commitment and knowledge are required to reap them.

By Greg Farnum, Automation World Contributing Writer



Sponsored byTACTICAL BRIEF 3/18Sponsored byTACTICAL BRIEF

force of law. OSHA regulations, however, are too broad and generalized to be of much help to manufacturers navigating the complexities of advanced safety and control technology. Of more relevance here are the consensus standards—those adopted by organizations such as the Inter-national Organization for Standardization (ISO), the Robotic Industries Association (RIA) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). These contain the level of detail needed, and can serve to show compliance with OSHA mandates.

“Until recently, a safe torque off (STO) and safe stop 1 (SS1) function was sufficient for most applications,” says Tom Jensen, program manag-er, OEM business development, Lenze Americas. “However, the trend towards increased func-tional safety in electrical drive and automation technology has gained traction.” He notes that newer standards like EN ISO 13849-1 and EN IEC 62061, which both address issues of functional safety, lead engineers through this new reality.

Other standards might also come into play. For the packaging industry, ANSI/PMMI B155.1

2011 (Safety Requirements for Packaging Ma-chinery and Packaging-Related Converting Ma-chinery) is central. This applies to new, modified or rebuilt industrial and commercial machinery that performs packaging functions. For robotics, the key industry-specific standard is the revised ANSI/RIA R15.06-2012 Industrial Robot Stan-dard. Both these standards largely adopt the functional safety approach of EN ISO 13849-1.

EN ISO 13849-1, which in December 2011 replaced the old EN 954 standard, governs safety functions in machine control systems. It is compre-hensive, covering all safety-related components in all types of machines regardless of whether they are electric, pneumatic, hydraulic or mechanical, as well as all stages of a machine’s life, from design through operation to decommissioning. This standard and EN 62061 (Safety of Machinery – Functional Safety of Electrical, Electronic and Pro-grammable Control Systems) are key components of the European Union’s Machinery Directive, compliance with which is mandatory for anyone wishing to sell machines in the EU.

How Safe is your machine?

Siemens online Safety Evaluation Tool allows you to quickly and easily assess safety functions in machines and systems. This TÜV-tested tool offers step-by-step user guidance, from specification of the safety sys-tem’s structure, to component se-lection, down to the determination of the attained safety integrity in accordance with ISO 13849-1 and IEC 62061. Outputs include a stan-dard-compliant report which can be integrated in the documentation as safety proof.

Get started today.

ContinuedThe Changing Landscape of Modern Safety




Sponsored byTACTICAL BRIEF 4/18


Sponsored byTACTICAL BRIEF

Risk assessment“Regardless of whether an engineer

chooses to work in compliance with EN ISO 13849-1 or EN IEC 62061,” Jensen says, “probability calculations are now required to verify the reliability of the safety-related parts of machine controls.”

The most important of those prob-ability calculations is the risk assess-ment, or analysis. This is a standard-ized procedure for determining the level of risk presented by a machine or a system and its components, followed by a risk reduction phase for minimiz-ing or eliminating those risks.

This is a prime example of how the new standards are influencing machine design—most safety professionals would say for the better. However, skeptics often point out that risk as-sessment—an admittedly cumbersome process—is not required by law in the U.S. Still, for anyone wishing to sell machinery to Europe, or to the mul-

tinational corporations now insisting that all of their equipment comply with these new standards, it is mandatory.

The risk assessment/risk reduction process detailed in the new standards goes hand in hand with the validation process laid out in EN ISO 13849-1, a process of analysis and, in some cases, testing. The validation team should be independent of the design team, but that doesn’t mean the validation team waits for a finished design to be hand-ed to it. Both common sense and the standard itself call for validation to be started early and, to the extent possi-ble, run parallel with design. This helps correct potential problems before they become real ones. The stringent docu-mentation required in the validation process often proves to be a useful tool for the design team.

This risk reduction process is clearly an aid to safe design, but traditional safe design practices are still key. Answers for industry.

Safety Integrated from Siemens is a comprehensive solutions portfolio to effectively meet ever-increasing demands for functional safety in machines and plants.

Benefits include:

• Consistent implementation of proven safety technology by blending seamlessly into Totally Integrated Automation, That means: One system for standard and safety-related automation, one engineering tool, one network for standard and fail- safe communication.

• Diagnostics of the highest level which help reduce downtime and increase productivity.

©2

01

4 S

iem

ens

Ind

ust

ry,

Inc.

• Long-term investment security and a competitive market edge due to greater reliability, upward system integration and compatibility with safety software and hardware.

This is the second recognition for Siemens Safety of the Frost and Sullivan award. In 2011, Siemens was awarded the Frost and Sullivan Global Machine Safety Customer Value Enhancement Award.

Safety Integrated amounts to significantly lower initial and operating costs – including a reduction in total cost ofownership of up to 30%.

usa.siemens.com/safety-aw

Company of the Year Award 2013 –Smart Machine Safety Networks




/185Sponsored byTACTICAL BRIEF

Things like eliminating or minimizing pinch points, minimizing en-tanglement zones, and guarding against electrical hazards remain important from both operational and legal standpoints, regardless of what standard is employed. It’s important, too, to realize that, in the U.S. it is the machine user not the machine builder who is ultimately responsible for safety, therefore the user must make his safety needs clear to the OEM. Users need to contractually define what standards are to be adhered to, what documentation is required, and what ad-ditional safeguarding is needed.

The component revolutionThe safety components Gibson spoke of—things like fencing, light

curtains, safety mats and optoelectronic sensors— though not a sub-stitute for a safety strategy, can be a valuable addition to one. This is particularly true since safety devices, like other modern industrial equipment, have benefitted from advances in digital technology.

But don’t simply buy the latest and greatest when it comes to safety components, cautions Mike Carlson, safety products marketing man-ager for Banner Engineering. “Over the years, the varieties of safe-guarding devices have rapidly grown into a multitude of solutions,” he says. “Unfortunately, many of the latest technological solutions have proven to be cumbersome, difficult to maintain, and expensive, result-ing in a questionable return on the improvement to machine safety.”

Among the classes of safety equipment effectively bringing new

capabilities and enhanced protection are optoelectronic devices such as safety cameras and laser scanners. Unlike photoelectric sensors, which monitor a point or a line in space, safety cameras can monitor a relatively large volume in two or three dimensions. Because they are programmable, detection zones can be set at the controller or PC and modified to allow for “muting,” similar to zoning, to keep opera-tors safe while maintaining optimum productivity.

Safety laser scanners are getting both smaller and smarter, notes Aaron Schulke, product manager for Sick. They combine these virtues with simple operation and flexibility, he says, “with the added poten-tial for remote diagnostics and troubleshooting as well as performing safety control logic for the customers’ entire safety system.”

Networked scanners can provide access to the status and diag-nostics of the application “locally at the end-user location for faster troubleshooting and minimal downtime, or remotely to the OEM’s support team,” Schulke says.

The rapid maturing of wireless technology in particular is provid-ing new possibilities. “E&I (electrical and instrumentation) engineers can access their asset maintenance application from anywhere in the plant using a laptop,” notes Soroush Amidi of Honeywell Process Solutions. “But carrying a laptop is not very efficient. Therefore, ven-dors are developing apps that will be optimized for mobile devices so that asset maintenance vendors will have access to a field instru-ment’s diagnostics information from their handhelds. These diagnos-





tics will also be enhanced to include wireless network diagnostics in addition to the existing field device diagnostics.”

People, the ultimate technologyThe fact remains that people sometimes use safety technologies

haphazardly, or feel that the unwritten rules of their organization call for disregarding safety if it seems necessary to keep production at optimal levels.

Donna Rae Smith, CEO of the behavioral strategy company Bright Side, has seen this many times and has some thoughts about its non-safety implications. “If workers feel encouraged to disregard ‘official’ safety policies and procedures to reduce maintenance time or increase throughput,” she notes, “they’ll likely feel just as flexible about other company policies and procedures.”

A cavalier attitude toward safety not only affects the well-being of plant personnel, but correlates with plant performance as well, agrees Steve Ludwig, safety programs manager for Rockwell Auto-mation. “Best-in-class companies regard safety as a core value and productivity driver, not a burden,” he insists. “Looking beyond the makeup of a company’s safety programs and examining the larger trends of the best performers can provide valuable insights into what can be accomplished when safety is implemented holistically, with consideration to a manufacturer’s larger operations.”

Ludwig cites work by the business research firm The Aberdeen Group, which found that the companies that were the top perform-ers in addressing safety in three key areas—culture (behavioral), compliance (procedural) and capital (consisting of investment in, and quality of, the safety equipment deployed), what Ludwig calls the three Cs—achieve 5-7 percent higher operational equipment effectiveness, 2-4 percent less unscheduled downtime, and less than half the injury rate of average performers. “These higher-per-forming companies also experienced far fewer workplace accidents compared to average performers—1 in 2,000 employees vs. 1 in 111 employees.”

Ludwig and Rockwell have fashioned these results into an analyti-cal tool they call the Safety Maturity Index (SMI). This index, Ludwig contends, can give manufacturers visibility into their safety programs and the ability to optimize them using the three Cs. He summarizes the philosophy behind the tool this way: “Plant-floor safety has long been viewed as an onerous and costly obligation that adds little value to overall operations. In many companies, safety has been viewed as a productivity drain. Today, best-in-class manufacturers realize that the combination of employee behavior, processes and procedures, and technology implementation enable them to go far beyond simple compliance to deliver improved productivity, greater efficiencies, and dramatically lower injury rates.”




7/18Sponsored byTACTICAL BRIEF

Standards can sometimes create as much confusion as bring clarity. After all, industry

circumstances are constantly changing and new technologies are always being introduced. As a result, the current form of standard is never quite the last word on the topic.

When it comes to critical operations factors such as safety, the issue of standards gets even more complex because peoples lives and health are at stake. In essence, safety standards are the most important kind of standard.

Beyond the general OSHA safety rules that all businesses must adhere to, it is machine safety that is of paramount concern to the manufactur-ing industries. To help better address the issue of machine safety, ISO 13849-1 was implemented last year—and that’s meant a lot changes for both machine manufacturers and end users.

A big reason for the introduction of this new standard is that safety experts have argued that earlier standards did not allow “for a consistent approach to applying machine safety and, in

many cases, judgment calls were made to de-termine what was an allowable risk level,” says Tony Rigoni, Northern California sales manager and safety expert for Beckhoff Automation. “The intent of ISO 13849-1 is to make the pro-cess of risk reduction more qualitative by using scientific calculations to determine acceptable machine safety performance levels.”

For U.S.-based OEMs, the primary safety concern centers on product liability. As a result, machine builders only need to state that their machine’s safety functions operate the way they claim to operate, says Jeff Winter, product marketing man-ager, safety, for Omron Automation and Safety. “They can’t guarantee someone won’t get hurt, but they do guarantee that the equipment is con-structed to be compliant with industry standards.”

Winter explains that ensuring machine safety usually happens with either the machine builder or their customer specifying the functional details of the safety system in their terms and conditions. “Once both parties agree, it’s up to

One system, one engineering tool, one network

Siemens SIMATIC Safety Integrated maximizes safety and productivity through seamless and consistent in-tegration of safety technology using a single controller, one engineer-ing tool and one communication for standard and fail-safe automation. This is accomplished using our revo-lutionary TIA Portal software, which easily integrates safety into your existing system and network, includ-ing wireless communications.

Watch the video to learn more.

Adapting to the New Machine Safety StandardFollowing the adoption of a new machine safety standard last year, OEMs and end users have had to adapt to a changing machine safety landscape. Are your people and processes up to date with the new requirements?

By David Greenfield, Director of Content





the machine builder to ensure their machine does in fact meet those requirements,” he says. “The requirements could reference industry standards, such as ISO 13849-1 or ANSI B11.19, but they also could reference a customer’s proprietary internal safety standard.”

If this process doesn’t occur, however, and someone gets hurt on a machine, the end user will have to explain to OSHA how the machine was guarded and why it was considered safe. Meanwhile, the ma-chine builder will likely be the defendant in a lawsuit.

Though machine safety in the U.S. is ultimately the end user’s responsibility (thus the reason for all the OSHA rules), the analytic nature of the new standard is leading OEMs and end users to work more closely together. The build up to the introduction of this new standard, as well as general shifts in industry on a global basis, are major reasons why it is becoming more common for end users to re-quest that the machines they order be delivered as turnkey solutions.

“End users are increasingly asking OEMs to help with risk reduc-tions and performance calculations,” says Rigoni. “Because of this evolving demand, we are starting to see a slow shift in the industry where the U.S. is becoming more like Europe in that OEMs are in-creasingly responsible for machine safety.”

Making It SafeSince end users are ultimately responsible for machine safety, the

obvious question is: What do manufacturers have to do to ensure the

machines they use are safe to operate?“Since it’s not possible to implement a ‘zero-risk guarantee’ where

nothing can happen under any circumstance,” says Ming Ng with the Factory Automation group of Siemens Industry Automation, “the residual risk is defined as: Risk that remains after the protective mea-sures have been implemented.”

In a white paper entitled “Concepts in Networked Machine Safety”, Ng writes: In order to achieve the functional safety of a machine or plant, the safety-relevant parts of the protective and control systems must function correctly and must respond in the event of a fault in such a way that the system remains in a safe state or is brought into a safe state. To achieve this, specifically qualified technology is required, which fulfills the requirements described in the relevant standards (see standards sidebar). The requirements to achieve func-tional safety are based on the following basic goals:

• Avoiding systematic faults;• Controlling systematic faults; and• Controlling random faults or failures.

For a machine to be considered safe, Ng notes that machine safety standards require a risk assessment to be performed on the machine. “Risk assessment is a sequence of steps that allow hazards, which are caused by machines, to be systematically investigated,” he says. “Where necessary, the risk assessment phase is followed by risk re-

ContinuedAdapting to the New Machine Safety Standard




duction. Using this process, hazards, as far as possible, can be elimi-nated and the appropriate protective measures applied.”

Once all the risks have been estimated, Ng says that risk evaluations then become “part of an iterative process to achieve safety. In this pro-cess, a decision has to be made whether it is necessary to reduce a risk. If a risk is to be further reduced, suitable protective measures must be selected and applied. The risk assessment should then be repeated.”

The new ISO 13849-1 standard defines how machine risk reduction can be achieved using safety-relevant control functions.

Qualifying a Risk AssessmentWhen it comes to establishing safety via controls, however, the

U.K.-based Machinery Safety Alliance (MSA) cautions that many people mistakenly take the view that the risk graph depicted in ISO 13849-1 for safety-related parts of control systems, qualifies as a risk assessment. MSA contends that this graph does not constitute risk assessment. Rather, it is a device to help determine the level to which risk will be reduced by a control function, where a control function is deemed necessary.

Before you even get to point of determining control function risk, however, MSA says there are other more fundamental steps to take.

Those steps involve starting with the standard “ISO 12100:2010 - Safety of Machinery — General Principles for Design. Risk Assess-ment and Risk Reduction.”

According to MSA, this process includes:• Statement of machine limits including technical specifications such

as range of energy supply, speed of movement, operational frequen-cy, and other limits related to environmental conditions. It is increas-ingly important to know these limits because a safety control system designed to meet these specifications may have its performance degraded due to wear directly related to operational frequency.

• Hazard identification — who could be hurt, how and when throughout all the relevant machinery lifecycle phases.

• Estimation of risk (quantification) and evaluation (if risk reduction is required).

• Hierarchical approach for risk reduction. The preference is to eliminate hazards so that there is no risk, for example removing trap/nip/crush/drawing-in points. Following this, for risks that remain intolerable, the next step is to introduce safeguards. It is only at this stage you would consider guarding; if this guard-ing requires interlocking, then the safety-related control system standards become relevant. It is at this stage that the required level of performance (PLr) or SIL of a safety function must be determined through the use of either ISO 13849-1 or EN 62061. The PLr or SIL literally indicates the degree to which the safety function reduces the risk to an acceptable level. After safeguarding measures, the standard ISO 12100:2010 refers to complementary measures to further reduce the residual risks





to an acceptable level through such measures as training, signage and warning equipment (such as beacons). It is arguable that E-stops fall into this area since they should not be used as substitutes for proper safeguarding.

Safe for nowThough the ink on this new safety

standard is barely dry, the realities of manufacturing continue to change. With that in mind, what changes, if any, are on the horizon?

According to Omron’s Winter, even with the adoption of ISO 13849-1, noth-ing has really changed for end users in the United States in terms of regula-tions. “OSHA is still the enforcement agency regulating machine safeguard-ing. They have a set of finable offenses that have remained basically the same since OSHA was enacted into law in 1970. The main thing that has changed over the years is national and interna-

tional consensus standards (such as ANSI, RIA, NFPA, ISO) which end users reference as ways to demonstrate com-pliance to OSHA.”

These consensus standards are always adapting to manufacturing realities, but are “not the law,” notes Winter, who adds that other factors continually influencing end user ac-tions around safety come from litiga-tion as well as insurance companies.

Given that scenario, the biggest change Winter sees happening in safety over the next few years is the addition of safe motion to international standards.

“The traditional way of safeguard-ing a machine is to create a ‘protective stop’ where the machine rests in a safe state. ISO 61800-1 outlines a list of ca-pabilities that component manufactur-ers can create to allow for ‘safe move-ment’ of machinery,” he says. “Since this is a new view of how a safety system can function, it will change the way we approach safety of machinery.”


Answers for industry.

Register for a variety of webinars on:

n Safety standardsn Compliance n Solutionsn Implementation

Here’s your opportunity to meet industry Safety Experts, join live chat rooms, explore our virtual trade show booths, download important safety resources, and attend our webinars. Reserve your spot today at usa.siemens.com/safety-symposium-aw

Presented by Siemens in collaboration with OSHA, TUV, UL, RIA and more!

usa.siemens.com/safety-symposium-aw

©2

01

4 S

iem

ens

Ind

ust

ry,

Inc.

Siemens Virtual Safety SymposiumOn demand until 4/30/15





Packaging Machine Safety Turns DynamicProgrammable, smart devices coupled with new approaches and new standards are changing safety from a static add-on to a dynamic partner in packaging machine productivity.

Safety in the packaging industry used to be a relatively cut and dried affair, a matter of guarding, some e-stops, warning signs

and perhaps a class or two. Simply put it all in place, maintain it, and you’re covered. Today, however, safety has become a fast changing, dynamic aspect of packaging machine construction and operation, one that presents both OEMs and packaging machine users with new challenges, but also with new opportunities.

Why is the field of packaging machine safety changing rapidly? Simply put, because packaging itself is changing rapidly. Let’s start with the market. John D’Silva, safety marketing manager for Siemens Industry Sector (usa.siemens.com/digitalfactory) summarizes the new facts of life: “Consumers are demanding an ever-increasing number of product choices and packaging styles. As a result, the packaging indus-try is requiring machines that support higher speeds, faster change-overs and reduced downtime from modular packaging systems.”

The safety systems that support and protect these machines and their operators function in a changed environment—one that challenges the old on/off, go/no go paradigm. Now, with today’s more automated packaging lines, shutting down a machine is likely to constitute a signifi-cant productivity loss rather than simply a minor inconvenience.

There are other negatives as well. “If you shut the machine down when there is product in it, before you get that machine running

again you will have to clear [the product] from the machine,” points out Leo Petrokonis, packaging business development manager for Rockwell Automation (www.rockwellautomation.com). Additionally, bringing newer machines back online may in some cases be a more complex and time-consuming process than with older machines.

Clearly, there is a need to be able to perform safety related work with-in defined zones without bringing production to a complete halt. And there are ways to do it. “You can keep some of the machine running for instance,” says Petrokonis, “maybe slower or in a different mode of op-eration, so that you can keep downtime to a minimum while you keep the operator safe and get the machine back running faster.”

Significant standardsThe technology exists for new, more dynamic approaches to safety like

the one Petrokonis outlines, along with the standards that both facilitate and regulate its use. The two most important standards in this respect are ANSI/PMMI B155.1 2011 and EN ISO 13849-1. Other standards can come into play for specific aspects of machine or system operation, such as robotics, but these two standards are the key documents in redefin-ing safety requirements for packaging machine builders and users.

ANSI/PMMI B155.1 2011 for Safety Requirements for Packaging Ma-chinery and Packaging-Related Converting Machinery is comprehen-




usa.siemens.com/digitalfactory


sive: It applies to new, modified or rebuilt industrial and commercial machinery which perform packaging functions for primary, second-ary and tertiary packaging. It provides details on the risk assessment process, with due consideration for reasonably foreseeable hazards, accessing residual risk and achieving acceptable risk. It also differenti-ates between standalone robots used for packaging functions—which need to comply with RIA 15.06 – 2012—and the others that are incor-porated into the machinery, which need to comply with B155.1.

Then there is EN ISO 13849-1. Approved just last year as a replace-ment for the venerable EN 954 safety standard, EN ISO 13849-1 governs safety functions in machine control systems. It is comprehen-sive, covering all safety-related components in all types of machines regardless of whether they are electrical, pneumatic, hydraulic or me-chanical, as well as all stages of a machine’s life, from design through operation to decommissioning. It implements a consistent approach intended to eliminate the guesswork that sometimes bedeviled ef-forts to determine acceptable levels of risk with the old standard.

The standard, along with EN 62061 (Safety of machinery – Functional safety of electrical, electronic and programmable control systems), is a key component of the European Union’s Machinery Directive, compli-ance with which is mandatory for anyone wishing to sell machines in the EU. Importantly, it covers technology that wasn’t on the scene when the old standard was devised—the sort of technology that makes possible the type of productivity enhancing safety applications outlined above.

Some will object to all this attention paid to standards, claiming that since the standards are not enforced there is no need to waste too much time on them. In fact, no machine standards are enforced in the U.S. except for those of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA, www.osha.gov), whose standards (i.e., rules) have the force of law. Large multinational companies, however, are increasingly demanding compliance. Also, noncompliance effectively bars packaging machine makers from the European market. Finally, as John Kowal, director of business development for B&R Industrial Automation Corp. (www.br-automation.com/en-us) points out, the new standards are addressing and facilitating the use of new tech-nologies that are capable of making packaging machines both safer and more productive.

Advances in zoningKowal provides an example: “What we are seeing is new safety

technology, in particular networked safety, that uses the same Eth-ernet network as the machine control system,” says Kowal. “Replac-ing hardwired safety circuits and safety PLCs with networked safety allows packaging machines and lines to be zoned, provides additional diagnostic information, and replaces dedicated wiring.”

Zoning is the ability to safely control speeds, motion and torques in targeted sections of machines or lines for maintenance or change-over without stopping the entire line. Zoning also allows machines to

ContinuedPackaging Machine Safety Turns Dynamic




cycle devices such as robot arms at controlled speeds and torques, so the system can be safely slowed rather than e-stopped and restarted.

The flexibility enabled by zoning is particularly relevant to robotics, which is playing an increasingly important role in packaging. Studies have shown that a large percentage of robot-related injuries occur not during production but during non-production activities such as maintenance and programming. To access the robot, workers must turn off some or all of the old, binary on/off safety devices, expos-ing themselves to risk. Newer standards and technology that permit approaches such as zoning enable workers to access robots and still be protected. The Robotics Industry Association (www.robotics.org) has recently revised its ANSI/RIA R15.06 2012 Industrial Robot Stan-dard in accordance with the risk assessment methodology of EN ISO 13849-1 to accommodate this new reality and permit today’s ad-vanced programmable safety devices to be utilized.

Armin Glaser, head of product management for German sensor maker Pilz GmbH & Co. (www.pilz.com), provides additional context and detail on these new approaches in his technical paper, From Static to Dynamic Safety: “For technical and economic reasons, the drive electronics—servo amplifier and frequency converter—have remained non-safety-related components within automation,” he writes. “So until today, additional safe components have taken care of safety, bringing the drive to a de-energized, safe condition in the event of a fault, or safely monitoring the movement of the connected

motor. Now it is possible to integrate these additional safe compo-nents into the drive.... The result is a complete solution for the drive, control system and safety.”

Glaser provides the following details on what this newer, “dynamic” type of zoned safety application could look like. “When a safety gate is opened, the motor is braked safely with a defined ramp and then remains at standstill under active control. If the relevant authoriza-tion is present and a safe operating mode is activated for set-up mode, the motor will move in jog mode at a safely reduced speed. When this operating mode is ended and the safety gate is closed, the safety function is re-established for each machine operator. In other words: if static detection zone monitoring has been violated, pro-duction can continue at a reduced number of cycles and with safely monitored movements.”

Optoelectronics advancesAmong the devices facilitating this dynamic, flexible approach to

safety, Chris Brogli, business development manager for safety with Rockwell Automation cites the new breed of optoelectronics. “These are devices such as light curtains, laser scanners and safety cameras, and there have been advancements in these technologies that make them more reliable but also, when coupled with integrated control-lers, provide more flexibility as well.”

Arguably the most exciting development in optoelectronics is the




www.robotics.org


safety camera. They are like photoelectric cells on steroids in that instead of simply monitoring a point or a line in space, they can monitor a relatively large volume in either two or three dimensions. Because they are programmable, detection zones can be set at the controller or PC, and be easily modified when necessary. One type of modification is “muting,” which is similar to zoning and used to keep operators safe while maintaining optimum productivity.

Interestingly, since detection zone information is resident in the controller or PC, and since safety cameras can also easily monitor areas adjacent to the detection zones, it is feasible to expect that in the future the controllers will be able to anticipate probable zone intrusions and initiate an appropriate degree of protective action before a zone intrusion even occurs. Of course the idea isn’t to have the controller institute protective action every time someone merely walks by a protected zone, but there may be times and applications where this type of look-ahead capability is useful.

Mike Carslon, safety product marketing manager for Banner Engi-

neering Corp. (www.bannerengineering.com), points out that opto-electric devices such as safety light curtains “have been decreasing in price while adding additional features” making these devices more affordable to incorporate. It seems reasonable to expect that safety cameras will follow the same path, not only transmitting and record-ing data, but also analyzing it as well, he says.

These and other devices are easier to incorporate into machines and systems thanks to the introduction of new safety technologies like safety controllers, says Carlson. “Advanced communications and the flexibility of the safety controller improve manufacturing efficien-cy by reducing machine down time,” he says. He adds that “the ex-pandability of the safety controller allows a customer to standardize on single platform that is sized appropriately for all their machines.”

The upshot of all this? As Rockwell’s Brogli observes, “Safety can now help improve productivity. It is a key element in creating packag-ing machines and systems that are cheaper to operate, more flexible, and more safe.”





PackSafe Improves Risk AssessmentThe safety standards state that a risk assessment must be performed on a machine in order for it to be deemed safe. This is a standardized procedure for determining the level of risk presented by a machine or system and its components, followed by a risk reduction phase for minimizing or eliminating those risks.

Software packages have been devel-oped to aid users in the risk assess-

ment process. Critics have said this type of software is often generic and not flexible enough to adequately ad-dress specific applications. Also, they caution that it needs to be frequently updated to ensure that it reflects any revisions to the standards.Software providers seem to have heard this criticism. Case in point is

the Packaging Machinery Manufactur-ers Institute (http://www.pmmi.org) whose PackSafe program is among the most widely used risk assessment aids. The latest version, PackSafe 5, con-forms to numerous updated standards and, PMMI insists, provides users with greater flexibility in how they assess risks. The goal is to allow users to em-ploy the method most appropriate to their particular application.


Answers for industry.

SIMATIC ® S7-1500 – the new generation of controllers along with the new fail-safe I/O – offers you the ultimate plus in automation with power, efficiency and safety integrated.Your Plus in Power:+ Outstanding system performance for shortest response times and highest quality of control+ Technology integrated for seamless integration of drives and other devices+ Security integrated consistently incorporated for highest investment protection Your Plus in Efficiency:+ Innovative design and easy handling for simple usage and commissioning as well as safe operation+ Integrated system diagnostics for full transparency of the plant status, automatically generated and consistent appearance

©2

01

4 S

iem

ens

Ind

ust

ry,

Inc.

+ TIA Portal for highest engineering efficiency to reduce project costs – and naturally with Safety integrated

Your Plus in Safety:+ Seamless integration with one system, one engineering tool+ Standard and fail-safe communication via the same network, to lower initial and operating costs+ Consistent implementation of proven safety technology to protect lives and increase productivity+ Machine safety lifecycle – savings up to 30% in Total Cost of Ownership

usa.siemens.com/safety-aw

Safety? Naturally Integrated!One system, one engineering tool, one network




http://www.pmmi.org


Two Trends Impacting Motion ControlsConversations with industry suppliers suggest that increased adoption of safety and single cable servo motors are affecting the motion controls market on a global basis and, therefore, the types of motion control technologies you’ll be buying next.

During the latest research we’ve been conducting on the market for motion controls, two key trends emerged from conversations

with suppliers. The first of these trends is the increased adoption of safety across

industry. This is a general trend within industrial automation, but safety implementations still vary significantly by region. One of the key aspects of safety currently impacting motion control suppliers is the incorporation of certain safety features into servo drives, with safe torque off (STO) being the most common feature offered and used.

The push for safety has been led by the European market, and servo drives must incorporate STO to effectively compete in many European countries. However, suppliers continue to report sales of servo drives without STO in Eastern Europe and Turkey. In the Americas, STO has also evolved as a standard feature in servo drives, but STO is still seen as a way to differentiate products rather than as an absolute require-ment, as it is in Western Europe. IHS conducted a special analysis on safety features for the 2013 Motion Control report and estimates that over 95 percent of servo drive unit shipments in 2012 were enabled with STO in EMEA compared with only 80 percent in the Americas.

“To balance demand for safety features with servo drive pricing strategies, suppliers face a difficult task in anticipating which features

will have the highest future demand and deciding which (and how many) to pursue in upcoming product developments.”

In the Asian market (excluding Japan), STO is not a requirement and is typically only requested by machine builders who export machines to other regions. The difference in adoption of STO in Europe and the Americas compared to Asia is having the largest effect on Asian suppliers as they look to expand their business into other regions; a servo drive product with STO must be developed to effectively compete. STO is more commonly found in the Japanese market, with over 60 percent of unit shipments having this feature.

The servo drive market is also trending towards more advanced safety features, including safe stop 1 and 2, safe limited speed, safe speed monitor, and safe direction. Advanced safety features may be integrated into the drive, as STO is typically offered, or provided through optional safety hardware or software modules. IHS found that SS1 was the most common advanced safety feature enabled on servo drive unit shipments in 2012.

There are over 15 different safety features currently being incor-porated into servo drives. Of course, each safety feature added to a drive or safety module increases the cost of that product. To balance demand for safety features with servo drive pricing strategies, sup-

By Michelle Figgs




ContinuedTwo Trends Impacting Motion Controls

pliers of motion products face a difficult task in anticipating which features will have the highest future demand and deciding which (and how many) to pursue in upcoming product develop-ments. As illustrated in the graphic accompany-ing this blog post (see image box in upper right corner of article), the number of servo drive unit shipments enabled with safety features is fore-cast to increase significantly from 2012 to 2017.

Another recent trend having a significant im-pact on the motion control market is the devel-opment of single-cable servo motors. Tradition-al servo motors use an analog feedback signal between the motor and drive. This analog signal is susceptible to electromagnetic interference and must be housed in a separate cable from the motor’s power source, resulting in two cable inputs for each servo motor. The need for two cables can be avoided by using an encoder that

transmits feedback via a digital signal, which allows the power and feedback to be housed within a single cable.

This encoder technology has existed in the marketplace for some time, but over the past two years the number of servo motor suppliers offering a single cable motor solution has in-creased significantly. Because of its advantages, suppliers that currently offer a single cable solu-tion are benefitting. The elimination of a cable and its connection results in cost savings with regards to materials and installation. Further, the digital feedback signal requires a much smaller number of terminations than the traditional ana-log signal, which simplifies wiring and increases the reliability of this connection. Despite the potential advantages of single cable servo mo-tors, this trend is still in its early stages and many large suppliers do not yet offer this product.

Turn machine safety into a competitive advantage

Operational safety systems don’t have to encumber production. Fur-thermore, advanced machine safety systems can more than pay for them-selves through quicker Return On Investment (ROI), especially when integrated with control systems as part of a Siemens Totally Integrated Automation (TIA) architecture. To learn more, please download our white paper and learn how you can turn machine safety into a production asset and a competitive advantage.

Download the white paper.





OEMs and the Export Model for SafetyAs even small and mid-sized machinery manufacturers increasingly sell their products on a global basis, it’s not just U.S. safety standards that must be adhered to.

In fact, an increasing number of OEMs are following European safety requirements not only to help with overseas sales, but to boost

sales in the U.S. through increased safety aspects.To help you understand the structure of European machine safety

standards, see the chart to the right from Siemens Industry.According to Siemens Industry, when using type C Standards, they

should be checked to ensure that they are up-to-date. It should also be noted that it is not mandatory to apply the standard; however, the safety objectives must be achieved.

If there are no specific European standards that apply to a given circumstance for an OEM, the manufacturer can then apply “national standards” appropriate to the area in which the machine is to be sold and used. Siemens notes that, by applying ratified standards, “the manufacturer can prove that recognized state-of-the-art technology was fulfilled.”

By David Greenfield, Director of Content



Siemens Productivity Machines

Documents

Transcript of Siemens Productivity Machines