International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 221–227

Safety of Interactive Robotics—Learning from Accidents

  • Timo Malm
  • Juhani Viitaniemi
  • Jyrki Latokartano
  • Salla Lind
  • Outi Venho-Ahonen
  • Jari Schabel
Article

Abstract

Finland is ranked rather high in international robot density statistics. In Finland, robots are typically used in applications where they operate in close proximity to humans. The research described in this paper, sourced from Finnish databases, identified 25 severe accidents which can be attributed to robots. The current accident data can provide an insight into the type of accidents associated with future human-robot interaction (HRI) applications. Accident statistics indicate that most of the severe robot-related accidents involved crushing a person against a rigid object. As crushing hazards currently dominate accident statistics, and with HRI applications becoming increasingly common, humans are expected to be exposed to more crushing hazards in the future. The close proximity of the robots means that there is very little time to escape from crushing hazard. The prevention of collisions between robots and humans is paramount to reducing the amount of accidents. Actions to diminish the effects of any subsequent collision are also important. The control after a collision, however, needs to be very quick in order to minimise the damage caused by an impact. Current practice demands that upon detection of a collision, active movements are typically not allowed without a human supervision. Moving a robot away to a safe position and releasing any pressure against a person may save lives, but would entail some adjustments or new interpretations of the current safety requirements.

Keywords

Robot Accident Safety Hazard Crushing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    ABB Application Manual (2004–2008) Motion coordination and supervision RobotWare 5.0 document ID: 3HAC18154-1 revision: F ABB Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Accident Report Database of Safety Administration (TAPS) of Finland (2009) In Finnish. https://eportti.tietopalvelut.com/taps/TapsFrame_alku.asp (accessed 29.7.2009)
  3. 3.
    Alvarado ML (2002) A risk assessment of human-robot interface operations to control the potential of injuries/losses at the xyz manufacturing company. The Graduate College University of Wisconsin-Stout, May 2002 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    EN ISO 10218-1 (2006) Robots for industrial environment—safety requirements—part 1: robot. CEN, 30 p Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    EN 60204-1 (2006) Safety of machinery. Electrical equipment of machines. Part 1: general requirements. CEN. 216 p Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Federation of Accident Insurance Institutions. http://www.tvl.fi/
  7. 7.
    Haddadin S, Albu-Schäffer A (2010) Physical human robot interaction: dependability and safety. Videos related to tests. http://www.phriends.eu/videos.htm (accessed 8.1.2010)
  8. 8.
    Haddadin S, Albu-Schäffer A, Strohmayr M, Frommberger M, Hirzinger G (2008) Injury evaluation of human-robot impacts. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Pasadena, CA, USA, May 19–23, 2008, pp 2203–2204 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haddadin S, Albu-Schäffer A, Frommberger M, Hirzinger G (2008) The role of the robot mass and velocity in physical human-robot interaction—part II: constrained blunt impacts. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Pasadena, CA, USA, May 19–23, 2008 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hollnagel E, Woods DD, Leveson N (eds) (2006) Resilience engineering. Concepts and precepts. Ashgate Publishing, Hampshire Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ISO/DIS 10218-2 (2008) Draft standard. Robots for industrial environment—safety requirements—part 2: robot system and integration. ISO, 94 p Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Karwowski W, Järvinen J, Rahimi M (1994) Human aspects of industrial robotics. In: Salvendy G, Karwowski W (eds) Design of work and development of personnel in advanced manufacturing. Wiley, New York, pp 493–534 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Klez TA (2003) Inherently safer design—its scope and future. Trans IChemE, 81 part B, pp 401–405 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kuivanen R (1995) Methodology for simultaneous robot system safety design. VTT publications 219, 142 p + app 13 p Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Malm T (ed) (2008) Safety of collaborating robotics. In Finnish. Robotics society of Finland, 116 p + att 72 p Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Malm T, Toivonen S, Laine E (2007) Safety issues related to industrial robots collaborating with humans. In: Safety of industrial automated systems (SIAS2007), Tokyo, Japan, pp 216–221 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Robotics Society of Finland (2008) Industrial robot statistics in Finland 2007. In Finnish, 3 p. http://www.roboyhd.fi/ (accessed 8.1.2010)
  18. 18.
    The IFR Statistical Department, study World Robotics. http://www.worldrobotics.org/downloads/2008_Pressinfo_english.pdf (accessed 10.3.2010)

Copyright information

© Springer Science & Business Media BV 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timo Malm
    • 1
  • Juhani Viitaniemi
    • 1
  • Jyrki Latokartano
    • 2
  • Salla Lind
    • 1
  • Outi Venho-Ahonen
    • 1
  • Jari Schabel
    • 1
  1. 1.VTTTampereFinland
  2. 2.Tampere University of TechnologyTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations