Its not my birthday but it sure feels like it!

Does the robot has the Fieldbus board? It required to activate and configure the Fieldbus board. How are you communicate with the HMI?

Well, I can't be any more envious of you than I am right now.............if I was based close to you, I would be offering my services to assist.

I don't know what you're application is, if it is pick and place in addition with the AB interface, some other things to maybe consider budget dependent:

- Cubic-S (if you are already using it on site).

- Safety interlock system (similar if not identical to your current installations).

- A mini conveyor belt, with a stepper motor/DC Motor and part detection sensor for pick and place which could be removable.

- A gripper with interchangeable jaws that has part detection and jaw position detection sensors.

- A mini PC, monitor with the AB software and also KROSET with dongle and Online license.

- IO interface Modules for F Series https://www.gravitonltd.co.uk/f-series

You could then write individual training modules that could span:

- Safety and Basic Operations.

- BLOCK and AS programming (relative to your application).

- KROSET should anyone be in a position to be using this a company development tool.

- Field connectivity and IO exchange.

- Fieldbus configuration, connectivity and IO exchange.

- Field troubleshooting and recovery techniques.

- In addition, if you are 'the trainer', then you have the freedom of a cell to use for further development training for yourself and the company.

You would just need to make sure and police it so none of the equipment you are using would be 'removed' for emergency purposes on the main line, leaving the training cell inoperable.

In addition, if you have the ability of designing things yourself and having access parts or a 3D printer, you could create your own peripherals like I've been developing as attached to just add some personalisation and 'making the training cell your own' with cheap and easily replaceable parts.

Again, envious is a slight understatement.........So good luck with the implementation of it............

Quote from ericwiz7923

my boss in I are envisioning a complete trainer specifically so our technicians can really get practical experience

Makes complete sense, but where possible if you could add some 'bespoke' elements, that do not exist on any of your existing lines.

This will ensure parts do not get robbed out of it when your back is turned....There is always a tendency for this to happen if you have an identical solution as a training cell.

In the UK training cells are viewed upon as a source of emergency spares......

The IO interfacing, as far as I know, that is the only company who supplies something like that out of the UK as it is specific to the F Series Controller.

So I'm not sure if there any other suppliers offering a direct equivalent in the US or other areas.

Yes, with gripper and pneumatic supply, you do have the option of purchasing these small portable compressors which will be sufficient enough for mounting inside a training cell below the main working plateaux:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/240…d39546:g:uFcAAOSwA3dd46DI

But could be noisy etc....but would suffice.

If you also have a good budget available, then of course simple gripper assemblies can be used, a favourite supplier I refer people to are:

https://www.zimmer-group.com/e…dling-technology/grippers

If you're on a cheaper budget, you could look into the 'Robot Hobbyists' market for current off the shelf solutions that could be adapted to be used as cheap easy to replace EOAT assemblies.

Which 'look' low budget, but cheap and cheerful that could do the job.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/CL-…id=p2047675.c100005.m1851

My gripper for instance, I can replace the jaws with different designs and also program the arduino to have different stroke distances for different objects.

Runs directly from the Controller 24V supply as it is low current, looks abit 'heath robinson', but does the job.

So, there are many directions open regarding any gripper assembly......if you have a self designing aptitude and the window to develop, then you could come up with something real impressive indeed......

Cubic S would be ideal for limiting your work area to prevent colliding with the enclosure and keeping people safe.

Just remember if you make the zone pretty tight and going close to the cubic S zone at speed you may want to turn off the stop estimation distance.

Also i would suggest staying with Category zero stop.

Just remember Work Area XYZ is not a safety feature and the robot will do a controlled stop when going over the limit and depending on the speed the robot could easily coast 500mm past the XYZ working area you set up. Having said that the XYZ working area is great to keep operators from moving the robot somewhere they shouldn't in teach but that's about it.

I wish i had a little RS03 to play with at the office. Although I think it would end up pouring beers or doing other fun trade show type things rather than something related to work hahaha :p

Quote from ericwiz7923

Status update. I've been working on the basic layout currently. I'm looking at a 5ftx5ftx32" (or 1524 mm by 1524 mm by 820 mm for you metric folk) enclosure/mounting platform. The robot area will be encased in a plexiglass enclosure with gate monitoring. The tooling I'm estimating the size at 100mm by 100mm by 100mm (the small cube featured in ENV in KHIlibraries). This is a over estimate on the tooling total size but until I have something actually concrete designed this should suffice to design my enclosure. I'll obviously need to add collision detection to this unit. Also I'm experimenting with the Moving Area XYZ Limits to hopefully prevent a collision into the enclosure. I've been instructed to try and keep the foot print no bigger then 5ft which gets problematic for the reach. I used The RS003N Installation and connection menu to plot the motion range. Still have to play with the XYZ Limit some more. Does anyone have tips for implementing? The controller manual is a little clinical in its description.

Quote from ericwiz7923

Regular crashes due to operator error. That's more or less how I was able to present this as a justifiable expense, that yes there are improvements needed to the cell but with "untrained" operators being the primary users of the robot then we are just going to be repeating the same mistakes over again unless we overhaul our training program.

Regular crashes does not sound good at all. I'm not sure of your application or circumstances but some operator error resulting in crashes can be mitigated by better robot code most of the time. As with most things if they are implemented correctly it works as intended. Even Cubic S won't solve your problem if it's implemented incorrectly, For example if the tool shape is set improperly or the robot isn't correctly zeroed.

I don't know how much experience or robot knowledge you have. If your robot crashes are due to the robot being driven in teach, then you could use XYZ moving area to try and limit this in conjunction with changing the collision/shock detection settings for teach mode to be much more sensitive.

If it is due to the scenario above then the next thing would be to reduce the frequency of why they need to drive the robot in teach mode in the first place.

Maybe spending some time on having a good autorecovery procedure is worth investigating and implementing. Basically what i'm saying is i would be looking into the root cause as to why the the crashes are occuring, but it doesn't hurt to put extra safeguards in place for the human factor too.

And say for the 10% of the time it can't automatically be recovered due to being outside of certain limits or thresholds then they can still go back to the original method of manually recovering in teach mode.

Either way i'm just speculating since i don't know your situation, but from my experience we don't allow operators to move robots, only trained maintenance staff and even then it's pretty rare that they would even have to drive the robot in teach in the first place.

Quote from ericwiz7923

As this will be the first Robot system I've integrated myself sorry if I have a few dumb questions, for instance when you say category zero stop are you referring to rating from RIA TR R15.306-2016? Or is this a Kawasaki term I am unfamiliar with?

Depending where you are in the world there are different standards but specifically i'm referring to the following:

Stop Category 0: Stopping by immediate removal of power to the machine actuators (i.e. an uncontrolled stop – stopping of machine motion by removing electrical power to the machine actuators)Stop Category 1: A controlled stop (stopping of machine motion with electrical power to the machine actuators maintained during the stopping process) with power available to the machine actuators to achieve the stop and then removal of power when the stop is achieved Stop Category 2: A controlled stop with power left available to the machine actuatorsSo in the case of a kawasaki robot if you don't have Cubic S or any other fancy Safety PLC if you break the safety circuit the robot comes to a violent stop due to the servo motors power and brakes 24 volts being removed and stopping the robot in a fairly short distance this is Category 0 stop.Category 1 is giving the robot a set amount of time approx 500ms to start deccelerate before the safety circuit is opened thus achieving a more gentle stop but with a larger stopping distance. Sometimes due to the distance from light curtain and a robot you will not be allowed to use a Category 1 stop. Catagory 2 is pressing the hold button on the teach pendant or the robot going outside of the XYZ moving limits. The robot comes to a controlled stop and the power is left on ready to continue. The safety circuit is not opened. Clearly category 2 is not used for when humans are in the enclosed space with a robot for obvious reasons.

Quote from ericwiz7923

I did noticed on my K-Roset Simulation that when the Robot exited out of the Moving Area XYZ Limit that it coasted for a bit before stopping but I didn't know it could to that extent. A bigger enclosure or Cubic-S sounds like the only option.

The speed at which the robot moves before pressing hold or going outside of the XYZ moving area will affect how much the robot coasts to a stop.

As mentioned before Catagory 2 stops is not safe. And generally speaking Category 0 stop is default, and Category 1 stop is used in certain circumstances if other safety criteria can be met.

Just a quick disclaimer, everything said is my opinion and my views and when changing or doing anything regarding the safety stopping method or safety wiring on your robots is at your own risk and I highly suggest you have it 3rd party verified by a certified professional and according to your local standards and regulations.

Quote from ericwiz7923

So obviously an Estop event or loosing the Safety Circuit input would be an example of a Stop Category 0. Then I'm assuming a External Hold would be a Stop Category 2. What would be a trigger for a Stop Category 1? Looking at the 1Tr board connections nothing jumps out to me with that capability.

Sorry for the slow reply, i've been snowed under with work at the moment.

Yes external hold would be classified as a cat2 stop.

A cat 1 stop can be done from the Cubic S unit or safety PLC where a signal such as External hold dropped when the safety function occurs and the safety contacts of the X7 plug is dropped roughly 500ms later or whatever time is deemed safe by the safety calculations.

Quote from ericwiz7923

Right now our cells with shock sensors have those tied into the safety gate connections on the X8 connections, what would be a better place for those connections?

I haven't personally haven't used sock sensors connected to the safety gate inputs so i wouldn't be able to comment. I generally don't use the safety gte wiring since we use a Safety PLC that drops the X7 safety when our gates are opened.

Quote from ericwiz7923

We have the collision detection option but it was never implemented by the OEM. That along with the auto recovery is one of my long term projects. As far as my experience level I have about five years as a Controls Engineer at a Tier 1 Supplier to the Auto Industry (fanuc,Rockwell PLC's and HMI's). This was a production support role with minor projects sprinkled in. The Rs03N training cell will be the first integration project I've ever attempted. My role now is as my new companies primary robotics engineer. So I still do production support but the electricians are meant to be the first line of defense, with my primary focus being on training, continuous improvements, problem solving. All my Kawasaki experience has been gathered over the last year at my new employer. I did attend a AS Language course back in March which helped kick my skills up a couple nothches.

To be fair collision/shock detection is only there to stop the robot from snapping it self in half. Depending on the application and speeds/payload involved you generally don't rely on collision detection unless something catastrophic happens and the robot crashed. You'll still end up with damage to the tool and other obstacles but at least the robot will eventually stop before breaking the arm in half.

I would recommend having it turned on even if the thresholds are set too high, because at least you know the robot will come to a stop before it breaks in half. Obviously Cubic S is the better solution when there is an increased risk of collision with objects if implemented correctly.

You are lucky to be based in the US and be able to do the AS Language course. I have built up my knowledge of Kawasaki's with on the Job training and reading all the manuals over the past 10 years at my current employer. My previous background was Systems integrator for another company dealing with all sorts of automation.

I have also dabbled with ABB robots from time to time, but i definitely prefer Kawasaki's

In any case, I wish you good luck in your endeavours. Who knows we might even cross paths or already have...

This is an interesting read.....cheers guys for sharing this discussion.

I do have a question though:

- What deems the external hold (as a standalone input) on the Kawasaki as stop category 2 and not possibly either stop category 1 or stop category 2?

Also Just to add:

If you are using F Controller, you have a selectable stop category between 0 and 1 available under Aux Func 0535 and additional information for this is offered in the relative external IO manual for F Controller.

Cubic-S has selectable stop categories between 0 and 2 with response times between 20ms (stop cat 0) and 60ms (stop cat 1/2).

- Cat 0 and Cat 1 using the Emergency Stop function.

- Cat 0, Cat 1 and Cat 2 is available using the Protective Stop Function.

So any external device(s) relative stop category, could effectively be changed and policed by the Cubic-S unit, simplifying risk assessments.

In any case of malfunction of the safety circuits though, irrespective of any settings made, a stop category 0 will always be effective.

Quote from kwakisaki

I do have a question though:

- What deems the external hold (as a standalone input) on the Kawasaki as stop category 2 and not possibly either stop category 1 or stop category 2?

The hold / external hold is just a controlled stop and doesn't inherently remove the potential energy to the motors, thus category 2.

Category zero removes potential energy immediately, Where as Catagory 1 attempts a controlled stop and the potential energy is removed regardless by the safety function a few milliseconds later.

Put it this way, category 2 is like turning off the output from a PLC that commands a VSD/VFD or DOL motor to run. Any malfunction or accidental turning on of the output or cross wiring will make the motor run. But if you remove the three phase energy with dual contractors with an electronic device monitoring feedback means that there is no way that if the motor is commanded to run that it can actually move or cause injury.

Electronic device monitoring feedback (EDM) is there to detect if any of the contractors welded shut and is wired in series through the N/O contacts. Thus The EDM should be the opposite state of the contractor coils. EG. if the contractor coils are de-energized the EDM is ON. If not then the safety PLC/relay can generate another fault and prevent the safety circuit from being reset thus preventing a potential dangerous situation.

Quote from ShAdOwDrAgOnS

The hold / external hold is just a controlled stop and doesn't inherently remove the potential energy to the motors, thus category 2.

Category zero removes potential energy immediately, Where as Catagory 1 attempts a controlled stop and the potential energy is removed regardless by the safety function a few milliseconds later.

Yes, this is exactly my thought too.

The reason I asked, is I was at a site recently, that was a palletising app and there is a cutout in the safety fence for an operator to lean in and manually place a layer card on the pallet.

This cutout is guarded by a light curtain and is directly wired to the external input.

When the light curtain is activated (someone leaning in), immediately activates the external hold.

The light curtain then requires resetting and releases the external hold and the robot continues.

I flagged this up as a potential hazard as the 'cutout' is large enough to gain full access, and the client quoted stop category 1 and we engaged in quite a lengthy discussion of what internally occurs during an external hold.

The client came up with some convincing statements of:

- During an external hold, the brakes are applied (brake voltage is removed) and motor voltage is removed as the MC contacts are de-energised.

- Therefore power has been removed.

My argument to this was that, the safety circuit has not been activated, so 'power is still available' and tried to explain to the client, that the end 'action' of stop category is what dictates its classification.

I left some further recommendations to parallel up the light curtain outputs into their dedicated safety relays feeding the safety fence circuit......but it didn't go down too well..................So we agreed to disagree......

Thanks for the confirmation though, as I came away thinking I've had it all wrong regarding the external hold.

Quote from kwakisaki

The reason I asked, is I was at a site recently, that was a palletising app and there is a cutout in the safety fence for an operator to lean in and manually place a layer card on the pallet.

This cutout is guarded by a light curtain and is directly wired to the external input.

Yeah no worries,

Ideally what they should do is have a selective prohibited zone with Cubic S. When they enter/ break the light curtain the area where the operator places the sheet becomes prohibited by a dual channel safety input into the Cubic S unit. That way the robot can continue it's normal duties, but if it ever attempted to access the select prohibited zone when the zone hasn't been reset then it would be Estopped by the cubic s unit.

Once the zone has been reset, the robot is allowed in the zone.

Just remember when calculating light curtain entry speeds that if it's for hand protection the entry speed is generally 2.4m/s where as waking speed is considered 1.6m/s and depending on the lights curtain beam spacing you may need to add 850mm due to the chance you can fit your arm between the beams.

If in doubt, best solution is to get it 3rd party verified by a safety expert.

Quote from kwakisaki

If you are using F Controller, you have a selectable stop category between 0 and 1 available under Aux Func 0535 and additional information for this is offered in the relative external IO manual for F Controller.

I haven't had the pleasure of working with an F controller yet. I'm more familiar with C, D, D+ and E4x and E0x variants.

But good to know.

ShAdOwDrAgOnS

Yes, totally agree and I would also add the protective stop function to ensure no motion takes place.

However, the installation was D Controller (Pre Cubic-S), but I got the impression the client was a little bit miffed at my comments.......

ericwiz7923

Attached is the F Controller External IO Manual.

My apologies, I wasn't very clear was I regarding the selectable stop category on F Controller, it is applicable to the safety circuit only.

You cannot change the physical action of an external hold request, it's purpose is to introduce a controlled stop already - so could only be stop cat 2.

There is a setting in environment data (Aux 0808) that turns off motor power after a pre-determined time when waiting for an input.

However, this again does not interrupt the safety circuit as upon receiving the input, the robot will spring into life again - so again could only be stop cat 2.

Cubic-S Protective Stop Function is intended to be used when entering cell environments by way of light curtains and safety gates to police what stop cat you have allocated to the process, so in theory by this method, external hold 'stop cat' becomes an un-necessary concern.

Everything must always be carefully risk assessed before deploying to ensure standards are maintained.