Fanuc T2 configuration

  • Trying to get a general community census of how T2 should be configured


    Option 1- T2 can be used with zero safety enabled, meaning operator can be with in the safety fence of the system and running robot program at full speed


    Option 2- T2 is configured in PMC/PLC/DCS that when T2 is selected robot work zone must be clear and safe i.e. (Fence closed and or safety curtains/ scanners clear)


    Thank you for the feed back

  • Place your Ad here!
  • Lemster68

    Approved the thread.
  • My experience from different brands is that either Tx-mode lets you operate the robot with reduced safety measures, such as safety gates being open, or light curtains not being reset. In return you must provide additional input (such as the dead man switch).


    But once you switch to Auto, then all safety related protection must be in place.


    So I vote for option 1.

  • I would vote for option 3: Not using T2 if not necessarily needed. It can be dangerous and in my experience operators are often not trained very well which is an additional risk.


    If T2 is not required (which is the case in 99.9 % of our projects) we normally either lock T2 or buy a 2 mode system (T1 and AUTO) if it is a new robot.

  • I'm with option 3 too, for the same reasons DS186 has stated.

    T2 on robots is a such a contradiction and a ridiculous function to have.


    Everything is available to operate ANY robot safely in T1 modes (250mm/s) for teaching and checking.

    Once this is confirmed, then you can run in auto.


    Couldn't be simpler or safer IMHO to remove T2 modes on ALL robots.

  • Couldn't be simpler or safer IMHO to remove T2 modes on ALL robots.

    That's true, but if you have a project that requires a lot of teaching with the real robot (e.g. no simulation possible, for whatever reason) this can be impossible in T1.

    - Large robot with a large workspace on a 14 meter rail, NOBODY really wants to jog in T1 ...

    - Process speed is over 250mm/s and must be maintained

  • That's true, but if you have a project that requires a lot of teaching with the real robot (e.g. no simulation possible, for whatever reason) this can be impossible in T1.

    Nothing is impossible, that's how it was done before simulation and before T2 modes.

    NOBODY really wants to jog in T1 ...

    I do and always will.

    Choosing convenience over safety is very naïve, and that is what T2 modes do.

    In the wrong hands, a robot is even more of a lethal weapon in T2 modes.


    T2 should always be considered during the scope of supply as a risk assessed optional requirement for the end user and not for the convenience of the integrator IMHO.

  • If the draft standard ISO DIS 10218-2 will be adopted in 2024 only Option 2 will survive. That means the robot standard ISO 10218-1 will still provide T2. However, the application standard ISO 10218-2 will allow using T2 only when doors are closed.

    For more information see http://www.robot-safety.net

  • Couldn't be simpler or safer IMHO to remove T2 modes on ALL robots.

    I'm not sure I'd go that far. I've had too many situations where I needed T2 in order to debug a system.


    That said, T2 scares me, and the situations where I've needed it are a fairly small % of the total. Striking the balance is a thorny issue. I can't really disagree with the majority of end users who buy controllers with the T2 option eliminated.


    I will say, the great majority of the hazardous incidents I've seen with T2 arose from people forgetting they were in T2 (usually jogging and touching-up points), and hitting "run" while expecting T1 speed. That's why I really like what KUKA did with T2 in KSS 8: Switching to T2 automatically reduces the override to 10%, creates a message that has to be manually acknowledged, and (most importantly) blocks jogging -- T2 can only perform program playback. This handily eliminates 90% of the risk I've seen in T2 over the years.

  • I'm not sure I'd go that far. I've had too many situations where I needed T2 in order to debug a system.


    That said, T2 scares me, and the situations where I've needed it are a fairly small % of the total. Striking the balance is a thorny issue. I can't really disagree with the majority of end users who buy controllers with the T2 option eliminated.


    I will say, the great majority of the hazardous incidents I've seen with T2 arose from people forgetting they were in T2 (usually jogging and touching-up points), and hitting "run" while expecting T1 speed. That's why I really like what KUKA did with T2 in KSS 8: Switching to T2 automatically reduces the override to 10%, creates a message that has to be manually acknowledged, and (most importantly) blocks jogging -- T2 can only perform program playback. This handily eliminates 90% of the risk I've seen in T2 over the years.

    I don't think that many cells need it, but I'll be damned if I ever have to dry run a cell with a 45m RTU without T2.


    That being said, I would prefer to have to use my T2 jumper instead of a key switch. Unfortunately, the connector for the key-switch can be a bear to get to when mounted in a remote box, so sometimes I need to install the switch.


    T2 freaks me out and MUST be respected. Modern Fanuc robots will automatically drop the override to 3% when switching into T2 mode, or whenever the dead-man is released. This may not be quite as good as having to acknowledge something with an explicit key press, but it's almost as good when SHFT_OV_ENB is set to false.


    I hate the idea of option number 2, it would force me to lock myself into a cell instead of operating with the gates open.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new account
Sign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign in Now

Advertising from our partners