Take heed to this text

If you are interested in robotic security of commercial robots, you don’t have to go looking far to seek out movies of commercial robots flawlessly stopping upon collision with numerous obstacles – this could possibly be something from individuals to water bottles or balloons. The frequent message is alongside the traces of “see how protected our robotic is”. Whereas these movies will be considerably entertaining, they don’t fairly encapsulate the whole lot of robotic security.

Why is just contemplating the sensitivity of a security operate inadequate to evaluate the extent of security supplied?

The Twin Features of Robotic Security

I need to focus right here on two features of robotic security:

Sensitivity. The quantity of pressure it’ll take to get the robotic to cease. For simplicity we are able to consider this as a pressure measurable in newtons (really measuring this pressure isn’t a trivial matter because it depends upon a number of components together with the pace of movement, however let’s ignore that for now).

Reliability. That is the probability that the operate stopping the robotic works because it ought to. The everyday measure for that is the Chance of Harmful Failure per Hour (PFHd). It is a well-established time period which originates within the useful security requirements (ISO 13849-1 and IEC 61508 sequence) and describes the danger {that a} security operate fails in a probably harmful manner.

So, whereas our balloon-bumping robotic does illustrate sensitivity, it fails to deal with the essential facet of reliability. The robotic carried out safely in that occasion, however can we belief it to take action tomorrow or the day after?

The Dynamics of Sensitivity and Reliability

So, for those who can not merely take a look at a video so as to determine “how protected a robotic is” (I put that in inverted commas, as robots on their very own actually can’t be thought of protected or not, this will solely be decided for the ultimate software) what do you have to then take into account?

The truth is that each sensitivity and reliability play a important function in security:

Sensitivity can nearly be simplified to a binary variable. A robotic is both delicate sufficient for the applying or it isn’t. A robotic stopping at a feather’s contact isn’t essentially safer than one halting at a water bottle’s contact, so long as each actions don’t inflict hurt. The ‘protected’ sensitivity stage for a robotic software must be decided as a part of doing the danger evaluation. ISO/TS 15066 supplies steering on acceptable pressure ranges.

Reliability, quantified by the PFHd worth, then again, ought to ideally be as little as attainable. For many functions of commercial robots, the PFHd for the protection features have to be lower than 10-6 failures/hour, that is equal to PLd within the terminology of ISO 13849-1 or SIL 2 in IEC 61508 phrases. Please be aware that the requirement for a PFHd of lower than 10-6 failures/hour is definitely for the complete security operate, so in case some exterior security tools is required you have to a robotic with a PFHd worth which is nice sufficient for the complete software to remain beneath 10-6 failures/hour even if you issue within the PFHd of the exterior security tools. The PFHd values for the assorted security features for the robotic and attainable exterior tools will be discovered within the product documentation.

Can Excessive Sensitivity Be A Drawback?

Curiously, whereas excessive sensitivity is commonly touted as a profit, it may possibly typically compromise security. As this declare isn’t utterly intuitive, I want to spend a little bit little bit of time elaborating.

Think about two totally different robots which in all regards are an identical (identical payload, attain, PFHd values and so forth.), aside from the sensitivity of the pressure limiting security features. The place one robotic has a sensitivity of 1N and the opposite has a sensitivity of 50N. The query is which one is safer in an actual world software?

If we take into account the values in ISO/TS 15066 we are able to see that each robots are sufficiently delicate to remain throughout the pointers (please bear with me that I’m grossly oversimplifying issues right here, however the level stays legitimate). And if we assume that the PFHd values for each robots are beneath the 10-6 failures/hour threshold the fast conclusion is that each robots are sufficiently protected.

Nonetheless, the ultra-sensitive robotic could face a problem of ‘nuisance stops’ brought on by minor disturbances like a unfastened cable or an unintended contact. Nuisance stops in itself isn’t actually a security downside, the issue is the way it impacts the habits of the individuals across the robotic. Nuisance stops are actually annoying for the consumer of the robotic (for good motive, they kill productiveness), so they could be a adequate supply of motivation for somebody to attempt to bypass or disable the protection operate altogether.

Typically talking, a well-designed security operate ought to strike a stability – it ought to be delicate sufficient to make sure security however not so delicate that it encourages employees to avoid it. The perfect security features are those which maintain you protected, with out you ever noticing.

So subsequent time you come throughout a video showcasing a robotic’s security operate, keep in mind, there’s extra to the story. Security requires considerate consideration and understanding. It’s not concerning the robotic stopping on the mere contact of a balloon; it’s about making certain that the robotic constantly and reliably performs safely in its operational atmosphere.

Editor’s Word: This text was syndicated, with permission, from Common Robots’ weblog.