Integrating risk assessment of collisions between robotic devices and human operators
Patent Information
- Application Number
- JP2024505325
- Authority / Receiving Office
- JP · JP
- Patent Type
- Applications
- Current Assignee / Owner
- Priority Date
- 2021-07-30
- Filing Date
- 2022-07-28
- Publication Date
- 2025-06-17
AI Technical Summary
Current risk assessment processes for robotic devices interacting with human operators are manual, time-consuming, prone to errors, and require significant effort, especially when changes occur, leading to potential inaccuracies and compliance issues with safety standards.
A computer-implemented method integrates risk assessment into the controller of a robotic device, merging it with programming processes to automate data collection, hazard identification, classification, and mitigation measures, using command and machine data to create risk profiles that can be updated dynamically.
This integration simplifies and accelerates risk assessment, reduces human error, ensures compliance with safety standards, and allows for continuous validation of risk mitigation measures, even with device changes, enhancing the efficiency and accuracy of robotic device operation.
Smart Images
Figure 00000000_0000_ABST
Abstract
Description
[Technical field]
[0001] The present invention relates to a computer-implemented method for integrating a risk assessment of a collision between a robotic device and a human operator of the robotic device into a controller intended for the robotic device. The present invention also relates to a corresponding computer program product, a corresponding controller, and a robotic device comprising the controller. [Background technology]
[0002] In the case of robotic devices working in cooperation or alongside a human operator, known as collaborative robots or cobots, applicable standards such as, for example, DIN EN ISO10218-2 and further ISO / TS15066 specify various requirements that enable the safe operation of the robotic device. In the specific case of genuine cooperation, where physical contact is permitted between humans and the robotic device, the standards in the "power and force limiting" safe operating mode specify various biomechanical limits that the robotic device must not exceed in case of a collision with the human operator. If the robotic device complies with these limits, in accordance with the dictated requirements, the risk of injury in case of a collision, e.g., impact, jamming or shearing, is sufficiently mitigated. In general, in the context of the present disclosure, any kind of physical contact between the robotic device and the human operator may be understood to be a collision that is or may be the basis of a hazard to the human operator. For example, the hazard can be mechanical and / or chemical and / or thermal and / or electrical in nature. For example, contact of the robotic device with a bonding surface, such as a bonding tool, may be defined as a collision. In this case, the hazard risk determined as described below may include or be a chemical hazard risk, such as poisoning as injury. In case of cooperation between a robotic device and a human operator, i.e. working in parallel with the robotic device without intended physical contact, the "speed and distance monitoring" safe operating mode specifies the minimum distance between the human operator and the robotic device. The robotic device must stop as soon as it falls below this minimum distance and remain stationary until the minimum distance is re-established. The techniques described below are primarily related to these two safe operating modes, but are not limited to them.
[0003] Risk assessment is defined as a procedure that, in defined steps, analyzes the health risks posed by a robot (or other) device and identifies and takes measures to mitigate the health risks. Risk analysis includes the following steps:
[0004] Step 1: Determine the limitations of the (robot) device, e.g., limitations of use, but also identify technical limitations, time limitations, and spatial limitations as well as other descriptive characteristics of the (robot) device.
[0005] Step 2: Identify hazards for the operator in the environment of the (robot) device and quantify, for example, collisions in the event of incorrect behavior by the operator or incorrect application of the (robot) device.
[0006] Step 3: Assess the risk resulting from the previously identified hazards, for example by forming the product of the probability of the conditions of occurrence with the likely degree of damage of the hazard occurring according to those conditions of occurrence.
[0007] Step 4: Calculate the risk values and assign the hazard risks to risk classes, e.g., low hazard risk, medium hazard risk, and high hazard risk, based on appropriately determined limits on the calculated and thereby quantified risk values.
[0008] Step 5: Determine measures to reduce the risks, e.g. providing information to relevant operators about low risks in training sessions, reducing medium risks by technical protection measures and eliminating high risks by structurally reconfiguring the (robot) device.
[0009] Step 6: Verify the validity of the implemented measures, for example by corresponding measurements.
[0010] In collaborative robotic devices, low risks are in fact mainly mitigated by training the operators in the dangers. To mitigate medium risks, the requirements of the appropriate safe operating mode for each application are implemented, for example by following biomechanical limits in the "power and force limiting" operating mode or minimum distances in the "speed and distance monitoring" operating mode. Proof of conformity with or fulfillment of the requirements of the selected safe operating mode, i.e. of the effectiveness of the measures taken as described in step 6, is usually provided by a measurement process, in which, using special measuring devices, situations identified as hazards are simulated for the real robotic device, analyzed and evaluated. As is known from other devices (machines), high risks require structural reconfigurations that completely remove the source of the danger, for example by removing or rounding off sharp edges.
[0011] In the prior art, risk assessment is a manual process that considers all stages of the life of a (robotic) device, from the planning stage to the start of regular operation, as well as disassembly and disposal. Only when the person who starts or operates the (robotic) device has performed all of the steps and documented them in detail can they issue a CE marking declaration in the European Union to confirm that the (robotic) device complies with the legal requirements of the European Machinery Directive (currently MRL2006 / 42 / EG) and also with the requirements of applicable harmonized standards, e.g. DIN EN ISO10218-1 / -2.
[0012] Compliance with the requirements of the selected safe operating modes, e.g. by complying with biomechanical limits, achieves a sufficient reduction of moderate risks within the meaning of the applicable standards and the Machinery Directive. The conditions for metrological verification of the effectiveness of the measures in question are derived from the information compiled in the description to the risk assessment. Those conditions indicate to the inspector, in particular, which situations are associated with hazards for the operator. From these situations, the inspector then selects the times, e.g. moments in the program sequence, and areas, e.g. points on the surface of the robotic device, that need to be checked by measurements for proof of effectiveness.
[0013] Determining the time of measurement and generating the measurement configuration is very time-consuming, since the sometimes incomplete information described in the risk assessment often lacks important details necessary for the proper execution and documentation of the measurements, such as the speed of the robotic device at the relevant point in time of impact. In addition to the large amount of effort required, the communication of information to set up the measurement points is a potential source of error that can negatively affect the accuracy of the metrological assessment.
[0014] In addition, every time a change is made to a robotic device already in operation, the robotic device must be checked whether the change is a significant change that affects the validity of the risk assessment. If new hazards are added as a result of the change, the existing risk assessment becomes invalid and the (robotic) device cannot be operated. The operator of the (robotic) device must therefore check whether a significant change has been made and, if so, which components of the risk assessment are affected by the planned or implemented change. Only after the check is completed will it be clear whether the measures undertaken to reduce the risk are still valid or whether new measures need to be taken that could trigger a complete reconfiguration of the (robotic) device. Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]
[0015] The aim is therefore to simplify risk assessment, especially with regard to changes to a (robotic) device after the (robotic) device's initial start-up.
[0016] This problem is solved by the subject matter of the independent claims. Advantageous embodiments are given in the dependent claims, the description and the figures. [Means for solving the problem]
[0017] One embodiment relates to a computer-implemented method for integrating a risk assessment of a collision between a robotic device and a human operator of the robotic device into a controller intended for the robotic device. The controller may or may not be coupled to the robotic device, for example as it may be sold separately. The robotic device may in particular comprise a so-called cobot, a collaborative robot, or in general any other device, machine. The robotic device may in particular comprise a robot arm including one or more links. The method comprises the following sequence of method steps:
[0018] One method step is to read command data from a program module of the controller, which is provided for transmission to a control module of the controller and for use in the control module by an evaluation module of the controller when the controller and thus the robotic device are used as intended. The program modules, control modules, and evaluation modules can also be implemented on each microprocessor, or on a common microprocessor or common microprocessor configuration, e.g., a computer. The controller, e.g., a computer, can be coupled to a (real or virtual) robotic device when in use. The program modules are used to program the robotic device, and the control modules are used to control the robotic device according to the programming stored in the program modules, and the control modules control the robotic device according to the command data of the program modules corresponding to the programming.
[0019] Alternatively or in addition to reading the command data, the evaluation module reads machine data specifying the robotic device, in particular the technical characteristics of the robotic device, from the control module of the controller. It is also possible to read further data, including the additional machine data, from other sources, e.g. from a database, the Internet, or from user input. For example, a specification of the type of the robotic device can be read as machine data, after which further machine data, e.g. the dimensions, shape and mass of the robotic device, can be read as technical characteristics from another source, e.g. the Internet or a local database.
[0020] A further method step is for the evaluation module to determine, in particular quantify, at least one hazard risk, i.e. one or more hazard risks, based on the read commands and / or machine data and at least one stored risk profile associated with each hazard risk, which comprises information required for the automatic determination of each hazard risk. A number of different hazards, and even hazard risks, may be associated with a risk profile. For example, each hazard risk may be determined or quantified by using an algorithm, in particular by simulation. The user of the method may enter further data required to determine the hazard risk that was not read, or may be prompted to enter missing data. Part of this determination may therefore be the addition of information required to determine the hazard risk.
[0021] For example, the hazard risk may be determined in that the probability of one or more corresponding occurrence conditions (which may be part of the required information) is multiplied by the potential degree of damage (which may be part of the required information). The determined hazard risk is also classified by the evaluation module and, depending on the result of the classification, various further steps are initiated by the evaluation module, namely issuing a warning to the user, in particular displaying information about the hazard risk and / or determining and outputting one or more measures for reducing the hazard risk, in particular displaying one or more measures for selection or approval by the user. The warning may also be output via a control signal. After at least one measure has been selected or approved by the user of the method described herein, the evaluation module outputs, in the program module and / or in the control module, a control signal for implementing the selected measure or measures. This control signal may be output directly to the program module and / or to the control module or, alternatively or additionally, to the display module, thereby prompting the user to implement the selected measure. Thus, one or more measures selected by the user may be automatically implemented after being approved or selected by the evaluation module.
[0022] With this approach, risk assessment steps can be integrated into the program process, since risk assessment and programming of the robotic device are merged with each other by reading command data. For example, the determination of at least one hazard risk and the subsequent steps can be performed in parallel to programming the program module by continuously reading command data or by repeatedly reading command data triggered by a trigger event, such as the passage of a predefined period of time or a change in the command data stored in the program module. This means that the method can already be used when planning work sequences of the robotic device. In this approach, the individual sub-steps of the risk assessment are specifically analyzed, which means that the relevant data are automatically stored in the assessment module and, in this way, made available in a consistent and transparent way in data management and documentation for the risk assessment.
[0023] The risk profile creates a direct link between the read data and the hazard risks, facilitating the update of the risk assessment when the robotic device is changed, but also allowing measures to mitigate each hazard risk to be identified, proposed and directly, even automatically, implemented. The proposed method is therefore based on the discovery that the processes for programming the robotic device and for carrying out the risk assessment, which were previously carried out independently and separately, are partly based on the same data that previously had to be manually identified and transferred to other systems. Thus, synergies can be used when combining programming and risk assessment. In the described method, digitally usable data, i.e. command data and machine data, are independently determined and used for the risk assessment. The risk profile used to determine the hazard risks can be used by the user of the method and added and / or modified as necessary. Accordingly, the assessment module can also be used by the user to request data that are missing in the risk profile but are required for each determination of an existing hazard risk. The requested information can relate to the hazard situations, for example the probability of the occurrence conditions of each hazard and / or the occurrence conditions of each hazard and / or the severity or potential damage of each hazard. Thus, the risk profile can contain information that the assessment module interactively requests in a dialogue with the user, in addition to information that is determined automatically from command data and / or machine data. This data can also be stored persistently in the assessment module or in the respective risk profile. By issuing a warning to the user or issuing the respective means for selection by the user, it is ensured that the responsibility for the risk assessment remains with the user of the method, in accordance with the law. In this way, the risk assessment can be simplified in a legally compliant manner.
[0024] The integrated risk assessment presented herein reduces the amount of time that robotic device operators currently spend analyzing the risks of robotic device applications in accordance with legal and regulatory requirements. Programmers with less previous experience performing risk assessments will especially benefit from these improvements. The linking of risk assessment with the control and programming of the robotic device ensures a continuous exchange of data and information that risk assessment authors currently have to painstakingly compile and document. The possibility of using this data to perform simulations to determine the likelihood of hazards or appropriate protective measures means that the integrated risk assessment creates further added value for the user. The integrated risk analysis may also be used in the planning of applications, as it is a fully digitalized method of risk assessment. The risk assessment prepared during planning may be continued, refined and finalized after the application has been set up. The advantage of using integrated risk assessment in planning is that it helps to harmonize each application with the applicable safety requirements and thus prevent planning errors.
[0025] In one advantageous embodiment, the risk profile comprises information relating to the following items of information: the type of collision, in particular whether the collision is a collision with a mechanical hazard, in particular a jamming, e.g. a (relatively slow) virtually stationary jamming, or an impact, e.g. a free impact or a (relatively fast) jamming impact, or another type of collision, in particular a chemical hazard, e.g. a collision with an adhesive, and / or a thermal hazard, e.g. a collision with a soldering tool, and / or an electrical hazard, e.g. a collision with a welding tool; the type of body part of the human operator that is at risk from the collision, in particular It is provided that the information includes one or more of the following: a designation of the body part at risk and / or information on the biomechanical limitations of the body part at risk, information on the location of the contact points of the robotic device involved in the collision, in particular on the shape of the robotic device at the contact points, information on the posture of the human operator during the collision, information on the frequency and / or probability of the collision, for example in the form of the probability of occurrence conditions of each hazard and / or the occurrence conditions of each hazard, information on how to prevent the hazard, information on the severity of the collision, in particular on the severity of injuries of the human operator during the collision. As mentioned above, any kind of physical contact between the robotic device and the human operator can be defined as a collision, which is or may be a hazard for the human operator. The said information can in particular be stored in the form of a standardized multiple choice structure, which on the one hand, due to the standardization, makes it easier for the user to add the information to the risk profile and on the other hand, due to the standardization, also makes it easier to use the information with corresponding algorithms or simulations in the evaluation module. The said information is particularly useful for determining the hazard risk.
[0026] In one advantageous embodiment, it is provided, inter alia, that one or more of the risk profiles are linked to one or more respective program sections of the command data by means of a user input before determining the hazard risk. A program section may be part of one movement command or may consist of or contain several movement commands. It is also possible to assign several risk profiles to one program section, such that the program sections of different risk profiles intersect with each other or are part of each other. In particular, it is also possible that a user input is used to specify the occurrence conditions of the hazards assigned to the hazard risks corresponding to each risk profile. By linking the risk profiles with the program sections, the evaluation module has direct and real-time access to the various states, e.g. position and speed, of the robotic device, such that information such as, for example, the position and speed of the robotic device at the time of the hazard is precisely usable to determine the hazard risk. This information can thus be retrieved precisely without having to be painstakingly determined and manually documented. In this way, for example, the potential degree of damage can also be determined more precisely.
[0027] In a further advantageous embodiment, it is provided that before determining the hazard risk, in particular after reading the machine data and / or command data, a usage limit for the robotic device is defined by user input, which usage limit limits the spatial range and / or the speed range and / or the force range used by the robotic device when used as intended. This has the advantage that the state space of the robotic device, in which the hazard risk is determined and measures for mitigating the hazard risk are identified, is reduced, making the method faster and more reliable.
[0028] In a further advantageous embodiment, it is provided that if it is determined that the risk profile is an incomplete risk profile that does not contain all of the information required to automatically determine each hazard risk, the user is automatically prompted to complete the risk profile with user inputs. The accuracy of the method can be improved in this way.
[0029] In a further advantageous embodiment, it is provided that when classifying the determined hazard risks, each hazard risk is classified into one of at least three classes or exactly three classes: a low risk class, a medium risk class and a high risk class. In particular, if the hazard risk is classified as a low risk or a high risk, a respective warning can be output to the user, and if the hazard risk is classified as a medium risk, one or more measures for mitigating the hazard risk can be determined and issued for selection by the user. For example, if the simulation results show that the potential degree of damage of the hazard combined with the probability of the occurrence condition represents a medium risk, the evaluation module can propose sufficient targeted measures for mitigating the risk, for example a speed limit that complies with the biomechanical limits applicable to the robotic device. In addition, the evaluation module can use this data to determine the ideal moment and place, i.e. the stage and position, for a correct and reliable verification of the actual risk of injury, which can be compiled into a plan. This plan can be output, thus showing the user of the method exactly in which situations and in which positions the robotic device needs to be metrologically checked in order to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of the measures taken to mitigate the medium risks.
[0030] In a further advantageous embodiment, it is provided that the one or more means for reducing the hazard risk comprises specifying a travel limit, in particular a speed limit, in the program module and / or at least one parameter for one or more safety functions, for example an emergency stop, in the control module. These means can furthermore also be selected depending on the respectively set safe operating mode, for example a "power and force limit" safe operating mode or a "speed and distance monitoring" safe operating mode. These means are particularly suitable for automatically reducing the hazard risk.
[0031] In a further advantageous embodiment, a method step is provided in which the data read from the program module and / or the control module are repeatedly read and, in case of changes to the previously read data, it is checked whether the changes to the data also entail a change to one of the at least one relevant hazard risk and, if this is the case, determine at least one hazard risk, classify the determined hazard risk, determine measures for mitigating the hazard risk, including an output for selection by the user or an output of a warning to the user, and after the selection of at least one measure by the user, output in the program module and / or in the control module with respect to the changed data a control signal for implementing the selected measure or measures. This provides a validation function that ensures that, in the case of changes in the robotic device, the validity of the risk assessment is maintained or that the risk assessment is adjusted and new measures for mitigating the hazard risk are proposed. The validation function can also be used in the planning phase of a system including a robotic device, for example including a virtual robotic device.
[0032] One aspect also relates to a computer program product including instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform a method according to one of the described embodiments.
[0033] A further aspect relates to a controller for a robotic device for integrating a risk assessment of a collision between a human operator and the robotic device, the controller including a program module, a control module, and an assessment module. The evaluation module is configured to read command data from the program module, which data is provided for transmission to the control module of the control device and therefore for use in the control module when the control device and also the robotic device are used as intended, and / or machine data from the control module specifying the robotic device, and further to determine at least one hazard risk based on the read data and at least one stored risk profile associated with the hazard risk, comprising information required for automatically determining each hazard risk, to determine at least one hazard risk and to classify the determined hazard risk, to determine one or more measures for reducing the hazard risk depending on the result and to output the one or more measures for selection by a user or to output a warning to the user, and to output a control signal for implementing the selected one or more measures in the program module and / or in the control module after selection of the at least one measure by the user.
[0034] The advantages and advantageous embodiments of the controller correspond to the advantages and advantageous embodiments of the described method.
[0035] A further aspect relates to a robotic device including such a controller.
[0036] In addition to the features and combinations of features mentioned above, both in the description and in the introduction, the features and combinations of features described below in the description of the figures and / or the features and combinations of features shown only in the figures may be used not only in the combinations shown, but also in other combinations, without departing from the scope of the present invention. Thus, embodiments of the present invention that are not explicitly shown and described in the figures, but which are evident and may be produced from the described embodiments, but which include separate combinations of features, should also be considered as covered and disclosed by the present invention. Thus, embodiments and combinations of features that do not include all the features of the originally formed independent claims are also considered to be disclosed. Moreover, embodiments and combinations of features that go beyond or deviate from the scope of the combinations of features presented in the reference to the claims should be considered to be disclosed, particularly by the embodiments presented above.
[0037] The subject matter according to the invention will now be explained in more detail with reference to the schematic diagrams shown in the following figures, without limiting the invention to the specific embodiments shown therein. [Brief description of the drawings]
[0038] [Figure 1] FIG. 1 illustrates an example embodiment of a method. [Diagram 2] FIG. 1 shows a schematic diagram of an example of a controller including an associated robotic device. [Diagram 3] FIG. 13 shows an illustrative example of the assignment of different risk profiles to program sections of command data. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
[0039] Identical or functionally identical elements are indicated with the same reference signs.
[0040] Figure 1 shows an example of a risk assessment. Here, a distinction is made between method step X performed by the user and method step Y performed by the assessment module. In the shown example, after the method starts, first the command data 24 (Figure 2) are read (1) and the machine data 25 (Figure 2) are read (2). This is followed by setting the usage limits of the robotic device 26 (Figure 2) by user input (3). As part A of the method, readings 1, 2 and setting 3 correspond to step 1 of the risk assessment, which is setting the limits of the robotic device.
[0041] Step 3 involves the completion 4 of risk profiles k, k+1 (FIG. 3) stored in the assessment module 23 (FIG. 2), which contain the information required for the automatic determination 8 (see below) of the associated hazard risks. This is followed by the saving (5) of the completed risk profiles, and also by the linking (6) of the one or more risk profiles with one or more respective program sections of the command data, in this case by user input. Thus, the completion 4, the saving 5, and the linking 6 as section B of the method correspond to step 2 of the usual risk assessment, identification, and description of hazards for an operator in the environment of the robotic device.
[0042] In the illustrated example, link 6 is followed by specifying (7) one or more occurrence conditions for each hazard, including in particular an assigned probability of occurrence. This is followed by determining (8) at least one hazard risk based on the read data and at least one stored risk profile assigned to each hazard risk. Specifying 7 and determining 8 as section C of the method correspond to step 3 of a conventional risk assessment, the assessment of the risks resulting from the pre-identified hazards.
[0043] Decision 8 is followed by classification 9 of the identified hazard risks, which also corresponds to step 4 of the known risk assessment, Section D: calculating a risk value and, if necessary, assigning a risk class.
[0044] Depending on the result of the classification 9, in the next step 10 in the illustrated example one or more measures 27, 28 (figure 2) for reducing the hazard risk are determined, after which in step 11 the one or more measures are output for selection by the user. This is followed by the selection of at least one measure by the user (12) and the automatic implementation of the selected one or more measures, in this case by outputting a corresponding control signal (13). Steps 10-13 correspond to step 5 of the conventional risk assessment, determining measures for risk minimization, providing information on low risks, reducing medium risks and eliminating high risks, as section D of the method.
[0045] In the presented example, the output 13 is followed by the automatic creation 14 of a safety verification plan, including an indication of the situations and points where the robotic device needs to be checked by measurements to evaluate the effectiveness of the measures taken to reduce the hazard risk. This plan is followed by the implementation 15 of the safety verification plan by the user, since the evaluation module should not check it itself. Alternatively or additionally, a verification module may also be provided, replacing or complementing the measurements by the user with a model-based approach, i.e. simulation. Steps 14 and 15 correspond to step 6 of a conventional risk assessment, verifying the effectiveness of the measures taken, as section F of the method described herein.
[0046] Finally, in this example, a corresponding document of the method including all relevant data is automatically generated and output.
[0047] 2 shows a schematic diagram of a controller for implementing the method as well as a corresponding robotic device. The controller 20 comprises a program module 21, a control module 22 and an evaluation module 23. The evaluation module 23 is configured to read from the program module 21 command data 24 intended for transmission to the control module 22. Alternatively or additionally, the evaluation module 23 is configured to read machine data 25 specifying the robotic device 26. Furthermore, the evaluation module 23 is configured to determine at least one hazard risk based on the read data 24, 25 and at least one stored associated risk profile k, k+1 (FIG. 3) which contains the information required for automatically determining each hazard risk, to classify the determined hazard risk, and depending on the result of the classification, to determine one or more measures 27 related to the program, and further to the program module, and / or one or more measures 28 related to the control system, and further to the control module 22, for reducing the hazard risk, and to implement these measures in the program module 21 and / or in the control module 22 after selection or approval by the user. The control module 22 is used to control the robotic device 26 by means of corresponding signals 29, 291.
[0048] Figure 3 shows an example of a set of command data including commands (i), (i+1), (i+2), (i+3), and (i+1).1, (i+1).2, (i+1).3, and (i+3).1, (i+3).2, as well as an example of the linking of risk profiles k, k+1. In the shown example, a first risk profile k is linked to commands i, i+1 and i+2 of the first command group and thus also to sub-commands (i+1).1, (i+1).2, (i+1).3 belonging to command (i+1). Here, a further risk profile k+1 is exclusively linked to sub-commands (i+1).1, (i+1).2, (i+1).3, such that the aforementioned sub-profile is linked both with risk profile k and with risk profile k+1. This is an example of the possibility of a flexible and precise assessment of the occurring risks.
Claims
1. A method for integrating the risk assessment of a collision between a robot device (26) and a human operator into a controller (20) for the robot device (26), the steps of the method being as follows: (a) A step (1) of reading command data (24) from a program module (21) by an evaluation module (23), the step being such that when the data is used as intended, it is for the purpose of transmission to a control module (22), and / or (b) A step (2) of reading machine data (25) specifying the robot device (26) from the control module (22) by the evaluation module (23), (c) A step (8) of determining at least one hazard risk by the evaluation module (23) based on the read data and at least one stored relevant risk profile (k, k + 1) containing information required to automatically determine each hazard risk, (d) A step (9) of classifying the determined hazard risk by the evaluation module (23), (e) Depending on the result of the classification (9), (i) Determining (10) one or more means (27, 28) for reducing the hazard risk and outputting (11) the determined one or more means (27, 28) for each selection by the user, or (ii) A step of outputting a warning to the user, (f) After the user has selected (12) at least one means (27, 28), a step (13) of outputting a control signal by the evaluation module (23) to implement the selected one or more means (27, 28) in the program module (21) and / or in the control module (22), A method comprising the above steps.
2. The risk profile (k, k + 1) is Information regarding the type of collision, in particular whether the collision is an obstruction or an impact, The type of part of the human operator's body that is exposed to the risk from the collision, in particular information regarding the identification of the part of the body that is exposed to the risk and / or the biomechanical limit values of the part of the body that is exposed to the risk, The position of the contact point of the robot device (26) involved in the collision, in particular information regarding the shape of the robot device (26) at the contact point, Information regarding the posture of the human operator during the collision, Information regarding the frequency and / or probability of the collision, Information regarding at least one method of preventing the hazard, The method according to claim 1, characterized in that it includes one or more of the items of information, namely information regarding the severity of the damage caused by the collision, in particular the severity of the injury to the human operator in the collision.
3. In particular, before determining (8) the hazard risk according to step (c) of the method, one or more of the risk profiles (k, k + 1) are linked (6) to one or more respective program sections of the command data (24) by user input, and in particular the user input also specifies (7) the conditions for the occurrence of the hazard that are assigned to the hazard risk corresponding to the risk profile (k, k + 1). The method according to claim 1 or 2.
4. Before determining (8) the hazard risk according to step (c) of the method, in particular after reading (1, 2) the data according to steps (a) and / or (b) of the method, the usage restrictions of the robot device (26) are defined (3) by user input, and the usage restrictions limit the spatial range and / or speed range and / or force range used by the robot device (26) during the intended use. The method according to claim 1 or 2.
5. If it is determined that the risk profile (k, k + 1) is an incomplete risk profile (k, k + 1) that does not contain all of the information required to automatically determine each of the hazard risks (8), the user is required to complete the risk profile (k, k + 1) using user input (4). The method according to claim 1 or 2, characterized in that.
6. In the classification (9) of the determined hazard risk according to step (d) of the method, each hazard risk is classified into one of three classes: a low risk class, a medium risk class, and a high risk class. In particular, in step (e) of the method, when the hazard risk is classified as low risk or high risk, each warning is output to the user, and when the hazard risk is classified as medium risk, the one or more means (27, 28) for reducing the hazard risk are determined and output for each user's selection. The method according to claim 1 or 2, characterized in that.
7. The one or more means (27, 28) for reducing the hazard risk include movement restrictions in the program module (21), in particular speed limits, and / or one or more safety functions in the control module (22), such as specifying at least one parameter for an emergency stop. The method according to claim 1 or 2, characterized in that.
8. The data read from the program module (21) and / or the control module (22) is repeatedly read, and when a change occurs from the previously read data, it is checked whether the change to the data is also accompanied by a change to one of the at least one associated hazard risk. If this is the case, steps (c), (d), (e), and (f) of the method are executed with respect to the changed data. The method according to claim 1 or 2, characterized in that.
9. A computer program product including a command, wherein when the program is executed by a computer, the command causes the computer to execute the method according to claim 1 or 2.
10. A controller (20) of the robot device (26) for integrating the risk assessment of the collision between a human operator and the robot device (26), comprising a program module (21), a control module (22), and an evaluation module (23), wherein the evaluation module (23) reads (1, 2) the command data (24) from the program module (21), the data being provided for transmission to the control module (22) during the intended use, and / or the machine data (25) specifying the robot device (26) from the control module (22), determines (8) at least one hazard risk based on the read data (24, 25) and at least one stored related risk profile (k, k + 1) including information required to automatically determine each hazard risk, classifies the determined hazard risk (9), and according to the result of the classification (9), (i) determines (10) one or more means (27, 28) for reducing the hazard risk and outputs (11) the one or more means (27, 28) for each selection by the user, or (ii) outputs a warning to the user, and is configured to output (13) a control signal to implement the selected one or more means (27, 28) in the program module (21) and / or in the control module (22) after at least one means (27, 28) is selected by the user.
11. A robot device (26) comprising the controller (20) according to claim 10.