Machine Safety Sensor Architecture for Validated 3D Object Tracking

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current 3D camera systems for industrial safety do not provide precise object localization and tracking due to insufficient computing power in certified safety controllers, limiting their ability to perform complex safety functions like object tracking and hazard mitigation.

Innovation Solution

A safety system comprising a safe sensor for protective field monitoring and a non-safe evaluation unit for object localization, using redundant sensors and plausibility checks to ensure reliable object tracking and hazard assessment, with annotated training data generation.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If a certified safety controller is used to perform complex safety functions like object tracking and localization, then safety compliance is ensured, but computing power is insufficient

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesafety complianceVSAvoidcomputing power
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSPower

Solution Approach 1:

The system divides the safety evaluation function into two segments: a safe sensor performs protective field monitoring and generates safe output signals, while a non-safe evaluation unit performs complex object localization and tracking. This segmentation allows each component to specialize - the safe sensor ensures compliance while the non-safe unit provides computing power for complex functions.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The safe sensor acts as an intermediary between the non-safe evaluation unit and the machine control system. It receives sensor data from the non-safe unit, performs independent protective field monitoring, and outputs safe signals to the machine. This intermediary ensures that complex evaluations can be performed without compromising safety compliance.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Power

If a non-safe evaluation unit is used for object localization, then computing power is sufficient, but safety certification is not available

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecomputing powerVSAvoidsafety certification
Core Design Contradiction:
PowerVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The safe sensor serves as a mediator that validates the outputs of the non-safe evaluation unit. It independently monitors protective fields and compares results with object localization data, providing safety certification through its certified evaluation without limiting the computing capabilities of the non-safe unit.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements feedback through plausibility checks where the safe sensor's protective field monitoring results are compared with object localization and tracking data from the non-safe evaluation unit. This feedback mechanism ensures that complex functions are performed safely by continuously validating their outputs.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

3Adaptability or versatility

If complex safety functions are implemented, then hazard mitigation capability is improved, but system complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvehazard mitigation capabilityVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system segments complex safety functions into modular components: protective field monitoring, object detection, localization, and tracking. Each module operates independently with defined interfaces, allowing complex hazard mitigation capabilities to be built from simpler, well-understood building blocks that maintain overall system manageability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Applied Scientific Principles

This section explains which scientific principles are used to turn an abstract innovation direction into a practical engineering solution.

Function Achieved in This Case

Enables complex safety functions like object tracking and hazard mitigation with high reliability and compliance with safety standards by leveraging existing certified safety components for enhanced computing power and data processing.

Implementation Method 1

Optoelectronic sensors are very frequently used in non-contact monitoring for hazard prevention, such as on machinery in industrial environments

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectOptoelectronic sensing: Photoelectric Effect

Implementation Method 2

In a time-of-flight (TOF) camera, which we will examine in more detail, a scene is illuminated with amplitude-modulated light. The light returning from the scene is received and demodulated at the same frequency used to modulate the transmitted light

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectTime-of-flight measurement: Time of Flight

Data Source

PatentEP4660513B1Safety system and method for securing a machine
Publication Date: 2026.04.08 SICK AG
  • EP4660513B1 patent drawingFigure 1~2
  • EP4660513B1 patent drawingFigure 3~4
  • EP4660513B1 patent drawingFigure 5

AI summary

A safety system for securing a machine is described, comprising at least one safe sensor (10) and one non-safe evaluation unit (40). The safe sensor (10) includes a protective field evaluation (42), a safe interface (30), and a non-safe interface for outputting sensor data (44) to the non-safe evaluation unit (40). The non-safe evaluation unit (40) determines the positions of objects (20, 34) located within the detection range (18) by means of a non-safe position evaluation (46) of the sensor data (44). The object positions are validated by monitoring the at least one protective field.