Pith. sign in

REVIEW

ISO/TS 15066: How Different Interpretations Affect Risk Assessment

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2203.02706 v1 pith:AHQFQDX5 submitted 2022-03-05 cs.RO

ISO/TS 15066: How Different Interpretations Affect Risk Assessment

classification cs.RO
keywords interpretationsriskassessmentdifferentcollisioncontacthumanpossible
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

The current technical specification ISO/TS15066:2016(E) for safe human-robot interaction contains logically conflicting definitions for the contact between human and robot. This may result in different interpretations for the contact classification and thus no unique outcome can be expected, which may even cause a risk to the human. In previous work, we showed a first set of implications. This paper addresses the possible interpretations of a collision scenario as a result of the varying interpretations for a risk assessment. With an experiment including four commercially available robot systems we demonstrate the procedure of the risk assessment following the different interpretations of the TS. The results indicate possible incorrect use of the technical specification, which we believe needs to be resolved in future revisions. For this, we suggest tools in form of a decision tree and constrained collision force maps, which enable a simple, unambiguous risk assessment for HRI.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.