GuardLogix Robot Module Configuration Signature

Kalagaraz

Member
Join Date
Dec 2011
Location
Kentucky
Posts
24
Does anyone here know the requirements of having a configuration signature on robots? We have a lot of Fanuc robots and any time a motor is replaced, it requires remastering the robot which changes the configuration signature, which then has to be resetup in the guardlogix controller to allow communication.

From my understanding, without a configuration signature the safety rating is SIL2 and with it is SIL3, but what I don't understand is what kind of SIL requirement is required for a robotic cell where it would potentially be possible for operator to be hit by robot while loading fixture. Does everyone here use the configuration signature in their robotic cells?

Thanks.
 
I've never heard anything changing the SIL with/without a signature. Changing from SIL3 to SIL2 represents a ten-fold decrease in safety, unlikely that a mere signature to prevent changes should account for that much. Essentially it is one more item to prevent inadvertent or intentional changes that affect safety. With all that said, we use safety signatures because it does provide some additional checks against inadvertent changes and forces a look into the repair, so I've never really investigated the issue.

Are you really replacing motors so often that this is a problem?

As for the required SIL rating, only a full hazard analysis can determine that. The quick and dirty rule of thumb we use is: if it can kill it is SIL3, if it can maim it is SIL2. But a healthy component of the hazard analysis is how often and for how long the operator is exposed.
 
I've never heard anything changing the SIL with/without a signature. Changing from SIL3 to SIL2 represents a ten-fold decrease in safety, unlikely that a mere signature to prevent changes should account for that much. Essentially it is one more item to prevent inadvertent or intentional changes that affect safety. With all that said, we use safety signatures because it does provide some additional checks against inadvertent changes and forces a look into the repair, so I've never really investigated the issue.

Are you really replacing motors so often that this is a problem?

As for the required SIL rating, only a full hazard analysis can determine that. The quick and dirty rule of thumb we use is: if it can kill it is SIL3, if it can maim it is SIL2. But a healthy component of the hazard analysis is how often and for how long the operator is exposed.

We have hundreds of robots, so motor changes do occur quite regularly. I thought I read in one of the guardlogix manuals that a configuration signature was required to meet SIL3 rating, but I can't find it now. I might have misread something.

a25cc285d69e420e8d8fb72e6d1faa3d.png


Ran into occurrences where the controls guy on the off shift simply just unchecks this box and never adds the new configuration signature. Just trying to get an idea of what is required.
 
Just curious, do the robots have DCS? And what are you using for fieldbus, ethernetip or devicenet? Just trying to visualize how a motor change would demand a change on the guardlogix side.
 
Just curious, do the robots have DCS? And what are you using for fieldbus, ethernetip or devicenet? Just trying to visualize how a motor change would demand a change on the guardlogix side.

Bit late, but the robots do use DCS. Whenever a motor is remastered in the fanuc controller, it changes the safety signature, and then you get a mismatch between the guardlogix controller and fanuc controller. We use both ethernet/ip and devicenet on different robots.
 
Bit late, but the robots do use DCS. Whenever a motor is remastered in the fanuc controller, it changes the safety signature, and then you get a mismatch between the guardlogix controller and fanuc controller. We use both ethernet/ip and devicenet on different robots.

As I suspected; that would be the reason for the change in signature.
 

Similar Topics

gents, I am trying to configure communication with EMERSON PK300 controller through port A1 using generic ethernet communication module . I could...
Replies
0
Views
15
I had a comms fault between my VFD and Controller (5069-L320ERS2) that started about a month ago and happened maybe once a day to now where it...
Replies
1
Views
242
I just finished a project that was using a CompactLogix(5069-L310ER2)and the project now requires a GuardLogix(5069-L310ERS2). I will be...
Replies
7
Views
590
I have a GuardLogix PLC with safety inputs of HMI, Estops, Light Curtains, and Gates. Is it considered safe for the safety program to monitor the...
Replies
11
Views
736
Hi... I have what is so-called "Limit Values" placed in the Safety PLC. These values ​​were written in REAL safety tags format. It turns out...
Replies
3
Views
407
Back
Top Bottom