Safer, Clearer, and More Explicit: ISO 10218 Gets a Makeover

**You’ve been in **the news recently because of an important update to the ISO 10218 industrial robot safety standard. What was your role?

My role is officially as ‘Convener,’ which in the language of standardization is similar to being the Chair. Basically, it means that I lead the group and help to develop consensus so that we can move along and make progress.

The group has around 160 of our best friends. Most are from industry, including robot manufacturers, integrators, accessory suppliers, and end users. We also have people from testing laboratories and academia. The group includes people from across Europe, North America, Mexico, Brazil, Japan, Korea, China, India, Australia and, by correspondence, Russia. It’s truly global. That’s something we're very proud of. I don't know of any other machinery or equipment safety standard that has had this degree of global acceptance and adoption.

If you wait for perfection, you'll never get there. Our mantra is that we’re striving for improvement. With that we were able to keep on course and move ahead.

Before we get to the upgrade itself, for those who are not familiar with ISO 10218, what does it cover, and who does it pertain to?

Keep in mind that ISO 10218 may be adopted in different jurisdictions under different names and on different timelines. For example, European Union adoption is automatic from moment of publication. Meanwhile, work is underway to adopt and release the new 10218 upgrade in Canada and the United States (as ANSI R15.06 and CSA Z434, respectively) later this year.

Part 1 and Part 2 of ISO 10218 are the foundational documents for safety in the world of industrial robotics. Part 1 covers the safety requirements associated with the robot itself, which is of interest to robot manufacturers.

Part 2 covers the requirements associated with a robot application and a robot cell. They might sound like the same thing, but as is always the way with safety standards, the devil is in the detail of the definitions. A ‘robot application’ includes the robot’s end effector, the robot’s defined intended use, programming software, and the workpiece(s). A robot cell refers to when a robot application is safeguarded so that people are protected.

When you have completed applying the Part 2 standard, you have a ‘robot cell’. This does not necessarily mean that it has fences, guards or cages. It means it’s safeguarded so people are protected from risks. You could use a fence or guard, but there are many other ways to do it, such as light curtains and safety scanners. Or, you could use the safety functions of the robot itself to implement a collaborative robot cell.

What are the most important elements of the 2025 update?

The biggest thing for everybody to wrap their arms around is that requirements that were implied -to careful readers- in the 2011 version are now stated explicitly.

For example, we now have a requirement that talks about ‘capability of lifting.’ When an industrial robot lifts and moves a part around in space, all sorts of forces, accelerations and torques are put on the robot arm. Until now, we didn’t have a requirement of a ‘safety factor for lifting’ or a ‘safety factor for moving dynamically’. It was never stated. Was that a problem for robot manufacturers? We’re not aware of it ever being a problem, because otherwise the robot wouldn't work. But it is explicitly laid out in the 2025 version.

The advantage of having more clarity is that it evens the playing field. If everybody says they're meeting the standard, we at least have a very baseline comparison from a safety standpoint.

Most of the big improvements are in Part 2. For example, we emphasized the robot application and the robot cell, whereas the 2011 version covered robot systems with end effectors which was implied to cover the parts, the intended use, and the safeguarding. Those elements are more explicitly covered now.

ISO/TS 15066 for collaborative robot applications has been incorporated into the upgraded standard and ISO/TS 15066 will eventually become its own standard.

There are also added requirements for cybersecurity.

Part 1 saw a few significant changes. For example, there's a lot more requirements and clarity around safety functions. Whereas the 2011 document required just a few safety functions, the 2025 version requires more than twenty.

What does it mean for manufacturers and integrators?

All robot manufacturers have some work to do. For some it's less than others but all robot manufacturers are going to be making improvements. The dominant robot brands, including Universal Robots, have tried to do a good job around functional safety and safety. All of us have provided some of the new safety functions required. Did we all think we were doing a good job? Yes. Are there now gaps for every robot manufacturer? Yes. The 'old' standard will be withdrawn in the spring of 2027. Before then, manufacturers will need to be in compliance with the new 2025 document.

There are head scratchers too. For example, one of the new requirements relates to external axes. Every manufacturer offers external axes, and all the credible manufacturers offer a safety function for speed limiting.

In the new Part 1 standard however, manufacturers are required to externalize some of the safety functions for an external or auxiliary axis.  For example, they might explain how to use the robot’s safety functions to do axis limiting of an external axis and how to have the robot’s speed limit apply to the motion with the external axis when the whole base is moving. We’re going to have to tell integration folks how to accomplish this and that's not an easy thing. Can it be done? Yes. Manufacturers will have to update their user manuals. I'm still scratching my head over that, but we'll do it, and so will all the manufacturers.

Part 2 establishes new requirements for the integration. Similar to Part 1, Part 2 is more concise and it has many more safety functions required than the previous edition.  But Part 2 has a number of informative annexes with lots of illustrations.  Functional safety is also greatly expanded in the new edition.

What does it all mean for end users?

It means an even safer working environment in and around robot applications and cells.

End users should check the section called ‘Information for Use’ in Part 2. That section describes everything that end users are supposed to receive from their integrator, or whoever provided the assembly.

This should include an instruction handbook that explains the whole robot cell, its intended use, and the limits of range of motion. The handbook should describe what's needed for installation, how to set up the robots and the robot cell for first use, and recommended training.

Remember, this handbook (i.e. User Manual) has to come with the cell. Many end users will buy equipment and put it together themselves and they don't think that Part 2 applies to them, but it does. Part 2’s requirements are of the integration – not a specific entity.

Do you have a final message regarding robot safety?

I strongly advise people to look at Universal Robots’ free risk assessment training. It is excellent and takes you through the risk assessment process. You don't even have to use robots from Universal Robots to benefit.

Integrators should explore Part 2 in depth. Don't view it as a race to read to the end. Read through it, soak in it, put it aside, then pick it up again. It has around 100 additional pages, most of which are pictures and informative annexes. Read them and start asking questions.

I also advise safety professionals and control engineers to consider attending the International Robot Safety Conference in early November, 2025 in Houston. There will be expert speakers, case studies will be presented, and we will be introducing the new standards to the world.