Sawyer Advanced Specifications

V160219
Contents
Sawyer Advanced Specifications .................................................................................................................................. 3
Technical Specification Table ................................................................................................................................... 3
Shipping Weights and Dimensions......................................................................................................................... 4
Drawings .................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Full System ............................................................................................................................................................. 5
Top View ................................................................................................................................................................ 6
Side View ................................................................................................................................................................ 7
Link Lengths ........................................................................................................................................................... 8
Sawyer Field Replaceable Unit (FRU) Price List.......................................................................................................... 9
Safety Strategy ......................................................................................................................................................... 10
Collaborative Robots ............................................................................................................................................ 10
ISO 10218/R15.06 and TS15066 Categories ........................................................................................................ 10
Safety-Rated Monitored Stop .......................................................................................................................... 10
Hand Guiding.................................................................................................................................................... 10
Speed and Separation Monitoring ................................................................................................................... 11
Power and Force Limiting – Rethink Robotics’ robots fit into this category.................................................. 11
Performing a Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 12
Background on Industrial Robot Safety Standards .............................................................................................. 13
Sawyer Advanced Specifications

Technical Specification Table

Reach 1260 mm

Payload 4 kg

Task Repeatability 0.1 mm

Max Tool Speed 2 m/sec

Typical Task Tool Speed 1 m/sec

DOF 7

Operating Temperature 0oC – 40oC, 80% Relative Humidity

Robot Weight 19 kg

Power Consumption 700 watts

Power Requirements 100-240 VAC, 47-63 Hz, 4A Max

Joint Ranges J0 – J5: 350 degrees, J6: 540 degrees

I/O Ports (Controller) 8 digital in / 8 digital out

I/O Power 24 volts, 2 amps

I/O End of Arm 4 digital in / 2 digital out / 2 analog in (enabled summer 2016)

Communication Modbus Remote I/O, PLC

Controller Cord Length 2M

IP Class 54

Collaboration ISO 10218-1:2011

Shipping Weights and Dimensions
Length Width Height Gross Wt Net Wt
(in) (in) (in) (lb) (lb)

Robot Box 35 20 20 48 58

Controller Box 27 13 20 45 55

Accessory Box 23 26 20 N/A 13

Pedestal Crate 36 48 19 220 250

Total 48 39 39 N/A 381

Drawings
Please follow following links for latest Sawyer drawings and workspace guidelines

http://mfg.rethinkrobotics.com/wiki/Workspace_Guidelines#tab=Sawyer
http://mfg.rethinkrobotics.com/wiki/Robot_Hardware#tab=Sawyer

Full System
Top View
Side View
Link Lengths
Sawyer Field Replaceable Unit (FRU) Price List
Part # Item MFG List Price
70001 ROBOT FRU $21,750
70002 CONTROL BOX FRU $7,250
70003 CUFF SWITCH ASSEMBLY FRU KIT $125
70004 LCD SCREEN FRU KIT $650
70005 NAVIGATOR FRU KIT $250
70006 TOOL PLATE FRU KIT $125
70007 MOXA E1212 FRU KIT $400
70008 ESTOP FRU KIT $175
70009 L0 CAP KIT $20
70010 L1 CAP KIT $60
70011 L2 CAP AND PAD KIT $60
70012 L3 CAP AND PAD KIT $60
70013 L4 PAD KIT $60
70014 J5 PAD KIT $50
70015 L5 PAD KIT $50
Safety Strategy
http://mfg.rethinkrobotics.com/wiki/Safety

Collaborative Robots

TS 15066 defines a collaborative robot as a robot that is purposely designed for work in direct cooperation with
a human within a defined workspace. Today, most collaborative robots are working in situations where a person
periodically has to approach the robot area for reasons such as:
 replenishing the work cell with new parts to process
 taking away finished products
 perform maintenance operation on equipment that the robot is tending (e.g. lubricate a piece of
equipment)
 resolve issues, such as a clearing a jam or correcting a part presentation issue.

ISO 10218/R15.06 and TS15066 Categories

Collaborative robot applications meet the requirements of ISO 10218/R15.06 and TS15066 by supporting one or
more of the 4 categories of capabilities outlined below.

Safety-Rated Monitored Stop

A robot that supports Safety-Rated Monitored Stop works in a non-collaborative mode of operation until a
person’s approach is detected by the perimeter safeguards. Traditional industrial robots typically have the ability
to come to an emergency stop when a safeguard is triggered, such as a light curtain or emergency stop button
and the robot performs a category 0 or 1 stop which leaves the arm de-energized. A robot that supports the
Safety-Rated Monitored Stop capability instead comes to a category 2 stop which allows it to stay energized and
continue operation seamlessly after the person exits the safeguarded zone, because they have the ability to
ensure the robot won’t ever move in this stopped state. The robot must be equipped with a safety-rated soft
axis and space limiting function and a safety-rated monitored stop function that meets the functional safety
performance level defined in ISO 10218-1. This method of implementing collaborative safety is specific to
traditional industrial robots that are dangerous, yet have advanced safety-rated controls capabilities to allow an
operator to enter its workspace temporarily. This method is not applicable to Baxter and Sawyer as they do not
have a non-collaborative mode and do not have the safety rated mechanisms it describes.

Hand Guiding

Hand Guiding builds upon Safety Rated Monitored Stop. Robots that support this capability come to a category 2
stop when a person enters the safeguarded space, then the person uses an enabling device to activate motion
and operate the robot in a safe manner by hand. When training Baxter or Sawyer by demonstration you are not
in this definition of had guided collaborative operation since Baxter has no non-collaborative automatic mode
and the method by which you train by demonstration does not use an enabling device. This definition of Hand
Guided Collaborative robots is intended to encompass robots that are otherwise unsafe to be near but have
advanced safety-rated controls that make it safe for the robot to be powered while a person is in within its
workspace, and to enable hand guided actions.

Speed and Separation Monitoring

The ultimate method for traditional, dangerous, industrial robots to work around people is to have them adapt
in real time to the presence of people. In this mode, the robot has a safety rated method of monitoring the
separation between nearby people and the robot, and adjusting its speed to ensure safety. The closer anything
or anyone gets to the robot, it is required to reduce speed, and come to a safety rated monitored stop when
that person approaches within a minimum separation distance. As you can imagine, creating a self-monitoring,
redundant safety system that can calculate the separation distance and relative motion of any and all people
within the safeguarded space and the robot is a very big challenge, so there are currently no solutions available
that leverage this mode. Some approximate it using a series of light curtains or laser scanners.

While Baxter has a sonar ring that can allow it to detect the presence of objects near the robot, it has no safety
function and is not related to this mode of collaborative operation. Currently the sonar ring has no behavioral
functions tied to it in the manufacturing version of the robot beyond being a visual indicator that the robot is
working and reacting to inputs. It is however being used occasionally in the education and research communities
using the Baxter Research Robot for many creative applications.

Power and Force Limiting – Rethink Robotics’ robots fit into this category

This category of robot has limited power and force capabilities either through the use of safety-rated controls or
through inherent design. Baxter and Sawyer fit into this category via inherent design. The capabilities of the
motor and gearbox combinations at the maximum voltage available have been sized to keep the maximum joint
torques very low. The gearbox design is also very efficient, making it easy to overcome the robot’s power and
push the robot away, back driving the motor and gearbox. Lastly, the series elastic actuator joint design provides
a spring at every joint that can also absorb the energy of impact as well as make it easy to push the robot away,
eliminating the risk of clamping or trapping.

Other robots in this category use safety rated controls and safeguards to limit the robot’s abilities when running
in collaborative operation. Some have these constraints active 100% of the time, others engage them when the
robot is changed to its collaborative mode. While the safeguards themselves must meet the requirements of ISO
10218 in terms of reliability and redundancy, there are also requirements on controlling access since
unauthorized access could result in configuring settings that would be unsafe.

The challenge with Power and Force Limiting is that there a lack of definitive data available to use in deciding
what an acceptable force/power/speed/energy should be for the robot during collaborative operation. An annex
of the upcoming TS15066 presents a human body model along with data from a University of Mainz pain onset
study. In that study, 100 test subjects consisting of people from general society (e.g. the university) as well as
some metal working were tested using an apparatus that presses on the target body point with a 1cm2 probe
covered with a pressure-sensitive foil grid. In each test of one of the 29 body regions tested, the subject
squeezed or released an enabling device when they felt the probe contact switched from pressure to pain. No
test subject experienced an injury (i.e. no bruises or lacerations) and when the subjects were asked to rate the
resultant pain on a scale of 1-10, the vast majority gave the score as 3 or less.

The table in the annex provides pain onset pressure values from the study for quasi-static contact (clamping)
situations. At those pressures, 75% of participants had begun to feel pain, with no injuries - not even a bruise. It
also provides force values for quasi-static contact that were derived from a study of all available literature on
topics like closing subway doors and blunt force trauma. Ongoing research suggests these values are
conservative, however it will likely be several years before more HRI-specific research on injury thresholds can
provide more specific data. The table then provides a multiplier for determining an estimate for transient
contact. Transient contact is the short duration contact where the human body part can react or be deflected.
An injury study around injury onset found that the transient limits could be 2 to 9 times higher than quasi-static
limits, so the table conservatively lists a multiplier of 2 to get to the equivalent transient values. Unfortunately
getting approvals to determine injury thresholds is difficult, let alone finding test subjects willing to be tested to
the point of bruising or lacerations, so this data may be all that industry has available for reference for a long
time.

Performing a Risk Assessment

RIA TR R15.306:2014 provides a detailed methodology for performing risk assessments in general, while
specifically for Power and Force Limited collaborative robots, ISO TS 15066 and ANSI R15.06/ISO 10218-2
provide guidance on the right aspects to be evaluating. It is important to evaluate the entire robotic application
including not just the robot itself, but all tools, fixtures, parts, end effectors, machinery, etc within the robotic
cell. Once all hazards in normal operation, including capturing both intended operation and interaction
situations as well as unintended, foreseeable misuse situations, the hazards should be scored on probability of
exposure, severity of injury hazard, frequency of exposure, and avoidability.

After determining the hazards and their risks, the standards require users to attempt to eliminate or reduce
them to acceptable levels. There is a hierarchy of steps to consider starting with elimination of hazards at the
top to the use of personal protective equipment as the last level. After applying any changes to the work cell to
eliminate or mitigate the hazards, each hazard risk is re-scored to determine a final risk level and show the work
cell meets the desired level of risk.

In the absence of specific limits or standardized, repeatable, precise force/pressure measuring techniques,
customers are testing the robot’s performance with respect to these hazards and determining the injury severity
risk using common sense. In situations where either the part being handled presents a risk or some equipment
in the collaborative work cell presents a hazard, some customers are choosing to add protective measures that
slow, pause or stop the robot when something is detected within proximity of the robot or the machine it is
tending. To date, no customer has required a cage like a traditional industrial robot for a Baxter application.
 Background on Industrial Robot Safety Standards
ISO 10218:2011 is the key international standard for industrial robot safety standards relating to collaborative
robots (ISO stands for International Standards Organization). Part 1 covers the robot itself, while Part 2 covers
the robot application. In the US, ANSI (American National Standards Institute) has adopted this standard as
R15.06:2012. The ISO 10218 standard builds upon two more fundamental standards, ISO 13849 which covers
safety of machinery and in particular safety related parts of the control system, and ISO 12100 which discusses
general principles for risk assessment and risk reduction for the safe design of machinery.

When the work to update ISO 10218 was completed in 2011, the vision for collaborative robots was uncertain,
and the standard could not yet provide enough guidance on how to assess and deploy this new class of robots
and applications. Since then, Baxter has come to market, along with other robots that promote themselves as
collaborative, and the industry came to realize that more information and guidance is needed for collaborative
robot applications. As a result, the ISO, ANSI and other national standards committees began work began on a
new ISO Technical Specification called ISO TS 15066. This new document should come out in late 2015/early
2016 and will provide more detailed guidance on how to analyze a collaborative robot application.

The emergence of collaborative robotics has also come on the heels of a general trend in the industry away from
defining standards that limit the functionality and usefulness of robots irrespective of the intended use. Instead,
the standards require an approach that evaluates the application as a whole. ISO 10218 calls for the
integrators/users of robots to perform a risk assessment of the planned application to evaluate all the hazards
presented and provides a sound methodology for assessing risks and determining what measures are necessary
to ensure the safety of workers. In the United States, ANSI and RIA (Robotic Industries Association) have now
released Technical Report TR R15.306:2014 to provide very risk assessment methodology information
specifically to help guide users of robotics.