• James
    7
    Hi all,

    I'm currently looking over an automatic bandsaw with an aperture size of 460*460mm, assessing against ISO 16093. Bit of background into the problem I'm facing, then I'd like some feedback on my current solution.

    Under clause 5.4.3.1, it states
    providing distance guards to ensure that the hazard zone cannot be reached the length of the
    distance guard [tunnel guard, see ISO 14120:2015, 3.2.2) shall be at least 550 mm (forearm length
    according to ISO 13857:2008, Table 3) [see ISO 13857 as appropriate for the type of safeguarding)
    ;

    Taking that clause to mean we are to apply ISO 13857(equivalent to AS/NZS4024.1801), Table 3 states the 550mm distance referenced is only applicable for openings <120mm (square, round, or slot). From Table 5, openings larger than 180mm slot or 240x240 square or round will allow whole-body access.

    Referring back to ISO 16093, alternative methods of safeguarding under 5.4.3.1 are around limiting stroke distance (not practical), restricting speed (not practical), using two-hand control (machine is fully automatic), fixed guarding (not practical to enclose infeed and outfeed tables too), or the use of an active optoelectronic protective device (AOPD).

    Due to the environment, AOPDs are likely to be damaged and have false trips due to vibrations and dust build-up, so I would like to avoid them if possible (also, the high cost isn't the best).

    My current solution is to apply AS/NZS4024.3410 (EN415-10) to the apertures (Packaging machinery general requirements). This will allow for an opening up to 500x500 with the use of tunnel guards, conveyors (outfeed tables), alternative means of access (interlocked doors), and signage to mitigate the risk. There is also minimal motivation to reach through/enter the aperture, as there is no foreseeable reason an operator would need to enter the area while the machine is running.

    Does anyone else have thoughts on ways to tackle this risk? Am I misinterpreting the standards? Any feedback is much appreciate!

  • Steve Schroder
    20
    honestly you will be better off having a chat with a guarding expert. it is a specilist field and there are a couple of good ones out there, that could advise you better on your sepcific issues.
  • Christopher Hyndman
    3
    Best to follow WorkSafe's advice contained within their Safe Use of Machinery Best Practice Guidelines by engaging with a competent person (experienced at working with and using AS 4024 or equivalent or higher standards).
  • MattD2
    338
    I would caution about applying the AS4024.3410 standard to a band saw as you would be outside of the scope of that standard.

    Taking that clause to mean we are to apply ISO 13857(equivalent to AS/NZS4024.1801), Table 3 states the 550mm distance referenced is only applicable for openings <120mm (square, round, or slot). From Table 5, openings larger than 180mm slot or 240x240 square or round will allow whole-body access.James
    My understanding is when the openings are larger than those allowed for in the tables, etc. for reaching through either; close guarding can be installed with the appropriate sized mesh or similar, or distance guards installed to prevent a person from being able to reach into the "danger zone" from behind the guard.

    But without having more of an understanding of the exact setup and operation of the band saw (and copies of the standards) it is difficult to provide any other advice. As the others have said engaging a guarding design expert is likely the best bet. From memory this is usually a TÜV NORD CMSE certification, commonly through Pilz in NZ. Typically the first step would be a machinery guarding risk assessment which should identify the actual hazards/risks associated with the equipment and the level of safeguards required.
  • Machine SafetyAccepted Answer
    1
    Hi James,

    I Echo the advise from MattD2 regarding misapplication of safety standards and especially engaging a suitably qualified and experienced safety professional.
    Aligning with industry interpretation of the standards is at best difficult and at worst impossible when reading technical standards "cold".
    Unfortunately I've seen firsthand the results of some well meaning, suitably qualified - but inexperienced machine safety practitioners.

    Please feel free to get in touch with me at machinesafety.co.nz and depending on your location in NZ I'd be happy to point you in the direction of some people I'd trust.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to the Safeguard forum!

If you are interested in workplace health & safety in New Zealand, then this is the discussion forum for you.