Blog

Below we publish a commentary by Jacek Taczała, FA Product Manager Industrial Robots at Mitsubishi Electric, on key changes in the ISO 10218 standard.

The new version of ISO 10218 is not only an update of the document, but also a new approach to industrial robot safety. In this article, I share my perspective and suggest what to look out for to ensure that your applications comply with the new safety requirements.

The previous version of the standard had been in force since 2011. After 14 years, we now have a new update that introduces a number of significant changes.

Class I robots are considered less risky, while class II robots pose a potentially higher risk.

• The classification applies to design parameters, not the application itself.
• Even a Class I robot can be dangerous in poor working conditions.
• For Class I, safety measures may be simplified if the application is indeed low risk.

The standard itself indicates that when implementing a Class I robot, less stringent safety measures can be expected, but only on condition that the entire application remains completely safe for users. This means that despite the simplification of requirements, the emphasis on operator protection remains a priority.

Class I robots pose a challenge not only for manufacturers and system integrators, but also for end users. This is a new opportunity that allows manipulators to be used in additional processes – where previously devices not classified as robots were used.

Possible applications for Class I robots will be in:

• Pharmaceutical and laboratory industry
  Handling test tubes, plates, pipettes or vials – light details and low operating speeds translate into greater safety. Examples include dispensing, mixing or placing samples in incubators.
  
• Electronics and precision assembly
  Assembly of SMD components, testing of PCBs, placement of small components. Limited speed (up to 250 mm/s) is sufficient for many assembly and inspection operations.
  
• Quality control and sorting of light products
  Visual inspection of details using a camera in combination with a robot, or sorting of lightweight components.
  
• Educational and R&D applications
  Teaching robots at universities and training centres – limited energy and force ensure a higher level of safety during training.
  
• Light logistics and warehouses
  Pick & place applications for cosmetics packaging.
  

However, it is worth noting that limitations in terms of strength and speed clearly indicate that Class I robots will not be used in a large number of processes in industries such as automotive (and I do not mean only OEMs but also TIER subcontractors), metallurgy or furniture manufacturing. However, they can be an alternative to simple pneumatic manipulators where greater flexibility is required.

The change I focused on in particular was functional safety. In the world of robotics, where we strive to have industrial robots work closely with people, we will take into account safety functions such as SLP, SLS, SS1 and SS2. The latest ISO 10218-1:2025 and ISO 10218-2:2025 standards introduce clear, measurable guidelines that are of great importance, especially in collaborative applications where humans and robots work side by side.

In Annex C of ISO 10218-2:2025, safety functions are now clearly classified:

• Required – mandatory functions, e.g. Emergency Stop. They must meet a specific level of reliability (SIL/PL).
• Optional – functions that increase safety but depend on the application, e.g. speed reduction in areas where the robot may come close to the operator.
• Conditional – functions required only in specific scenarios, e.g. monitored standstill, i.e. control of the complete stop of the robot arm in collaborative applications.

• Designing safety zones – the standard requires that each zone be assessed in terms of risk and the safety functions that need to be implemented
• Configuring robot functions – the integrator must know which functions are mandatory, which can be implemented for additional safety, and which depend on the operating scenario
• Safety level monitoring – SIL/PL required for each function provides clear guidelines for the design of safety systems and system integration.

Standardised security features, clear classification into required/optional/conditional, and easy configuration of features by the integrator provide a real competitive advantage.

• Emergency Stop – a classic, but now with a specific PL/SIL level.
  
• Speed and Separation Monitoring – dynamic speed reduction when the operator approaches.
• Monitored Standstill – a requirement in applications where the operator feeds in details manually or works in a close access zone.

For robotic application integrators, the new standards are not an obstacle – they are a tool:

• They allow you to conveniently design safety zones and assess risks.
• They clearly define which functions must be implemented and which are additional for operator safety.
• They facilitate the selection and configuration of robots – knowing which functions have the required SIL/PL level allows you to select the appropriate safety modules and software.

This change is a clear step towards promoting the use of industrial robots working closely with people, while ensuring maximum safety for them. On the other hand, in applications without an operator present, robots can operate at maximum efficiency and productivity, which also reduces the energy consumption of the entire robotised section. This is a positive direction, which will replace today's cobots blocked by mechanical guards.

The standard imposes an obligation to conduct a cybersecurity risk assessment. If the analysis shows that there is a security risk, appropriate protective measures must be implemented. These may include, among others:

• The ability to disable access to communication ports, e.g. TCP/UDP,
• Change TCP/UDP port numbers in logical connections,
• Authenticated security configuration protection,the ability to change default settings such as user names, passwords, IP addresses, and authentication settings,
• The use of encrypted and authenticated communication protocols.

The standard also refers to other standards and guidelines:

• ISO/TR 22100-4:2018 – guidelines on IT security aspects and ISO 12100:2010,
• IEC TS 63074:2023 – information on functional safety,
• IEC 62443-3-2:2020 – assessment of system safety-related risks,
• IEC 62443-3-3:2013 – information on the safety of industrial communication networks.

Implementing these requirements not only protects robotic systems from digital threats, but also ensures safe and reliable operation in increasingly integrated industrial environments. Risk assessment and cybersecurity measures.

Detailed requirements for manufacturers and integrators have been added:

• Design: materials, stability, fault tolerance, TCP/payload configuration.
• Operation: standardised operating instructions, guidelines for faults, cyber security.
• New stopping and monitoring functions: stopping distance limiting, monitored standstill.

Why?

• Reduced risk of collisions and uncontrolled movements.
• Clear failure handling procedures and minimisation of human error.
• Precise settings improve operator safety and product protection.

New testing methods have been introduced, including:

• FMPM (Force per Manipulator) for Class I,
• Annex H – measurement of stopping time and distance.

This eliminates interpretative uncertainty and provides consistent validation tools.

• For manufacturers: greater investment in certified safety features and cyber protection.
• For integrators: greater responsibility for the entire application (tools, details, environment).
• For users: greater certainty of compliance with minimum requirements.
• For the world of robotics: openness to the work of operators with industrial robots – taking advantage of their high efficiency, with the standard indicating which safety tools must be implemented to ensure operator safety.

^{The new ISO 10218 is not just about ‘safe robots’ but ‘safe robotic applications’.}