Robot Certification (ISO 10218): The Blueprint for Safe and Compliant CNC Machining Automation

Introduction: The Non-Negotiable Foundation of Robotic Integration

The integration of industrial robotics into Computer Numerical Control (CNC) machining cells represents the pinnacle of modern manufacturing efficiency. It unlocks unprecedented levels of productivity, consistency, and flexibility for operations like high-speed milling, precision turning, and complex multi-axis machining. However, the powerful forces, high-speed movements, and intricate programming that make robots so valuable also introduce significant hazards. In this high-stakes environment, robot certification (ISO 10218) is not merely a regulatory checkbox—it is the fundamental engineering and legal blueprint for ensuring human safety, protecting capital investment, and achieving sustainable operational success.

For a precision engineering service provider like JLYPT, navigating the intricacies of robot certification (ISO 10218) is a core competency. It transcends basic compliance; it represents a commitment to designing and integrating automation systems that are inherently safe, legally sound, and built for reliability. The recent publication of the updated ISO 10218:2025 series marks the first major overhaul of this global safety benchmark since 2011. This revision reflects over a decade of technological evolution, particularly in collaborative robotics and networked systems, making a thorough understanding of its requirements more critical than ever for any manufacturer implementing or operating robotic CNC cells.

This definitive guide will dissect the ISO 10218 standard, clarifying its structure, demystifying its key requirements, and explaining the concrete steps toward achieving certification. We will explore the profound implications of the 2025 updates, provide a actionable framework for compliance, and illustrate its practical application through real-world scenarios. This is essential knowledge for any business seeking to leverage automation without compromising on safety or operational integrity.

Demystifying ISO 10218: Structure, Scope, and Legal Weight

The Two-Part Framework

The ISO 10218 series is the globally recognized “mother standard” for industrial robot safety, forming the basis for regulations in the EU, North America, and Japan. It is strategically divided into two complementary parts, each addressing a distinct phase in the robot’s lifecycle:

• ISO 10218-1: Safety Requirements for Industrial Robots: This section addresses the robot as an “incomplete machine.” It sets the requirements for the robot manufacturer, covering the inherently safe design, protective measures, and information for use of the robot unit itself. It deals with hazards intrinsic to the robot arm, such as its kinetic energy, mechanical stops, and control system reliability.

• ISO 10218-2: Safety Requirements for Industrial Robot Applications and Robot Cells: This is the critical document for system integrators and end-users. It governs the safe integration of the robot (the incomplete machine) into a complete work cell. This includes the design of the cell, the integration of peripheral equipment (CNC machines, conveyors, vision systems), safeguarding, commissioning, and procedures for operation and maintenance. It addresses hazards created by the application, such as those from welding, laser cutting, or machining processes.

The Power of a “Type-C” Standard

ISO 10218 is classified as a Type-C standard according to ISO 12100 (Safety of machinery). This classification carries significant legal and technical weight. While Type-A standards are basic safety principles and Type-B are generic safety standards, Type-C standards provide detailed safety requirements for a particular machine or group of machines. Crucially, when a Type-C standard exists, its specifications take precedence over any conflicting provisions in Type-A or Type-B standards. For robotic cells, this means that ISO 10218-2 is the authoritative document for hazard identification, risk assessment, and the implementation of protective measures.

What Falls Outside the Scope?

Understanding the standard’s limits is as important as knowing its requirements. ISO 10218 is explicitly designed for industrial environments where public access is restricted. It is not applicable to a wide range of non-industrial robots, including:

• Service, consumer, and healthcare robots.

• Medical, military, underwater, or space robots.

• Robots designed to lift or transport people.
  Furthermore, it excludes hazards from extreme environments (like nuclear or explosive atmospheres), radiation, and the mobility of robots mounted on platforms like Autonomous Guided Vehicles (AGVs) — the latter being covered by separate standards like ISO 3691-4.

The 2025 Revision: A Paradigm Shift for Modern Automation

The 2025 update is a substantial evolution, with the page count of Part 2 expanding dramatically from 72 to 223 pages, signaling a much more detailed and comprehensive approach. For CNC machining, several key changes are transformative.

1. Introduction of Robot Classes (Class I vs. Class II)

The new standard formally recognizes the fundamental difference between traditional heavy-duty robots and modern collaborative robots (cobots) by introducing two risk-based categories.

Class I Robots: These are characterized by limited force and speed capabilities. Think of typical collaborative robots (cobots) used for assembly, inspection, or light machine tending. They are designed with “reasonable foreseeable misuse” in mind and have inherent physical limits on their power.

Class II Robots: This category encompasses all other industrial robots, including the high-payload, high-speed articulated arms commonly used for heavy CNC machine tending, part transfer, and large-scale milling. These robots possess the potential for much greater kinetic energy.

The classification is not optional; a robot that fails to meet all Class I criteria is automatically classified as Class II. This distinction directly impacts the required safety measures, particularly for functional safety performance levels.

Table 1: Key Changes in ISO 10218:2025 Affecting CNC Machining Integration

2. From Prescriptive to Risk-Based Functional Safety

The 2011 standard often prescribed a one-size-fits-all Performance Level (PL d) for safety functions. The 2025 edition moves to a sophisticated, risk-based methodology. For each safety function—whether an emergency stop, safe speed limitation, or hand-guiding mode—the required Performance Level (PL) or Safety Integrity Level (SIL) must now be determined through a structured risk assessment.

This assessment considers:

• Severity (S) of potential injury.

• Frequency (F) and duration of exposure to the hazard.

• Probability (P) of a hazardous event occurring.

• Possibility of Avoidance (A).

This approach aligns with the ALARP principle (As Low As Reasonably Practicable), allowing safety system designers to tailor solutions that are precisely as robust as needed, potentially optimizing cost and complexity while maintaining safety.

3. Cybersecurity as an Integral Component

For the first time, the standard acknowledges that a robot’s safety can be compromised through its network connections. The 2025 update includes requirements for securing communication layers and provides guidance on network categories. For a modern, connected machining cell where the robot controller exchanges data with the CNC, MES, or cloud-based monitoring systems, implementing secure networks, encrypted firmware, and access controls is now a part of robot certification (ISO 10218) compliance.

4. Formalization of Collaborative Operation Modes

With the integration of ISO/TS 15066, the four defined collaborative modes—Safety-Rated Monitored Stop, Hand Guiding, Speed and Separation Monitoring (SSM), and Power and Force Limiting (PFL)—are now enshrined in the main standard alongside their technical requirements and biomechanical limits. This provides a clear, standardized framework for designing cells where humans and robots share workspace for tasks like fixture setup, part inspection, or manual loading.

The Certification Journey: A Step-by-Step Process for CNC Cells

Achieving compliance and preparing for robot certification (ISO 10218) is a structured engineering process, not an afterthought. The following roadmap outlines the critical phases.

Phase 1: Comprehensive Risk Assessment & Hazard Analysis

This is the indispensable first step, forming the foundation for all subsequent safety measures. A cross-functional team must identify all foreseeable hazards associated with the complete robotic cell. In a CNC environment, this extends beyond the robot to include:

• Mechanical Hazards: Crushing and impact points at the robot arm, gripper, and automated CNC machine doors. Entanglement with rotating spindles, chucks, or pallet changers.

• Process-Related Hazards: Exposure to sharp chips, cutting fluids, high-energy processes (e.g., in-cell laser marking), and the release of clamped workpieces.

• Electrical & Control Hazards: Failures in safety-related control systems, unintended movements due to interference, or software errors.

• Human Interaction Hazards: Points of interaction during teaching, maintenance, recovery from faults, and tool changing.

The risk assessment must be documented in detail, with each hazard rated according to the parameters (S, F, P, A) defined in the standard to determine the necessary risk reduction.

Phase 2: Implementation of Protective Measures

Based on the risk assessment, a hierarchy of controls is implemented:

1. Inherently Safe Design: Selecting a Class I collaborative robot for tasks involving frequent human interaction, such as delicate part loading or polishing.

2. Technical Safeguarding: For Class II robots in high-speed tending applications, this involves fixed perimeter guarding with interlocked safety gates, safety-rated light curtains, or laser scanners to create protective zones.

3. Functional Safety Systems: Designing the safety-related control system (SRP/CS) to achieve the Performance Levels (PL) identified in Phase 1. This involves selecting appropriate safety components (PLCs, relays, sensors) and architectures (e.g., dual-channel circuits).

4. Information for Use: Creating clear safety signage, operational procedures, lockout-tagout (LOTO) protocols, and maintenance manuals.

Phase 3: Validation, Documentation, and Conformity Assessment

Before operation, the integrated system must be rigorously validated.

• Functional Testing: Every safety function is tested to verify it meets its specified performance level.

• Simulation & Verification: As recommended by the new standard, using offline programming and simulation software to verify reach, cycle times, and absence of collisions is a best practice.

• Technical File Compilation: A comprehensive technical construction file is assembled. This is the core of the certification evidence and must include the risk assessment report, design calculations, electrical and pneumatic schematics, safety component datasheets, validation records, and all user manuals.

• Declaration of Conformity: For the EU market, the integrator (as the “manufacturer” of the machine) must issue an EU Declaration of Conformity, stating that the robotic cell complies with all applicable directives, such as the Machinery Directive (2006/42/EC) and its successor, the new EU Machinery Regulation (2023/1230) effective 2027.

Case Studies: ISO 10218 Certification in Action

Case Study 1: High-Volume Automotive Transmission Machining Line

• Challenge: A Tier 1 supplier automated the transfer of raw castings and machined transmission housings between multiple CNC machining centers and a coordinate measuring machine (CMM). The system used large Class II robots on linear tracks, operating at high speeds in close proximity.

• Certification Focus: The primary focus was on robust technical safeguarding and functional safety. The cell was fully enclosed with interlocked fencing. The safety control system, designed to PL d, implemented safeguarded space monitoring logic to ensure robots could only enter specific zones when adjacent equipment was in a safe state. The comprehensive risk assessment covered hazards from dropping heavy parts, collision between robots, and interaction during maintenance.

• Outcome: The cell achieved certification, enabling 24/7 lights-out operation. The clear safety protocols and documentation ensured safe maintenance and met the stringent requirements of the global automotive OEM.

Case Study 2: Flexible Job Shop with Collaborative Finishing Cell

• Challenge: A precision job shop machining aerospace components needed to automate final deburring and polishing. The high part variety and low volumes made a fully fenced cell with fixed automation impractical.

• Certification Focus: Leveraging the new standard’s integrated collaborative guidelines, the shop implemented a Power and Force Limiting (PFL) collaborative robot (Class I). The certification process centered on proving compliance with biomechanical force and pressure limits during contact. A detailed risk assessment validated the chosen abrasive tools and part fixturing. Safety-rated monitored stop functions were implemented using area scanners to halt the robot if an operator approached too quickly.

• Outcome: The certified collaborative cell allowed human and robot to work in close proximity safely. The shop gained the flexibility to quickly program new parts while eliminating a strenuous manual task, with certification providing the legal safety assurance for this interaction.

Case Study 3: Retrofitting an Existing Robotic Milling Cell for a New Contract

• Challenge: A contract manufacturer won a new aerospace contract requiring robotic trimming of composite parts. Their existing 5-year-old robotic cell was not originally built to the latest standards and lacked formal documentation.

• Certification Focus: This became a “major modification” project under the machinery regulations. The integrator conducted a new risk assessment per ISO 10218:2025, identifying gaps in safety functions and documentation. Upgrades included adding a safe tool change procedure (LOTO), implementing network security on the robot controller, and completely re-validating all safety functions to the new risk-based PL criteria. The existing technical file was reconstructed and updated.

• Outcome: The cell was successfully brought into compliance with the current standard, securing the new contract. The project highlighted that legacy systems must be re-evaluated against new standards when significantly modified, and that comprehensive documentation is a critical, living requirement.

Conclusion: Safety as a Strategic Enabler

Robot certification (ISO 10218) is far more than a compliance exercise. It is a rigorous engineering discipline that ensures robotic automation, especially in the demanding context of CNC machining, is deployed responsibly and sustainably. The 2025 revision raises the bar, demanding a more nuanced, risk-informed, and digitally secure approach to safety.

For manufacturers and integrators, this represents both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge lies in mastering the updated requirements and investing in thorough design and documentation. The opportunity is to build automation systems that are not only safe but also more reliable, easier to maintain, and legally defensible—systems that protect personnel, safeguard productivity, and enhance a company’s reputation.

At JLYPT, we view robot certification (ISO 10218) as the essential foundation upon which all successful automation is built. Our expertise encompasses not only precision machining but also the disciplined application of safety standards to create integrated manufacturing cells that perform with unwavering reliability and integrity.

Ready to build your automated machining solution on a foundation of certified safety? Contact JLYPT to discuss how our systematic approach to robot certification (ISO 10218) and system integration can de-risk your automation project. Explore our commitment to precision and safety at JLYPT CNC Machining Services.