PFL COLLABORATIVE SAFETY · SIMULATION VERIFICATION PLATFORM
Is your robot really safe in collaborative mode? Now you can prove it.
SafetyDesigner completes PFL (Power and Force Limiting) risk assessment and collision safety verification before your robot is even installed — no force sensors, no physical teardown testing, covering every contact point along the robot's trajectory, not just one test point.
TECHNOLOGY PARTNER SAFETICS (KOREA) · DISTRIBUTED & SUPPORTED IN TAIWAN BY NEXCOBOT
// Analyze before installation — the results match reality.
No fences. / No sensors. / No emergency stops. — Maximize productivity with verifiable PFL safety, while minimizing your safety infrastructure costs.
01 — THE PROBLEM
Physical testing has three built-in blind spots
Under ISO 10218-2:2025, PFL collaborative applications must complete “collision safety” verification. But current physical impact-force testing methods are structurally incomplete.
1COST & EFFICIENCY
Expensive equipment, and you still slow down
Requires force/pressure sensors and a large test area: expensive and time-consuming. To pass the test, speed often has to be repeatedly reduced until it does.
2 · VERIFICATION TIMING
You can only test after installation
Safety verification can only happen post-installation. Force values can't be confirmed at the design stage, so problems are often only discovered on site.
3 · SCENARIO COVERAGE
Only a handful of points get tested
Test scenarios are very limited — specific positions and horizontal/vertical impact directions only. The rest of a curved trajectory goes untested.
On a real production line, a robot's motion never has just one angle or one speed — it deserves full verification, not spot checks.
02 — REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
This isn't optional — it's a legal requirement
Every business using PFL collaborative application is legally required to complete risk assessment and site verification — and international standards now explicitly permit simulation-based verification.
Taiwan · Industrial Robot Hazard Prevention Standard, Art. 21
Employers using collaborative robots must comply with the ISO 10218 series and complete an assessment covering the process description, safety management plan, safety verification report, and more — then retain a documented safety assessment. Re-assessment is required upon design change and at least every five years, with records kept for five years.
ISO 10218-2:2025 · Annex N
In PFL collaborative applications, the pressure and force parameters of identified contact events must be verified, with allowable limits following the biomechanical guidance of ISO/TS 15066. Annex N explicitly states that verification can be performed by measurement, or by emerging solutions involving advanced computation — simulation verification is a formally recognized standard pathway.
Regulatory-precedent note — This isn't a gray area: South Korea's Ministry of Employment and Labor, together with KOSHA, listed “analysis using mathematical calculation or simulation software” as a legitimate PFL contact-verification method in their official 2023 guidelines, already fully adopted across Korean industry. Simulation verification is fast becoming the international mainstream approach.
03 — METHOD COMPARISON
Physical Testing vs. Simulation Verification
Both methods aim to satisfy the collision safety verification requirements of ISO 10218-2 — but they differ sharply in coverage, timing, and cost.
| Criterion |
Physical Testing |
Simulation Verification (SafetyDesigner) |
| Scenario Coverage |
Very limited (specific positions) |
Covers every possible scenario |
| Verification Timing |
Post-installation only |
Before or after installation |
| Equipment Accessibility |
Difficult (sensors + large space) |
Easy (just a computer) |
| Cost |
High (equipment + time-consuming) |
Low (software license only) |
| Cycle Time Optimization |
Difficult (must limit speed) |
Optimizable before installation |
04 — PRODUCT FEATURES
How SafetyDesigner Works
From uploading your site layout to exporting a verification report — one workflow covers your entire PFL risk assessment and collision safety analysis.
01
Model your workcell
Upload your floor plan, place a cobot from the built-in library, upload 3D files if needed, and define operator zones with body-region contact thresholds.
02
Analyze Collision Safety
Run collision risk analysis across the robot's entire trajectory per ISO/TS 15066 biomechanical thresholds.
03
Get optimal speed recommendations
Get a recommended speed range that balances safety and throughput — no more manual trial and error.
04
Export PFL & risk assessment reports
Generate a verification report and declaration of conformity that meets Taiwan's regulatory record-keeping requirements, in one click.
Web-based Solution
The entire workflow runs in a web browser — SIs and factory teams can share the same 3D application in real time and use comments to stay in sync on layout changes, with no software compatibility or install constraints.
05 — CASE STUDIES
What 1,000+ production sites already know
SafetyDesigner already supports templates for pick & place, machine tending, assembly, dispensing, packaging, welding, inspection, palletizing, and mold extraction. The three cases below are from real production lines in Korea — but tight spaces, frequent stoppages, and plant-wide mobility are challenges any factory, anywhere, can recognize.
SafetyDesigner application template gallery
CASE 01 · SMALL SPACE
Too little space for a fence
The production floor was too tight for a safety fence, and the operator's existing walkway and workspace couldn't be sacrificed. After adopting 100% PFL mode, the robot and operator now share the same workspace.
✓ Production efficiency unaffected
CASE 02 · NON-STOP
Sensors kept stopping the robot
A kitchen worker needed to move around constantly. The original sensor-based safety distance kept triggering stops, and each restart took 2–3 minutes. Switching to Sensor + PFL sharply reduced downtime.
✓ Cycle time reduced by 24%
CASE 03 · MOBILE MANIPULATOR
The robot needed to roam the whole facility
The customer wanted the robot handling inspection, labeling, and other processes across the plant — a fixed fence wasn't an option. With 100% PFL, the mobile robot now moves freely throughout the facility.
✓ Free movement, plant-wide
06 — NEXT STEPS
Know the answer before you build the cell.
Whether you're a system integrator delivering a project or a factory evaluating a cobot deployment, it starts with a conversation.
For System Integrators
Speed up your project delivery — complete verification and reporting before installation, no waiting to find problems on site, no sacrificing cycle time for testing.
For Factories / End Users
Reduce compliance risk when deploying cobots — complete risk assessment and site verification per Article 21 of Taiwan's Industrial Robot Hazard Prevention Standard, and keep compliant records on file.
Partner line: SafetyDesigner's technology comes from Safetics; NexCOBOT is its authorized distributor in Taiwan, providing local technical support and deployment services.
