Robotics and Human Relations: Balancing Innovation with Safety

Robots are no longer the stuff of science fiction—they are embedded in our factories, warehouses, and even food-processing plants. They promise efficiency, speed, and the ability to take on dangerous jobs humans shouldn’t have to do. Yet, as recent headlines show, this promise comes with serious risks. From the lawsuit against Tesla over a robotic arm that allegedly injured a worker to the tragic death of a Wisconsin pizza factory employee crushed by a machine, the conversation about human–robot relations has never been more urgent.

This blog post explores the promise and peril of robotics in the workplace, drawing lessons from recent incidents and asking: how do we ensure humans and robots can coexist safely?

The Rise of Robotics in Everyday Work

Robotics is spreading quickly across industries. Automotive giants like Tesla rely on robotic arms for precision assembly, while food plants use automated systems to handle packaging and processing. According to the International Federation of Robotics, robot installations worldwide continue to grow year after year. For businesses, it’s a clear win: fewer errors, lower costs, and reduced human exposure to dangerous tasks.

But with robots entering smaller facilities—where safety infrastructure may be weaker—the risks grow. A mis calibrated robot, a missed safety step, or a poorly trained operator can turn a productivity tool into a deadly hazard.

When Robots Go Wrong: Lessons from Recent Cases

Tesla’s Robotic Arm Lawsuit
A former technician at Tesla claims he was struck and knocked unconscious by a robotic arm while performing maintenance. The lawsuit highlights a crucial point: safety procedures like lockout/tagout aren’t optional—they are lifesaving. When machines are energized during servicing, even a momentary slip can have devastating consequences.
Wisconsin Pizza Factory Fatality
In a smaller manufacturing plant, a worker lost his life after being crushed by a robotic machine. Unlike Tesla, this wasn’t a high-tech car factory but a food facility—showing that robotics risks extend far beyond Silicon Valley. Smaller plants may lack robust safety training, yet they are increasingly embracing automation.

Both cases are tragic reminders that technology alone can’t guarantee safety. Human oversight, training, and organizational commitment to safety matter just as much.

The Human Side of Robotics

When people think about robots at work, they often picture job displacement. But for many workers, the immediate concern is safety. Studies show that trust plays a huge role: workers who believe robots are reliable tend to perform better. However, misplaced trust—assuming a machine will always stop when needed—can be just as dangerous as fear or mistrust.

Beyond physical risks, robots can also affect morale and mental health. Workers may feel devalued or expendable when machines take over critical tasks. The challenge isn’t just engineering safer robots—it’s creating workplaces where humans feel respected and protected.

Illustrated infographic titled “The Human Side of Robotics,” showing workers interacting with industrial robots and highlighting concerns such as collaboration, trust, stress, training needs, ethics, safety, and human dignity. Several people appear worried or stressed, with speech bubbles saying “Can I trust this robot?” and “We need more training.” Warning symbols, safety locks, scales representing ethics, and a newspaper headline reading “Injury” emphasize workplace risks. A robotic arm works within a safety cage while workers discuss safety and ethical implications. The overall theme contrasts human concerns with the increasing use of robotics.

Building a Safer Future Together

So how do we strike the right balance between robotics innovation and human well-being? A few key steps stand out:

Design Safety Into the Machine: Emergency stops, advanced sensors, and fail-safes should be standard features—not optional add-ons.
Enforce Safety Protocols: OSHA’s lockout/tagout rules exist for a reason. Employers must ensure that servicing robots without proper shutdowns is never allowed.
Invest in Training: Robots are only as safe as the people who interact with them. Ongoing, practical training helps prevent accidents.
Foster a Safety Culture: Workers should feel empowered to report unsafe practices without fear of retaliation.
Update Regulations: As robots spread into more industries, regulators must adapt. International safety standards like ISO 10218 need to be more widely enforced, especially in smaller facilities.

Conclusion

Robotics is here to stay. It has the potential to make our workplaces more efficient, less physically demanding, and even safer. But incidents like those at Tesla and the Wisconsin pizza plant remind us that without proper safeguards, the cost of automation can be measured in human lives.

The future of human–robot relations doesn’t have to be one of fear or tragedy. With the right mix of engineering, regulation, and workplace culture, robots and humans can work side by side—not as rivals, but as partners. The question isn’t whether we should embrace robotics, but whether we’ll do so responsibly, putting people’s safety and dignity first.

Mechanical Engineering | Structural Engineering

Mechanical Drafting | Structural Drafting

3D CAD Modelling | 3D Scanning

Chute Design

SolidWorks Contractors in Australia

Hamilton By Design – Blog

Wisconsin pizza factory worker Robert Cherone crushed to death by robotic machine

Worker Sues Tesla After Alleged Robotic Arm Attack, Is Now Seeking Millions

28 September 20256 December 2025

Lessons from a Landmark Case:

The Importance of Robust Structural Design Review

In 2024, SafeWork SA concluded a landmark case involving a spectator-roof collapse during a football club redevelopment project in South Australia. While no life-threatening injuries occurred, the incident highlighted how critical it is for design, review, and certification processes to work together to ensure safety on site.

This was the first successful design-related prosecution under South Australia’s Work Health and Safety Act, sending a clear signal to the engineering and construction sector: design decisions carry legal and safety obligations, not just technical ones.

Infographic titled “Lessons from a Landmark Case,” showing engineers reviewing a design, icons highlighting robust review procedures, proper certification, time-pressure risks, and legal design responsibilities. The lower illustration depicts a structure collapsing after four column failures with two workers falling, emphasising the message “Safety starts at the drawing board

What Happened (Briefly)

During roof sheeting works in late 2021, four of seven supporting columns of a cantilevered spectator roof failed, causing two apprentices to slide down the roof sheets. SafeWork SA’s investigation found that the anchor bolts specified for the column base plates were inadequate and did not meet the requirements of the National Construction Code (NCC).

An independent compliance review also failed to detect this issue, allowing the error to pass unchecked into construction. The result was a collapse that could have had far more severe consequences had the roof been fully loaded or occupied.

Key Learnings for the Industry

This case underscores several important lessons for engineers, designers, project managers, and certifiers:

1. Design Responsibility Is a WHS Duty

Under the WHS Act, designers have a duty to ensure their work is safe not just in its intended use, but during construction. This means bolts, connections, and base plates must be designed for real-world loads — including wind uplift, combined shear and tension, and concrete breakout limits per NCC and relevant Australian Standards.

2. Review Procedures Must Be Robust — and Followed

Having a documented review procedure is not enough if it isn’t rigorously applied. Independent verification and internal peer review are critical to catching design errors before they reach site.

3. Certification Is Not a Rubber Stamp

Independent certifiers play a key role in safeguarding public safety. They must actively verify that designs meet compliance, rather than simply sign off on documentation.

4. Time Pressures Can Compromise Safety

Compressed project timelines were noted as a factor in missed opportunities to catch the error. Project teams must resist the temptation to shortcut review steps when schedules are tight — safety must remain non-negotiable.

5. Documentation & Traceability Protect Everyone

Maintaining calculation records, checklists, and review signoffs creates a clear audit trail. This helps demonstrate due diligence if something goes wrong.

Infographic titled ‘Lessons From a Landmark Case’ displayed on a clipboard. It highlights key learnings from a structural failure case: design compliance, safety standards, bolts failure, and adequate specifications. At the centre is a simple line drawing of a collapsed structure, with arrows pointing to four labelled boxes describing the importance of regulatory compliance, workplace safety standards, anchor bolt failures, and using suitable components to meet project requirements

Why This Matters

The collapse at Angaston Football Club was a relatively small incident with minor injuries — but it could easily have been catastrophic. By learning from cases like this, the industry can improve its processes and prevent future failures.

As professionals, our role is to design for safety, verify rigorously, and document clearly. Doing so protects workers, end-users, and our own organisations.

Legal & Ethical Considerations

This post is intended as a learning resource, not as an allocation of blame. The case referenced is a matter of public record through SafeWork SA and SAET decisions, and all commentary here focuses on general principles of safe design and compliance.

We recommend that other practitioners review their own QA and certification procedures in light of this case to ensure compliance with the National Construction Code and WHS obligations.

More Information —> The Advertiser / Adelaide Now

Mechanical Engineering | Structural Engineering

Mechanical Drafting | Structural Drafting

3D CAD Modelling | 3D Scanning

Chute Design

SolidWorks Contractors in Australia

Hamilton By Design – Blog

20 September 20256 December 2025

Chute Design in the Mining Industry

Infographic showing Hamilton By Design’s engineering workflow, including millimetre-accurate LiDAR reality capture, material-flow simulation, optimised chute designs, and safer, more efficient production outcomes. Two workers in PPE highlight reliable design and longer liner life, with icons representing time, cost and quality benefits.

Getting Coal, Hard Rock, and ROM Material Flow Right

Chute design is one of the most critical yet challenging aspects of mining and mineral processing. Whether you are handling coal, hard rock ore, or raw ROM material, chutes and transfer stations are the unsung workhorses of every operation. When designed well, they guide material smoothly, minimise wear, and keep conveyors running. When designed poorly, they cause blockages, spillage, excessive dust, and expensive downtime.

Modern chute design has moved far beyond rules of thumb and back-of-the-envelope sketches. Today, successful projects rely on accurate as-built data, particle trajectory analysis, and advanced Discrete Element Method (DEM) simulation to predict, visualise, and optimise material flow before steel is cut. In this article, we explore why these tools have become essential, how they work together, and where software can — and cannot — replace engineering judgement.

Illustration showing common problems with poorly designed material-handling chutes. A chute discharges material onto a conveyor while issues are highlighted around it: unpredictable material flow, material spillage, maintenance challenges, high wear, blockages, and dust and noise. Warning icons for downtime and cost appear on the conveyor, and workers are shown dealing with the resulting hazards and maintenance tasks.

The Challenge of Chute Design

Coal and hard rock have very different flow behaviours. Coal tends to be softer, generate more dust, and be prone to degradation, while hard rock is more abrasive and can damage chutes if impact angles are not controlled. ROM material adds another level of complexity — oversize lumps, fines, and moisture variation can cause hang-ups or uneven flow.

Chute design must balance several competing objectives:

Control the trajectory of incoming material to reduce impact and wear
Prevent blockages by maintaining flowability, even with wet or sticky ore
Manage dust and noise to meet environmental and workplace health requirements
Fit within existing plant space with minimal modification to conveyors and structures
Be maintainable — liners must be accessible and replaceable without excessive downtime

Meeting all these goals without accurate data and simulation is like trying to design in the dark.

Illustrated graphic showing a tripod-mounted 3D laser scanner capturing millimetre-accurate as-built data in an industrial plant with conveyors and walkways. Speech bubbles highlight issues such as “Outdated drawings don’t tell the full story” and “Modifications rarely get documented.” The scan data is shown being visualised on a laptop, with notes describing full coverage of conveyors, walkways, and services. Benefits listed along the bottom include faster data collection, fewer site revisits, safer shutdowns, accurate starting point for design simulation, and safer outcomes that ensure designs fit first time.

Capturing the Truth with 3D Scanning

The first step in any successful chute project is to understand the as-built environment. In many operations, drawings are outdated, modifications have been made over the years, and the real plant geometry may differ from what is on paper. Manual measurement is slow, risky, and often incomplete.

This is where 3D laser scanning changes the game. Using tripod-mounted or mobile LiDAR scanners, engineers can capture the entire transfer station, conveyors, surrounding steelwork, and services in a matter of hours. The result is a dense point cloud with millimetre accuracy that reflects the true state of the plant.

From here, the point cloud is cleaned and converted into a 3D model. This ensures the new chute design will not clash with existing structures, and that all clearances are known. It also allows maintenance teams to plan safe access for liner change-outs and other work, as the scanned model can be navigated virtually to check reach and access envelopes.

Understanding Particle Trajectory

Once the physical environment is known, the next challenge is to understand the particle trajectory — the path that material takes as it leaves the head pulley or previous transfer point.

Trajectory depends on belt speed, material characteristics, and discharge angle. For coal, fine particles may spread wider than the coarse fraction, while for ROM ore, large lumps may follow a ballistic path that needs to be controlled to prevent impact damage.

Accurately modelling trajectory ensures that the material enters the chute in the right location and direction. This minimises impact forces, reducing wear on liners and avoiding the “splash” that creates spillage and dust. It also prevents the material from hitting obstructions or dead zones that could lead to build-up and blockages.

Modern software can plot the trajectory curve for different loading conditions, providing a starting point for chute geometry. This is a critical step — if the trajectory is wrong, the chute design will be fighting against the natural path of the material.

The Power of DEM Simulation

While trajectory gives a first approximation, real-world flow is far more complex. This is where Discrete Element Method (DEM) simulation comes into play. DEM models represent bulk material as thousands (or millions) of individual particles, each following the laws of motion and interacting with one another.

When a DEM simulation is run on a chute design:

You can visualise material flow in 3D, watching how particles accelerate, collide, and settle
Impact zones become clear, showing where liners will wear fastest
Areas of turbulence, dust generation, or segregation are identified
Build-up points and potential blockages are predicted

This allows engineers to experiment with chute geometry before fabrication. Angles can be changed, ledges removed, and flow-aiding features like hood and spoon profiles or rock-boxes optimised to achieve smooth, controlled flow.

For coal, DEM can help ensure material lands gently on the receiving belt, reducing degradation and dust. For hard rock, it can ensure that the energy of impact is directed onto replaceable wear liners rather than structural plate. For ROM ore, it can help prevent oversize lumps from wedging in critical locations.

Illustration of an optimised chute design showing material flow represented by green particles, with check marks and gear icons indicating improved efficiency and engineered performance.

🖥 Strengths and Limitations of Software

Modern DEM packages are powerful, but they are not magic. Software such as EDEM, Rocky DEM, or Altair’s tools can simulate a wide range of materials and geometries, but they rely on good input data and skilled interpretation.

Key strengths include:

Ability to model complex, 3D geometries and particle interactions
High visualisation power for communicating designs to stakeholders
Capability to run multiple scenarios (different feed rates, moisture contents, ore types) quickly

However, there are limitations:

Material calibration is critical. If the particle shape, friction, and cohesion parameters are wrong, the results will not match reality.
Computational cost can be high — detailed simulations of large chutes with millions of particles may take hours or days to run.
Engineering judgement is still needed. Software will not tell you the “best” design — it will only show how a proposed design behaves under given conditions.

That’s why DEM is best used as part of a holistic workflow that includes field data, trajectory analysis, and experienced design review.

From Model to Real-World Results

When the simulation results are validated and optimised, the design can be finalised. The point cloud model ensures the chute will fit in the available space, and the DEM results give confidence that it will perform as intended.

This means fabrication can proceed with fewer changes and less risk. During shutdown, installation goes smoothly, because clashes have already been resolved in the digital model. Once commissioned, the chute delivers predictable flow, less spillage, and longer liner life.

Why It Matters More Than Ever

Today’s mining operations face tighter production schedules, stricter environmental compliance, and increasing cost pressures. Downtime is expensive, and the margin for error is shrinking.

By combining 3D scanning, trajectory modelling, and DEM simulation, operations can move from reactive problem-solving to proactive improvement. Instead of waiting for blockages or failures, they can design out the problems before they occur, saving both time and money.

Partnering for Success

At Hamilton by Design, we specialise in turning raw site data into actionable insights. Our team uses advanced 3D scanning to capture your transfer stations with precision, builds accurate point clouds and CAD models, and runs calibrated DEM simulations to ensure your new chute design performs from day one.

Whether you’re working with coal, hard rock, or ROM ore, we help you deliver designs that fit first time, reduce maintenance headaches, and keep production running.

Contact us today to see how our integrated scanning and simulation workflow can make your next chute project safer, faster, and more reliable.

Mechanical Engineering | Structural Engineering

Mechanical Drafting | Structural Drafting

3D Laser Scanning | 3D CAD Modelling | 3D Scanning