nach oben

Production Engineering

Erschienen in:

24.11.2021 | Production Management

A structured methodology to support human–robot collaboration configuration choice

verfasst von: Riccardo Gervasi, Luca Mastrogiacomo, Domenico Augusto Maisano, Dario Antonelli, Fiorenzo Franceschini

Erschienen in: Production Engineering | Ausgabe 4/2022

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Human–robot collaboration (HRC) is a gradually consolidating paradigm of the modern industry which combines human and robot skills to make production more flexible. Since the effective implementation of HRC requires a careful analysis of different aspects, related both to robots and humans, there is a real need for a structured methodology to support it. A previous work proposed a multi-dimensional framework to analyze several HRC aspects of a collaborative task. However, identifying the configuration that better exploits the HRC potential is not always trivial, especially among multiple alternative solutions. In addition, the priority levels (weights) assigned to the individual sub-dimensions of the framework, which identify specific design strategies, do not appear explicitly. The goal of this paper is to address these gaps, expanding the previous methodology and proposing the introduction of a multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) method (i.e., ELECTRE-II). The inclusion of a MCDA method allows designers to: (i) express importance weights for each sub-dimension of the framework, and (ii) generate a preference ranking through a structured comparison of alternative HRC configurations. The description is supported by a real industrial application in the automotive field, in which four alternative HRC configurations are analyzed by a team of experts providing a holistic analysis.

Nächster Artikel Experimental investigation into the implications of transmission errors for rack-and-pinion drives

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

The more compact notation “a₁, a₂, …” will be adopted to indicate the corresponding HRC configurations “HRC₁, HRC₂, …” described in Sect. 3.

Mateus JC, Claeys D, Limère V, Cottyn J, Aghezzaf E-H (2019) A structured methodology for the design of a human-robot collaborative assembly workplace. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 102:2663–2681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-03356-3CrossRef

Pine BJ (1993) Mass customization. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

Cohen Y, Shoval S, Faccio M (2019) Strategic view on cobot deployment in Assembly 4.0 systems. IFAC-Pap 52:1519–1524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.11.415CrossRef

Huang S, Ishikawa M, Yamakawa Y (2020) A coarse-to-fine framework for accurate positioning under uncertainties—from autonomous robot to human–robot system. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 108:2929–2944. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-05376-wCrossRef

Wang L, Gao R, Váncza J, Krüger J, Wang XV, Makris S, Chryssolouris G (2019) Symbiotic human-robot collaborative assembly. CIRP Ann 68:701–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2019.05.002CrossRef

ISO/TS 15066 (2016) Robots and robotic devices—collaborative robots. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

Robla-Gómez S, Becerra VM, Llata JR, González-Sarabia E, Torre-Ferrero C, Pérez-Oria J (2017) Working together: a review on safe human-robot collaboration in industrial environments. IEEE Access 5:26754–26773. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2773127CrossRef

Vicentini F, Askarpour M, Rossi MG, Mandrioli D (2020) Safety assessment of collaborative robotics through automated formal verification. IEEE Trans Robot 36:42–61. https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2019.2937471CrossRef

Gopinath V, Johansen K (2019) Understanding situational and mode awareness for safe human-robot collaboration: case studies on assembly applications. Prod Eng 13:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11740-018-0868-2CrossRef

10.

Yoo IS, Landgraf M, Ramer C, Reitelshöfer S, Ziegler C, Franke J (2014) My new colleague has artificial muscles: a DEA based approach for inherently compliant robotic systems. Prod Eng 8:711–717. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11740-014-0564-9CrossRef

11.

Argall BD, Chernova S, Veloso M, Browning B (2009) A survey of robot learning from demonstration. Robot Auton Syst 57:469–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2008.10.024CrossRef

12.

Raatz A, Blankemeyer S, Recker T, Pischke D, Nyhuis P (2020) Task scheduling method for HRC workplaces based on capabilities and execution time assumptions for robots. CIRP Ann 69:13–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2020.04.030CrossRef

13.

Faber M, Mertens A, Schlick CM (2017) Cognition-enhanced assembly sequence planning for ergonomic and productive human–robot collaboration in self-optimizing assembly cells. Prod Eng 11:145–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11740-017-0732-9CrossRef

14.

von Salm-Hoogstraeten S, Müsseler J (2020) Human cognition in interaction with robots: taking the robot’s perspective into account. Hum Factors. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820933764CrossRef

15.

Gervasi R, Mastrogiacomo L, Franceschini F (2019) Towards the definition of a Human-Robot collaboration scale. In: Bini M, Amenta P, D’Ambra A, Camminatiello I (eds) Statistical methods for service quality evaluation—book of short papers of IES 2019, Rome, Italy, July 4–5, Cuzzolin, Italy, pp 75–80

16.

Goodrich MA, Schultz AC (2007) Human-robot interaction: a survey. Now, Boston

17.

Beer JM, Fisk AD, Rogers WA (2014) Toward a framework for levels of robot autonomy in human-robot interaction. J Hum Robot Interact 3:74–99. https://doi.org/10.5898/JHRI.3.2.BeerCrossRef

18.

Bröhl C, Nelles J, Brandl C, Mertens A, Schlick CM (2016) TAM reloaded: a technology acceptance model for human-robot cooperation in production systems. In: Stephanidis C (ed) HCI international 2016—posters’ extended abstracts. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 97–103CrossRef

19.

Gualtieri L, Palomba I, Merati FA, Rauch E, Vidoni R (2020) Design of human-centered collaborative assembly workstations for the improvement of operators’ physical ergonomics and production efficiency: a case study. Sustainability 12:3606. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093606CrossRef

20.

Rabbani M, Behbahan SZB, Farrokhi-Asl H (2020) The collaboration of human-robot in mixed-model four-sided assembly line balancing problem. J Intell Robot Syst. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-020-01177-1CrossRef

21.

Gervasi R, Mastrogiacomo L, Franceschini F (2020) A conceptual framework to evaluate human-robot collaboration. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 108:841–865. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-05363-1CrossRef

22.

Gervasi R, Digiaro F, Mastrogiacomo L, Maisano D, Franceschini F (2020) Comparing quality profiles in human-robot collaboration: empirical evidence in the automotive sector. In: Proceedings book of the 4th international conference on quality engineering and management. University of Minho, Portugal, pp 89–114

23.

Colgate JE, Wannasuphoprasit W, Peshkin MA (1996) Cobots: robots for collaboration with human operators. In: Proceedings of the 1996 ASME international mechanical engineering congress and exposition, pp 433–439

24.

Price HE (1985) The allocation of functions in systems. Hum Factors 27:33–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872088502700104CrossRef

25.

Charalambous G, Fletcher S, Webb P (2015) Identifying the key organisational human factors for introducing human-robot collaboration in industry: an exploratory study. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 81:2143–2155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7335-4CrossRef

26.

Tan JTC, Duan F, Zhang Y, Watanabe K, Kato R, Arai T (2009) Human-robot collaboration in cellular manufacturing: Design and development. In: 2009 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IEEE, St. Louis, pp 29–34

27.

Arai T, Kato R, Fujita M (2010) Assessment of operator stress induced by robot collaboration in assembly. CIRP Ann 59:5–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2010.03.043CrossRef

28.

Nelles J, Kohns S, Spies J, Brandl C, Mertens A, Schlick CM (2016) Analysis of stress and strain in head based control of collaborative robots—a literature review. In: Goonetilleke R, Karwowski W (eds) Advances in physical ergonomics and human factors. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 727–737CrossRef

29.

Eimontaite I, Gwilt I, Cameron D, Aitken JM, Rolph J, Mokaram S, Law J (2019) Language-free graphical signage improves human performance and reduces anxiety when working collaboratively with robots. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 100:55–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2625-2CrossRef

30.

Sauppé A, Mutlu B (2015) The social impact of a robot co-worker in industrial settings. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems—CHI ’15. ACM Press, Seoul, pp 3613–3622

31.

Hoffman G, Breazeal C (2010) Effects of anticipatory perceptual simulation on practiced human-robot tasks. Auton Robots 28:403–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-009-9166-3CrossRef

32.

Rajendran V, Carreno-Medrano P, Fisher W, Werner A, Kulić D (2020) A framework for human-robot interaction user studies. In: 2020 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), pp 6215–6222

33.

Kopp T, Baumgartner M, Kinkel S (2021) Success factors for introducing industrial human-robot interaction in practice: an empirically driven framework. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 112:685–704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-06398-0CrossRef

34.

Thrun S (2004) Toward a Framework for Human-robot Interaction. Hum Comput Interact 19:9–24. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1901&2_2CrossRef

35.

ISO 26800 (2011) Ergonomics—general approach, principles and concepts. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

36.

BS 8611 (2016) Robots and robotic devices. Guide to the ethical design and application of robots and robotic systems. British Standards Institution, London

37.

NIST (2018) Framework for improving critical infrastructure cybersecurity. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg

38.

Krüger M, Wiebel CB, Wersing H (2017) From tools towards cooperative assistants. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on human agent interaction—HAI ’17. ACM Press, Bielefeld, pp 287–294

39.

ISO 10218-2 (2011) Robots and robotic devices—safety requirements for industrial robots—part 2: robot systems and integration. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

40.

ISO/TR 14121-2 (2012) Safety of machinery—risk assessment—part 2: practical guidance and examples of methods. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

41.

Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock PA, Meshkati N (eds) Advances in psychology. North-Holland, pp 139–183

42.

Yanco HA, Drury J (2004) Classifying human-robot interaction: an updated taxonomy. In: 2004 IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37583), vol 3, pp 2841–2846

43.

Schaub K, Caragnano G, Britzke B, Bruder R (2013) The European assembly worksheet. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 14:616–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2012.678283CrossRef

44.

Bangor A, Kortum PT, Miller JT (2008) An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Int J Human-Computer Interact 24:574–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310802205776CrossRef

45.

Brooke J (1996) SUS—a quick and dirty usability scale. In: Jordan P, Thomas B, Weerdmeester B, McClelland I (eds) Usability evaluation in industry. CRC Press, London, pp 189–194

46.

Dedeke A (2017) Cybersecurity framework adoption: using capability levels for implementation tiers and profiles. IEEE Secur Priv 15:47–54. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2017.3681063CrossRef

47.

Universal Robots: Collaborative robotic automation | Cobots from Universal Robots. https://www.universal-robots.com/

48.

Figueira J, Mousseau V, Roy B (2005) Electre methods. In: Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrogott M (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, New York, pp 133–153CrossRef

49.

Maystre LY, Pictet J, Simos J (1994) Méthodes multicritères ELECTRE: description, conseils pratiques et cas d’application à la gestion environnementale. PPUR presses polytechniques

50.

Figueira J, Roy B (2002) Determining the weights of criteria in the ELECTRE type methods with a revised Simos’ procedure. Eur J Oper Res 139:317–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00370-8CrossRefMATH

51.

Franceschini F, Maisano D (2019) Fusing incomplete preference rankings in design for manufacturing applications through theZMII-technique. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 103:3307–3322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-03675-5CrossRef

52.

Franceschini F, Maisano D (2020) Aggregation of incomplete preference rankings: robustness analysis of the ZMII-technique. J Multi Criteria Decis Anal 27:337–356. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.1721CrossRef

53.

Ostanello A (1985) Outranking methods. In: Fandel G, Spronk J (eds) Multiple criteria decision methods and applications: selected readings of the first international summer school Acireale, Sicily, September 1983. Springer, Berlin, pp 41–60CrossRef

54.

Godsil C, Royle GF (2001) Algebraic graph theory. Springer, New YorkCrossRef

Titel: A structured methodology to support human–robot collaboration configuration choice
verfasst von: Riccardo Gervasi
Luca Mastrogiacomo
Domenico Augusto Maisano
Dario Antonelli
Fiorenzo Franceschini
Publikationsdatum: 24.11.2021
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Production Engineering / Ausgabe 4/2022
Print ISSN: 0944-6524
Elektronische ISSN: 1863-7353
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11740-021-01088-6

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten

Die im Laufe eines Jahres in der „adhäsion“ veröffentlichten Marktübersichten helfen Anwendern verschiedenster Branchen, sich einen gezielten Überblick über Lieferantenangebote zu verschaffen.

Zur Marktübersicht

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2022

A novel tool monitoring approach for diamond wire sawing

Workpiece image-based tool wear classification in blanking processes using deep convolutional neural networks

Tool wear and remaining useful life (RUL) prediction based on reduced feature set and Bayesian hyperparameter optimization

Virtual indoor-GPS for measurement uncertainty determination in reconfigurable environments

Influence of dressing strategy on tool wear and performance behavior in grinding of forming tools with toric grinding pins

Hybrid manufacturing of topology optimized machine tool parts through a layer laminated manufacturing method

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten