Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Production Engineering
Erschienen in: Production Engineering 2/2017

24.03.2017 | Assembly

Cognition-enhanced assembly sequence planning for ergonomic and productive human–robot collaboration in self-optimizing assembly cells

verfasst von: Marco Faber, Alexander Mertens, Christopher M. Schlick

Erschienen in: Production Engineering | Ausgabe 2/2017

Einloggen

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

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Self-optimizing robotized assembly systems are able to compensate the restricted operation purpose of traditional robotized automation, in order to adapt dynamically to changed production conditions. As the human operator is directly involved in the assembly process, the interaction between the human and the robot has to be designed carefully to avoid exposing the human to excessive physical and cognitive strain. For controlling a robotized assembly cell, a Cognitive Control Unit (CCU) was developed that uses the cognitive software Soar and human-like assembly strategies to achieve a transparent and understandable assembly process. To minimize the cognitive and ergonomic risks during assembly, the CCU was extended by a graph-based assembly sequence planner (GASP). The GASP is able to find the optimal assembly sequence by using a complete assembly graph of the final product as well as generic production rules for assessing the ergonomic conditions of the individual assembly steps. The presented simulation study validates the functionality of the GASP with respect to the number of workflow switches between the human and the robot, the number of switches between the robotic tools, as well as the number of assembly group switches required to collaboratively assemble a model of a Stromberg carburetor. The results show a significant reduction of all three measures. The number of parts and the type of assessment of the assembly steps have a significant impact here.
Vorheriger Artikel Optimized state estimation by application of machine learning
Nächster Artikel Cyber physical systems for predictive production systems

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
Fußnoten
1
For ease of reading, the masculine form has been used in the text to refer to both genders.
 
Literatur
1.
Bannat A, Bautze T, Beetz M et al (2011) Artificial cognition in production systems. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng 8:148–174CrossRef
2.
Weidner R, Kong N, Wulfsberg JP (2013) Human hybrid robot: a new concept for supporting manual assembly tasks. Prod Eng Res Dev 7(6):675–684CrossRef
3.
Wiendahl H-P, ElMaraghy HA, Nyhuis P et al (2007) Changeable manufacturing—classification, design and operation. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 56(2):783–809CrossRef
4.
Gausemeier J, Frank U, Donoth J et al (2009) Specification technique for the description of self-optimizing mechatronic systems. Res Eng Des 20(4):201–223CrossRef
5.
Schlick C, Schuh G, Klocke F et al (2017) Self-optimizing production systems. In: Brecher C, Özdemir D (eds) Integrative production technology: theory and applications. Springer International Publishing, Cham
6.
Ogorodnikova O (2009) A fuzzy theory in the risk assessment and reduction algorithms for a human centered robotics. In: The 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, 2009. RO-MAN 2009. IEEE Press, pp 340–345
7.
Krüger J, Lien TK, Verl A (2009) Cooperation of human and machines in assembly lines. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 58(2):628–646CrossRef
8.
Dombrowski U, Wagner T (2014) Mental strain as field of action in the 4th industrial revolution. Proc CIRP 17:100–105CrossRef
9.
Santis A de, Siciliano B, Luca A de et al (2008) An atlas of physical human–robot interaction. Mech Mach Theory 43(3):253–270CrossRefMATH
10.
Zaeh M, Roesel W (2009) Safety aspects in a human–robot interaction scenario: a human worker is co-operating with an industrial robot. In: Kim J-H, Ge SS, Vadakkepat P et al (eds) Progress in robotics, vol 44. Springer, Berlin, pp 53–62CrossRef
11.
Shen Y, Reinhart G (2013) Safe assembly motion—a novel approach for applying human–robot co-operation in hybrid assembly systems. In: 2013 IEEE international conference on mechatronics and automation (ICMA). IEEE, pp 7–12
12.
Morioka M, Sakakibara S (2010) A new cell production assembly system with human–robot cooperation. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 59(1):9–12CrossRef
13.
Putzer H, Onken R (2003) COSA—a generic cognitive system architecture based on a cognitive model of human behavior. Cognit Technol Work 5(2):140–151CrossRef
14.
Brüggenwirth S, Schulte A (2012) COSA²—a cognitive system architecture with centralized ontology and specific algorithms. In: 2012 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics (SMC). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
15.
Dumitrescu R, Anacker H, Gausemeier J (2013) Design framework for the integration of cognitive functions into intelligent technical systems. Prod Eng Res Dev 7(1):111–121CrossRef
16.
Hoc J-M (2001) Towards a cognitive approach to human-machine cooperation in dynamic situations. Int J Hum Comput Stud 54(4):509–540CrossRef
17.
Shalin VL (2005) The roles of humans and computers in distributed planning for dynamic domains. Cognit Technol Work 7(3):198–211CrossRef
18.
Ogorodnikova O (2008) Human weaknesses and strengths in collaboration. Mech Eng 52:25–33
19.
Kato R, Fujita M, Arai T (2010) Development of advanced cellular manufacturing system with human–robot collaboration. In: 19th international symposium in robot and human interactive communication. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
20.
Arai T, Kato R, Fujita (2010) Assessment of operator stress induced by robot collaboration in assembly. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 59(1):5–8CrossRef
21.
Mayer MP, Schlick CM (2012) Improving operator’s conformity with expectations in a cognitively automated assembly cell using human heuristics. In: Conference Proceedings of the 4th international conference on applied human factors and ergonomics (AHFE). USA Publishing, pp 1263–1272
22.
Mayer MP, Schlick CM, Ewert D et al (2011) Automation of robotic assembly processes on the basis of an architecture of human cognition. Prod Eng Res Dev 5(4):2011CrossRef
23.
Faber M, Petruck H, Kuz S et al (2014) Flexible and adaptive planning for human–robot interaction in self-optimizing assembly cells. In: Trzcielinski S, Karwowski W (eds) Advances in the ergonomics in manufacturing: managing the enterprise of the future. AHFE conference, pp 273–283
24.
Rasmussen J (1986) Information processing and human-machine interaction. An approach to cognitive engineering. North-Holland, New York
25.
Laird JE (2012) The Soar cognitive architecture. MIT Press, Cambridge
26.
Zachary W, Johnson M, Hoffman R et al (2015) A context-based approach to robot–human interaction. Proc Manuf 3:1052–1059
27.
Dellnitz M, Dumitrescu R, Flaßkamp K et al. (2014) The paradigm of self-optimization. In: Gausemeier J, Rammig FJ, Schäfer W (eds) Design methodology for intelligent technical systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–25CrossRef
28.
Villegas NM, Tamura G, Müller HA et al. (2013) DYNAMICO: a reference model for governing control objectives and context relevance in self-adaptive software systems. In: Lemos R de, Giese H, Müller HA et al (eds) Software engineering for self-adaptive systems II, vol 7475. Springer, Berlin, pp 265–293CrossRef
29.
Litoiu M, Woodside M, Zheng T (2005) Hierarchical model-based autonomic control of software systems. In: Proceedings of the 2005 workshop on design and evolution of autonomic application software. ACM, New York, pp 1–7CrossRef
30.
Onken R, Schulte A (2010) System-ergonomic design of cognitive automation. Springer, BerlinCrossRef
31.
Schlick CM, Faber M, Kuz S et al (2015) A symbolic approach to self-optimisation in production system analysis and control. In: Brecher C (ed) Advances in production technology. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 147–160
32.
Brecher C, Müller S, Faber M et al (2012) Design and Implementation of a comprehensible cognitive assembly system. In: Conference Proceedings of the 4th international conference on applied human factors and ergonomics (AHFE). USA Publishing, pp 1253–1262
33.
Poole DL, Mackworth AK (2010) Artificial intelligence: Foundations of computational agents. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefMATH
34.
Hoffman J (2001) The fast-forward planning system. AI Mag 22(3):57–62
35.
Hoffman J, Brafman RI (2005) Contingent planning via heuristic forward search with implicit belief states. In: Proceedings of ICAPS 2005, pp 71–80
36.
Castellini C, Giunchiglia E, Tacchella A (2014) Improvements to SAT-based conformant planning. In: Proceedings of the sixth European conference on planning, pp 17–24
37.
Thomas U, Wahl F (2001) A system for automatic planning, evaluation and execution of assembly sequences for industrial robots. Proc Int Conf Intell Robots Syst 3:1458–1464
38.
Kaufman SG, Wilson RH, Jones RE et al (1996) LDRD final report: automated planning and programming of assembly of fully 3D mechanisms. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)
39.
Ewert D, Mayer MP, Schilberg D et al (2012) Adaptive assembly planning for a nondeterministic domain. In: Conference Proceedings of the 4th international conference on applied human factors and ergonomics (AHFE), pp 2720–2729
40.
Gottipolu RB, Ghosh K (1997) Representation and selection of assembly sequences in computer-aided assembly process planning. Int J Prod Res 35(12):3447–3466CrossRefMATH
41.
Chen F, Sekiyama K, Huang J et al (2011) An assembly strategy scheduling method for human and robot coordinated cell manufacturing. Int J Intell Comput Cybern 4(4):487–510MathSciNetCrossRef
42.
Zaeh MF, Wiesbeck M (2008) A model for adaptively generating assembly instructions using state-based graphs. In: Mitsuishi M, Ueda K, Kimura F (eds) Proceedings of the 41st CIRP conference on manufacturing systems, pp 195–198
43.
Shah JA (2011) Fluid coordination of human–robot teams, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
44.
Knepper RA, Layton T, Romanishin J et al (2013) IkeaBot: an autonomous multi-robot coordinated furniture assembly system. In: 2013 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
45.
Ewert D, Thelen S, Kunze R et al. (2010) A graph based hybrid approach of offline pre-planning and online re-planning for efficient assembly under realtime constraints. In: Liu H, Ding H, Xiong Z et al (eds) Intelligent robotics and applications, vol 6425. Springer, Berlin, pp 44–55CrossRef
46.
CEN European Committee for Standardization (2008) EN 1005-2 + A1: safety of machinery—human physical performance—part 2: manual handling of machinery and component parts of machinery (EN 1005-2:2008)
47.
48.
49.
50.
Hansson G-Å, Balogh I, Ohlsson K et al (2004) Measurements of wrist and forearm positions and movements: effect of, and compensation for, goniometer crosstalk. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 14(3):355–367CrossRef
51.
Mayer MP, Odenthal B, Faber M et al (2012) Cognitive engineering of automated assembly processes. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind 24(3):348–368CrossRef
52.
Liu G, Ramakrishnan KG (2001) A*Prune: an algorithm for finding K shortest paths subject to multiple constraints. In: Proceedings of the 20th annual joint conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies, 2001, vol 2, pp 743–749
53.
Faber M, Bützler J, Schlick CM (2015) Adaptive assembly sequence planning with respect to ergonomic work conditions. In: Lindgaard G, Moore D (eds) Proceedings of the 19th triennial congress of the IEA, Melbourne, 9–14 August 2015. International Ergonomics Association
54.
55.
Terpstra TJ (1952) The asymptotic normality and consistency of Kendall’s test against trend, when ties are present in one ranking. Indag Math 14(3):327–333MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
56.
Dimopoulos C (2004) A review of evolutionary multiobjective optimization applications in the area of production research. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, pp 1487–1494
57.
Sarkar D, Modak JM (2005) Pareto-optimal solutions for multi-objective optimization of fed-batch bioreactors using nondominated sorting genetic algorithm. Chem Eng Sci 60(2):481–492CrossRef
58.
Brandl C, Bonin D, Mertens A et al (2016) Digitalisierungsansätze ergonomischer Analysen und Interventionen am Beispiel der markerlosen Erfassung von Körperhaltungen bei Arbeitstätigkeiten in der Produktion. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft 70(2):89–98CrossRef
59.
Diego-Mas JA, Alcaide-Marzal J (2014) Using Kinect™ sensor in observational methods for assessing postures at work. Appl Ergon 45(4):976–985CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Cognition-enhanced assembly sequence planning for ergonomic and productive human–robot collaboration in self-optimizing assembly cells
verfasst von
Marco Faber
Alexander Mertens
Christopher M. Schlick
Publikationsdatum
24.03.2017
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Production Engineering / Ausgabe 2/2017
Print ISSN: 0944-6524
Elektronische ISSN: 1863-7353
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11740-017-0732-9

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2017

Production Engineering 2/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Production Process

Improving the laser cutting process design by machine learning techniques

Production Management

Introduction to integrative production technology

Computer Aided Engineering

Analysis and specification of the crash behaviour of plastics/metal-hybrid composites by experimental and numerical methods

Production Process

Optimized state estimation by application of machine learning

Production Management

Predicting the potential of production structure changes using characteristic curves

Production Management

High-speed and high-backdrivable actuation system considering variable-structured elastic design

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
    Bildnachweise