Advertisement

A structured methodology for the design of a human-robot collaborative assembly workplace

  • João Costa MateusEmail author
  • Dieter Claeys
  • Veronique Limère
  • Johannes Cottyn
  • El-Houssaine Aghezzaf
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 23 Downloads

Abstract

The trend towards mass customization puts traditional automation solutions under pressure. In addition, an aging working population increases the need to improve ergonomics at the workplace. Human-robot collaboration is considered as a solution for these challenges at the workstation level, as it combines the flexibility of the human with the consistency of robots. While the technology supporting the implementation of close human robot collaboration is maturing rapidly, the development of supporting design methodologies is lagging behind. The aim of this paper is to provide a generic methodology including a chain of four supporting procedure blocks for information extraction and processing and collaborative assembly solution generation and evaluation. The first block extracts product and assembly sequence constraints from CAD models. This information is fed into the second block where the previously identified tasks are decomposed into lower level work elements, for which the functional requirements are identified. These requirements are then used in the third block, in order to determine resource capability and safe collaboration possibilities. In the fourth block, the previous information is combined to generate and evaluate possible collaborative product assembly sequences. These sequences consist of work allocation, temporal distribution of work, and corresponding layout constraints.

Keywords

Human-robot collaboration Workplace design Collaborative robot Ergonomics Safety Flexibility Human-robot interaction Work allocation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Funding information

This research is supported by Flanders Make, the strategic center for the manufacturing industry in Flanders within the framework of Project Yves.

References

  1. 1.
    Aiyar MS, Ebeke MCH (2017) The impact of workforce aging on European productivity. International Monetary FundGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bahubalendruni M, Biswal BB (2016) Computer aid for stability testing between parts towards automatic assembly sequence generation. Journal of Computer Technology & Applications 7(1):22–26Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bahubalendruni MR, Biswal BB, Kumar M, Nayak R (2015) Influence of assembly predicate consideration on optimal assembly sequence generation. Assem Autom 35(4):309–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bahubalendruni R (2016) Computer aided optimal robotic assembly sequence generation. PhD thesisGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Belhadj I, Trigui M, Benamara A (2016) Subassembly generation algorithm from a cad model. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 87(9-12):2829–2840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boothroyd G, Dewhurst P, Knight WA (2010) Product Design for Manufacture and Assembly. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Colgate JE, Edward J, Peshkin MA, Wannasuphoprasit W (1996) Cobots: robots for collaboration with human operatorsGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dini G, Santochi M (1992) Automated sequencing and subassembly detection in assembly planning. CIRP Ann 41(1):1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Djuric AM, Urbanic R, Rickli J (2016) A framework for collaborative robot (cobot) integration in advanced manufacturing systems. SAE International Journal of Materials and Manufacturing 9(2):457–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ferreira J, Gray M, Hunter L, Birtles M, Riley D (2009) Development of an assessment tool for repetitive tasks of the upper limbs (art). Derbyshire: Health and Safety ExecutiveGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goodrich MA, Schultz AC, et al (2008) Human–robot interaction: a survey. Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction 1(3):203–275CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hadj RB, Belhadj I, Gouta C, Trigui M, Aifaoui N, Hammadi M (2017) An interoperability process between cad system and cae applications based on cad data. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), pp 1–20Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Helms E, Schraft RD, Hagele M (2002) Rob@ work: robot assistant in industrial environments. In: 2002. Proceedings. 11th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, IEEE, pp 399–404Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hengstebeck A, Weisner K, Klöckner M, Deuse J, Kuhlenkötter B (2016) Formal modelling of manual work processes for the application of industrial service robotics. Procedia CIRP 41:364–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hermann M, Pentek T, Otto B (2015) Design principles for industrie 4.0 scenarios: a literature review: Working paper no. 01, 2015Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hermann M, Pentek T, Otto B (2016) Design principles for industrie 4.0 scenarios. In: 2016 49th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS), IEEE, pp 3928–3937Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hignett S, McAtamney L (2004) Rapid entire body assessment. In: Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods, CRC Press, pp 97–108Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hoffman G, Breazeal C (2007) Effects of anticipatory action on human-robot teamwork efficiency, fluency, and perception of team. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, ACM, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    ISO (2007) 11228-3 ergonomics-manual handling-part 3: handling of low loads at high frequency. International Organization for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    ISO (2011) Iso 10218-1: 2011: Robots and Robotic Devices–safety Requirements for Industrial Robots–part 1: Robots. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    ISO (2016) Iso/ts 15066: 2016 robots and robotic devices-collaborative robotsGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    ISO I (2011) 10218-2: 2011: Robots and Robotic Devices–Safety Requirements for Industrial Robots–part 2: Robot Systems and Integration. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kroon AC, van Selm M, ter Hoeven CL, Vliegenthart R (2016) Dealing with an aging workforce: locating threats and opportunities in corporate media. Educ Gerontol 42(12):818–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Krüger J, Lien TK, Verl A (2009) Cooperation of human and machines in assembly lines. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 58(2):628–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lenz C (2011) Context-aware human-robot collaboration as a basis for future cognitive factories. PhD thesis, Technische Universität MünchenGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mateus JC, Aghezzaf EH, Claeys D, Limère V (2018) Method for transition from manual assembly to human-robot collaborative assembly. In: 16th IFAC symposium on information control problems in manufacturingGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Matthias B (2015) Iso/ts 15066-collaborative robots: present status In: European robotics forum, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McAtamney L, Corlett EN (1993) Rula: a survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb disorders. Appl Ergon 24(2):91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Miller CA, Parasuraman R (2003) Beyond levels of automation: an architecture for more flexible human-automation collaboration. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol 47. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, pp 182–186Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Morioka M, Sakakibara S (2010) A new cell production assembly system with human–robot cooperation. CIRP Ann 59(1):9–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Müller R, Vette M, Mailahn O (2016) Process-oriented task assignment for assembly processes with human-robot interaction. Procedia CIRP 44:210–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ore F, Hanson L, Wiktorsson M, Eriksson Y (2016) Automation constraints in human industrial robot collaborative workstation design. In: Swedish production symposium 2016 SPS 2016, 25 oct 2016, Lund, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Parasuraman R, Sheridan TB, Wickens CD (2000) A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Humans 30(3):286–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Parasuraman R, Galster S, Squire P, Furukawa H, Miller C (2005) A flexible delegation-type interface enhances system performance in human supervision of multiple robots: empirical studies with roboflag. IEEE Transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics-part A: Systems and Humans 35(4):481–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Parasuraman R, Barnes M, Cosenzo K, Mulgund S (2007) Adaptive automation for human-robot teaming in future command and control systems. Tech. rep., Army research lab aberdeen proving ground md human research and engineering directorateGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Paul RP, Nof SY (1979) Work methods measurement—a comparison between robot and human task performance. Int J Prod Res 17(3):277–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pine BJ (1993) Mass Customization: The New Frontier in Business Competition. Harvard Business Press, BrightonGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Price HE (1985) The allocation of functions in systems. Hum Factors 27(1):33–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ranz F, Hummel V, Sihn W (2017) Capability-based task allocation in human-robot collaboration. Procedia Manufacturing 9:182–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sheridan TB, Verplank WL (1978) Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators. Tech. rep., MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECH CAMBRIDGE MAN-MACHINE SYSTEMS LABGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Trigui M, BenHadj R, Aifaoui N (2015) An interoperability cad assembly sequence plan approach. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 79(9-12):1465–1476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Trigui M, Belhadj I, Benamara A (2017) Disassembly plan approach based on subassembly concept. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 90(1-4):219–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tsarouchi P, Spiliotopoulos J, Michalos G, Koukas S, Athanasatos A, Makris S, Chryssolouris G (2016) A decision making framework for human robot collaborative workplace generation. Procedia CIRP 44:228–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Von Braun CF (1991) The acceleration trap. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 32(1):49Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wygant R (1986) Robots vs. humans in performing industrial tasks: a comparison of capabilities and limitations. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Houston Houston, Texas, USA Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yanco HA, Drury J (2004) Classifying human-robot interaction: an updated taxonomy. In: 2004 IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, vol 3. IEEE, pp 2841–2846Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yanco HA, Drury JL, Scholtz J (2004) Beyond usability evaluation: analysis of human-robot interaction at a major robotics competition. Hum Comput Interact 19(1):117–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zandin KB (2003) sMost work measurement systems. Industrial engineeringGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial Systems Engineering and Product DesignGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Business Informatics and Operations ManagementGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  3. 3.Industrial Systems Engineering (ISyE)Flanders Make

Personalised recommendations