An Interactive Virtual Training System for Assembly and Disassembly Based on Precedence Constraints

  • Zhuoran Li
  • Jing WangEmail author
  • Zhaoyu Yan
  • Xinyao Wang
  • Muhammad Shahid Anwar
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11542)


Compared with traditional training modes of assembly/disassembly, the virtual environment has advantages for enhancing the training quality, saving training resources, and breaking restrictions on training equipment and place. In order to balance the training quality, experience quality, and especially training costs, an interactive virtual training system for assembly and disassembly is discussed in this paper. The training is based on assembly precedence constraints among assembly paths. Also, the developer interface and the user interface are both provided for facilitation of the management, development, and modification of training contents. Two important modes of user interfaces are provided and based on immersive virtual reality (VR) devices and conventional desktop devices (the computer screen, keyboard, and mouse) for different economic conditions. Meanwhile, to improve the development efficiency of the training contents, the system is programmed as a software development kit providing the developer interface with parameter-input fields for Unity3d the virtual simulation engine. Finally, two subjective evaluation experiments are conducted to evaluate the usability in the training experience of interaction and precedence constraints via the desktop interface, and explore the difference of usability in the training experience between immersive VR environment and desktop environment provided by the training system.


Virtual environment Training system Assembly and disassembly Precedence constraint 


  1. 1.
    VRTK - Virtual Reality Toolkit (2017).
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Banerjee, A., Banerjee, P.: A behavioral scene graph for rule enforcement in interactive virtual assembly sequence planning. Comput. Ind. 42(2–3), 147–157 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bangor, A., Kortum, P., Miller, J.: Determining what individual sus scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J. Usability Stud. 4(3), 114–123 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brooke, J.: SUS-a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval. Ind. 189(194), 4–7 (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brough, J.E., Schwartz, M., Gupta, S.K., Anand, D.K., Kavetsky, R., Pettersen, R.: Towards the development of a virtual environment-based training system for mechanical assembly operations. Vir. Real. 11(4), 189–206 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bullinger, H., Richter, M., Seidel, K.A.: Virtual assembly planning. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 10(3), 331–341 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Christiand, C., Yoon, J.: Assembly simulations in virtual environments with optimized haptic path and sequence. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 27(2), 306–317 (2011). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gavish, N., et al.: Evaluating virtual reality and augmented reality training for industrial maintenance and assembly tasks. Interact. Learn. Environ. 23(6), 778–798 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hu, X., Zhu, W., Yu, T., Xiong, Z.: A script-driven virtual assembly simulation system based on assembly sequence concurrent planning. In: International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation, ICMA 2009, pp. 2478–2483. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jayaram, S., Connacher, H.I., Lyons, K.W.: Virtual assembly using virtual reality techniques. Comput.-Aided Des. 29(8), 575–584 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jayaram, S., Jayaram, U., Wang, Y., Tirumali, H., Lyons, K., Hart, P.: VADE: a virtual assembly design environment. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 19(6), 44–50 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jiang, S., et al.: Research on low cost virtual assembly training platform based on somatosensory technology. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), pp. 250–254. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ko, H., Lee, K.: Automatic assembling procedure generation from mating conditions. Comput.-Aided Des. 19(1), 3–10 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lawson, G., Salanitri, D., Waterfield, B.: Future directions for the development of virtual reality within an automotive manufacturer. Appl. Ergon. 53, 323–330 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leu, M.C., et al.: CAD model based virtual assembly simulation, planning and training. CIRP Ann. 62(2), 799–822 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li, J.R., Khoo, L.P., Tor, S.B.: Desktop virtual reality for maintenance training: an object oriented prototype system (V-REALISM). Comput. Ind. 52(2), 109–125 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liu, J.S., Yao, Y.X., Pahlovy, S.A., Li, J.G.: A novel data decomposition and information translation method from CAD system to virtual assembly application. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech. 28, 395–402 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Murcia-Lopez, M., Steed, A.: A comparison of virtual and physical training transfer of bimanual assembly tasks. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 24(4), 1574–1583 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nielsen, J., Molich, R.: Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 249–256. ACM (1990)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sauro, J., Lewis, J.R.: Quantifying the User Experience: Practical Statistics for User Research. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Seth, A., Su, H.J., Vance, J.M.: Sharp: a system for haptic assembly and realistic prototyping. In: ASME 2006 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, pp. 905–912. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sreng, J., Lécuyer, A., Mégard, C., Andriot, C.: Using visual cues of contact to improve interactive manipulation of virtual objects in industrial assembly/maintenance simulations. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 12(5), 1013–1020 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stork, A., et al.: Enabling virtual assembly training in and beyond the automotive industry. In: 2012 18th International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia (VSMM), pp. 347–352. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stratos, A., Loukas, R., Dimitris, M., Konstantinos, G., Dimitris, M., George, C.: A virtual reality application to attract young talents to manufacturing. Procedia CIRP 57, 134–139 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wan, H., Gao, S., Peng, Q., Cai, Y.: Optimization techniques for assembly planning of complex models in large-scale virtual environments. Int. J. Image Graph. 3(02), 379–398 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wang, Y., Tian, D.: A weighted assembly precedence graph for assembly sequence planning. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 83(1–4), 99–115 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Xia, P., Lopes, A.M., Restivo, M.T., Yao, Y.: A new type haptics-based virtual environment system for assembly training of complex products. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 58(1–4), 379–396 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ye, N., Banerjee, P., Banerjee, A., Dech, F.: A comparative study of assembly planning in traditional and virtual environments. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C (Appl. Rev.) 29(4), 546–555 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Beijing Institute of TechnologyBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations