Advertisement

Soft Robotics pp 173-183 | Cite as

Opportunities and Challenges for the Design of Inherently Safe Robots

  • Annika Raatz
  • Sebastian Blankemeyer
  • Gundula Runge
  • Christopher Bruns
  • Gunnar Borchert
Conference paper

Abstract

An approach for solving the challenges that arise from the increased complexity of modern assembly tasks is believed to be human robot co-operation. In these hybrid workplaces humans and robots do not only work on the same task or interact during certain assembly steps, but also have overlapping workspaces. Therefore, ‘safe robots’ should be developed that do not harm workers in case of a collision. In this chapter, an overview of methods for designing a hardware based soft robot that is inherently safe in human-machine interaction is given. Recent projects show that robots could be soft enough for interaction but they are not able to resist forces that occur in the assembly process. Current solutions show that the designer of such robots must face a trade-off between softness and dexterity on the one hand and rigidity and load carrying capabilities on the other hand. A promising approach is to integrate variable stiffness elements in the robotic system. The chapter classifies two main design rules to achieve stiffness variability, the tuning of material properties and geometric parameters. Existing solutions are described and four concepts are presented to show how different mechanisms and materials could be combined to design safe assembly robots with a variable stiffness structure.

Keywords

Shape Memory Alloy Soft Segment Variable Stiffness Nanocomposite Hydrogel Outer Chamber 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Trivedi D, Rahn C, Kier W, et al. (2008) Soft robotics: Biological inspiration, state of the art, and future research. Appl. Bionics and Biomechanics 5(3): 99–117Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Kim S, Laschi C, Trimmer B (2013) Soft robotics: a bioinspired evolutions in robotics. Trends in Biotechnology 31(5):287–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Bischoff R, Kurth J, Schreiber G, et al (2010) The KUKA-DLR Lightweight Robot arm - a new reference platform for robotics research and manufacturing. 41st Robotics (ISR) and 6th German Conf. on Robotics (ROBOTIK): 1–8.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Matthias B, Kock S, Jerregard H, et al. (2011) Safety of Collaborative Industrial Robots. IEEE Int. Symp. on Assembly and Manufacturing (ISAM): 1–6Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Rolf M, Steil J (2012) Constant curvature continuum kinematics as fast approximate model for the Bionic Handling Assistant. IEEE /RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems: 3440–3446Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Seok S, Onal C, Cho K, Wood R (2012) Meshworm: A Peristaltic Soft Robot with An-tagonistic Nickel Titanium Coil Actuators. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics: 1485–1497Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Kang R, Branson D, Zheng T, et al. (2013) Design, modeling and control of a pneumati-cally actuated manipulator inspired by biological continuum structures. Bioinspiration & Biometrics 8(3)Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Ranzani T, Cianchetti M, Gerboni G, et al. (2013) A modular soft manipulator with vari-able stiffness. 3rd Joint Workshop on New Technologies for Computer/Robot Assisted SurgeryGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Cheng N, Lobovsky M, Keating S, et al. (2012) Design and Analysis of a Robust, Low cost, Highly Articulated Manipulator Enabled by Jamming of Granular Media. IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation: 4328–4333Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Majidi C (2013) Soft Robotics: A Perspective – Current Trends and Prospects for the Fu-ture. Soft Robotics 1(1):5–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Kim Y, Cheng S, Kim S, Iagnemma K (2013) A Novel Layer Jamming Mechanism With Tunable Stiffness Capability for Minimally Invasive Surgery. IEEE Transactions on Ro-botics 29(4): 1031–1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Schmitt J, Last P, Löchte C, Raatz A (2009) TRoBS – A Biological Inspired Robot. IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Biomimetics: 51–56Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Follmer S, Leithinger D, Olwal A, et al. (2012) Jamming User Interfaces: Programmable Particle Stiffness and Sensing for Malleable and Shape-Changing Devices. 25th ACM Symp.on User interface software and technology: 519–528Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Taniguchi H, Miyake M, Suzumori K (2010) Development of New Soft Actuator Using Magnetic Intelligent Fluids for Flexible Walking Robot. Int. Conf. on Control, Automa-tion and Systems, Oct., 2010: 1797–1801Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Majidi C, Wood R J (2010) Tunable elastic stiffness with microconfined magnetorheo-logical domains at low magnetic field. Applied Physics Letters 97: 164104-1-164104-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Calvert P (2009) Hydrogels for Soft Machines. Adv. Materials 21: 743–756Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Haraguchi K (2007) Nanocomposite hydrogels. Current Opinion in Solid State Materials and Science 11:47–54Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Loizou E, Butler P, Porcar L, et al. (2006) Dynamic Responses in Nanocomposite Hy-drogels. Macromolecules 39:1614–1619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Löchte C, Kunz H, Schnurr R, Dietrich F, Raatz A, Dilger K, Dröder K. (2013) Form-Flexible Handling Technology for Automated Preforming. 19th Int. Conf. on Composite Materials (ICCM), Montreal, Canada, e-procGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Takashima K, Noritsugu T, Rossiter J, et al. (2011). Development of Curved Type Pneu-matic Artificial Rubber Muscle Using Shape-memory Polymer. SICE Annual Confer-ence, Tokyo, Japan: 1691–1695Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Rogers J A (2013) A Clear Advance in Soft Actuators. Material Science 341:968–969Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Hu T M, Park Y-J, Cho K-J (2012) Design and Analysis of a Stiffness Adjustable Struc-ture Using an Endoskeleton. Precision Engineering and Manufacturing 13(7): 1255–1258Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Mc Knight G P Henry C P (2010) Deformable variable-stiffness cellular structures. US Patent 7,678,440Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Hayashibara Y (2008) Study on Variable Stiffness Mechanism Using Wire Spring. Ro-botics and Mechatronics 20(2): 296-301Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Galloway K C, Clark J E, Koditschek D E (2009) Design of a tunable stiffness composite leg for dynamic locomotion. Proc. of IDETC/CIE 2009: 1-8Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Zuo S, Iijima K, Tokumiya T, Masamune K (2013) Variable stiffness outer sheath with “Dragon skin” structure and negative pneumatic shape-locking mechanism. Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 2014: 1-9Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Vos R, Barret R, Romkes A (2011) Mechanics of pressure-adaptive honeycomb. Intelli-gent Material Systems and Structures 22(10): 1041-1055Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Shan Y, Lotfi A, Philen M (2008) Fluidic Flexible Matrix Composites for Autonomous Structural Tailoring. Proc. of SPIE 6525: 652517-1-652517-14Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Shepherd et al. (2011) Multigait soft robots. Proc. of the National Academy of Science 108(51):20400-20403Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annika Raatz
    • 1
  • Sebastian Blankemeyer
    • 1
  • Gundula Runge
    • 1
  • Christopher Bruns
    • 1
  • Gunnar Borchert
    • 1
  1. 1.Leibniz University HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations