[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

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

  • Assembly
  • Published:
Production Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For ease of reading, the masculine form has been used in the text to refer to both genders.

References

  1. Bannat A, Bautze T, Beetz M et al (2011) Artificial cognition in production systems. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng 8:148–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):675–684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wiendahl H-P, ElMaraghy HA, Nyhuis P et al (2007) Changeable manufacturing—classification, design and operation. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 56(2):783–809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):201–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  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):628–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dombrowski U, Wagner T (2014) Mental strain as field of action in the 4th industrial revolution. Proc CIRP 17:100–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Santis A de, Siciliano B, Luca A de et al (2008) An atlas of physical human–robot interaction. Mech Mach Theory 43(3):253–270

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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 53–62

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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):9–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):140–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):111–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hoc J-M (2001) Towards a cognitive approach to human-machine cooperation in dynamic situations. Int J Hum Comput Stud 54(4):509–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Shalin VL (2005) The roles of humans and computers in distributed planning for dynamic domains. Cognit Technol Work 7(3):198–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ogorodnikova O (2008) Human weaknesses and strengths in collaboration. Mech Eng 52:25–33

    Google Scholar 

  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):5–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):2011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  25. Laird JE (2012) The Soar cognitive architecture. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  26. Zachary W, Johnson M, Hoffman R et al (2015) A context-based approach to robot–human interaction. Proc Manuf 3:1052–1059

    Google Scholar 

  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 1–25

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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 265–293

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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 1–7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Onken R, Schulte A (2010) System-ergonomic design of cognitive automation. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  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, Cambridge

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Hoffman J (2001) The fast-forward planning system. AI Mag 22(3):57–62

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  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):3447–3466

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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):487–510

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  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 44–55

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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. Karhu O, Härkönen R, Sorvali P et al (1981) Observing working postures in industry: examples of OWAS application. Appl Ergon 12(1):13–17. doi:10.1016/0003-6870(81)90088-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Karhu O, Kansi P, Kuorinka I (1977) Correcting working postures in industry: a practical method for analysis. Appl Ergon 8(4):199–201. doi:10.1016/0003-6870(77)90164-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. McAtamney L, Corlett EN (1993) RULA: a survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb disorders. Appl Ergon 24(2):91–99. doi:10.1016/0003-6870(93)90080-s

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):355–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Mayer MP, Odenthal B, Faber M et al (2012) Cognitive engineering of automated assembly processes. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind 24(3):348–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Jonckheere AR (1954) A distribution-free k-sample test against ordered alternatives. Biometrika 41(1/2):133

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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):327–333

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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):481–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):89–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Diego-Mas JA, Alcaide-Marzal J (2014) Using Kinect™ sensor in observational methods for assessing postures at work. Appl Ergon 45(4):976–985

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the German Research Foundation DFG for its generous support within the Cluster of Excellence “Integrative Production Technology for High-Wage Countries”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Industrial Engineering and Ergonomics, RWTH Aachen University, Bergdriesch 27, 52062, Aachen, Germany

    Marco Faber, Alexander Mertens & Christopher M. Schlick

Authors
  1. Marco Faber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexander Mertens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christopher M. Schlick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Faber.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11740-017-0732-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation