Human–Robot Interaction for Improving Fuselage Assembly Tasks: A Case Study
Source abstract
Abstract
In current industrial systems, automation is a very important aspect for assessing manufacturing production performance related to working times, accuracy of operations and quality. In particular, the introduction of a robotic system in the working area should guarantee some improvements, such as risks reduction for human operators, better quality results and a speed increase for production processes. In this context, human action remains still necessary to carry out part of the subtasks, as in the case of composites assembly processes. This study aims at presenting a case study regarding the reorganization of the working activity carried out in workstation in which a composite fuselage panel is assembled in order to demonstrate, by means of simulation tool, that some of the advantages previously listed can be achieved also in aerospace industry. In particular, an entire working process for composite fuselage panel assembling will be simulated and analyzed in order to demonstrate and verify the applicability and effectiveness of human–robot interaction (HRI), focusing on working times and ergonomics and respecting the constraints imposed by standards ISO 10218 and ISO TS 15066. Results show the effectiveness of HRI both in terms of assembly performance, by reducing working times and ergonomics—for which the simulation provides a very low risk index.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Ergonomics and Human Factors · Manufacturing Process and Optimization · Assembly Line Balancing Optimization
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Engineering, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, via Roma, 29–81031 Aversa (CE), Italy
References (45)
Show source-provided references
1. Burgess-Limerick, R., Steiner, L.J., and Torma-Krajewsky, J. (2009). Ergonomics Processes: Implementation Guide and Tools for the Mining Industry.
2. A Study on Muscle Fatigue Associated with Awkward Posture among Workers in Aerospace Industry10.4028/www.scientific.net/AEF.10.287 ↗
3. Ergonomics and Quality Management-Humans in Interaction with Technology, Work Environment and Organization10.1080/10803548.1999.11076416 ↗
4. Ergonomics Oriented to Processes Becomes a Tool for Continuous Improvement10.1080/10803548.1999.11076417 ↗
5. Kroemer, K.H.E., Kroemer, H.J., and Kroemer-Elbert, K.E. (1994). Engineering Physiology: Bases of Human Factors/Ergonomic, John Wiley and Sons.
6. Lehto, M.R., and Landry, S.J. (2013). Introduction to Human Factors and Ergonomics for Engineer, CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group.10.1201/b13249 ↗
7. Veasey, D.A., Craft McCormick, L., Hilyer, B.M., Oldfield, K.W., Hansen, S., and Krayer, T.H. (2005). Confined Space Entry and Emergency Response, Wiley.10.1002/0471787663 ↗
8. Fletcher, S.R., and Johnson, T.L. (2014). Investigating the impact of product orientation on muscoloskeletal risk in aerospace manufacturing. Contemporary Ergonomics and Human Factors 2014, Proceedings of the International Conference on Ergonomics & Human Factors 2014, Southampton, UK, 7–10 April 2014, CRC Press.10.1201/b16742-22 ↗
9. Experimental investigation into aircraft system manual assembly performance under varying structural component orientations10.1177/0954405419883047 ↗
10. Ergonomics Simulation in Aircraft Manufacturing—Methods and Potentials10.1016/j.procir.2019.03.187 ↗
11. A lightweight approach for human factor assessment in virtual assembly designs: An evaluation model for postural risk and metabolic workload10.1016/j.procir.2016.02.115 ↗
12. Ergonomic assessment for DHM simulation facilitated by sensor data
13. Future directions for the development of virtual reality within an automotive manufacturer10.1016/j.apergo.2015.06.024 ↗
14. Workplace design ergonomic validation based on multiple human factors assessment methods and simulation
15. Digital twins to enhance the integration of ergonomics in the workplace design10.1016/j.ergon.2019.02.001 ↗
16. Review of digital twin applications in manufacturing10.1016/j.compind.2019.103130 ↗
17. Trends in Smart Manufacturing: Role of Humans and Industrial Robots in Smart Factories10.1007/s43154-020-00006-5 ↗
18. Multi-Robot Assembly of High-Performance Aerospace Components10.3182/20120905-3-HR-2030.00117 ↗
19. Composite parts assembly operational improvements10.1002/masy.201900098 ↗
20. Hägele, M., Nilsson, K., and Pires, J. (2008). Industrial Robotics. Handbook of Robotics, Springer.10.1007/978-3-540-30301-5_43 ↗
21. Human Centered Assistance Applications for the working environment of the future10.3233/OER-150226 ↗
22. Shi, J., Jimmerson, G., Pearson, T., and Menassa, R. (2012, January 20). Levels of human and robot collaboration for automotive manufacturing. Proceedings of the Workshop on Performance Metrics for Intelligent Systems.10.1145/2393091.2393111 ↗
23. Bender, M., Braun, M., Rally, P., and Scholtz, O. (2016). Lightweight robots in manual assembly—Best to start simply. Examining Companies’ Initial Experiences with Lightweight Robots. Report, Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering IAO.
24. Refining levels of collaboration to support the design and evaluation of human-robot interaction in the manufacturing industry10.1016/j.procir.2018.03.214 ↗
25. The future of industry with collaborative robots10.1051/matecconf/201929902008 ↗
26. Magone, M., and Mazali, T. (2016). Industria 4.0—Uomini e Macchine Nella Fabbrica Digitale, Guerini e Associati.
27. Safety bounds in human robot interaction: A survey10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104667 ↗
28. Collaborative robots and ergonomics10.1007/978-3-030-14730-3_83 ↗
29. Atlas of physical human-robot interaction10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2007.03.003 ↗
30. ISO/TS 15066 (2016). Robots and Robotic Devices: Collaborative Robots, International Organization for Standardization.
31. ISO 10218-1 (2011). Robots and Robotic Devices—Safety Requirements for Industrial Robots—Part 1: Robots, International Organization for Standardization.
32. ISO 10218-2 (2011). Robots and Robotic Devices—Safety Requirements for Industrial Robots—Part 1: Robot Systems and Integration, International Organization for Standardization.
33. Matthias, B., Kock, S., Jerregard, H., Kllman, M., and Lundberg, I. (2011). Safety of collaborative industrial robots: Certification possibilities for a collaborative assembly robot concept. Assembly and Manufacturing (ISAM), IEEE International Symposium, IEEE.10.1109/ISAM.2011.5942307 ↗
34. Rosenstrauch, M.J., and Krüger, J. (2017, January 22–24). Safe human-robot-collaboration-introduction and experiment using ISO/TS 15066. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Control, Automation and Robotics (ICCAR), Nagoya, Japan.10.1109/ICCAR.2017.7942795 ↗
35. Gualtieri, L., Palomba, I., Wehrle, E.J., and Vidoni, R. (2020). The Opportunities and Challenges of SME Manufacturing Automation: Safety and Ergonomics in Human-Robot Collaboration (HRC). Ind. 4.0 SMEs, 105–144.10.1007/978-3-030-25425-4_4 ↗
36. Measurement error analysis and accuracy enhancement of 2D vision system for robotic drilling10.1016/j.rcim.2013.09.014 ↗
37. Campomaggiore, A., Costanzo, M., Lettera, G., and Natale, C. (2019). A Fuzzy Inference Approach to Control Robot Speed in Human-robot Shared Workspaces, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics—ICINCO, INSTICC, Prague, Czech Republic, 29–31 July 2019, SciTePress.10.5220/0007838700780087 ↗
38. Costanzo, M., De Maria, G., Lettera, G., Natale, C.M., and Perrone, D. (2019, January 6–9). A Multimodal Perception System for Detection of Human Operators in Robotic Work Cells. Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (SMC), Bari, Italy.10.1109/SMC.2019.8914519 ↗
39. Daniel, S., Andreas, K., Robert, K., Peter, W., Stefan, L., Stefan, S., Friedrich, V.D., Juergen, T., Christoph, B., and Ben, N. (2016). Development of a Door Surround Structure with Integrated Structural Health Monitoring System In Smart Intelligent Aircraft Structures (SARISTU), Springer International Publishing.
40. Masali, M. (2015). L’Italia si Misura. Vademecum Antropometrico Per il Design e L’ergonomia. Vent’anni di Ricerche (1990–2010), Aracne Editore.
41. The effectiveness of virtual environments in developing collaborative strategies between industrial robots and humans10.1016/j.rcim.2018.07.006 ↗
42. Human motion behavior while interacting with an industrial robot
43. Bortot, D.F. (2014). Ergonomic Human-Robot Coexistence in the Branch of Production. [Ph.D. Thesis, Technische Universität München].
44. Till, R., and Peter, M. (2020, July 10). Making the Right Decisions at the Right Time. Available online: https://www.kuka.com/-/media/kuka-corporate/documents/ir/reports-and-presentations/en/annual-report/kuka-annual-report-2016.pdf?rev=c976cc2263ef434682a6dbe81fd3e25f&hash=CF6BBC70885A83F5D4CF9EADCEBEEB81.
45. Correcting working postures in industry: A practical method for analysis10.1016/0003-6870(77)90164-8 ↗