4.5 Article

A human-oriented design process for collaborative robotics

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/0951192X.2022.2128222

关键词

Human-robot collaboration; collaborative robots; manufacturing systems design; ergonomics; human-centered manufacturing

资金

  1. project URRA' usability of robots and reconfigurability of processes: enabling technologies and use cases,

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes a method to support manufacturing engineers in the human-oriented design process, aiming to achieve satisfactory performance in customization production without compromising worker safety and health. The method defines design criteria, considers different design alternatives, and guides the selection of appropriate design choices based on their dynamic impact on various elements of the system.
The potential of collaborative robotics often does not materialize in an efficient design of the human-robot collaboration. Technology-oriented approaches are no longer enough in the Industry 4.0 era. This work proposes a set of methods to support manufacturing engineers in the human-oriented design process of integrated production systems to obtain satisfactory performance in the mass customization paradigm, without impacting the safety and health of workers. It founds the design criteria definition on five main pillars (safety, ergonomics, effectiveness, flexibility, and costs), favors the consideration of different design alternatives, and leads their selection. The dynamic impact of the design choices on the various elements of the system prevails over the static design constraints. The method has been experimented in collaboration with the major kitchen manufacturer in Italy, which introduced a collaborative robotics cell in the drawers' assembly line. It resulted in a more balanced production line (10% more), a verified risk minimization (RULA score reduced from 5 to 3 and OCRA score from 13.30 to 5.70), and a greater allocation of operators to high added value activities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据