3D Collision-Force-Map for Safe Human-Robot Collaboration

Svarny, Petr; Rozlivek, Jakub; Rustler, Lukáš; Hoffmann, Matej

doi:10.1109/icra48506.2021.9561845

Cited by 13 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The robots, due to their proprietary controllers, present different reaction behavior (see also [9]). Upon quasi-static impact, the UR10e generally bounced back, while the KUKA robots stayed at the impact position.…”

Section: Post-collision Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The regime deals with scenarios where the human and robot get into contact by limiting the forces and pressures exerted on the human. The specific limits imposed by the standard are debated [3], [9], [10], [11]. However, we will use them as a baseline from which we draw the corresponding force or velocity limits.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, even with improved models as [15,16], many safety-related aspects of the collision can be missed by a purely analytical model. Especially post-collision reactions can change the resulting exerted forces (see [17]), favoring experimental studies of collision forces, as shown in [9,18] where data-driven collision-force-maps are established. The evaluation of collision effects (namely motor currents or forces) can serve by itself, even without a sensing skin, as a safety measure (see for example [19] for a recent approach) and is part of modern collaborative robots.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effect of Active and Passive Protective Soft Skins on Collision Forces in Human-robot Collaboration

Svarny¹,

Rozlivek²,

Rustler³

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soft electronic skins are one of the means to turn a classical industrial manipulator into a collaborative robot. For manipulators that are already fit for physical human-robot collaboration, soft skins can make them even safer. In this work, we study the after impact behavior of two collaborative manipulators (UR10e and KUKA LBR iiwa) and one classical industrial manipulator (KUKA Cybertech), in the presence or absence of an industrial protective skin (AIRSKIN). In addition, we isolate the effects of the passive padding and the active contribution of the sensor to robot reaction. We present a total of 2250 collision measurements and study the impact force, contact duration, clamping force, and impulse. This collected dataset is publicly available. We summarize our results as follows. For transient collisions, the passive skin properties lowered the impact forces by about 40 %. During quasistatic contact, the effect of skin covers-active or passive-cannot be isolated from the collision detection and reaction by the collaborative robots. Important effects of the stop categories triggered by the active protective skin were found. We systematically compare the different settings and compare the empirically established safe velocities with prescriptions by the ISO/TS 15066. In some cases, up to the quadruple of the ISO/TS 15066 prescribed velocity can comply with the impact force limits and thus be considered safe. We propose an extension of the formulas relating impact force and permissible velocity that take into account the stiffness and compressible thickness of the protective cover, leading to better predictions of the collision forces. At the same time, this work emphasizes the need for in situ measurements as all the factors we studied-presence of active/passive skin, safety stop settings, robot collision reaction, impact direction, and, of course, velocity-have effects on the force evolution after impact.

show abstract

Section: Post-collision Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of Active and Passive Protective Soft Skins on Collision Forces in Human-robot Collaboration

Svarny¹,

Rozlivek²,

Rustler³

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the context of PFL, the TS provides definitions for the respective contact scenarios. Unfortunately, the contact scenario definitions are deficient and inconsistent, which can lead to different interpretations as in [9], [10], [11], for example.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

ISO/TS 15066: How Different Interpretations Affect Risk Assessment

Kirschner¹,

Mansfeld²,

Abdolshah³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current technical specification ISO/TS 15066:2016(E) for safe human-robot interaction contains logically conflicting definitions for the contact between human and robot. This may result in different interpretations for the contact classification and thus no unique outcome can be expected, which may even cause a risk to the human. In previous work, we showed a first set of implications. This paper addresses the possible interpretations of a collision scenario as a result of the varying interpretations for a risk assessment. With an experiment including four commercially available robot systems we demonstrate the procedure of the risk assessment following the different interpretations of the TS. The results indicate possible incorrect use of the technical specification, which we believe needs to be resolved in future revisions. For this, we suggest tools in form of a decision tree and constrained collision force maps, which enable a simple, unambiguous risk assessment for HRI.

show abstract

“…In addition, research has been conducted to reconstruct obstacles based on machine learning to avoid 3D obstacles in the manipulator [26] or programming languages that efficiently generate sample environments composed of complex relationships between three-dimensional objects by combining probabilistic programming techniques and convex computational geometry [27]. Makita, S proposed a system that implements the position of the manipulator and obstacles in augmented reality [28] and virtual reality to guide them to avoid obstacles in 3D, and B established a 3D-collision-force map to study algorithms in which the manipulator avoids obstacles [29]. Regardless, there is a limitation in that it is difficult to apply to a manipulator system that must be pathindependent or that the location of obstacles must be accurately known in advance..…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Manipulator Collision Avoidance System Based on a 3D Potential Field With ISO 15066

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, various intelligent technological innovations are being applied to smart factories. As manipulators are widely used in smart factories, the manipulator and the workspace of humans overlap, and interest in cooperative robots and human safety has increased. In relation to this, a collision-avoidance control algorithm applicable in three dimensions (3D) and that also meets existing safety standards for humans and robots is required. In this paper, we propose a 3D potential field-based manipulator collision avoidance algorithm that meets the requirements of the ISO 15066 standard. This algorithm applies Speed and Separation Monitoring(SSM) according to the distance between the manipulator and the obstacle and controls the speed of the manipulator slowly as the risk is higher. This allows us to overcome the limitations that existing studies have not been conducted on 3D potential field-based obstacle avoidance and that it is difficult to apply to the field without considering ISO 15066. The proposed system was verified through simulation and experiments, and through comparison with the existing algorithm, we verified that SSM was well applied to the proposed system.

show abstract

3D Collision-Force-Map for Safe Human-Robot Collaboration

Cited by 13 publications

References 18 publications

Effect of Active and Passive Protective Soft Skins on Collision Forces in Human-robot Collaboration

Effect of Active and Passive Protective Soft Skins on Collision Forces in Human-robot Collaboration

ISO/TS 15066: How Different Interpretations Affect Risk Assessment

Manipulator Collision Avoidance System Based on a 3D Potential Field With ISO 15066

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About