Projective- AR Assistance System for shared Human-Robot Workplaces in Industrial Applications

Augmented Reality for Human–Robot Collaboration and Cooperation in Industrial Applications: A Systematic Literature Review

“…On the other side, Ji et al [ 101 ] uses an ABB IRB 1200 non-collaborative robot for assembling smaller machined parts in the same assembly station, while Vogel et al [ 109 ] uses a Kuka KR60L45 non-collaborative robot for aiding the operator on transferring workpieces from one station to another.…”

“…Kalpagam et al [ 49 ] enhances operators’ safety perception by projecting onto the workpiece the robot’s intention through warning signs and highlighting the segment on which the robot will act upon, increasing the operator awareness of the robot intentions. Kalpagam et al [ 49 ] also projects warning signs and safety zones on the ground, highlighting in red the robot workspace, in yellow a caution zone, and in green, a safe zone, where there is no risk of immediate harm to the operator, as Vogel et al [ 109 ] also does. The difference between these last two is that, unlike Kalpagam et al [ 49 ], Vogel et al [ 109 ] projects a dynamically changing safety zone and also covers a larger area since it uses a non-collaborative large robot in its application.…”

“…Kalpagam et al [ 49 ] also projects warning signs and safety zones on the ground, highlighting in red the robot workspace, in yellow a caution zone, and in green, a safe zone, where there is no risk of immediate harm to the operator, as Vogel et al [ 109 ] also does. The difference between these last two is that, unlike Kalpagam et al [ 49 ], Vogel et al [ 109 ] projects a dynamically changing safety zone and also covers a larger area since it uses a non-collaborative large robot in its application. Another important difference is that Vogel et al [ 109 ] is capable of identifying if the caution/warning zone or the Robot/danger zone is breached, using KEYENCE Safety Laser Scanners [ 119 ], and halting the robotic manipulator motion if so.…”

“…The difference between these last two is that, unlike Kalpagam et al [ 49 ], Vogel et al [ 109 ] projects a dynamically changing safety zone and also covers a larger area since it uses a non-collaborative large robot in its application. Another important difference is that Vogel et al [ 109 ] is capable of identifying if the caution/warning zone or the Robot/danger zone is breached, using KEYENCE Safety Laser Scanners [ 119 ], and halting the robotic manipulator motion if so.…”

“…Therefore, they can be classified as passive approaches. On the other hand, as discussed above, Vogel et al [ 109 ], Vogel et al [ 95 ], Argyrou et al [ 96 ], Ji et al [ 101 ], Bolano et al [ 106 ], Lotsaris et al [ 111 ] and Tsamis et al [ 90 ] presented active approaches towards assuring the operator’s safety.…”