2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.procir.2019.03.028
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Task Balancing Between Human and Robot in Mid-Heavy Assembly Tasks

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Zhang et al [38] implemented adaptive schedule with changing human capability in a HRC assembly and the human utilization in their study was between 52% to 66%, which mean 34% to 48% of robot utilization. The task balancing model in mid-heavy HRC assembly that presented by Dianatfar et al [39] gave the human utilization which ranged from 53.34% to 56.85% that indicated that the robot utilization ranged from 43.15% to 46.66% based on different interaction level. Therefore, the result of human utilization in our study was considered acceptable in the implementation of HRC system especially the 1H:2R(F) collaboration mode (54.87%).…”
Section: Case Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Zhang et al [38] implemented adaptive schedule with changing human capability in a HRC assembly and the human utilization in their study was between 52% to 66%, which mean 34% to 48% of robot utilization. The task balancing model in mid-heavy HRC assembly that presented by Dianatfar et al [39] gave the human utilization which ranged from 53.34% to 56.85% that indicated that the robot utilization ranged from 43.15% to 46.66% based on different interaction level. Therefore, the result of human utilization in our study was considered acceptable in the implementation of HRC system especially the 1H:2R(F) collaboration mode (54.87%).…”
Section: Case Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, in [10], a multicriteria decision-making framework is employed for the automatic optimization of the workplace layout through the allocation of tasks to humans and robots. In [11], instead, a method for static task allocation based on task complexity, ergonomics, payload, and repeatability is proposed. In the static scheduling approach, the sequence of operations, and possibly the agent responsible for them, are fixed in advance according to the product to assemble and to suitable decision criteria.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The authors in [27,31,35] considered different possibilities for task execution, i.e., human or cobot, or both at the same time. Similarly, [36] considered three levels of interaction: shared workspace without shared task, shared workspace and shared task without physical interaction, and shared workspace with shared task, i.e., the handing-over of parts. The authors identified that an increase in the interaction level leads to a decrease to the operator assembly time, and therefore the effects of the collaboration.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%