A Framework for Collaborative Robot (CoBot) Integration in Advanced Manufacturing

Systems
Author(s): Ana M. Djuric, R.J. Urbanic and J.L. Rickli
Source: SAE International Journal of Materials and Manufacturing , Vol. 9, No. 2 (May
2016), pp. 457-464
Published by: SAE International
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26267460

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26267460?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

SAE International is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to SAE
International Journal of Materials and Manufacturing

This content downloaded from

130.229.162.51 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 13:53:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 2016-01-0337
Published 04/05/2016
Copyright © 2016 SAE International
doi:10.4271/2016-01-0337
saematman.saejournals.org

A Framework for Collaborative Robot (CoBot) Integration

in Advanced Manufacturing Systems
Ana M. Djuric
Wayne State University

R.J. Urbanic
University of Windsor

J.L. Rickli
Wayne State University

ABSTRACT
Contemporary manufacturing systems are still evolving. The system elements, layouts, and integration methods are changing
continuously, and ‘collaborative robots’ (CoBots) are now being considered as practical industrial solutions. CoBots, unlike traditional
CoBots, are safe and flexible enough to work with humans. Although CoBots have the potential to become standard in production
systems, there is no strong foundation for systems design and development. The focus of this research is to provide a foundation and
four tier framework to facilitate the design, development and integration of CoBots. The framework consists of the system level,
work-cell level, machine level, and worker level. Sixty-five percent of traditional robots are installed in the automobile industry and it
takes 200 hours to program (and reprogram) them. Integrating CoBots has the potential to enhance the abilities of both the robotic and
human actors within the system, improving process efficiencies, and adapting to changes. A thorough review of the literature, safety
and layout challenges, and contemporary factory automation configurations using solutions that have been introduced to the market
will be presented, as well as a roadmap for education and research challenges.

CITATION: Djuric, A., Urbanic, R., and Rickli, J., "A Framework for Collaborative Robot (CoBot) Integration in Advanced Manufacturing
Systems," SAE Int. J. Mater. Manf. 9(2):2016, doi:10.4271/2016-01-0337.

INTRODUCTION TO CONTEMPORARY
ROBOTIC SYSTEMS
Robotic systems are utilized in many applications today, such as paint
and sealant applications, welding, assembly, material handling,
inspection, and so forth. These tasks are highly repetitive and may be
performed in environments and conditions not appropriate for
humans. A comprehensive set of robot structures have since been
designed and built to fulfill the industry needs in many domains
(automotive, aerospace, etc.). These multi-Degrees of Freedom
(DOF) structures are highly complex in their form and control. Most
manipulators used in the industry today are articulated with six or
more rotational joints. This structural form provides the manipulators
with a great deal of flexibility, dexterity, and an ability to reach every
specific coordinate of their workspace in more than one configuration.
Sophisticated simulation tools are used for path planning, and
complex control strategies are employed to control the positioning,
velocity, acceleration, jerk, joint wrap, etc. This basic foundation for
automation is being expanded upon. Current robots, such as industrial
robots, medical robots, robots in space, etc., are designed to do tasks
that a human is not able to do. New human / machine interface
interactions strategies are being developed: collaborative robotic
systems or ‘CoBot’ systems. Why are CoBot solutions being
introduced? This integration strategy leverages the ‘strength’ and
‘endurance’ of robots with the flexibility and decision making of
human participants. Unique kinematic structures and process
planning strategies are presently being launched. Therefore, the goal
of this research is to review the literature, highlighting the challenges,
and use this information to provide a foundation and four tier
framework to facilitate the design, development and integration of
‘CoBots’. It must be emphasized that CoBots are designed to be a
complementary working tool for human workers, and that this
perspective guides design and implementation criteria.
Current State Relating to CoBots
A ‘CoBot’ (from collaborative and robot) is a robot intended to
physically interact with humans in a shared workspace [1]. Initially
invented in 1999 by Professors Edward Colgate and Michael Peshkin
at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois [1], CoBots’ are now
a $100 million segment of the industrial robotics market with
continued growth projected at more than 50 percent per year [2]. As
further evidence of the importance of this growing market segment to
the US economy, ABI Research recently published a new forecast

457

This content downloaded from

130.229.162.51 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 13:53:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
458 Djuric et al / SAE Int. J. Mater. Manf. / Volume 9, Issue 2 (May 2016)

putting the market for CoBots at over $1 billion by 2020 [3]. CoBots
have piqued the interest of many corporations from automotive and
aerospace OEMs to small and mid-sized businesses [4]. Within the
advanced manufacturing environment, Samuel Bouchard, President
of Robotiq, indicates that many large manufacturers are considering
CoBots and are starting to look at automation in different ways [5].
The current automotive industry relies heavily on robotics, according
to Jim Lawton, chief product and marketing officer at Rethink
Robotics. The good news, from his perspective, is that ninety percent
of manufacturing tasks can be automated and he expects 150,000
CoBots to be installed worldwide in 3 years [5].

A recent Forbes article demonstrates how a CoBot at GM’s Orion,

Michigan assembly plant is assisting workers to pull spare tires off a
conveyor and stack them based on their assigned vehicle. The article
indicates the most challenging step was teaching the maneuver in a
crowded workspace where people are usually two feet away. Humans
need to learn to work with the CoBot before being able to consider it
part of the team [6]. CoBots are becoming a staple on the production
floor and are changing how we work [7,8,9,10,11]. This example is
just one of hundreds of scenarios whereby humans will be required to
learn to interact with their robotic partners. A predicted 150,000
CoBots are to be installed worldwide in the next three years, and it is
expected that this new manufacturing paradigm will affect both
productivity and workers’ safety solutions [12, 13].
As shown in Table 1 and Figure 1, the standard characteristics of
CoBots are summarized as follows:
Table 1. Comparison between Traditional Industrial Robots and CoBots
Figure 1. CoBots as a mulita-disciplinary tool for manufacturing, service, and
medical applications.
EXISTING COBOT SOLUTIONS
At present, there are several CoBot solutions that exist. A review of
commercially available CoBots is presented in Table 2 [14, 15]. It can
be seen that there is a variety of manufacturers, and many CoBot
structures do not adhere to the ‘standard’ serial 6 axis configuration.
Several CoBots contain dual arm configurations. This should
introduce offline and online programming complexity, but ‘ease of
use’ is a key feature with CoBots. Specialized control algorithms,
man-machine interfaces, and embedded sensors to address collision
and safety concerns solutions are embedded within the present
solutions to allow for rapid reprogramming and task management
flexibility.

Table 2. Summary of current CoBot solutions [14, 15]

This content downloaded from

130.229.162.51 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 13:53:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Djuric et al / SAE Int. J. Mater. Manf. / Volume 9, Issue 2 (May 2016) 459

Table 2. (cont.) Summary of current CoBot solutions [14, 15]
‘COBOT’ FRAMEWORK
As a CoBot based solution balances the advantages of advanced
automation with the adaptability and decision making of human
participants, unique design strategies must be considered from the
systems level to the man-machine interface levels. A multi-
perspective systems viewpoint is used to represent and map these
requirements. The Zachman framework [16], used for enterprise
architecture design, is modified in order to be used for CoBot
applications (Figure 2).

Figure 2. CoBot design and implementation framework illustrating the

multiple key perspectives to be considered

The framework matrix consists of a vertical axis that provides

multiple perspectives of the overall architecture and a horizontal axis,
which provides a classification of the various elements within the
architecture. Although enterprise architecture frameworks are very
powerful for examining aspects of a business and its interactions, the
Zachman Framework provides a solid, non-specific structure that can
be readily transformed to provide a foundation to represent the CoBot
design and implementation challenges, as many perspectives must be
considered to effectively design, operate, and maintain as system. A
selection of key attributes to be evaluated at the various viewpoints is
shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Essential component-process-CoBot interactions

This content downloaded from

130.229.162.51 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 13:53:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
460 Djuric et al / SAE Int. J. Mater. Manf. / Volume 9, Issue 2 (May 2016)
At the contextual and conceptual layers, the fundamental motivations,
the desired system interactions, and the work environments are
described. The process architecture, material, data and operation
flows, and the product and CoBot architecture (where appropriate), is
defined, as well as the generic concepts used to address the specific
circumstances. High level risk assessment analyses related to the
system structure and interactions are required to be performed. These
particular instances for the contextual and conceptual ‘what, how, and
where’ questions are answered by considering the tasks-component
sets: issues with component mass, shape, rigidity, and general process
characteristics (frequency, task complexity, changes to the type of
tasks to be performed) must be addressed, as well as the safety
systems related to the component- CoBot, human- CoBot, and
human-component interactions (as appropriate). The embodiment
viewpoint considers the logical and physical requirements.
At the logical level, the data and information flows, and the
interactions between the:
• System - Work-cell levels, System - Machine levels, System
-Workers levels
• Work-cell-Worker levels
• Machine-Worker levels
are to be defined. Figure 4 illustrates the flow of data and information
within a CoBot environment. This represents ‘what’ needs to be done.
The physical elements are ‘how’ the solution methods are to be
employed, and validated. Within a top level system, such as a
manufacturing plant, medical, or service environment, there are many
work cells, designed to perform a set of functions. The cycle time,
desired flexibility, task complexity and other related performance
factors influence the machine selection and configuration. This in turn
influences the number of workers, physical tasks, and decisions being
performed by the workers. These detailed requirements, interfacing
elements, and properties are currently unknown and need to be
determined. This is an ongoing research challenge. Discussions with
respect to these considerations and specific approaches by researchers
are presented in the next section.
Figure 4. CoBots as a mulita-disciplinary tool for manufacturing, service, and
medical applications.
This content downloaded from
130.229.162.51 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 13:53:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
COBOT MANUFACTURING WORK-CELL
DESIGN
CoBot effectiveness in advanced manufacturing environments
depends on the ability to integrate the technology to provide process
and systems improvements. According to Grahn and Langbeck [7],
four significance considerations that must be made when integrating
CoBots in advanced manufacturing are: (1) role assignment, i.e. the
responsibility of the CoBot, responsibility of the human, and the
overlap between these responsibilities; (2) acceptability of CoBot
technology by human operators; (3) set-up time of CoBot work-cells;
and (4) potential for tact time reduction.
While the flexibility of CoBot is attractive for medium volume
-medium complexity product manufacturing and in remanufacturing
operations, it must be noted that Kruger et al. [17] determined that the
net present value of a CoBot solution was 25% greater than traditional
robot solutions and much greater than manual solutions [17]. Due to
advancing CoBot technology (a selection of commercial solutions is
presented in Table 2), it is expected that this gap has closed. However,
recent estimations are unknown and would be industry, factory, and
location dependent. The four significant CoBot considerations of Grahn
and Langbeck [7] are discussed in the following sections in two parts;
(1) manufacturing safety guidelines which summarizes risk assessment/
identification of a CoBot work-cell and (2) CoBot system task design,
which discusses defining standard operating procedures and work-cell
design testing and validation.
Manufacturing Safety Guidelines
CoBot implementation in manufacturing necessitates a well-
documented and accurate prediction of all potential safety issues
caused by the close interaction between the human operators and the
CoBot(s). Hence, risk assessment is of the upmost importance during
work-cell design and must adhere to safety standards, e.g. notably
ISO TS 15066: Robots and robotic devices - Collaborative robots
[18]. Consider the ABB collaborative industrial robot concept
described in Matthias et al. [8]. For a robot system, the mechanical
hazards such as impact, clamping, and application specific hazards,
the ABB robot is outfitted with six levels of risk reduction measures.
Levels one to three; 1) low payload and low robot inertia, 2)
injury-avoiding mechanical design and soft padding, and 3) power
and speed limitations. These elements contribute to risk reduction for
all the three aforementioned hazards. Level four consists of software-
based collision detection, manual back-drivability address clamping
and other application specific hazards. Levels five and six consist of
the following: 1) personal protective equipment and 2) perception-
based/real-based adjustments to the environment. These are risk
reduction measures for application specific hazards that target the
collaboration space (i.e. work-cell) rather than the mechanical design
of the CoBot (levels one through four). Both the CoBot and work-cell
focused measures for risk reduction are necessary for a safe and
ergonomically sound integration of CoBots in an advanced
manufacturing system. While critical, safety is one design parameter
 Djuric et al / SAE Int. J. Mater. Manf. / Volume 9, Issue 2 (May 2016)
for CoBot based work-cells. Productivity must also be considered for
effective CoBot work-cell design. Ding et al. [12] target safety and
productivity with an application of a finite-state automation CoBot
controller/monitoring. This application is capable of enhancing
CoBot movements when collaborating with a human operator to
uphold productivity while maintaining the required safety levels.
A source for a structured framework for considering safety and risk
assessments related to CoBot work-cells is the Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health of the German Social Accident
Insurance (BG/BGIA), which developed a formal checklist for risk
assessment in a workplace with collaborative robots. It is expected
that by completing the checklist, the potential safety risks associated
with the CoBot, human operator, task activities, and work-cell
environment will be identified and accounted for during the design of
safety measures.
The BG/BGIA report [19] is divided into the following areas in this
paper; (1) basic/existing standards, (2) CoBot and workplace
activities, (3) collaboration space specifications, and (4) data logs for
CoBot work-cell activities and performance. Area one, basic/existing
standards, ensures that the subsequent CoBot work-cell checklists are
grounded in existing robot and CoBot safety standards. Listed
standards are: 1) machinery directive (2006/42/EC), ISO 10218-
1:2006 “Industrial Robots - Safety Requirements - Part 1: Robots”,
[20] ISO 10218-1:2008 “Industrial Robots - Safety Requirements -
Part 2: Robotic Systems and Integration,” [21] and BG/BIA
recommendations for the design of workplaces with collaborative
robots - document U 001/2009e, July 2009 edition.
Area two defines the CoBot and its workplace application/task. This
is achieved by providing complete CoBot operational and safety
specifications, spatial relationship/positioning of the CoBot and all
auxiliary equipment in the workplace, and, lastly, a description of all
human operator tasks, CoBot tasks, and the sequence of tasks to be
performed in the workplace to complete the specified application.
Area three defines the collaboration between the CoBot and the
human operators. This is achieved by precisely identifying the
collaboration space within the workplace defined in area two and then
identifying the specific body regions susceptible to collision risk
within the collaboration space. The body region identification must
be justified by the operator body orientation to the CoBot during the
sequence of workplace tasks. Following the body region
identification and justification, the verification of potential injury
severity against permissible injury severity can be completed.
The final area of the BG/BIA report [19], data logs, describes the
CoBot, workplace, collaboration space, and injury risk/severity using
parameters such as: technical requirements, biomechanical elements,
ergonomic conditions, and the work organization. These data log
guidelines, if used as a standard for CoBot work-cells, can be used to
evaluate and compare CoBot work-cell designed across applications
and could be used as parameters to define effective CoBot work-cell
design and operation.
This content downloaded from
130.229.162.51 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 13:53:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
461
ISO TS 15066 is intended to provide standards of safety and
operation for the complex protection schemes required for CoBots
which are not normally experienced in robotic systems [18, 22]. The
standard is guided by the ISO 10218-1:2011 definition for
collaborative operation-state in which purposely designed robots
work in direct cooperation with a human within a defined workspace.
The collaborative workspace definition is the workspace within the
safeguarded space where the robot and a human can perform tasks
simultaneously during production operation [20, 22]. ANSI/RIA
R15.06-2012 [23] echoes these definitions as it is the adoption of ISO
10218-1:2011 and ISO 10218-2:2011. Collaboration is categorized
into four types with associated methods of risk reduction in ISO
10218-1:2011 and ISO 10218-2:2011. These are described in ISO TS
15066, and a summary follows: (1) safety-rated monitored stop - no
robot motion is allowed when an operator is in the collaborative
workspace; (2) hand-guiding - only operator generated robot motion
is allowed; (3) speed and separation monitoring - robot motion is
allowed only when the minimum separation distance limit not
exceeded; (4) power and force is limited by inherent design or control
strategies. Here there are limited static and dynamic forces in the
event of contact. The criteria defined by the standard must be met in
the design of CoBot operations and behave as constraints when
designing work-cell and task standard operating procedures.
Consistent throughout the CoBot standards and guidelines is the
reference to biomechanical risks and injuries [18, 20, 21, 24]. It is
logical that this is the foundation of CoBot standards due to the
shared workspace and tasks between humans and robots. In an effort
to develop a method to characterize and evaluate CoBot/human tasks,
Marvel et al. [24] proposed a task-based flexible ontology for risk
assessment that can be implemented during work-cell design. The
ontology approach allows for tasks to be quickly assessed through
evaluations of task base elements and sub-task components. While
risk assessment is of the highest priority, CoBot-human task design is
also evaluated on productivity [12] to create a complete safety, risk,
and business evaluation of CoBot integration.
CoBot-Human Task Design
The capability of CoBots to work closely with human counterparts
has been identified as a significant advantage, however, this
advantage is realized only when the CoBot and human tasks are
well-defined and optimized for improved productivity over manual or
robotic systems. Thus far, CoBots have generally been identified as
being ideal for manufacturers with more variants and smaller lot
sizes, which tend to be small size manufacturers [4, 10].This role files
a gap between manual assembly and robotic automation on the unit
cost versus volume plot shown in Figure 5 [25].
If it is considered that the ultimate objective is to improve
productivity and efficiency, then human and CoBot tasks should be
divided according to this overall objective. While developing
guidelines for the optimal separation of tasks is a current challenge,
some initials suggestions can be made based on the strengths of
462 Djuric et al / SAE Int. J. Mater. Manf. / Volume 9, Issue 2 (May 2016)
manual and robotic operations. Tasks within the work-cell requiring
high levels of flexibility or creativity can be assigned to the human
actor while repeatable tasks can be assigned to the CoBot. However,
this is contingent on the constraints of the systems such as; safety,
hazardous material, etc. The caveat on this initial guideline, unique to
CoBot work-cell systems, is that the human and CoBot tasks are not
independent and must function synergistically; thus, the
aforementioned guideline many not always hold. In addition, CoBots’
customization to unique human operators, ability to be easily
programmed for new tasks by operators, and error-proofing for higher
product quality alter the human/CoBot task assignment [13].
Figure 5. Transition diagram for levels of automation considering production
volume and unit cost [25]
Approaches of evaluating a work-cell design and task assignment are
aided by CoBot/human operator simulation programs. The simulation
software, Industrial Path Solutions (IPS) from the Fraunhofer-
Chalmers Center and Intelligently Moving Manikins (IMMA) from
Dassault Systems was used to simulate a CoBot environment from
mounting the cockpit for Volvo trucks [9]. The software was able to
simulate the human and robot movement but not simultaneously. The
CoBot system presented in [9] was accompanied by a set of sensors
for monitoring human position in relation to the robot, such as light
beams, vision systems and infra-red systems. It can be seen that the
design and implementation challenges associated with contemporary
robots are included, and extended. The implementation challenges are
discussed in the next section.
FUTURE RESEARCH TO ADDRESS
IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES
From the literature, it can be seen that although progress has been
made introducing CoBots into various domains, there several
implementation challenges. These need to be evaluated with respect
to performance, functionality, usability, and environmental conditions
at the systems, work-cell, machine, and worker levels. The solutions
are domain dependent.
This content downloaded from
130.229.162.51 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 13:53:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
At the systems level, the topology of the system or the machines
within the system limits the scope of the configurations that can be
introduced into a system. As presented in this review, many CoBot
solutions include mobility as a core design feature [7, 9, 14, 15, 17]
so this leads to interesting design solutions as modules can be added
or moved in a parallel or a sequential manner (i.e., splitting up
processing steps). Capacity expansion may take place by splitting up
the product family, or modules may be replaced by other modules
that use a different technology. As each topology introduces specific
routing related questions such as operation sequencing and
production planning and scheduling, it is recognized that solutions in
the physical design and simulation domains need to be developed.
Although several case studies have been reported, and there is
anticipated growth in applications [6], the applications involving
collaborative operations must be investigated as a whole [12, 26, 27,
28, 29, 30] and analyzed with risk assessment [24, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34]
for the various configuration scenarios. The resulting solution may
resolve relevant low-level injury risks [28] in addition to improving
throughput. Simulation tools need to be adapted to consider the new
design constraints associated with CoBot mobility, dynamic motion
evaluations, and man-machine interactions [28, 30].
Decisions on the integrated and individual tasks need to be assessed
at various levels of granularity. The time it takes to complete a task
decreases with skill acquisition [35, 36]. This is readily observed, and
the learning curve phenomenon was first reported in literature
approximately eighty years ago. Complex tasks, which do not have a
steep learning curve, should be identified, and considered for a CoBot
solution. Initial work has been done with respect to developing
ergonomic indicators [28] for collaborative robot designs (machine
level). But this needs to be considered with respect to the production
volumes, product variants, production strategies (batches, batch of
one, Just in Time), and the number and skill levels of the workers in
the environment. Again, simulation models are required to be
developed to encapsulate this manufacturing strategy.
The considerations at the work-cell and machine level are subsets of
the system level considerations, and need to be assessed at a higher
level of resolution to be able to rigorously assess the benefits for
various solutions [7, 9, 13]. However, detail considerations are
required at the machine level, as reach and end-effector capabilities
need to be evaluated rigorously. At the worker level, the training and
ongoing training requirements related to co-working with machines,
enabling work-cell and system configurations / reconfigurations, and
personal safety, need to be addressed. Some work has been reported
for body and assembly solutions in the automotive manufacturing
domain [9], but this area of design (CoBot systems design and
integration) has great growth potential in many other domains. The
challenges highlighted in this review are summarized in Table 3.
 Djuric et al / SAE Int. J. Mater. Manf. / Volume 9, Issue 2 (May 2016) 463

Table 3. Systems perspective summary matrix, with elements which have unique CoBot requirement in bold text

SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Just as a power saw is intended to help, not replace, the carpenter, the
human-CoBot association is intended to assist, not replace, the people
engaged in a wide variety of application domains. Safety
considerations, and sophisticated risk assessment evaluation
approaches are obviously key considerations. However, considering
the design and implementation challenges as a whole indicates that
introducing CoBots into the system will influence the layout designs,
material routing decisions, the mechanical/tooling interfaces at the
man-machine levels, as well as the data and meta-data flows, new
design and analysis tools need to be developed. Some researchers
have begun to address these new systems design approaches by
introducing design and simulation solutions; however, the research
area is not mature.
These design opportunities and solutions need to be introduced at
both the undergraduate and graduate levels in engineering, and
bioengineering, bio-mechanical, and associated discipline domains,
as these man-machine synergies are applicable across many
disciplines. This area of research will expand into many areas, and
interesting new research solutions will continue to be advanced.
REFERENCES
1. Peshkin M., Edward J. C., CoBots (invited), Industrial Robot, 26 (5), p.
335-341, 1999. http://colgate.mech.northwestern.edu/Website_Articles/
Journals/Peshkin_1999_Cobots.pdf, accessed 30 Jan. 2016.
2. Bélanger-Barrette M., “Recent investments in collaborative robot
companies”, Robotics Industry News, Applications and Trends, Robotiq,
May 13, 2015, http://blog.robotiq.com/collaborative-robots-companies,
accessed 30 Jan. 2016.
3. Press G., “How Knowledge Workers Can Save Their Jobs In ‘The
Bring Your Own Robot’ Age”, The Little Black Book of Billionaire
Secrets, June 12, 2015, issue of Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/
gilpress/2015/06/12/what-should-knowledge-workers-do-in-the-age-of-
bring-your-own-robot/#5e2600e72909, accessed 30 Jan. 2016.
4. Waurzyniak, P., “Fast, lightweight robots help factories go faster”
Manufacturing Engineering, 154(3): 55-64, 2015, http://www.sme.org/
uploadedFiles/Publications/ME_Magazine/2015/March/March%20
2015%20f2%20Automation.pdf, accessed 30 Jan. 2016.
5. Anandan T. M., “The Realm of Collaborative Robots - Empowering Us
in Many Forms”, Robotic Industries Association, June 17, 2014 http://
www.robotics.org/content-detail.cfm/Industrial-Robotics-Industry-
Insights/The-Realm-of-Collaborative-Robots-Empowering-Us-in-Many-
Forms/content_id/4854, accessed 30 Jan. 2016.
6. Knapp A., “How to train your robot”, The Little Black Book of
Billionaire Secrets, June 20, 2015, issue of Forbes http://forbesindia.
com/article/cross-border/how-to-train-your-robot/40499/2, accessed 30
Jan. 2016.
7. Grahn, S. and Langbeck, B., “Benefits of collaborative robots in
assembly - an evaluation scheme.” In Swedish Production Symposium
2014, SPS 2014, 16th September, Goteborg, Sweden, 2014, http://www.
ipr.mdh.se/pdf_publications/3806.pdf.
8. Matthias, B., Kock, S., Jerregard, H., Kallman, M., Lundberg, I.,
and Mellander, R., 2011, “Safety of collaborative industrial robots:
Certification possibilities for a collaborative assembly robot concept.” In
Assembly and Manufacturing (ISAM), IEEE International Symposium:
1-6, 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/isam.2011.5942307.
9. Backman, B., “Simulating human-robot collaboration: An example from
cab assembly.” Master of Science Thesis, Department of Production
Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology. Stockholm, Sweden, 2015.
10. Kruger, J., Bernhardt, R., Surdilovic, D., Spur, G., “Intelligent
assist systems for flexible assembly.” CIRP Annals-Manufacturing
Technology, 55(1): 29-32, 2006, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0007-
8506(07)60359-X.
11. Surdilovic, D., Schreck, G., and Schmidt, U., “Development of
collaborative robots (COBOTS) for flexible human-integrated assembly
automation.” In Robotics (ISR), 2010 41st international symposium on
and 2010 6th German Conference on Robotics (ROBOTIK): 1-8, VDE,
2010.

This content downloaded from

130.229.162.51 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 13:53:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
464 Djuric et al / SAE Int. J. Mater. Manf. / Volume 9, Issue 2 (May 2016)

12. Ding, H., H., J., Matthias, B., and Staab, H., “Structured collaborative
behavior of industrial robots in mixed human-robot environments.”
In Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), 2013 IEEE
International Conference: 1101-1106, 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
coase.2013.6653962.
13. Akella, P., Peshkin, M., Colgate, E.D., Wannasuphorasit, W., Nagesh,
N., Wells, J., Holland, S., Pearson, T. and Peacock, B., “CoBots for
the automobile assembly line.” In Robotics and Automation, 1999,
Proceedings. 1999 IEEE International Conference, 1: 728-733, 1999,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/robot.1999.770061.
14. Robotiq, Collaborative Robot Book, sixth edition, online, http://blog.
robotiq.com/collaborative-robot-ebook, accessed 30 Jan. 2016.
15. Clapaud A., “Sawyer, Iiwa, YuMi: the new generation of collaborative
robots is here”, Posted on Sunday March 22nd, 2015, http://
www.4erevolution.com/en/sawyer-iiwa-yumi-robots-collaboratifs/,
accessed 30 Jan. 2016.
16. Zachman, J., 2002, “Enterprise Architecture”, Zachman International©,
url: http://www.zachmaninternational.com/default.htm, accessed 30 Jan.
2016.
17. Kruger, J., Lien, T.K., and Verl, A., “Cooperation of Human and
Machines in Assembly Lines”, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing,
58(2):628-646, 2009, DOI: 10.1016/j.cirp.2009.09.009.
18. ISO. TS 15066: 2011, “Robots and Robotic Devices Collaborative
Robots”, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 2011.
19. Unfallversicherung, Deutsche Gezetzliche, BG/BGIA Risk Assessment
Recommendations According to Machinery Directive, Design of
Workplaces with Collaborative Robots. 2009, revised 2011.
20. ISO 10218-1: 2011, “Robots and Robotic Devices - Safety Requirements
for Industrial Robots, Part 1: Robots,” International Organization for
Standardization, Geneva, 2011.
21. ISO 10218-1: 2011, “Robots and Robotic Devices - Safety Requirements
for Industrial Robots, Part 2: Robot Systems and Integration,”
International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 2011.
22. Matthias, B., “ISO/TS 15066 - Collaborative Robots: Present Status”,
European Robotics Forum, Vienna, Austria, 2015
23. ANSI/RIA R15.06-2012, “American National Standard for Industrial
Robots and Robot Systems - Safety Requirements (revisions of ANSI/
RIA R15.06-1999),” American National Standards Institute/Robotics
Industry Association, 2013.
24. Marvel, J. A., Falco, J., Marstio, I., “Characterizing Task-Based Human-
Robot Collaboration Safety in Manufacturing.” IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 45(2): 260-75, 2015, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2014.2337275.
25. Matthias, B., “Industrial Safety Requirements for Collaborative Robots
and Applications”, ERF 2014 Workshop: Workspace Safety in Industrial
Robotics: trends, integration, and standards, 2014.
26. Humbert, G., Pham, M.T., Brun, X, Guillemot, M. Noterman, D.,
“Comparative Analysis of Pick & Place Strategies for a Multi-
Robot Application”,. IEEE International Conference on Emerging
Technologies and Factory Automation, ETFA: 801-808, 2014, 10.1109/
HUMANOIDS.2014.7041455.
27. Lasota, P. A., Shah, J. A., “Analyzing the Effects of Human-
Aware Motion Planning on Close-Proximity Human-Robot
Collaboration”, Human factors, 57(1):21-33, 2015, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/0018720814565188.
28. Maurice, P., Schlehuber, P., Padois, V., Measson, Y., Bidaud, P.,
“Automatic Selection of Ergonomic Indicators for the Design of
Collaborative Robots: A Virtual-Human in the Loop Approach”, IEEE-
RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, 2014.
29. Sauppé, A., Mutlu, B., “The Social Impact of a Robot Co-
Worker in Industrial Settings”, Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems - Proceedings, 2015, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1145/2702123.2702181.
30. Tang, G., X Asif, S., Webb, P., “The Integration of Contactless Static
Pose Recognition and Dynamic Hand Motion Tracking Control System
for Industrial Human and Robot Collaboration”, Industrial Robot, 42(5):
416-28, 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IR-03-2015-0059.
31. Crowther P., “Where did we come from and where are we heading could
it be collaboration?“, Automate 2015
32. Corey R., “The Move Toward Advanced Collaboration“, Automate
2015, 2015.
33. Davison P., “Power and Force Limiting Guidance for Collaborative
Robot Operations”, Automate 2015, 2015.
34. Sanderud A., Thomessen T., Osumi H., Niitsuma M., “A Proactive
Strategy for Safe Human-Robot Collaboration based on a Simplified
Risk Analysis”, Modeling, Identification and Control, 36(1): 11-21,
2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.4173/mic.2015.1.2
35. Newell, A., Rosenbloom, P. S., “Mechanisms of skill acquisition and
the law of practice”, In Anderson J. R. (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their
acquisition (pp. 1-55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1981.
36. Yelle, L.E., “The Learning Curve: Historical Review and
Comprehensive Survey”, Decision Sciences, 10:302-328, 1979, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1979.tb00026.x.
DEFINITIONS/ABBREVIATIONS
CoBot - Collaborative robot
DOF - Degrees of Freedom

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or
otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE International.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE International. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper.

This content downloaded from

130.229.162.51 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 13:53:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms