4.5 Article

Collaborative robot task allocation on an assembly line using the decision support system

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/0951192X.2021.1946856

关键词

Assembly lines; human-robot collaboration; task allocation; decision support systems

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human-robot collaboration, as part of the Industry 4.0 strategy, requires a new type of robots called collaborative robots to work with humans in assembly systems. Researchers have proposed various approaches to address the challenge of proper task allocation between human workers and cobots, with the need for artificial decision support systems. The task allocation procedure in this research successfully identifies improvement options utilizing cobots in assembly lines.
Human-robot collaboration (HRC), as a part of Industry 4.0 strategy, requires a completely new type of robots able to co-work with humans, called collaborative robots or cobots. This kind of collaboration is especially needed in assembly systems, which are known for having a low level of automation. For some assembly tasks human is still an irreplaceable factor. On the other hand, some assembly tasks are monotonous and tiring for humans. Therefore, the different approaches to cope with the challenge of identification and selection of proper task allocation between human worker and cobots are reported by many researchers. It is not an easy task since multiple and often conflicting criteria need to be taken into account. Some kind of artificial decision support is needed, to successfully solve this problem. In this research, task allocation procedure is presented for identification of different improvement options that utilize cobots into the assembly line for different tasks to be performed. The decision support system based on the HUMANT algorithm has been used for selection of the option which represents the best compromise solution. The procedure is experimentally tested on the assembly line with car gearboxes as a real product.

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