3.8 Proceedings Paper

Minimising workers' workload in partially automated assembly lines with human-robot collaboration

期刊

IFAC PAPERSONLINE
卷 55, 期 10, 页码 1734-1739

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2022.09.648

关键词

assembly line balancing; operations management; human-robot collaboration; automation; mathematical programming

资金

  1. National Research Development and Innovation Fund (TKP2020 National Challenges Subprogram) of the Ministry for Innovation and Technology [BME-NC]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The benefits of automation in human-operated assembly lines are well known, but complete automation is not always possible. A combined production system with both manual and automated parts could be the best configuration in such circumstances. MILP models are suggested to evaluate the impact of adding robots to the line on total workers' workload and assist decision makers in finding the optimal line configuration.
The benefits of automation in human-operated assembly lines are well known. Despite the rapid progress made in the field, complete automation is not always possible. Often robots cannot replace workers' flexibility, and sometimes there is no economically viable option for automation. A combined production system with both manual and automated parts could be the best configuration in such circumstances. Even with partial automation the number of workers in the line could be decreased, and workers' safety and health conditions could be dramatically improved. In this paper, MILP models are suggested to compare the total workload of workers when different numbers of robots are applied in an assembly line with partial automation and the minimum possible number of workers. The proposed MILP model is implemented in the AIMNIS modelling environment and solved using CPLEX. The presented models can help evaluate the impact of adding robots to the line on total workers' workload and may assist decision makers in finding the best possible line configuration. Copyright (C) 2022 The Authors.

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

3.8
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