Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Products

aiqbench analysis

This research proposes a framework for adaptive collision sensitivity in human-robot collaboration, aiming to reduce unnecessary robot stops while maintaining safety standards like ISO 10218-2. By calculating effective mass dynamically for different robot links, the method achieves over a 45% productivity increase without compromising operator safety during physical interactions.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Adaptive Collision Sensitivity for Efficient and Safe Human-Robot Collaboration

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2409.20184v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: What is considered safe for a robot operator during physical human-robot collaboration (HRC) is specified in corresponding HRC standards (e.g., ISO 10218-2:2025). The regime that allows collisions between the moving robot and the operator, called Power and Force Limiting (PFL), restricts the permissible contact forces. Using the same fixed contact thresholds on the entire robot surface results unnecessary productivity losses, as the robot needs to stop even when impact forces are within limits. Here we present a framework that decides whether the robot should interrupt motion based on estimated collision force computed individually for different parts of the robot body and dynamically on the fly, based on the Effective Mass (EM) of each robot link. We performed experiments on a simulated and real collaborative robot arm (UR10e) with sensitive skin (AIRSKIN) for collision detection and isolation. To demonstrate the generality of our method, we added experiments on simulated KUKA LBR iiwa robot, where collision sensing draws on joint torque sensing. On a mock pick-and-place scenario with both transient and quasi-static collisions, we show an increase in productivity over 45% from using the standard approach. The method is applicable to any robot for which the EF can be calculated.

Abstract:What is considered safe for a robot operator during physical human-robot collaboration (HRC) is specified in corresponding HRC standards (e.g., ISO 10218-2:2025). The regime that allows collisions between the moving robot and the operator, called Power and Force Limiting (PFL), restricts the permissible contact forces. Using the same fixed contact thresholds on the entire robot surface results unnecessary productivity losses, as the robot needs to stop even when impact forces are within limits. Here we present a framework that decides whether the robot should interrupt motion based on estimated collision force computed individually for different parts of the robot body and dynamically on the fly, based on the Effective Mass (EM) of each robot link. We performed experiments on a simulated and real collaborative robot arm (UR10e) with sensitive skin (AIRSKIN) for collision detection and isolation. To demonstrate the generality of our method, we added experiments on simulated KUKA LBR iiwa robot, where collision sensing draws on joint torque sensing. On a mock pick-and-place scenario with both transient and quasi-static collisions, we show an increase in productivity over 45% from using the standard approach. The method is applicable to any robot for which the EF can be calculated.

Robotics (cs.RO)

arXiv:2409.20184 [cs.RO]

(or arXiv:2409.20184v3 [cs.RO] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.20184 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

https://doi.org/10.1002/aisy.70494 Focus to learn more DOI(s) linking to related resources

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 299 words

Related coverage