See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330026358

Introduction and configuration of a collaborative robot in an assembly task as

a means to decrease occupational risks and increase efficiency in a
manufacturing company

Article  in  Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing · December 2018

DOI: 10.1016/j.rcim.2018.12.015

CITATIONS READS

9 163

4 authors, including:

Arturo Realyvásquez Karina Cecilia Arredondo-Soto

Tijuana Institute of Technology Autonomous University of Baja California
69 PUBLICATIONS   177 CITATIONS    32 PUBLICATIONS   36 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jorge Luis García-Alcaraz

Autonomous University of Ciudad Juárez
458 PUBLICATIONS   1,481 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

COMPUESTO DE POLIETILENO DE BAJA DENSIDAD Y FIBRA DE AGAVE TEQUILANA View project

Special Issue - Applied Sciences - Applied Engineering to Lean Manufacturing Production Systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Arturo Realyvásquez on 15 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 57 (2019) 315–328

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rcim

Introduction and configuration of a collaborative robot in an assembly task T

as a means to decrease occupational risks and increase efficiency in a
manufacturing company
Arturo Realyvásquez-Vargasa, , Karina Cecilia Arredondo-Sotob, Jorge Luis García-Alcarazc,
⁎

Bogart Yail Márquez-Lobatod, Jesrael Cruz-Garcíaa

a
Department of Industrial Engineering, Instituto Tecnológico de Tijuana, Tijuana 22414, Mexico
b
Faculty of Chemical Sciences and Engineering, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, Tijuana 14418, Mexico
c
Departament of Industrial Engineering and Manufacturing, Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez, Ciudad Juarez 32310, Mexico
d
Department of Computing and Systems, Instituto Tecnológico de Tijuana, Tijuana 22414, Mexico

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Occupational risk factors (e.g. awkward postures, excessive effort, and repetitive movements) are a growing
Assembly workstation concern in the manufacturing industry due to their relationship with the incidence of musculoskeletal disorders
Pockets (MSDs). In this sense, collaborative robots developed purposely for performing manufacturing tasks have
Collaborative robot emerged as an attractive solution to the problem. This paper presents a project developed in a manufacturing
Risks assessment
company, where we propose the implementation of a collaborative robot to reduce the incidence of occupational
Configuration of the collaborative robot
risks among the employees of an assembly station and thus increase their safety and improve the performance of
the entire assembly line. To implement the collaborative robot, we made a mechanical design of the workstation;
then, the collaborative robot was configured by using the console method. Later, we performed a risk analysis of
the collaborative robot with the formats provided by the manufacturing company and tested the collaborative
robot's reliability following specific criteria. Finally, company technicians and operators were trained in terms of
collaborative robot maintenance and operation, respectively. Our results revealed that the collaborative robot
frees employees from potential occupational risks. Moreover, we detected better performance of the assembly
line after the collaborative robot was implemented.

1. Introduction economic activity. As can be observed, the manufacturing industry re-

Occupational risk factors, such as awkward postures, excessive ef-
fort, and repetitive movements can cause musculoskeletal disorders
(MSDs) [1]. For instance, repetitive movements can be the source of
occupational diseases such as tenosynovitis, carpal tunnel, tendinitis,
and De Quervain's disease, among others [2]. According to the litera-
ture, repetitive movements are a major issue in the manufacturing in-
dustry around the world [3]. In Mexico, the Mexican Social Security
Institute (IMSS, by its Spanish acronym) registered more than 302,886
occupational accidents and diseases from 2005 to 2016 [4], and 1444
occupational fatalities in 2015. For a graphic representation of this
information, Figs. 1 and 2 illustrate, respectively, the evolution of oc-
cupational accidents/diseases and occupational fatalities in the above-
mentioned time period. Similarly, Fig. 3 depicts the incidence of oc-
cupational risks registered in Mexico in 2016 and classified by
ported the highest occurrence rate of occupational risks, which often
result in little organizational efficiency and higher corporate costs.
Manufacturing companies seek to reduce the incidence of occupa-
tional risks while they increase efficiency in productivity. To this end,
they adopt solutions such as job rotation [3], adding more employees in
a same task, decreasing work pace [5], designing ergonomic work-
stations [6], and introducing advanced manufacturing technology. In
this context, collaborative robots have become a major trend that
provides fast and long-term solutions to ergonomic problems [7]. As
previously mentioned, this paper explores the implementation of a
collaborative robot in the Mexican manufacturing industry. Namely, we
explore the collaborative robot's impact in a manufacturing company
located in the city of Tijuana. The company operates 24 hours a day,
seven days a week, and employs 6000 workers, distributed along three
work shifts. Unfortunately, the company employees usually perform

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: arturo.realyvazquez@tectijuana.edu.mx (A. Realyvásquez-Vargas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2018.12.015
Received 16 June 2018; Received in revised form 28 October 2018; Accepted 22 December 2018
0736-5845/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Realyvásquez-Vargas et al. Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 57 (2019) 315–328

Fig. 1. Evolution of occupational risk in Mexico (2005–2016).

Fig. 4. Distribution of the pockets assembly station.

The pockets assembly task involves the following five steps:

1 Employee takes a sub-assembly A.

2 Employee takes a sub-assembly B.
3 Employee assembles the previous components.
4 Employee places the assembly on the workstation (load the work-
station).
Fig. 2. Evolution of occupational fatalities in Mexico. 5 Employee operates the workstation to begin the cycle.

These steps are depicted in Fig. 5, whereas Fig. 6 illustrates the

pockets assembly station.
According to our analysis, the employees of this work station repeat
each movement 4000 times per day, on average. The employee that
volunteered for this project claims that he often feels increasing phy-
sical fatigue and pain in his arms as the hours go by. Unfortunately,
these conditions have adverse effects, not only on individual work ef-
ficiency, but also on organizational efficiency. Therefore, it is important
that manufacturing companies implement improvement strategies and
plans for minimizing occupational risks and thus organizational in-
efficiency. In this context, collaborative robots can provide sound

Fig. 3. Occupational risk occurrence by economic activity in Mexico in 2016.

repetitive movements, which are a leading cause of MSDs.

The company's pockets assembly station, which pertains to the
dispensing department, involves employees performing a repetitive task
that can favor the development of MSDs in the long term. The task's
characteristics can be listed as follows:

• A 9.5 s cycle time.

• Exposure to high sound levels (i.e. 90 dB) generated at the work-
station.
• Exposure to ultraviolet radiation.
• Employees are exposed to these conditions for 11 daily hours, four
days per week. Fig. 4 illustrates the distribution of the pockets as-
sembly station.
Fig. 5. Steps of the pockets assembly task.

316
A. Realyvásquez-Vargas et al.
Fig. 6. Pockets assembly station.
solutions.
Collaborative robots can be adapted to behave gently and safely
nearby people [8]; moreover, they have the potential to improve the
production flow and automate new processes [9]. Due to these char-
acteristics, this paper mainly aims at configuring and introducing a
collaborative robot in the company's pockets assembly task to either
remove or minimize occupational risks, and hence increment organi-
zational efficiency. The specific goals of this paper are as follows: (1)
perform a risk analysis on the use of the collaborative robot, (2) vali-
date the collaborative robot's integration with the assembly station, and
(3) train company technicians and operators in the robot's maintenance
and operation, respectively.
Pockets are medication storage units that belong to a more complex
system, known as Pyxis® MedStation ES. The pockets are assembled in
the company's workstation as depicted in Fig. 6, where two employees
are necessary: one who feeds the station and the other who performs
inspection and packaging activities. This paper focuses only on the first
employee and his task, and the inspection and packaging processes will
remain the same through the project. Also, note that the pocket family
is composed by seven models, as reported in Table 1, yet this paper will
explore the implementation and configuration of the collaborative
robot only to produce model HH 1 × 1.
2. Literature review
2.1. Collaborative robots
A robot is an artificial entity, either virtual or mechanical. However,
for practical purposes, it is generally defined as an electromagnetic
system that, due to its physical appearance or movements, gives people
the impression of being a user of its own. Robots are largely employed
in simple and complex areas such as the industry, education, sciences,
medicine, security and surveillance, and research, where they act as
collaborators and are used as a tool [10]. The term collaborative robot
was proposed in 1996 by scientists Colgate, Edward, Peshkin, and
Table 1
Models of the pocket family.
Model
HH 1 × 1
HH 1 × 2
HH 1 × 3
FH 2 × 1
FH 2 × 2
FH 2 × 3
FH 2 × 5
317
Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 57 (2019) 315–328
Wannasuphoprasit for passive mechanical devices used to aid humans
in solving industrial tasks [11]. Nowadays, there is no full consensus as
to what a collaborative robot is or is not, yet multiple definitions are
proposed. According to [11], a collaborative robot directly involves the
human worker to collaborate in solving an industrial task as a team.
From a similar perspective, the ISO 10,218 standard (parts 1 and 2)
defines collaborative robots as those that can be used in a collaborative
operation, which is any operation in which a particularly designed
robot works in direct cooperation with a human being inside of a col-
laborative space. In turn, a collaborative space is defined as a delimited
area where an employee and a collaborative robot simultaneously
perform tasks. The ISO 10,218 standard also identifies four character-
istics of collaborative robots [12–14]:
1 Safety Monitored Stop: This characteristic allows a collaborative
robot to stop working on its own when an operator enters its
workspace.
2 Hand Guiding: The employee can teach the collaborative robot the
movements that it must perform.
3 Speed and Separation Monitoring: The collaborative robot can adapt
its speed with respect to the operator's location. To this end, it de-
fines three safety zones by means of a laser sensor: the closer the
operator is, the slower the collaborative robot works.
4 Power and Force Limiting. This characteristic allows a collaborative
robot to work alongside an operator. Namely, the collaborative
robot can monitor the strength of its movements, and it immediately
stops when an abnormal value appears. By doing so, it avoids hitting
objects located on its trajectory.
2.1.1. Applications of collaborative robots in manufacturing
Collaborative robots are widely employed in today's manufacturing
industry. For instance, the authors of [15] developed a collaborative
human–robot manufacturing cell for joint assembly. In this cell, the
collaborative robot alternates active and passive behaviors during the
assembly process to both lighten employee burden and comply with
employee needs. The cell can successfully manage direct physical
contact between the robot and the operator, and between the robot and
the environment. Furthermore, the cell can be applied to standard-po-
sition (and not torque) controlled collaborative robots, which are
common in the industry. The authors validated the approach in a series
of assembly experiments and found that human workload was reduced,
and consequently, the risks of suffering from strain injuries were
minimized. Finally, a complete risk analysis revealed that the proposed
setup was compatible with safety standards.
In [16], the authors developed a cloud-based manufacturing system
to support ubiquitous manufacturing. The system provides a service
pool that maintains physical facilities in terms of manufacturing ser-
vices. The proposed framework and mechanisms were evaluated by
both machining and robotics applications. In practice, it was possible to
establish an integrated manufacturing environment across multiple le-
vels with the support of manufacturing cloud and function blocks. Si-
milarly, the framework provided a flexible architecture as well as ubi-
quitous and integrated methodologies for the cloud manufacturing
system.
Researchers in [17] conducted the risk assessment of an assembly
cell layout and then designed a hand-guided industrial collaborative
robot to increase the cell's safety. The final layout included the colla-
borative robot and enabled a safe collaborative workspace. Similarly, in
[18], the authors studied two types of safe human-robot collaboration
techniques (i.e. proactive and adaptive) that do not interrupt the col-
laboration flow. The study was practically implemented in a prototype
highly interactive and immersive Virtual Environment (VE), in the
framework of human-robot collaborative hand lay-up process of carbon
fabric in an industrial work cell. After statistical processing, the results
confirmed the effectiveness of safe collaboration techniques as well as
their acceptability by the user, showing that collaboration performance
A. Realyvásquez-Vargas et al.
Table 2
Literature review on the applications of collaborative robots in manufacturing.
Author(s) Application
[19] A collaborative human–robot manufacturing cell for joint assembly.
[20] A collaborative robot for an assembly cell
[20] A cloud-based manufacturing system to support ubiquitous manufacturing.
[21] A computationally efficient safety assessment for collaborative robotics
applications, named kinetostatic safety field.
[22] SPADER, a trajectory generation method for industrial human-robot collaboration
in a dynamic environment.
[23] Structures developed to equip and employ simulated collaborative robots with
motion control capabilities that include soft physical interaction control driven in
real-time with real external guidance forces.
[24] A study of two types of safe human-robot collaboration techniques (i.e. proactive
and adaptive techniques) that do not interrupt the flow of collaboration.
[25] Sensorless and adaptive admittance control of an industrial collaborative robot for
physical human − robot interaction.
was affected to a different extent. Table 2 below summarizes our lit-
erature review.
As can be observed, collaborative robots are mostly implemented in
industrial manufacturing settings to improve production process effi-
ciency. From this perspective, the major contribution of this paper is
that of promoting the use and application of collaborative robots in the
manufacturing industry from an ergonomic approach; that is, as an
occupational risk prevention strategy that increases both employee
safety and production process efficiency.
2.1.2. Configuration methods for collaborative robots
Programming languages such as C/C + + , Python, Java, C#/ .NET,
or Matlab are often employed to configure collaborative robots [26].
However, most of these languages demand that the operator has special
programming skills. Fortunately, some modern methods can help con-
figure a collaborative robot more intuitively or in a more user-friendly
manner [27]. The following paragraphs briefly discuss the three most
common configuration methods for collaborative robots.
2.1.2.1. Console. The console is the most popular method for
configuring collaborative robots. According to the British Automation
and Robot Association (BARA), about 90% of the collaborative robots in
the market are configured by means of a console [28]. As the name
implies, the method involves using a console to move the collaborative
robot from one point to another, using the buttons on the screen of the
same and recording each of those points individually. When all the
desired points have been recorded, the collaborative robot can repeat
them autonomously. The most noticeable advantages of using a console
to configure a collaborative robot are listed below:
• Most collaborative robots come with a console.
• Consoles allow precise positioning, since numerical coordinates can
be used in any measurement system and/or coordinate system.
• Consoles are very useful for simple movements, such as straight
lines.
On the other hand, among the disadvantages of using a console are
the following:
• Using a console properly requires training.
• The collaborative robot must not be in use when it is being con-
figured.
2.1.2.2. . Simulation/offline programming. Typically, simulation/offline
programming is used for research and development purposes to ensure
that control algorithms are operating properly before being transferred
to the collaborative robot. However, the method is also employed in the
318
Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 57 (2019) 315–328
Findings
Human workload is reduced along with the risks of suffering from strain injuries.
A safe collaborative workspace.
It was possible to establish an integrated manufacturing environment across
multiple levels with the support of manufacturing cloud and function blocks.
The approach can enhance safety in several real-time collision avoidance
scenarios.
The approach was an effective solution to generating trajectories in a dynamic
environment, such as a hybrid workspace.
Evidence of the practical usefulness of the symbiotic transition between 3D
simulation and reality, as pursued by the eRobotics framework to address
challenging issues in industrial automation.
The study confirmed the effectiveness of safe collaboration techniques as well as
their acceptability by the user, showing that collaboration performance was
affected to a different extent.
The proposed methods of external force detection and adaptive admittance
control showed satisfactory behavior in the experiments.
industry to reduce downtime and improve efficiency. Likewise,
simulation programming is particularly suitable when a collaborative
robot needs to be reconfigured multiple times, since it allows operators
to simulate and thus test a task before moving it to the collaborative
robot. Several software packages, such as ArtMinds and RoboDK, are
commercially available to apply this method [28]. Similarly, its
advantages can be summarized as follows:
• It minimizes reconfiguration downtimes.
• It is easy to test more than one solution to the same problem.
Conversely, the disadvantages of simulation/offline programming
are listed below:
• Virtual models do not always reflect the real world; hence, last-
minute adjustments on the collaborative robot are sometimes ne-
cessary.
• Configuring the simulator environment (i.e. the software package)
can take longer than configuring the collaborative robot itself.
2.1.2.3. Teach pendant. This configuration method allows the operator
to move the collaborative robot to the desired position using his own
hands, and then record the said coordinates using the collaborative
robot's console [28]. As in the console method, the operator records
each desired position to then make the collaborative robot execute the
created program autonomously. Some of the advantages of the Teach
Pendant method are as follows:
• It is easier than the console method, as the operator does not need to
use the screen buttons to operate the collaborative robot.
• It is more intuitive than the previously described methods, since it
allows the collaborative robot to be configured using almost the
same movements that a human operator would use.
• It does not demand advanced programming knowledge or skills
from the human operator.
Finally, some of its major disadvantages are listed below:
• As in the console method, the collaborative robot must not be in use,
which increases configuration downtimes.
• It is difficult to record precise coordinates.
• It is not possible to develop complex algorithms (i.e. activities that
require advanced logic).
Even though each method offers its own advantages and dis-
advantages over the others, none is better than the other in this com-
parison.
A. Realyvásquez-Vargas et al. Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 57 (2019) 315–328

3. Methodology company where this project was conducted only works with Keyence
sensors. Therefore, to comply with the policy, Keyence's SZ-V04 sensor
3.1. Materials was chosen.

To configure the collaborative robot in the assembly station, we

3.1.5. Intelligent relay: the Easy719-DC-RC
employed the following materials:
This programmable logic controller (PLC) device was used to create
the interface between the collaborative robot and the assembly work-
3.1.1. Robot arm
station. Its main function is to exchange signals between the colla-
The collaborative robot must have at least the following char-
borative robot and the assembly workstation to guarantee harmonious
acteristics:
operation.

• Supply voltage: 120 volt AC

• Payload: 3 kg 3.1.6. Laptop computer
• Reach: 500 mm The laptop was used for general purposes, such as update the col-
• Safety rating: IP64 laborative robot's drivers, design the collaborative robot's worktable
• 6 rotational axes. with computer-aided design (CAD) software, and monitor the colla-
• Controller with digital inputs/outputs. borative robot's configuration. The minimum requirements of the
• Redundant security entries. laptop computer are listed as follows:

Several robot arms that are commercially available meet the • Processor: Intel Core i3
aforementioned characteristics; however, due to economic reasons, the • RAM memory: 8 Gb, minimum
robot arm ultimately selected was UR3. • Hard disk space: 4 Gb, minimum
• Operating system: Windows 7
3.1.2. Assembly station
The assembly station and the production process should meet the In the end, Dell's Precision 5510 laptop computer was used.
following characteristics:

• Be flexible: For the model HH 1 × 1 there should be a pre-assembly

3.1.7. CAD software
We relied on CAD software SolidWorks® 2016 to configure the
of components before they are placed on the collaborative robot, but
collaborative robot's worktable.
for the other models the components are assembled at this station.

3.1.3. Two-finger gripper 3.1.8. Risk assessment forms

The gripper must be able to pick up the pockets and place them in
the assembly and test station. The minimum requirements of the
gripper are as follows:
• Gripping range: 0 to 140 mm.
• Gripping force: 10 to 125 N.
• Power supply voltage: 24 Vdc.
• Compatible with collaborative robot UR3.
In accordance with the requirements, a two-finger adaptive gripper
manufactured by Robotiq was employed. According to its datasheet, the
gripper is 100% compatible with the UR3 collaborative robot.
3.1.4. Laser monitoring sensor
This device was used to monitor the collaborative robot's operating
zone. The sensor had to satisfy the following requirements:
• Power voltage: 24 Vdc.
• Scanning angle: 190°
• Two detection zones (warning zone and danger zone).
• Maximum measurement distance: 8 m
Several commercial options, such as Omron® and Sick® sensors,
could comply with the aforementioned requirements. However, the
To conduct the assessments, we employed three forms:
(a) Initial Risks Detection form to conduct an Analysis of Risks in
Operations (ARO): The form allows performing a preliminary as-
sessment of any operation, task, or process to identify possible risks
associated with it. It focuses on three particular areas: (1) the plant,
equipment, materials, and substances; (2) the workplace (including
the outside area), and (3) the staff (including work methods and
organization). In addition, the form helps identify the protection
equipment that operators wear.
(b) Hazard Detection and Risk Assessment form: It measures the level
of operational risk in a particular task or process and categorizes it
as low, medium, or high. The form also seeks to register the number
of people exposed to the risk, as well as current risk minimization
measures available for that particular task or process.
(c) Analysis of Risk in Operations (ARO): It is a risk scoring guide that
also suggests correction times for the identified opportunity areas.
The company's Department of Safety and Hygiene dictates that the
three forms are compulsory in any risk assessment process conducted
within the organization, since they are consistent with both domestic
and international applicable safety standards (see Table 3). To consult a
sample of each form (Figs. A.1, A.2, and A.3, respectively), our readers
can refer to Appendix A at the end of the paper.

Table 3
Applicable safety standards.
Standard Description

Official Mexican Standard NOM-004-STPS-1999 Protection systems and safety devices in machinery and equipment used in the workplace.
Official Mexican Standard NOM-017-STPS-2008 Personal protection equipment in the workplace: Selection, use, and management.
ISO 10,218–1 Robots and robotic devices: Security requirements for industrial robots. Part 1: Robots.
ISO 10,218–2 Robots and robotic devices: Security requirements for industrial robots. Part 2: Systems.
ISO 12,100 Machinery safety, general design principles, and risk analysis and reduction.

319
A. Realyvásquez-Vargas et al. Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 57 (2019) 315–328

Table 5
Current annual operating costs.
Current state

Operators per shift 1

Hours per shift 12
Shifts per day 2
Annual operator salary $7251 USD
Additional costs –
Annual operating costs $14,502 USD

Table 6
Initial investments for the collaborative robot project.
Initial investment

Collaborative robot $30,165

Two-finger gripper $4378
Monitoring laser sensor $2334
Collaborative robot integration $1507
Fig. 7. Methodology for configuring a collaborative robot in an assembly sta- Additional costs –
tion. Total initial investment $38,384

Table 4
Training session for technicians. Table 7
Potential scenario of annual operating costs.
Topic Length (min.)
Potential scenario
Collaborative robot operation 30
Collaborative robot maintenance 30 Operators per shift 0.5
Diagnose collaborative robot failures 60 Shifts per day 2
Annual salary of the operator $7251
Weeks worked per year 50
Other costs –
Potential scenario $7251

Table 8
Cash flow.
Year System costs Annual savings Annual cash flow Cumulative

2017 ($38,384) $7251 ($31,133) $(31,133)

2018 ($500) $7396 $6896 $(24,737)
2019 ($500) $7544 $7044 $(17,193)
2020 ($500) $7695 $7195 $(9998)
2021 ($500) $7849 $7349 $(2650)
2022 ($500) $8006 $7506 4856

Note that the numbers found between the parentheses are negative amounts.

Fig. 8. Steps of the methodology stages.

Fig. 9. Cash flow for the collaborative robot project.

3.2. Methodology
robot's configuration. Then, at the fourth stage, we performed a risk
Our methodology presented in this paper is original. It comprised
analysis on the collaborative robot to determine whether it complied
six stages, as depicted in Fig. 7. The first stage involved planning our
with the minimum safety requirements to be operated. Next, the fifth
project, and the goal was to make an executive summary and obtain
stage involved validating the collaborative robot in case the risk ana-
financial data to support the project's viability. The second stage im-
lysis results were favorable. Finally, at the sixth stage, company tech-
plied making a mechanical design of the collaborative robot's work-
nicians and operators were trained on the maintenance and use of the
station, whereas at the third stage, we dealt with the collaborative

320
A. Realyvásquez-Vargas et al. Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 57 (2019) 315–328

Fig. 10. Components and 3D design of the collaborative robot and worktable.

Fig. 13. Start cycle button.

Table 9
Reference positions for the transportation fixture.
R1 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27
R2 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18
R3 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9

Fig. 11. Pocket transportation fixture.

Fig. 14. Collaborative robot safety zones. (For interpretation of the references
to color in this figure, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 12. Home position of the collaborative robot.

collaborative robot, respectively.

Every methodology stage was composed of particular activities or
steps, which are briefly discussed in subsequent paragraphs.

3.2.1. Stage 1. Steps

Create a business case Fig. 15. Integration of the collaborative robot with the assembly station.
We developed a project charter to define the scope, objectives,
participants, and financial resources that were necessary for the project.
In addition, the project charter included a brief financial analysis that
estimated the project's return on investment (ROI).

321
A. Realyvásquez-Vargas et al. Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 57 (2019) 315–328

the collaborative robot was attached. The electric design specifica-

tions were determined through the collaborative robot manual.

In addition, we created the fixture that would be necessary to

transport the pockets and feed the collaborative robot. Therefore, from
now on, the terms “feeder fixture” and “transporting fixture” refer to
the same device. As previously mentioned, we used SolidWorks® 2016
to create the mechanical design of the workstation.

3.2.3. Stage 3. Steps

(a) Configure the collaborative robot

First, we assembled the robot arm with all the components: the
clamping tongs, the worktable, the safety sensor, and others. Then, we
configured the collaborative robot with a console, since it offers more
advantages than disadvantages, if compared with the two other con-
figuration methods (see Section 2.1.2.1). According to [29], operators
with no programming experience can quickly program the robotic arm
Fig. 16. New distribution of the assembly station.
thanks to the patented and intuitive 3D visualization. All they need to
do is move the robot arm to the desired reference points or touch the
Table 10 arrow keys on the easy-to-use touch screen console. Intuitive software
Identification of risks associated with the collaborative robot (Plant, allows even the most inexperienced user to quickly understand the
equipment, materials, and substances section). basics of programming and can trace the trajectory that the colla-
Plant, equipment, materials, and substances borative robot must memorize. Therefore, there are no programming
restrictions for the collaborative robot. Moreover, the console came
Mechanical trapping / machine guards X along with the collaborative robot, which made the configuration ea-
Electricity X
Pressure / Energy release N/A
sier. Similarly, no additional software or complex programming lan-
Stored energy N/A guage was necessary, which in turn prevented the company from in-
Ionizing / non-ionizing radiation N/A curring in additional costs of at least $5000 USD. In the present project,
Vibration N/A the collaborative robot's optimal path was defined by the installation
Mechanical load N/A
and physical position of the collaborative robot with respect to the
Fire (combustible materials) N/A
Flammable materials N/A workstation that it feeds.
Health risks N/A Finally, the laser sensor was configured by defining two zones
Abrasions N/A within the collaborative robot's working radius: a warning zone and a
Knock X danger zone. When the warning zone is invaded, the collaborative robot
Biological risks N/A
reduces its speed by 80%, and it returns to its regular speed once the
zone is cleared. On the other hand, when an employee enters the danger
Table 11
zone, the collaborative robot immediately stops operating, and an op-
Assessment of risks associated with the collaborative robot (Plant, equipment, erator must restart the collaborative robot if he/she wishes to resume
materials and substances section). its work.

Risk Probability Severity Assessment

(a) Integrate the collaborative robot with the assembly station
Mechanical trapping / machine guards 4 3 12
Electricity 2 1 2 In addition to the mechanical coupling, we performed an electric
Pressure / Energy release – – – coupling of the collaborative robot and the assembly station, so the two
Stored energy – – –
systems could operate in harmony. To this end, we designed the electric
Ionizing / non-ionizing radiation – – –
Vibration – – – interface between the two systems and implemented it using the
Mechanical load – – – Easy719-DC-RC (intelligent relay), as shown in Fig. 11.
Fire (combustible materials) – – –
Flammable materials – – –
Health risks – – – 3.2.4. Stage 4. Steps
Abrasions – – –
Knock 4 3 12
(a) Identify risks
Biological risks – – –

We used the Initial Risks Detection form to perform an initial risk

3.2.2. Stage 2. Steps assessment of five operational elements: plant, equipment, materials
(a) Create a mechanical design of the workstation and substances, workspace, and employees.

We performed a mechanical coupling of the collaborative robot and
the assembly station. During this step, we designed a worktable that
would allow the collaborative robot to adequately operate in the
existing assembly workstation. The dimensional restrictions (height
and width) for the mechanical design of the worktable were based
on the dimensions of the existing assembly workstation, to which
(a) Identify hazards and assess risks
All the risks identified across the five elements had to be assessed
and rated with the Hazard Detection and Risk Assessment form. The
goal in this step was to assign a score to each detected risk and assess
the likelihood that an illness, injury, or even death might result as a
consequence.

322
A. Realyvásquez-Vargas et al.
Table 12
OQ summary.
Criterion Definition
Take the pocket out of the feeder The collaborative robot can correctly take a pocket out of the feeder fixture
fixture without causing any damage.
Place the pocket in the assembly The collaborative robot can correctly place a pocket in the nest of the assembly
station station without causing any damage.
Start the assembly station's cycle The assembly station starts its operation cycle only once the pocket is in the nest.
Visual inspection The collaborative robot does not damage the pockets in any way, including
scratches or cracks.
3.2.5. Stage 5. Steps
The collaborative robot–assembly station system was tested to va-
lidate its compliance with the minimum safety operation requirements.
The validation test involved three steps: installation qualification (IQ),
operation qualification (OQ), and process validation.
(a) Installation qualification
This step aimed at verifying that the collaborative robot's integra-
tion with the assembly station complies with the following standards:
• Average humidity in the area must range from 30% to 75%.
• Temperature in the area must range from 60 °F to 80 °F.
• The device (i.e. collaborative robot) must be connected to a 120
Vac ± 10% power source.
• The equipment (i.e. collaborative robot) must be identified as
PE175-01.
• The equipment's wiring (collaborative robot) must be connected and
well-arranged.
• The collaborative robot-assembly station system must stop oper-
ating and emit an audible alarm sound when at least one of the
doors numbered from 1 to 6 is opened.
• The collaborative robot-assembly station system must stop oper-
ating and emit an audible alarm sound when at least one of the
emergency stops numbered from 1 to 3 is activated.
• The collaborative robot must reduce its speed when an employee
enters the warning zone.
• The collaborative robot must stop operating when an employee
enters the safety zone.
It is worth mentioning that all the measuring instruments used in
this step must be properly calibrated.
(a) Operation qualification
This step aimed at verifying that the equipment operates in optimal
conditions. For this scenario, we sought to determine how well the
collaborative robot can perform the operation for which it was de-
signed. The OQ test assessed the following aspects:
• The collaborative robot's ability to correctly take the pocket out of
the feeder fixture without causing any damage.
• The collaborative robot's ability to correctly place the pocket in the
nest of the assembly station without causing any damage.
• The assembly station must begin the operating cycle once the pocket
is in the nest.
• The collaborative robot must not damage the pockets in any form,
including scratches or fissures.
To ensure the collaborative robot's repeatability, it is important to
define a sample of pockets that is statistically representative of the
population. In this case, we followed the recommendations of the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI/ASQ Z1.4 2008) [30] and
randomly selected 59 pieces to perform the OQ assessment.
323
Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 57 (2019) 315–328
Total samples Good samples Bad samples Status
59 59 – Accepted
59 59 – Accepted
59 59 – Accepted
59 59 – Accepted
(a) Process Validation
This last step sought to assess the interaction between the operator
and the collaborative robot-assembly station system. As in the OQ as-
sessment, we followed the recommendations of the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI/ASQ Z1.4 2008) [30] and initially selected a
representative sample of 59 pieces. However, to ensure the collabora-
tive robot's proper functioning, we expanded the sample to 360 pieces.
The acceptance criteria for the process validation test are listed below:
• The collaborative robot-assembly station system must be able to
assemble part number HH 1 × 1.
• The operator must be able to place the feeder fixture of the colla-
borative robot on the worktable.
• The collaborative robot must be able to take a pocket out of the
feeder fixture, and then place it inside the assembly station.
• The collaborative robot must not damage the pockets in any way,
including scratches or cracks.
3.2.6. Stage 6. Steps
(a) Training technicians
This step involved training the company technicians that would
maintain and monitor the collaborative robot's failures. A two-hour
training session was organized as Table 4 reports. All the technicians
were electronic or electromechanical professionals, so they had back-
ground knowledge on electric control and programming; however, note
that they were not trained in collaborative robot programming.
(a) Training operators
This step involved training company operators on the use of the
collaborative robot. The session was of utmost importance, since the
company operators would be directly interacting with the collaborative
robot. The session lasted 30 min and focused on how to press the start
cycle button and how to change the feeder fixture every time it gets
empty.
Fig. 8 deploys the steps of the methodology stages.
4. Results
4.1. Results of stage 1
As indicated in Section 3, the project charter presented an analysis
of the project's ROI. The analysis estimated the company's current an-
nual operating costs. Such data are summarized in Table 5 below.
On the other hand, Table 6 below summarizes the investments
(expressed in USD) that are necessary to purchase the collaborative
robot.
In turn, Table 7 estimates the company's annual operating costs in
case the collaborative robot is purchased and integrated in the assembly
station.
The annual costs of the system; that is, the costs associated with the
A. Realyvásquez-Vargas et al. Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 57 (2019) 315–328

collaborative robot's maintenance were estimated to be 500 USD. In

Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Status
turn, the company's cash flow for the following six years was calculated,
thereby yielding the data reported in Table 8 and plotted in Fig. 9.
According to the previous data, the project's ROI was calculated by
using Eq. (1) [31] as follows:
Bad samples

Initial investment
ROI =
Total savings (1)
–
–
–
–

In turn, the company's total savings were calculated by Eq. (2) as

Good samples

follows:
Total savings = Annualcostof the current operation Potential scenario
(2)
360
360
360
360

According to our calculations, the project's ROI would be possible

after 5.29 years of having implemented the collaborative robot, which
Total samples

is three years later than the recommended time period. In other cir-
cumstances, this aspect might question the project's viability; however,
360
360
360
360

our initiative aims at improving employee safety rather than reducing

costs. Therefore, the ROI period is acceptable. As for the company's
productivity, the process validation results revealed that cycle time
collaborative robot can correctly take a pocket out of the feeder fixture and place it inside the assembly station.

decreased by 15.46%, thereby going from 9.7 s to 8.2 s by piece. This

represented an increase in productivity by 18.3%.

4.2. Results of stage 2

collaborative robot does not damage the pockets in any way, including scratches or cracks.
collaborative robot-assembly station system can correctly assemble part number HH 1 × 1.

The mechanical design of the workstation also involved manu-

facturing a worktable to be used to assemble the collaborative robot.
Fig. 10 depicts all the design components as well as the 3D designs of
both the collaborative robot and the worktables (dimensions: 0.9 m x
0.82 m x 1.2 m). Note that anthropometric and ergonomic restrictions
were not considered in the design, since no body works on the table. As
for the process validation test, the collaborative robot-assembly station
operator can correctly place the collaborative robot's feeder fixture.

system met the following specifications:

• It was capable of correctly assembling part number HH 1 × 1.

• The operator could place the collaborative robot's feeder fixture.
• The collaborative robot was able to take a pocket out of the feeder
fixture, and then place it inside the assembly station.
• The collaborative robot did not damage any pocket in any way.
To transport the pockets’ fixture, we conditioned an existing tray,
which is depicted in Fig. 11.

4.3. Results of stage 3

4.3.1. Configure the collaborative robot

To configure the collaborative robot, we prepared the system to be
operated. At this stage, the collaborative robot initialized the internal
Specification

components and configured the gripper's force and speed. If the gripper
is not active, the collaborative robot cannot move forward with the
The
The
The
The

initialization process, and it thus alerts the operator and exits the
program. At the Home position, the collaborative robot moves to a
predefined position, which will always be the same and will serve as a
Collaborative robot-assembly station interaction

reference for the remaining collaborative robot coordinates. Fig. 12

depicts the Home position of the collaborative robot.
Collaborative robot-operator interaction

At the second stage, the collaborative robot waits for the operator to
give it the start signal, which occurs when he/she presses the "Start
Cycle" button located on the top right corner of the collaborative robot's
Process validation results.

worktable. This button is illustrated in Fig. 13.

Once the collaborative robot receives the start signal, it begins the
main cycle, which involves traversing each of the 27 positions of the
Visual inspection

pockets’ transportation fixture. Once this route ends, the collaborative

robot returns to its Home position, where it once more awaits the start
Assembly
Criterion

signal to re-enter its main cycle. Table 9 lists the reference positions
Table 13

used to configure the collaborative robot's movements, where Pk re-

presents a given position, and Rj stands for a given row in the

324
A. Realyvásquez-Vargas et al.
transportation fixture.
At each stage, the collaborative robot's security system was mon-
itored, since any abnormality can make it enter an alert state and thus
decrease its speed or stop working. Similarly, once the collaborative
robot is initialized, it enters an infinite operating cycle that can only be
stopped by either pressing the emergency button or selecting the "Stop"
option from the collaborative robot's console. As for the safety zones,
the warning zone was defined within a radius of 1.40 m of the sensor's
position, whereas the danger zone was defined within a radius of 1 m of
the same sensor. As Fig. 14 depicts, the warning zone is colored in
yellow and the danger zone is colored in red. Note the figure's left part
is not categorized as a warning/danger zone, since the conveyor belt is
located there.
The collaborative robot's optimal path was defined by the installa-
tion and physical position of the collaborative robot with respect to the
workstation that it feeds.
4.3.2. . Integrate the collaborative robot with the assembly station
To integrate the collaborative robot, we created an interface be-
tween the collaborative robot's controller and the PLC of the assembly
station. Similarly, the intelligent relay's output diagram controls the
warning light, the audible sound alarm, and the communication lines to
the assembly station. Fig. 15 depicts how the collaborative robot was
integrated with the assembly station. Note that this integration brought
changes in the workstation. Namely, the pockets must be preassembled
before being processed by the collaborative robot. Now, this step must
be performed in the company's existing manual assembly line, which
feeds the three pocket assembly stations; however, its implications lie
beyond the scope of our project. Finally, the new distribution of the
assembly station is depicted in Fig. 16 and was validated by a process
engineer. As the figure illustrates, the collaborative robot is now re-
sponsible for the feeding task, which was originally performed manu-
ally by an operator.
4.4. Results of stage 4
4.4.1. Initial risks identification
At the first stage of the collaborative robot's risk analysis, we
identified the sources of risks. Table 10 lists the aspects evaluated in the
plant, equipment, materials, and substances section. Note that those
aspects marked with an X were identified as risk sources.
As can be observed, three attention points were identified: me-
chanical trapping, risks related to electricity, and blows. According to
the company's procedures, a risk assessment must be performed from
the moment one potential risk source is detected. The results of the
assessment are introduced in the following section.
4.4.2. Hazard identification and risks assessment
The risk assessment results are introduced in Table 11 below.
Risks associated with electricity usage are always present in devices
fed by electrical energy; however, the severity level identified in the
collaborative robot is low. In this case, it is not necessary to rely on risk
controlling mechanisms other than those already provided by the col-
laborative robot (e.g. protection against electrostatic discharges, safe
isolation of power terminals). On the other hand, risks associated with
entrapment and knocks reported medium severity levels, yet they
should decrease to half of their value following the implementation of
the safety laser sensor, whose function is to prevent issues like these
from happening. In the end, we concluded that the collaborative robot-
assembly station system is safe for the company employees.
4.5. Results of stage 5
4.5.1. Installation qualification
The installation qualification test was successfully conducted. The
collaborative robot complied with all the requirements established in
325
Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 57 (2019) 315–328
Section 3. Moreover, we verified that the measurement equipment used
to check the installation parameters was properly calibrated.
4.5.2. Operation qualification
The Operation Qualification (OQ) test fulfilled all the acceptance
criteria, thereby confirming that the system can successfully perform
the task for which it was purposely designed. Table 12 summarizes the
OQ validation results. As can be observed, all the 59 samples fulfilled
the four acceptance criteria.
4.5.3. Process validation
The collaborative robot's integration with the company's current
assembly station was assessed through a process validation test. The
results are summarized in Table 13 and indicate that the system fulfills
all the acceptance criteria. Namely, the sample of 360 pieces that were
used to validate the system's process were accepted in their entirety.
5. Conclusions and recommendations
5.1. Conclusions
The main goal of our project was to configure and introduce a
collaborative robot in the pocket assembly task to minimize or elim-
inate occupational risks and thus increase organizational efficiency.
Our findings revealed that the collaborative robot successfully achieves
its goal. Similarly, the collaborative robot was configured and in-
troduced after thorough research on commercial collaborative robots
and robot safety standards. The introduction of our collaborative robot
with the assembly station is a major achievement in terms of ergonomic
risks reduction and employee safety enhancement. Moreover, sig-
nificant productivity improvement levels were identified, and the col-
laborative robot did manage to stabilize the behavior of the assembly
station, as its performance and working rhythm are more consistent
than those of a human operator.
As for our specific research objectives, the following conclusions can
be proposed:
1 Perform a risk analysis associated with the use of the collaborative
robot: Two major risk sources were identified: mechanical entrap-
ment and blows, which are caused by the collaborative robot's
movements. In this sense, it is important to implement the necessary
safety measures to minimize the incidence and severity of these
risks.
2 Validate the integration of the collaborative robot with the assembly
station: The use of the collaborative robot in the production line was
validated according to the company's assessment and validation
procedures.
3 Train technicians and operators on collaborative robot maintenance
and operation, respectively: The two training sessions were im-
parted and documented according to the company's policies.
In conclusion, our project demonstrates that collaborative robots are
a major trend that can successfully reduce occupational risks and in-
crease organizational performance. The present project was carried out
during the period of August–December 2018, but based on the results
obtained with this project, currently the company has a second colla-
borative robot was installed following the methodology discussed in
Section 3. Moreover, based on the results of this project, more plants of
the same company worldwide want to implement this collaborative
robot.
5.2. Recommendations
5.2.1. Recommendations from an ergonomic perspective
From an ergonomic perspective, we recommend performing an
overall ergonomic assessment in the company to detect high
A. Realyvásquez-Vargas et al. Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 57 (2019) 315–328

occupational risk levels that can cause MSDs among employees. The to remove the collaborative robot from the station every time these
assessment should aim at detecting risk factors such as uncomfortable models must be assembled.
postures, repetitive movements, and manual material handling, to
name but a few. Moreover, we suggest implementing advanced manu-
facturing technology to prevent or minimize the incidence of MSDs. Acknowledgments

5.2.2. Recommendations from a productivity perspective
Our collaborative robot was configured to run only one of the seven
pocket models that are usually assembled in the company's assembly
station. As a suggestion for future work, we hence recommend ex-
panding the collaborative robot's implementation to assemble models
HH 1 × 2, FH 2 × 1, and FH 2 × 2, which are the most demanded in
the production line. With such an expansion, it would not be necessary
The authors want to acknowledge both the manufacturing company
and the employees that volunteered for this project. Similarly, we thank
Mexico's national technological institute (TecNM), namely Tijuana's
technological institute, for allowing us to use its facilities. Finally,
special thanks to Mexico's National Council of Science and Technology
(CONACYT) and the Professional Teacher Development Program
(PRODEP) for their constant support.

Supplementary materials

Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2018.12.015.

Appendix A

Figs. A1–A3

Fig. A1. Initial risks detection form.

326
A. Realyvásquez-Vargas et al. Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 57 (2019) 315–328

Fig. A2. Hazard Detection and Risk Assessment Form.

Fig. A3. Analysis of Risk in Operations (ARO) Form.

327
A. Realyvásquez-Vargas et al.
References
[1] P Carneiro, AC Braga, M Barroso, Work-related musculoskeletal disorders in home
care nurses: study of the main risk factors, Int. J. Ind. Ergon 61 (2017) 22–28,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ERGON.2017.05.002.
[2] V Putz-Anderson, Cumulative Trauma Disorders, CRC Press, New York, 2017.
[3] R Simprini-Padula, ML Caires-Comper, E Sparer, J Dennerlein, Job rotation de-
signed to prevent musculoskeletal disorders and control risk in manufacturing in-
dustries: a systematic review, Appl. Ergon 58 (2017) 386–397, https://doi.org/10.
1016/J.APERGO.2016.07.018.
[4] Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Memoria Estadística del IMSS, (2016) Mem.
Estadística del IMSS http://www.imss.gob.mx/conoce-al-imss/memoria-
estadistica-2016 Accessed 14 Jun 2018.
[5] CG Bank, K Mosier, M Robertson, et al., Enhancing business effectiveness and
worker sustainability through HFE, Proceedings of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society 2017 Annual Meeting, SAGE Publications, 2017, pp. 890–893.
[6] AK Singh, ML Meena, H Chaudhary, GS Dangayach, Ergonomic assessment and
prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among washer-men during carpet washing:
guidelines to an effective sustainability in workstation design, Int. J. Hum. Factors
Ergon 5 (2017) 22–43, https://doi.org/10.1504/IJHFE.2017.088416.
[7] K Merckaert, A De Beir, N Adriaens, et al., Independent load carrying and mea-
surement manipulator robot arm for improved payload to mass ratio, Robot.
Comput. Integr. Manuf. 53 (2018) 135–140, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RCIM.
2018.04.001.
[8] K Merckaert, A De Beir, N Adriaens, et al., Independent load carrying and mea-
surement manipulator robot arm for improved payload to mass ratio, Robot.
Comput. Integr. Manuf. 53 (2018) 135–140, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RCIM.
2018.04.001.
[9] C Schou, RS Andersen, D Chrysostomou, et al., Skill-based instruction of colla-
borative robots in industrial settings, Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 53 (2018)
72–80, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2018.03.008.
[10] SG Moctezuma-Gutiérrez, A Cruz-Pazarán, R Galicia-Mejía, LN Oliva-Moreno,
Desarrollo de plataforma para implementación de robots colaborativos, Visión
Electrónica algo más que un Estado Sólido 12 (2018) 1–25.
[11] C Schou, RS Andersen, D Chrysostomou, et al., Skill-based instruction of colla-
borative robots in industrial settings, Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 53 (2018)
72–80, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2018.03.008.
[12] Görnemann O (2017) Seguridad De Los Robots Colaborativos Mitos – Realidades –
Futuro. In: Segur. Los Robot. Colab. Mitos – Real. – Futur. http://www.osalan.
euskadi.eus/contenidos/informacion/ponencias_jt170720_cursoverano/es_def/
adjuntos/ponencia_jt170720_otto_goernemann.pdf. Accessed 8 Jun 2018.
[13] Švarný P, Hoffmann M (2018) Cornell University Library. In: Saf. human-robot
Interact. through tactile sensors peripersonal Sp. Represent. http://arxiv.org/abs/
1805.07256. Accessed 8 Jun 2018.
[14] S Grahn, K Johansson, Y Eriksson, Safety assessment strategy for collaborative robot
installations, in: H Canbolat (Ed.), Robots Operating in Hazardous Environments,
1st ed., InTech, 2017, pp. 111–129.
[15] A Cherubini, R Passama, A Crosnier, et al., Collaborative manufacturing with
physical human–robot interaction, Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 40 (2016) 1–13,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RCIM.2015.12.007.
[16] XV Wang, L Wang, A Mohammed, M Givehchi, Ubiquitous manufacturing system
based on cloud: a robotics application, Robot. Comput Integr Manuf 45 (2017)
328
View publication stats
Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 57 (2019) 315–328
116–125, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RCIM.2016.01.007.
[17] V Gopinath, F Ore, K Johansen, Safe assembly cell layout through risk assessment –
an application with hand guided industrial robot, Proceedings of the Fiftieth CIRP
Conference Manufacturing Systems, 63 2017, pp. 430–435, , https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.procir.2017.03.160.
[18] E Matsas, G-C Vosniakos, D Batras, Prototyping proactive and adaptive techniques
for human-robot collaboration in manufacturing using virtual reality, Robot.
Comput. Integr. Manuf. 50 (2018) 168–180, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RCIM.
2017.09.005.
[19] A Cherubini, R Passama, A Crosnier, et al., Collaborative manufacturing with
physical human–robot interaction, Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 40 (2016) 1–13,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RCIM.2015.12.007.
[20] XV Wang, L Wang, A Mohammed, M Givehchi, Ubiquitous manufacturing system
based on cloud: a robotics application, Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 45 (2017)
116–125, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RCIM.2016.01.007.
[21] P Matteo Parigi, Z Andrea Maria, P Rocco, A computationally efficient safety as-
sessment for collaborative robotics applications, Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 46
(2017) 25–37, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RCIM.2016.11.002.
[22] M Ramy, J.-D.O Martin, E Hassan, Human-robot collaboration while sharing pro-
duction activities in dynamic environment: SPADER system, Robot. Comput. Integr.
Manuf. 48 (2017) 243–253, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RCIM.2017.04.010.
[23] EG Kaigom, J Roßmann, Physics-based simulation for manual robot guidance—An
eRobotics approach, Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 43 (2017) 155–163, https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.RCIM.2015.09.015.
[24] E Matsas, G-C Vosniakos, D Batras, Prototyping proactive and adaptive techniques
for human-robot collaboration in manufacturing using virtual reality, Robot.
Comput. Integr. Manuf. 50 (2018) 168–180, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RCIM.
2017.09.005.
[25] B Yao, Z Zhou, L Wang, et al., Sensorless and adaptive admittance control of in-
dustrial robot in physical human−robot interaction, Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.
51 (2018) 158–168, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RCIM.2017.12.004.
[26] Owen-Hill A (2016) What is the Best Programming Language for Robotics? In: What
is Best Program. Lang. Robot. https://blog.robotiq.com/what-is-the-best-
programming-language-for-robotics. Accessed 14 Jun 2018.
[27] Owen-Hill A (2016) What Are the Different Programming Methods for Robots? In:
What Are Differ. Program. Methods Robot. https://blog.robotiq.com/what-are-the-
different-programming-methods-for-robots. Accessed 13 Jun 2018.
[28] Owen-Hill A (2018) What Are the Different Programming Methods for Robots? In:
What Are Differ. Program. Methods Robot.
[29] Universal Robots (2018) ▷ Brazo Robótico UR3 [Versátil y con Programación
Intuitiva]. In: Univers. Robot UR3. https://www.universal-robots.com/es/
productos/robot-ur3/?utm_term=ur3&utm_campaign=Spanish+-+LatAM&utm_
source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_tgt=kwd-20258130&hsa_grp=
16888383546&hsa_src=g&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_mt=b&hsa_ver=3&hsa_ad=
64204970706&hsa_acc=638537552. Accessed 27 Oct 2018.
[30] W Gaus, R Muche, B Mayer, Statistical Considerations for lot-by-lot acceptance/
rejection sampling with an attribute, Int. J. Qual. Res. 11 (2017) 799–816, https://
doi.org/10.18421/IJQR11.04-05.
[31] Bélanger-Barrette M (2015) How Long to Payback my Robot Investment? In: How
Long to Payback my Robot Investment? https://blog.robotiq.com/how-long-before-
i-can-payback-my-robot-investment. Accessed 14 Jun 2018.