Note: This paper is a Pdf version courtesy of authors of the original article published in

the online science web site Substance from École de technologie supérieure. You can
read it in the following link
https://substance.etsmtl.ca/en/assembly-guidance-systems-aerospace-manufacturing

Assembly Guidance Systems in Aerospace Manufacturing

Yaniel Torres Medina, Eng., M.Sc., M.Eng., doctoral student, École de technologie
supérieure
Sylvie Nadeau, Eng., Ph.D., Professor, École de technologie supérieure
Kurt Landau, Dr.-Eng., Dipl.-Wirtsch.-Eng., Adjunct Professor, École de technologie
supérieure and Professor Emeritus TU Darmstadt (Germany)

Purchased on Istock.com. Copyright.

Abstract
Despite increasing automation related to Industry 4.0, manual assembly systems will keep playing
an important role, particularly in some manufacturing domains like aerospace manufacturing. In
this context, different technologies are promising to support humans in the execution of their
tasks. We present an assembly guidance system solution. An integrated technology with the
potential to improve human performance in terms of quality and reduction of human errors.

The role of manual assembly in the aerospace

Assembly lines can be considered as processes where parts are systematically added
through a workflow to obtain a final product. Depending on the degree of standardization
and the nature of tasks, automation, including full automation, of assembly lines has been
sought more systematically in some industrial sectors than others. Automotive industry has
privileged a mostly fully automated assembly, where humans still play a role but mostly
limited to specific phases of the process. In contrast, in the aerospace industry, the
complexity of the object to manufacture and the high level of requirements involve that
manual assembly and particularly humans still play a more prominent role. Aircraft are not
mass consumption goods, and this limits the extent in which an automated assembly line
can be deployed.
Human error and quality issues in manual assembly

Purchased on Istock.com. Copyright.

In the context of aerospace, a high reliability sector, quality is a key aspect of production
not only because of the economic loss associated but also because of the potential impact
on safety. Unfortunately, humans are not infallible and errors during the assembly process
can occur leading to quality issues. Examples of error that can occur in a manual assembly
are loose connections, a missing component, damage during assembly and foreign objects
or contamination, among others. Recently, Boeing was forced to ground its 767-based KC-
46 tankers when the US Air Force expressed concern about FOD (foreign object debris)
found in various locations inside the completed airplanes (Gates 2019). The origin of these
errors, from a system’s approach, is frequently associated with the design of the work
system or some elements of the work environment, for example, workload, work rate,
complex work content or unclear instructions, among others (Eklund 1997). In some cases,
more realistic visual instructions could help in decreasing the level of interpretation needed
by the assemblers.

Assembly guidance system in Industry 4.0 context

With the introduction of artificial intelligence within the framework of Industry 4.0,
machine vision is expanding its applications. Vision system components can assist in
simplifying complex manual assembly, inspection, sequencing and training operations for
the assemblers (Ryznar 2016). Worker guidance systems blend machine vision and
augmented reality with human intelligence. This kind of system is capable of guiding and
validating the assembly process conducted by the assemblers.
Different configurations of these information and assistance systems are available.
Microsoft proposes HoloLens 2, a mixed-reality headset specially designed to support
factory workers. The system can track, in real time, what the worker is doing using Azure
Kinect sensors, the Microsoft cameras system can scan the context to detect real objects.
A holographic set of instructions can then be displayed to the worker according to the
different steps of the assembly process. The use of this kind of configuration based on
headsets still poses serious challenges in terms of comfort as well as other aspects like
vision field (Bohn 2019). For example, wearing the headset for the entire work shift
duration could be perceived by workers as uncomfortable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8c3pDKdHEc

Another promising configuration is Light Guide Systems (LGS). In this case, by using
machine vision, overhead cameras can detect what the assembler is carrying out and
instructions can then be projected directly down on the workspace or onto the object to
assemble by using high intensity projectors. Mayrhofer et al. (2019) propose such a system
used in the assembly of aircraft wings. This configuration has the advantage that the
assembler does not need to wear any headset, but workers needs to stay most of the time
in the same workspace since the system is fixed. It could also be more comfortable from a
visual perspective. However, LGS could be limited in the delivery of 3D instructions to the
assemblers. The system can indicate the position of a part to be installed, but when different
orientations are possible it could be difficult to project the exact orientation of the part in a
2D surface. This is an important drawback as one wants to prevent geometry related errors
in manual assembly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=31&v=rGdknTWnt1c

Conclusion
Worker guidance systems in assembly represent a potential solution to support human
performance in terms of quality. Questions remain to be answered as to the proper selection
and deployment of these technologies. The Applied Human Factors Lab team of ÉTS
studies, among others, the usability of these digital technologies.

Additional Information
For more information on this research, please read the following conference paper:

Torres, Y.; Nadeau, S.; Landau, K. (2019). “Application of human errors analysis
in manufacturing: A proposed intervention framework and techniques selection”.
Kongress der Gesellschaft für Arbeitswissenschaft. Dresden (Germany), GfA-Press.
65.

References:

Bohn, D. (2019, 2019-02-24). "Microsoft’s HoloLens 2: a $3,500 mixed reality headset for the
factory, not the living room." The Verge, from
https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/24/18235460/microsoft-hololens-2-price-specs-
mixed-reality-ar-vr-business-work-features-mwc-2019.
Eklund, J. (1997). "Ergonomics, quality and continuous improvement conceptual and empirical
relationships in an industrial context." Ergonomics 40(10): 982 - 1001.
Gates, D. (2019). Boeing tanker jets grounded due to tools and debris left during manufacturing.
The Seattle Times.
Mayrhofer, W., P. Rupprecht, et al. (2019). "One-fits-all vs. tailor-made: user-centered
workstations for field assembly with an application in aircraft parts manufacturing."
Procedia Manufacturing 00(00): 9.
Ryznar, P. (2016) "Vision systems and augmented reality error-proof assembly."

Authors
Yaniel Torres Medina is a doctoral student of the Applied Human Factors Lab at ÉTS under
the supervision of Prof Nadeau and Landau. Industrial engineer, his research activities are
focused on the application of ergonomics to the analysis and design of Industry 4.0 work
systems.
Sylvie Nadeau is a professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at ÉTS.
Industrial engineer, she is an expert in ergonomics and human factors engineering. Her
research interests include musculoskeletal injury prevention, OHS management, and
integrated risk management (operational and OHS).
Kurt Landau is an adjunct professor at ÉTS and Professor Emeritus at TU Darmstadt
(Germany). His research interests focus on occupational sciences, OHS risk analysis and
prevention.