Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T21:02:49.600Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Collision analysis and safety evaluation using a collision model for the frontal robot–human impact

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2014

Jung-Jun Park,
Jae-Bok Song and
Sami Haddadin
Jung-Jun Park
Affiliation:
Manufacturing Center, Samsung Electronics, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Jae-Bok Song*
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical Engineering, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Sami Haddadin
Affiliation:
Institute of Automatic Control, Leibniz University Hanover (LUH), Germany
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: jbsong@korea.ac.kr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

The safety analysis of human–robot collisions has recently drawn significant attention, as robots are increasingly used in human environments. In order to understand the potential injury a robot could cause in case of an impact, such incidents should be evaluated before designing a robot arm based on biomechanical safety criteria. In recent literature, such incidents have been investigated mostly by experimental crash-testing. However, experimental methods are expensive, and the design parameters of the robot arm are difficult to change instantly. In order to solve this issue, we propose a novel robot-human collision model consisting of a 6-degree-of-freedom mass-spring-damper system for impact analysis. Since the proposed robot-human consists of a head, neck, chest, and torso, the relative motion among these body parts can be analyzed. In this study, collision analysis of impacts to the head, neck, and chest at various collision speeds are conducted using the proposed collision model. Then, the degree of injury is estimated by using various biomechanical severity indices. The reliability of the proposed collision model is verified by comparing the obtained simulation results with experimental results from literature. Furthermore, the basic requirements for the design of safer robots are determined.

Keywords

Physical human–robot interactionCollision analysis and modelSafe robotsHuman injury analysis

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Robotica , Volume 33 , Issue 7 , August 2015, pp. 1536 - 1550
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

References

1. Haddadin, S., Albu-Schaffer, A., Frommberger, M., Rossmann, J. and Hirzinger, G., “The DLR Crash Report: Towards a Standard Crash-Testing Protocol for Robot Safety – Part I: Results,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2009) pp. 272–279.Google Scholar
2. Haddadin, S., Albu-Schaffer, A., Frommberger, M., Rossmann, J. and Hirzinger, G., “The DLR Crash Report: Towards a Standard Crash-Testing Protocol for Robot Safety – Part II: Discussions,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2009) pp. 280–287.Google Scholar
3. Park, J. J., Kim, B. S., Song, J. B. and Kim, H. S., “Safe link mechanism based on nonlinear stiffness for collision safety,” Mech. Mach. Theory 43 (10), 1332–1348 (2008).Google Scholar
4. Bicchi, A. and Tonietti, G., “Fast and soft arm tactics: Dealing with the safety-performance tradeoff in robot arms design and control,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 11 (2), 22–33 (2004).Google Scholar
5. Haddadin, S., Albu-Schäffer, A. and Hirzinger, G., “The Role of the Robot Mass and Velocity in Physical Human–Robot Interaction – Part I: Unconstrained Blunt Impacts,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2008) pp. 1331–1338.Google Scholar
6. Haddadin, S., Albu-Schaffer, A. and Hirzinger, G., “The Role of the Robot Mass and Velocity in Physical Human–Robot Interaction – Part II: Constrained Blunt Impacts,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2008) pp. 1339–1345.Google Scholar
7. ISO-10218, Robots for Industrial Environments – Safety Requirements – Part 1: Robot (2006).Google Scholar
8. Yamada, Y., Hirasawa, Y., Huang, S.Y. and Umetani, Y., “Fail-Safe Human/Robot Contact in the Safety Space,” IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Communication (1996) pp. 59–64.Google Scholar
9. Kim, B. S., Song, J. B., and Park, J. J., “A Serial-type Dual Actuator Unit with Planetary Gear Train: Basic Design and Applications,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics 15 (1), 108–116 (2010).Google Scholar
10. Kulic, D. and Croft, E. A., “Pre collision safety strategies for human robot interaction,” Auton. Robots 22 (2), 149–164 (2007).Google Scholar
11. AAAM, The Abbreviated Injury Scale (1990) Revision Update 1998 (Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, Barrington, IL, 1998).Google Scholar
12. Nahum, A. M. “The prediction of Maxillo facial trauma”. Trans Am. Acad. Opth. Otol. 84, 932–933 (1976).Google Scholar
13. Hodgson, V. R., “Tolerance of facial bones to impact,” Am. J. Anat. 120, 113–122 (1967).Google Scholar
14. Allsop, D. L., Warner, C. Y., Wille, M. G., Schneider, D. C. and Nahum, A. M., “Facial Impact Response - A Comparison of the Hybrid III Dummy and Human Cadaver (SAE Paper No.881719),” Proceedings of the 32th Stapp Car Crash Conference (1988) pp. 781–797.Google Scholar
15. Melvin, J., “Human Tolerance to Impact Conditions as related to Motor Vehicle Design”. SAE J885 APR80. (1980).Google Scholar
16. Schneider, D. C. and Nahum, A. M., “Impact Studied of Facial Bone and Skull,” Proceedings of the 16th Stapp Car Crash Conference, SAE Paper No. 720965 (1974) 186 pp.Google Scholar
17. Swearingen, J. J., Tolerances of the Human Face to Crash Impact (Federal Aviation Agency, Civil Aeromedical Research Institute, Oklahoma City, USA, 1965).Google Scholar
18. Mertz, H. J., Anthropomorphic test devices. Accidental Injury - Biomechanics and Prevention Chapter 4 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1993).Google Scholar
19. Mertz, H. J. and Patrick, L. M., “Investigation of the Kinematics and Kinetics of Whiplash,” Proceedings of the 11th Stapp Car Crash Conference, SAE Paper No. 670919 (1967) pp. 267–317.Google Scholar
20. Melvin, J. W., “Response of Human Larynx to Blunt Loading,” Proceedings of the 17th Stapp Car Crash Conference, SAE Paper No. 730967. (1973).Google Scholar
21. Patrick, L., “Impact Force Deflection of the Human Thorax,” Proceedings of the 25th Stapp Car Crash Conference, SAE Paper No. 811014 (1981) pp. 471–496.Google Scholar
22. Kroell, C., Scheider, D. and Nahum, A., “Impact Tolerance and Response of the Human Thorax,” Proceedings of 15th Stapp Car Crash Conference, SAE Paper No.710851 (1971) pp. 84–134.Google Scholar
23. Lau, I., and Viano, D., “Thoracic Impact: A Viscous Tolerance Criterion,” Proceedings of 10th Experimental Safety Vehicle Conference (1985).Google Scholar
24. Khatib, O., “Inertial properties in robotic manipulation: An object-level framework,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 14 (1), 19–36 (1995).Google Scholar
25. Kaleps, I. and Whitestone, J., “Hybrid III Geometrical and Inertial Properties,” SAE Paper No.880638 (1988).Google Scholar
26. Lobdell, T. F., “Impact Response of the Human Thorax,” Proceedings of the Symposium Human Impact Response Measurement and Simulation (1973) pp. 201–245.Google Scholar
27. Nyquist, G. W., Cavanaugh, J. M., Goldberg, S. J. and King, A. I., “Facial Impact Tolerance and Response (SAE Paper No.861896),” Proceedings of the 30th Stapp Car Crash Conference (1986) pp. 379–400.Google Scholar
28. Gray, H., Anatomy of the Human Body (Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, 1918).Google Scholar
29. Horsch, J. and Schneider, D., “Biofidelity of the Hybrid III Thorax in High-Velocity Frontal Impact,” SAE Paper No.880718. (1988).Google Scholar
30. FMVS Standards, FMVSS 208 - Occupant Crash Protection (2004).Google Scholar