0
Research Papers: Mechanisms and Robotics

A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Design Approaches for Human-Friendly Robots

[+] Author and Article Information
Nicolas Lauzier

Département de Génie Mécanique,
Université Laval,
Québec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada

Clément Gosselin

Département de Génie Mécanique,
Université Laval,
Québec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
e-mail: gosselin@gmc.ulaval.ca

This assumption is conservative since it assumes an infinitely stiff robot.

This angle corresponds to a deflection of 8 cm of the constrained head (never attained) and is used to limit the static torque in simulations.

1Present address: Robotiq, 966 Chemin Olivier, Suite 325 Lévis, QC G7A 2N1, Canada.

Contributed by the Mechanisms and Robotics Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received December 1, 2014; final manuscript received April 30, 2015; published online June 16, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Ettore Pennestri.

J. Mech. Des 137(8), 082302 (Aug 01, 2015) (8 pages) Paper No: MD-14-1763; doi: 10.1115/1.4030649 History: Received December 01, 2014; Revised April 30, 2015; Online June 16, 2015

In this paper, different measures for reducing the maximum contact force during blunt collisions between a robot and a human are evaluated using simulations. An existing collision model is adapted to include a nonlinear compliant covering, articular safety mechanisms (compliant joint and two types of torque limiters), and a collision detection system. Several scenarios are simulated in which the collision occurs at a low or high velocity, the head of the person (on which the collision occurs) is constrained by a wall or free to move and the reflected motor inertia is large or small compared to the link inertia. The results show that a torque limiter in series with each actuator has the potential to significantly improve safety without reducing the robot's performances.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Physical parameters of the collision model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic representation of the collision model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Contact force versus time for collisions with an impact velocity of 2 m/s with the head unconstrained

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Contact force versus time for collisions with an impact velocity of 2 m/s with the head constrained

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Maximum contact force as a function of the impact velocity for the unconstrained head scenario

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Normalized maximum contact force for an impact velocity of 0.2 m/s with the head constrained and with the reference motor inertia (maximum force = 248 N)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Normalized maximum contact force for an impact velocity of 2 m/s with the head unconstrained and with the reference motor inertia (maximum force = 1708 N)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Normalized maximum contact force for an impact velocity of 2 m/s with the head constrained and with the reference motor inertia (maximum force = 2462 N)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Normalized maximum contact force for an impact velocity of 2 m/s with the head unconstrained and with the motor inertia equal to ten times the link inertia (maximum force = 1965 N)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Normalized maximum contact force for an impact velocity of 2 m/s with the head constrained and with the motor inertia equal to ten times the link inertia (maximum force = 5554 N)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In