A truly safely moving robot has to know what injury it may cause

Enabling robots to safely interact with humans is an essential goal of robotics research. The developments achieved over the last years in mechanical design and control made it possible to have active cooperation between humans and robots in rather complex situations. In these terms, safe behavior of the robot even under worst-case situations is crucial and forms also a basis for higher level decisional aspects. In order to quantify what safe behavior really means, the definition of injury, as well as understanding its general dynamics are essential. This insight can then be applied to design and control robots such that injury due to robot-human impacts is explicitly taken into account. In this paper we approach the problem from a medical injury analysis point of view in order to formulate the relation between robot mass, velocity, impact geometry, and resulting injury qualified in medical terms. We transform these insights into processable representations and propose a motion supervisor that utilizes injury knowledge for generating safe robot motions. The algorithm takes into account the reflected inertia, velocity, and geometry at possible impact locations. The proposed framework forms a basis for generating truly safe velocity bounds that explicitely consider the dynamic properties of the manipulator and human injury.

[1]  Alexander Zelinsky,et al.  Quantitative Safety Guarantees for Physical Human-Robot Interaction , 2003, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[2]  Antonio Bicchi,et al.  Dealing with the Safety-Performance Tradeoff in Robot Arms Design and Control , 2004 .

[3]  John Kenneth Salisbury,et al.  A New Actuation Approach for Human Friendly Robot Design , 2004, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[4]  Dalong Gao,et al.  Head injury criterion , 2009, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine.

[5]  Alin Albu-Schäffer,et al.  The DLR lightweight robot: design and control concepts for robots in human environments , 2007, Ind. Robot.

[6]  W. Meyer Bemerkungen zur Eignung der Schweinehaut als biologisches Modell für die Haut des Menschen , 1996, Der Hautarzt.

[7]  Alessandro De Luca,et al.  Collision detection and reaction: A contribution to safe physical Human-Robot Interaction , 2008, 2008 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[8]  Alin Albu-Schäffer,et al.  The “DLR crash report”: Towards a standard crash-testing protocol for robot safety - Part II: Discussions , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[9]  Alin Albu-Schäffer,et al.  Safety Evaluation of Physical Human-Robot Interaction via Crash-Testing , 2007, Robotics: Science and Systems.

[10]  Alin Albu-Schäffer,et al.  Safe Physical Human-Robot Interaction: Measurements, Analysis and New Insights , 2007, ISRR.

[11]  Yoji Yamada,et al.  Human-robot contact in the safeguarding space , 1997 .

[12]  Alin Albu-Schäffer,et al.  Designing optimally safe robot surface properties for minimizing the stress characteristics of human-robot collisions , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[13]  Alessandro De Luca,et al.  An adapt-and-detect actuator FDI scheme for robot manipulators , 2004, IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2004. Proceedings. ICRA '04. 2004.

[14]  Jae-Bok Song,et al.  Collision analysis and evaluation of collision safety for service robots working in human environments , 2009, 2009 International Conference on Advanced Robotics.

[15]  Antonio Bicchi,et al.  Fast and "soft-arm" tactics [robot arm design] , 2004, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine.

[16]  Alin Albu-Schäffer,et al.  The “DLR Crash Report”: Towards a standard crash-testing protocol for robot safety - Part I: Results , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[17]  Rolf Dieter Schraft,et al.  Robot-Dummy Crash Tests for Robot Safety Assessment , 2007, Proceedings 2007 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[18]  Pranesh Sthapit,et al.  Smart digital door lock for the home automation , 2009, TENCON 2009 - 2009 IEEE Region 10 Conference.

[19]  Antonio Bicchi,et al.  On making robots understand safety: Embedding injury knowledge into control , 2012, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[20]  Stefano Stramigioli,et al.  Towards a novel safety norm for domestic robotics , 2007, 2007 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[21]  W. Meyer [Comments on the suitability of swine skin as a biological model for human skin]. , 1996, Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete.

[22]  Tadej Bajd,et al.  Industrial robot and human operator collision , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics.

[23]  Alin Albu-Schäffer,et al.  Requirements for Safe Robots: Measurements, Analysis and New Insights , 2009, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[24]  Koji Ikuta,et al.  Safety Evaluation Method of Design and Control for Human-Care Robots , 2003, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[25]  Oussama Khatib,et al.  A hybrid actuation approach for human-friendly robot design , 2008, 2008 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[26]  Neville Hogan,et al.  Impedance Control: An Approach to Manipulation: Part II—Implementation , 1985 .

[27]  Oussama Khatib,et al.  Inertial Properties in Robotic Manipulation: An Object-Level Framework , 1995, Int. J. Robotics Res..