34_8_1.dvi

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "34_8_1.dvi"

きみえひろもり
5 years ago
Views:

1 Vol. 34 No. 8, pp , Risk Estimation of Human-coexistence-robot based on Movement History of Humans Shinya Kotosaka 1, Shouta Kera 2 and Ryuichi Hodoshima 1 In recent years, the realization of human-coexistence robot for housework and care is expected. The humancoexistence robot, works around human, frequent contact with the human being is expected. Therefore, it is necessary to perform risk assessment beforehand. However, the statistics data of the past accident does not exist because the human-coexistence robot is a new device. In addition, it is also difficult to identify the working method and environment. Therefore, quantitative risk assessment cannot be performed by the conventional technique of risk assessment. In this research, the quantitative exposure frequency evaluation technique is proposed to estimate the collision risk of the human-coexistence robot that works under the environment for human activity. In this study, it is assumed that highly developed human-coexistence robot has the same as the human form, and works with the same way as human beings. And quantitative exposure frequency evaluation is performed by analyzing the movement of the human being who imitated the robot. For verification of the proposed method, the authors have performed an evaluation experiment on exposure frequency of human-type robot to perform the cleaning work, and show the experimental results. Key Words: Risk Assessment, Human-Coexistence Robot, Humanoid, Risk Estimation, Frequency of Exposure, Movement History 1. [1] [3] [4] [5] [6] JIS B Saitama University 2 SIGMA CORPORATION [7] FMEA FTA [8] [9] [5] [10] [13] [14] [15] [16] [29]

2 JIS B 9700 B [7] [8] [9] FTA [8] PHA [17] UML [18] [19] CG [14] [15] [17] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [20] [27] MIL-STD-882D [28] [9] JIS B 9700:2013 [7] [29] JRSJ Vol. 34 No Oct., 2016

537 [3] Ogure [30] 3. 3. 1 4 Fig. 1 1.8 [m] 0 0.91.8 [m] 1 0.40.9 [m] 2 0.4 [m] 3 1.7 [m] 0.9 [m] 1 2 3 0 Fig.

3 537 [3] Ogure [30] Fig [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] 0.9 [m] Fig. 1 Definition of the proximity level for exposure frequency evaluation 3. 2 [8] [9] F T,n,A = m n Cn,ij CLx 1 A T n n i=1 j=1 i j m n T n n [s] C n,ij CLx n i j C Lx [s] A [m 2 ] F T,n,A 1 C Lx

Dipp-Motion Pro 4. 3 1 3 70 [m 2 ] 29.8 [m 2 ] Fig. 2 Fig.

3 Room for performing exposure frequency evaluation Human s movement

4 538 1 F T,n,A CCD FL2G-13S2C-C Point Grey FV0420 Myutron [fps] DITECT Dipp-Motion Pro [m 2 ] 29.8 [m 2 ] Fig. 2 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Room for performing exposure frequency evaluation Human s movement history of role of the robot [3] [s] [s] [s] 120 [s] Fig. 3 [s] Fig. 2 X Y Z 1 3 Table 1 Table 2 Table 1 6 Table 2 7 Cn,ij CLx [s] R1 H2 H7 JRSJ Vol. 34 No Oct., 2016

5 539 Table 1 Total time for each proximity level (6 subjects) Table 3 Estimated normalization exposure intensity Table 2 Total time for each proximity level (7 subjects) Table 1 H2 6 Table 1 Table 2 [s] 1 Table 3 Table 3 1 [1/m 2 /person] % Table 2 n = Table Table L 5 S 2 7 Table 4 L L1 L5 S S1 S2 L 70.0 [m 2 ] 29.8 [m 2 ] S 41.8 [m 2 ] 12.1 [m 2 ] 4.3 L

6 540 Table 4 Estimated normalization exposure intensity under different conditions Table 4 1 L1 5 L S [m] [31] JRSJ Vol. 34 No Oct., 2016

7 [29] 3 [32] ATR [33]

8 C [1] [ 2 ] J.T. Chuan Tan, F. Duan, R. Kato and T. Arai: Safety Strategy for Human-Robot Collaboration: Design and Development in Cellular Manufacturing, Advanced Robotics, vol.24, no.5 6, pp , [3] PaDY 1 C vol.77, no.783, pp , 2011 [4] JIS B [5] [ 6 ] ISO : 2014 Robots and robotic devices Safety requirements for personal care robots. [ 7 ] JIS B 9700 : 2013 [8] [9] roudoukijun/anzeneisei14/index.html. [10] L. Suwoong and Y. Yoji: Strategy on Safety Function Implementation: Case Study Involving Risk Assessment and Functional Safety Analysis for a Power Assist System, Advance Robotics, vol.24, no.13, pp , [11] 1 PaPeRo vol.25, no.8, pp , [12] ALSOK i vol.24, no.2, pp , [13] S. Haddadin, A. Albu-Schäffer,M.Frommberger,J.Rossmann and G. Hirzinger: The DLR Crash Report : Towards a Standard Crash-Testing Protocol for Robot Safety Part I: Results, Proc. of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp , [14] vol.25, no.8, pp , [15] vol.29, no.5, pp , [16] B.S. Dhillon: Robot Reliability and Safety. Springer, [17] PHA C vol.75, no.759, pp , [18] vol.27, no.8, pp , [19] J. Guiochet, D. Martin-Guillerez and D. Powell, Experience with Model-Based User-Centered Risk Assessment for Service Robots, Proc. of the IEEE 12th International Symposium on High-Assurance Systems Engineering (HASE), pp , [20] 2011 pp , [21] vol.82, no.726, pp , [22] C vol.63, no.612, pp , [23] S. Haddadin, A. Albu-Schäffer and G. Hirzinger: The Role of the Robot Mass and Velocity in Physical Human- Robot Interaction Part I : Non-constrained Blunt Impacts, IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp , [24] vol.17, no.3, pp , [25] vol.601, pp.81 85, [26] K. Quian, X. Ma, X. Dai and F. Fang: Socially Acceptable Pre-collision Safety Strategies for Human-Compliant Navigation of Service Robots, Advanced Robotics, vol.24, no.13, pp , [27] 2011 pp , [28] Mil-STD-882D: STANDARD PRACTICE FOR SYSTEM SAFETY, [29] vol.15, no.7, pp , [30] T. Ogure, Y. Nakbo, S. Hee Jeong and Y. Yamada: Risk Management Simulator for Low-powered Human-collaborative Industrial Robots, Proc. of International Conference on Intelligent Robot and Systems IROS2009, pp.49 54, [31] vol.30, no.6, pp , 2012 [32] vol.49, no.1, pp.7 14, [33] vol.7, no.1, pp.27 37, JRSJ Vol. 34 No Oct., 2016

9 543 Shinya Kotosaka 1996 ATR Shouta Kera Ryuichi Hodoshima COE 2008 SMS

第６２巻　第１号　平成２４年４月／石こうを用いた木材ペレット

第６２巻　第１号　平成２４年４月／石こうを用いた木材ペレット Bulletin of Japan Association for Fire Science and Engineering Vol. 62. No. 1 (2012) Development of Two-Dimensional Simple Simulation Model and Evaluation of Discharge Ability for Water Discharge of Firefighting