Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Manufacturing 11 (2017) 4 – 12

27th International Conference on Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing, FAIM2017,

27-30 June 2017, Modena, Italy

Method for design of human-industrial robot collaboration

workstations
Fredrik Orea,b*, Lars Hanssonb,c,d, Magnus Wiktorssona
a
Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Eskilstuna, Sweden
b
Scania CV AB, Global Industrial Development, Södertälje, Sweden
c
University of Skövde, School of Engineering Science, Skövde, Sweden
d
Chalmers University of Technology, Department of Product and Production Development, Gothenburg, Sweden

Abstract

In order to fully utilise a 3D simulation software capable of evaluating hand-guided human-industrial robot collaborative (HIRC)
work tasks, there is a need of a HIRC design process for early production development stages. This paper proposes a HIRC
design method that uses the possibilities of the demonstrator software in the HIRC workstation design process. The method is
based on Pahl and Beitz’s engineering design method; it interprets all their phases and activities into HIRC design-specific ones.

© 2017 The Authors.

© 2017 Published
The Authors. by Elsevier
Published B.V. This
by Elsevier is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
B.V.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committeecommittee of International
of the 27th the 27th International
ConferenceConference
on Flexibleon Flexible Automation
Automation and and
IntelligentManufacturing
Intelligent Manufacturing.

Keywords: Human-robot collaboration; Human-robot Interaction; Simulation; Collaborative assembly; Hybrid workstation; Workstation
design; Digital human modelling; Design method

1. Introduction

Human-industrial robot collaboration (HIRC) is a rapidly growing field in research. A literature search performed
in 2015 showed a four-time increase in the number of academic publications per year between 2005 and 2014 [1].
The potential to combine the beneficial characteristics of the human with those of the industrial robot opens huge
possibilities to simultaneously increase productivity and reduce ergonomically bad work postures [2]. The vision is

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +46-8-553-51237.

E-mail address: Fredrik.ore@scania.com

2351-9789 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 27th International Conference on Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing
doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.112
 Fredrik Ore et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 11 (2017) 4 – 12 5

to create more productive workstations through combining human intelligence and flexibility with industrial robotic
strength, endurance and accuracy [3, 4].
Simulation software is used in manufacturing companies early in production development processes to shorten
development time, increase quality and reduce costs [5]. These tools are used to support decision making in the
companies [6] and are an integral part of the engineering activities in many manufacturing companies [7]. However,
this statement is not valid for HIRC systems; the possibility to virtually evaluate entire HIRC systems before making
an investment decision is very limited in available simulation software.
In order to meet this need, a demonstrator simulation software was developed, making it possible to design and
evaluate HIRC workstation layouts early in the production development phases [8]. This software enables
simulation of hand-guiding HIRC tasks in 3D CAD environments. It can be used to analyse reachability for both
industrial robots and humans, present layout alternatives and be a tool for risk assessment in HIRC workstation
design assignments. The software generates quantitative outputs considering operation time and biomechanical load
assessments for fully manual, fully automated and any hybrid (HIRC) workstation. These quantitative outputs can
be used to compare alternative solutions in an objective way.
The demonstrator software is designed to be used during HIRC workstation design. However, to get the full
potential from virtual simulations, there is a need of a HIRC design process for early production development
stages. Thus, the aim of this paper is to propose a HIRC design method that can be used in early phases on
production development processes.

2. Method

Experience from design of four industrial HIRC cases [8, 9] in the development of the HIRC demonstrator
simulation software led to the development of the proposed method. In order to gain validity of the proposed HIRC
design method, it was connected to existing design methods. Pahl and Beitz’s engineering design method was
chosen, as it has become the reference work to teach design engineers a systematic method to include a
heterogeneous set of theories and methods for one product design process [10]. The latest English edition (3rd) of
their work (co-authored by Feldheusen and Grote) was used in developing the HIRC design method proposed in this
paper [11]. The method is referred to as the engineering design framework in this paper.

3. Frame of reference

Systematic design has been developed over the past several decades as a best practice for product design [12]. A
frequent view in design research is to consider the design process as following a sequential scheme. From product
planning and design, a number of processes have been proposed that follow that scheme, e.g., [11], [13-15]. These
generic design processes have been applied in production development processes, such as [16-19].
The book Engineering design: a systematic approach written by Pahl and Beitz was first released in 1977 in
German, Konstruktionslehre [20]; it has become the reference work in teaching design processes [10]. This
engineering design framework consists of four main phases: planning, conceptual design, embodiment design and
detailed design [11]. Despite the linear flow from planning to detailed design, it is important to understand that
design is an iterative process, demanding use of new knowledge back in previous phases and activities.
HIRC design methods presented in research publications are mainly limited to the work task allocation problem,
i.e., which resource is most suitable to perform a task: the human or the industrial robot? Pini el al. also base their
design approach in the engineering design framework presented by Pahl and Beitz [21]. They present qualitative
suitability comparison between manual and robotic task allocation. Economic profitability of the solution are
included. Chen et al. present a method to use multi-objective optimisation techniques to choose a suitable task
allocation based on assembly time and economic cost [22]. Tsarouchi et al. have a similar approach in their task
allocation method [23]. They present an decision making method that considers mean flowtime and utilisation costs
in its decisions. All these methods use time and cost as evaluation criteria, but none of them describes how to gather
data into the selection process. One approach is to measure these before the task allocation can begin. However, in
early phases of production design it is difficult to achieve these data since no physical workstation exists. This
6 Fredrik Ore et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 11 (2017) 4 – 12

highlights the need of simulation software in order to make accurate production investment decisions early in the
production development process.
A few early developments of HIRC simulation software have been presented. The challenging part in these tools
is to simulate human motions based on digital human models, so-called manikins. The majority of the publications
presented include a lightweight model of the human [24, 25], often a skeleton model of a human that is fed with
motion capture data in order to move in a representative manner. These manikins interact with industrial robots in a
3D CAD environment. Other authors include more advanced digital human modelling software in the simulations in
order to predict human motions without the need of motion capture data. Tsarouchi et al. use the off-line
programming software “Process Simulate” to simulate the human and industrial robotic tasks [26]. To the
knowledge of the authors of this paper, none of the existing digital human modelling software has been able to
simulate simultaneous human robot motions on an object in a HIRC workstation. This feature is, however, included
in the HIRC software presented by Ore et al. [8], where the digital human modelling software IMMA is used to
represent human motions. This software is used in the proposed HIRC design method, and is referred to as the HIRC
simulation software in this paper.

4. Proposed method for HIRC workstation design

The proposed HIRC design method based on the engineering design framework is presented in Fig. 1 with the
four phases and their corresponding activities. These phases and activities are described below.
The input to start the HIRC design method is an identified workstation, existing or in the planning phases, that
might benefit from an industrial robot in performing some work tasks. The identified workstation must have
geometric boundaries on the shop floor as well as defined functional limitations in terms of what to produce.

4.1. Planning and clarifying the task

The term “task” is in this headline used in the meaning of the general assignment for the HIRC workstation. The
goal of this phase is to gather needed information about the assignment, to be used in the following phases. The
outcome is a requirements list that specifies the workstation design problem, including its constraints and objectives.
The first activity, HIRC possibilities of investigated workstation, includes a rough analysis of the HIRC potential
in the workstation. This is based on fundamental knowledge of the workstation and characteristics of industrial
robots. The workstation is described by its functional characteristics (what to produce), geometrical characteristics
(positions and constraints of all objects) and expected output (operation times and volumes).
The second activity is analyse company-specific demands on workstation. There might be constraints limiting
what industrial robot to select. This kind of analysis also includes identifying who will work in the stations. The
anthropometric measurements differ between humans, and there are different databases with different nationality,
gender, etc., of the operators, and this has to be considered in order to design ergonomically friendly workstations.
Company-specific safety demands have also to be identified and considered here.
The next activity is formulate evaluation criteria and design variables. The HIRC simulation software evaluates
the workstation based on operation time and biomechanical load. Many variables in the workstation design influence
these criteria, e.g., the industrial robot variant and position in the layout, the design of the industrial robot gripper as
well as positions of all materials in the station. Other workstation characteristics (e.g., hand-over positions between
industrial robot and humans, positions of buttons and other operator interfaces) are also of importance. On top of
this is also the selected anthropometric database used to get appropriate measurements of the humans in the
simulation. In total, six design variables are proposed in the future workstation design: industrial robot variant,
industrial robot position, industrial robot gripper design, material position, workstation equipment position and
anthropometric database. The first evaluation criterion “operation time” includes both industrial robotic and manual
times. The time of the industrial robot tasks is calculated using industrial robot and environmental position data.
Human operation time is calculated using a predetermined motion time system [27]. The second evaluation
criterion, “biomechanical load”, is measured using the evaluation method of rapid upper limb assessment (RULA)
[28]. RULA investigates the musculoskeletal injury risk for humans by evaluating the individual poses and assessing
the injury risks of those positions on the human body on a risk level from one to seven, where a high score indicates
 Fredrik Ore et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 11 (2017) 4 – 12 7

a high risk of future injuries. [8] is recommended for a more thorough explanation of how these two evaluation
criteria are captured in the demonstrator software.

"
""

% !""









!!"!

$!""
% !""

&!
&'!
!

% !""

 #"
$#"
 " 

!
$ !

"
$#"
 " 

!
$ !

 "

# "!
!"

# "!
!"






"&
!!"
 

 

 $



&!
" 
%

#"

 


$#"
"
$ "!
!"
"


 " 


!#"

 





 &
!


% !""



 $

% !""
!



!$
  !

%
!"!


 
"
  &

% !""
#""

"$
!#"






"
$#"

#!""!

"
!#"
#""

 !""
#""

 !""
!

Fig. 1. Proposed HIRC design method inspired by Pahl and Beitz’s engineering design method [11].

When the evaluation criteria and design variables of the HIRC design problem have been established, it is time to
set evaluation criteria and design constraints. The objective is defined in terms of the evaluation criteria, and any
constraints on the objective have to be defined, e.g., maximum limit on available operating time or allowed
biomechanical load score. Two dimensions in the objective generate a multi-objective problem, thus the relative
weight of operation time and biomechanical load has to be decided. Numerical design constraints on the six
variables are set to be used in the design phase. In this early stage of the HIRC design method it is important not to
be too detailed in setting the design constraints; these can be limited further in future phases and activities.
The last activity in the planning phase is elaborate a requirements list. This list includes results from the
activities in this phase presented as design specifications to be used in the following workstation design.
8 Fredrik Ore et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 11 (2017) 4 – 12

4.2. Conceptual design

The conceptual design phase aims to produce the most appropriate principal solution to the workstation design
problem. This requires creativity of the designer in order to search beyond traditional methods and techniques to
complete the assignment and to consider new ideas and problem descriptions to solve the problem in an optimal
way.
The first activity identify essential problem is a crucial part of identifying innovative solutions. It includes an
abstraction of the workstation design problem “to find the crux of the task” [11, p. 161]. The goal is to broaden the
problem formulation to find a technology independent description of the essential function. The requirements list
developed from previous phases is abstracted by eliminating personal preferences, focusing on the essential
function, reducing qualitative data to essential statements and later formulating them in solution-neutral ways [11, p.
165].
The next activity, model and analyse material flow in functional block diagram, includes creating a block
diagram showing functions and sub-functions of the problem. Creativity from the designers (preferably a group of
individuals) is then used to find new solutions in order to fulfil the functions. These solutions can include new
techniques as well as changes in the order of executing the sub-functions in order to get optimal workstations.
The final activity, evaluate technical variants against technical and economic criteria, includes summarising the
ideas to practical concepts and evaluate them. The final concepts are evaluated based on the criteria defined in the
planning phase. Even though it might be difficult to get accurate data on the concepts as they are often vague, they
are evaluated relative to each other to find the best principal solution to the workstation design problem.

4.3. Embodiment design

The third phase is the embodiment design phase. It includes the actual HIRC workstation design.
The first activity, preliminary design of HIRC workstation, includes the first design cycle, where the variables
from the planning phase are developed to discrete values and the HIRC workstation design problem is evaluated in
order to produce preliminary solutions. The values are set within the design constraints with a coarse grid that is
detailed in later activities. The industrial robot variant and anthropometric database are selected based on the
company-specific demands on the workstation. The other four variables are workstation-specific and values have to
be decided. Some of these six variables might be set as constants in the case investigated.
The first part of this activity is to limit the potential solutions to feasible ones. In the HIRC simulation software it
is possible to simulate any kind of workstation. In practice, however, there are many human and automation
constraints that limit the space of possible HIRC solutions. The HIRC system should combine what the human lacks
in strength, endurance and accuracy with industrial robots and include human intelligence and flexibility that the
industrial robot traditionally lacks. In previous work, Ore et al. identified automation constraints for a specific
manufacturing industry [29]. The paper presented a process to create a task allocation between industrial robot and
human considering automation constraints. This process can also be used with manual constraints in order to define
a task allocation between industrial robot and the human; manual constraints are also included in the proposed HIRC
design method. It includes a hierarchal task analysis (HTA) of the workstation that breaks the overall task down to
manageable tasks in order to find goals and sub-goals of a system [30]. These tasks are then examined considering
automation and human constraints in order to identify what resources are capable of performing a task; they are
presented in the form of a resource allocation table, exemplified in Table 1. This resource allocation is later used to
select the most appropriate task allocation [31].

Table 1. Example of resource allocation. These alternatives give 4 possible solutions (2 x 2).

Work task Ind. robot Human

1. Get object X X
2. Position object in fixture X X
3. Tighten nuts X
4. Move final product to pallet X
 Fredrik Ore et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 11 (2017) 4 – 12 9

The variables from the planning phase must also be considered. These are combined into a morphological matrix
that presents the possible discrete values that these variables can take, which are later combined into unique
solutions, as exemplified in Table 2. It is important to ensure that only technically feasible solutions are considered
in this stage as the higher number of alternatives quickly increases the solution space and time for the next step, the
simulation.
Tables 1 and 2 give the total number of simulations to perform through the HIRC simulation software (in these
examples 4 x 128 = 512). These simulations are performed automatically through an interface where the design
variables and task allocations are altered in the software. This step generates operation time and RULA values each
of these simulations and enables evaluation of what task allocation and design variables are the most suitable for the
workstation. One or many primary solutions are chosen to be further evaluated.

Table 2. Example of morphological matrix. These alternatives give 128 possible solutions (4 x 8 x 4).

Variables Alternatives
Industrial robot variant R1 R2 R3 R4
Industrial robot position A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8
Industrial robot gripper design RG1
Material position(s) MP1
Workstation equipment position(s) WE1 WE2 WE3 WE4
Anthropometric database M1

Refine and improve HIRC workstation design is the second activity in the HIRC design method. It includes the
next design loop and further elaboration through simulation of the primary solutions selected. The variables are here
further evaluated through a finer grid showing the geometric positions of industrial robot, material and other
workstation equipment, as well as a more detailed selection of the industrial robot variants and grippers to be used.
If needed, also the digital manikins used in the simulation (anthropometric database) are presented in a more
detailed and appropriate manner. Here the task allocation from previous evaluations should also be reconsidered, if
needed. This design loop generates a new optimal preliminary HIRC workstation design that is chosen for the next
steps.
The next activity, find and solve errors and weak spots, includes activities performed to ensure that the selected
preliminary design is evaluated properly and that no errors and weak spots are carried on to the next phase. There is
no clear method presented for this work, but a critical evaluation of the results from the simulation is required.
The last activity, prepare the preliminary HIRC workstation documentation, includes summarising the design
into CAD models or sketches and presenting the quantitative outputs from the HIRC simulation software in a
suitable way. In addition to the workstation layout, other results are also generated from the software, such as
industrial robotic program code and human work instructions. The industrial robot code is saved in a neutral
language enabling import to the physical industrial robot. The human work instructions, based on the task allocation
and the human motions visible in the software, are used to create instructions in any standard desired by the
manufacturing company.

4.4. Detail design

The activities in the last phase of the HIRC design method includes detail evaluation and adjustments of the
resulting documentation from the work. The workstation layout is saved in a form that suits the company in
question, in a 3D CAD model in a neutral format or in 2D printed drawings. The industrial robot program code and
the human work instructions are developed to be used in practice. The industrial robot code is validated by offline
evaluation in industrial robot-specific software to ensure that the industrial robot motions correspond with those
from the HIRC demonstrator software. The human work instructions are validated through company internal work
instruction standards and through reviews from experienced operators.
10 Fredrik Ore et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 11 (2017) 4 – 12

5. Discussion

5.1. Clarifying terminology of the engineering design method

Some terms in the engineering design framework need to be clarified in the HIRC workstation design context.
First, the term task in the first phase “planning and clarifying the task”. Task shall here be used in the meaning of
assignment and not as in a work task allocation problem (mentioned in the frame of reference chapter). Another
term is layout. This term is used in the engineering design framework with a slightly different meaning from the
general one in workstation design. Pahl et al. define “layout” as the general arrangement of objects, while “form
design” contains the accrual shape and material of the object [11, p. 237]. In the early phases of the engineering
design framework the focus is on layout, and as time passes, the focus gradually turns towards form design. The
physical layout in workstation design should not be confused with the layout term in the engineering design
framework.

5.2. HIRC design method

The HIRC design method is presented as a linear process, both in Fig. 1 and in this paper. This gives the
impression
that the process is an easy-to-follow, step-by-step method in order to reach an optimal solution. However, it is
important to consider the upgrade and improve activity presented as feedback loops to the right in in the method in
Fig. 1. These represent the possibility and need to reconsider decisions from previous phases and activities.
Learnings from later phases in the process might be fed back into earlier activities. Specifically, two design loops
are presented in the embodiment phase; however these could very well be three or four as well as one, all depending
on the workstation design problem.
In some HIRC workstation design problems the assignment is well defined by existing constraints, and a
conceptual phase might not be needed. The possibilities to effect existing boundaries and technical solutions might
be limited and the conceptual phase could be omitted in the process [11]. However, this must come with a warning,
as the abstraction of the problem can lead to innovative solutions if time and effort are put into the process.
Use of manual and automation constraints is a method to ensure that impossible solutions are excluded in the
time-consuming simulation phase. Exactly what is included in these constraints differs between industries, between
companies in the same industry as well as between cases in the same company. Manual constraints can differ
concerning use of lifting equipment that might enable humans to handle heavy weights in a manual station.
Automation constraints differ depending on the production strategy, whether it is a mass production or an engineer-
to-order production strategy. In mass production, automation barriers can be overcome through advanced sensors
that might be economically feasible, as the cost is distributed across a large number of products, while this kind of
investment is more difficult to motivate in an engineer-to-order environment. Thus these constraints have to be
defined individually for the workstation design problem investigated.
In the embodiment design phase the six HIRC design variables were defined: industrial robot variant, industrial
robot position, industrial robot gripper design, material position, workstation equipment position and anthropometric
database. These were defined through earlier cases and simulations in the HIRC demonstrator software and in
research group discussions. The selection of values of these variables is a delicate issue; more feasible values for
each variable increase the possibility to find an optimal result early but also require much longer simulation times.
Fewer values result in faster simulation but with potentially more simulation loops. Selection of industrial robot
variant is a good example of this. It could actually be practically difficult to consider all potential industrial robots
available on the market. A company-specific constraint on robot supplier, as mentioned in section 4.1, could actually
increase the possibility to find a suitable solution, since the size of the available solution space gets more
manageable. The industrial robot gripper design has to be considered; thus the position of the object to handle
relative to the industrial robot arm is of great importance to robotic operation time. The workstation equipment
position category includes positions of a wide variety that influence the workstation layout. Any designer can also
define new design variables in a HIRC design problem if needed. Every design variable has to be analysed in the
 Fredrik Ore et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 11 (2017) 4 – 12 11

planning phase for each workstation as described above. A few of the variables might then be defined as constraints
with a fixed value, while others will become design variables.

5.3. Conclusion

The HIRC design method presented can be used for design of collaborative workstations before making
investment decisions. It incorporates a HIRC simulation demonstrator, which is still under development, into the
Pahl and Beitz engineering design framework to cover the process from identifying a potential HIRC station to a
finalised design including documentation. This end result is not necessarily a HIRC workstation design; the
evaluation of the software might conclude that a fully manual or a fully automatic solution is the best one in the case
investigated. The use of the proposed method might enable a sound and clear workstation design decision to be
made early in the production development process.

Acknowledgements

The research work was funded by the Swedish Knowledge Foundation (for the INNOFACTURE Research
School), Scania and Mälardalen University. The research is also supported by the research project Virtual
Verification of Human Robot Collaboration founded by the Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems
(VINNOVA). The research was conducted in the context of the XPRES research and education environment at
Mälardalen University.

References

[1] Ore F. Human − industrial robot collaboration: Simulation, visualisation and optimisation of future assembly workstations, Lic. thesis,
Västerås, Sweden, Mälardalen University, 2015.
[2] Krüger J, Lien TK and Verl A. Cooperation of human and machines in assembly lines, Keynote paper, CIRP Annals – Manufacturing
Technology, 2009, Vol. 58, pp. 628-646.
[3] Krüger J, Nickolay B, Heyer P and Seliger G. Image based 3D Surveillance for flexible Man-Robot-Cooperation, CIRP Annals –
Manufacturing Technology, 2005, Vol. 54, pp. 19-22.
[4] Helms E, Schraft RD and Hagele M. rob@work: Robot assistant in industrial environments, in Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International
Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2002, pp. 399-404.
[5] Murphy CA and Perera T. The definition of simulation and its role within an aerospace company, Simulation Practice and Theory, 2002, Vol.
9, pp. 273-291.
[6] Klingstam P and Gullander P. Overview of simulation tools for computer-aided production engineering, Computers in Industry, 1999, Vol.
38, pp. 173-186.
[7] Mourtzis D, Papakostas N, Mavrikios D, Makris S and Alexopoulos K. The role of simulation in digital manufacturing: applications and
outlook, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 2015, Vol. 28, pp. 3-24.
[8] Ore F, Hanson L, Delfs N and Wiktorsson M. Human industrial robot collaboration - development and application of simulation software,
International Journal of Human Factors Modelling and Simulation, 2015, Vol. 5, pp. 164-185.
[9] Khalid O, Caliskan D, Ore F and Hanson L. Simulation and evaluation of industrial applications of Human-Industrial Robot Collaboration
cases, paper presented at the Nordic Ergonomics Society 47th Annual Conference, Lillehammer, Norway, 2015.
[10] Le Masson P and Weil B. Design theories as languages of the unknown: insights from the German roots of systematic design (1840–1960),
Research in Engineering Design, 2013, Vol. 24, pp. 105-126.
[11] Pahl G, Beitz W, Feldhusen J and Grote KH, Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. London, UK: Springer-Verlag 2007.
[12] Stauffer L and Pawar T. A comparison of Systematic Design and Design for Six Sigma, in Proceedings of ICED 2007, the 16th International
Conference on Engineering Design, 2007.
[13] Ulrich K and Eppinger S, Product design and development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc, 1995.
[14] Hubka V and Eder WE, Theory of Technical Systems: A Total Concept Theory for Engineering Systems. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag,
1988.
[15] Pugh S, Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering. Harlow, UK: Addison-Wesley, 1991.
[16] Wu B, Manufacturing Systems Design and Analysis, 2 ed. London: Chapman & Hall, 1994.
[17] Bennett D, Production Systems Design. London, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1986.
[18] Wiktorsson M. Performance Assessment of Assembly Systems: Linking strategy to Analysis in Early Stage Design of Large Assembly
Systems, PhD thesis, Stockholm, Sweden, Royal Institute of Technology, 2000.
[19] Bellgran M. Systematic Design of Assembly Systems – Preconditions and Design Process Planning, PhD thesis, Linköping, Sweden,
Linköping University, 1998.
[20] Pahl G and Beitz W, Konstruktionslehre. Handbuch für Studium und Praxis. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 1977.
12 Fredrik Ore et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 11 (2017) 4 – 12

[21] Pini F, Leali F and Ansaloni M. A systematic approach to the engineering design of a HRC workcell for bio-medical product assembly, in
2015 IEEE 20th Conference on Emeerging Technologies & Factory Automation (ETFA),2015, pp. 1-8.
[21] Chen F, Sekiyama K, Huang J, Sun B, Sasaki H and Fukuda T. An assembly strategy scheduling method for human and robot coordinated
cell manufacturing, International Journal of Intelligent Computing and Cybernetics, 2011, Vol. 4, pp. 487-510.
[22] Tsarouchi P, Matthaiakis A-S, Makris S and Chryssolouris G. On a human-robot collaboration in an assembly cell, International Journal of
Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 2016, pp. 1-10.
[23] Bobka P, Germann T, Heyn JK, Gerbers R, Dietrich F and Dröder K. Simulation Platform to Investigate Safe Operation of Human-Robot
Collaboration Systems, Procedia CIRP, 2016, Vol. 44, pp. 187-192.
[24] Maurice P, Padois V, Measson Y and Bidaud P. A digital human tool for guiding the ergonomic design of collaborative robots, paper
presented at the 4th International Digital Human Modeling Symposium (DHM2016), 2016.
[25] Tsarouchi P, Makris S, Michalos G, Matthaiakis A-S, Chatzigeorgiou X, Athanasatos A, Stefos M, Aivaliotis P and Chryssolouris G. ROS
Based Coordination of Human Robot Cooperative Assembly Tasks-An Industrial Case Study, Procedia CIRP, 2015, Vol. 37, pp. 254-259.
[26] Mårdberg P, Carlson JS, Bohlin R, Delfs N, Gustafsson S, Högberg D and Hanson L. Using a formal high-level language and an automated
manikin to automatically generate assembly instructions, International Journal of Human Factors Modeling and Simulation, 2014, Vol. 4, pp.
233-249.
[27] McAtamney L and Corlett EN. RULA: a survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb disorders, Applied Ergonomics,
1993, Vol. 24, pp. 91-99.
[28] Ore F, Hanson L, Wiktorsson M and Eriksson Y. Automation constraints in human–industrial robot collaborative workstation design, paper
presented at the 7th International Swedish Production Symposium, Lund, Sweden, 2016.
[29] Stanton NA. Hierarchical task analysis: Developments, applications, and extensions, Applied Ergonomics, 2006, Vol. 37, pp. 55-79.
[30] Fasth Å, Provost J, Fabian M, Stahre J and Lennartson B. From Task Allocation Towards Resource Allocation when Optimising Assembly
Systems, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 3, 45th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems 2012, 2012, pp. 400-405.