Laboratory experiments were performed to investigate human perception of safe zone around an industrial robot. It was shown that an angle of approach toward the robot, the speed of robot motions and exposure to a simulated accident significantly affected the student subjects perception of the safe area around the MH33 robot. On the average, across all approach angles, the subjects selected distances of 49.2 and 70.0 cm from the robot's working envelope, for the accident and non-accident group, respectively.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArgoteL.GoodmanP.S.SchkadeD., 1982. The Human Side of Robotics: How Worker React to a Robot. Technical Report 38–8182.Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie-Mellon U., Pittsburgh, PA.
2.
AyresR.U.MillerS.M., 1983, Robotics: Applications & Social Implications, Ballinger Publishing.
3.
BonneyM. C.YoungY. F. Editors, 1985, Robot Safety, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
4.
CoxJ. L.ButlerJ. K., 1986, Human Factors Issues in Robotics: Physical, Mental, Safety, Legal, In: Working Safely with Industrial Robots, StrubharP. M., Ed. Robotics International of SME, Dearborn, Michigan, pp. 34–45.
5.
StrubharP.M., Ed., 1986, Working Safely with Industrial Robots, Robotics International of SME, Dearborn, Michigan, pp. 23–27.
6.
KarwowskiW.PlankT.ParsaeiH.RahimiM., 1987, Human Perception of the Maximum Safe Speed of Robot Motions, In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 31st Annual Meeting, The Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, California, pp. 186–190.
7.
ReaderD. E., 1986, Human Factors in Automation, In: Working Safely with Industrial Robots, StrauberP. M., ed. Robotics International of SME, Dearborn, Michigan, pp. 46–48.
8.
ScarboroughH., 1981, Working with Robots its a Bore, New Scientists, 28 May, p. 555.
9.
WallT. D.CleggC. W.KempN. T. Editors, 1987, The Human Side of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
