Page - 5 - in Joint Austrian Computer Vision and Robotics Workshop 2020

Figure 2.Connections betweenall components for the safeenvironment 4.Conceptsofasafeenvironment Acommonsafetyconcept(Concept1)usingsepa- rate sensors ineach robot represents thestate-of-the- art [1]. The total close-down of the factory (Concept 2) isanotheroption,butentrancesmustbemonitored to guarantee that no human can enter the working factory. People may only enter after switching the factory to a collaborative mode or a safety stop. If there were people working in the factory regularly, a division of the factory into different segments (Con- cept3)wouldbebetter. Onlysegments inwhichper- sons are located have to work in collaborative mode, making this concept more efficient. However, this concept is not optimal with many people working in it either. Consequently monitoring the whole envi- ronmentwithactive (Concept4)orpassive (Concept 5) person detection is recommended. Workers have toweara transmitterontheirbodyfor theactivevari- antwhich isnot required in thepassivedetection. 5.ResultsandDiscussion Safety-certified components are already existing for the first three concepts, but not for active/passive detection. However, the first concept by purchas- ingsafety-certifiedcomponents foreachrobotwould also be the most expensive concept. Active/passive persondetectionalsorequiresvariouscomponents to be installed throughout the factory. Only the second and third concepts would require few sensors at the zone entrances, making them very economical but also inefficientwithahighvolumeofpeople. Based on these facts and the emphasis on safety, economy and performance, the third concept was chosen for an implementation in the Digital Factory. Of course, the optimal choice depends above all on thesizeof theenvironmentandthenumberofrobots. 6.SummaryandOutlook Based on these results a detailed safe environ- mentimplementationfortheDigitalFactoryhasbeen planned, where the safe communication (shown in Figure 2) represents the centerpiece of the system: Environmental sensors have thereby been connected to inputs/outputs of a safety PLC, which is further connected to the other safety PLCs via PROFIsafe by PROFINET. However, already existing PLCs do not had a PROFIsafe interface, which is why EFI- gateways have been included. Furthermore special DATAEAGLE modules are required for a safe wire- less connection tomobile robots. A realization of the safe environment is therefore actually possible, but the safe environment concept will probably only become a serious alternative with the development of safety-certified components for active/passivehumandetection. References [1] M.Arndt. SafeandCost-EfficientMobileRobotNav- igation in Aware Environments. PhD thesis, Technis- cheUniversita¨tKaiserslautern,2016. [2] Automations Praxis. Mobile Robotik lo¨st lang- wierigen Transport, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://automationspraxis.industrie.de/servicerobotik /mobile-robotik-loest-langwierigen-transport/ [Ac- cessed: 29.12.2018]. [3] R. Siegwart and I. R. Nourbakhsh. Introduction to Autonomous MobileRobots. MITPress,USA, 2004. [4] M. Sullivan. Industry 4.0 Technologies: Global Market Through 2023, 2018. [Online]. Avail- able: https://www.bccresearch.com/market- research/manufacturing/ [Accessed: 16.06.2019]. [5] B. Vogel-Heuser, T. Bauernhansl, and M. Ten Hom- pel. Handbuch Industrie 4.0 Band 4, volume 2. SpringerBerlinHeidelberg,Berlin,Heidelberg,2017. 5