Robot Interaction System with Dynamic Mode Switching

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing robot systems in metallurgical and rolling mill plants are limited by their fully automated or remote-controlled designs, which are costly, unreliable, and inefficient for complex tasks requiring human decision-making and interaction, especially in environments where frequent alternation between work and observation activities is necessary, leading to unsatisfactory safety and economic efficiency.

Innovation Solution

A flexible robot interaction system with various operating modes, including manual, semi-automatic, and teleoperated modes, allowing for different levels of human-robot collaboration, enabling temporal and spatial task sharing, and equipped with a safety sensor system to ensure safe human-robot interaction without the need for complex protective devices, allowing robots to be adapted to various work activities and environments.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Productivity

If fully automatic robot systems are used, then productivity and automation extent are improved, but device complexity and cost increase significantly

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveautomation productivityVSAvoidsensor system complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The robot control system dynamically switches between fully automatic mode and manual intervention mode based on task requirements. The system adapts its automation level in real-time, allowing operators to intervene when complex decision-making is needed while maintaining automatic operation for routine tasks, thereby reducing the need for overly complex sensor systems.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The robot system is designed to perform multiple functions: fully automatic operation for simple tasks, semi-automatic operation for complex tasks, and manual teleoperation for unstructured tasks. This multi-functionality allows a single robot system to handle a wide range of tasks without requiring specialized complex sensor systems for each task type.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

2Reliability

If protective fences and workspace separation are implemented, then safety is improved, but accessibility and operational flexibility deteriorate

Engineering Contradiction:
ImprovesafetyVSAvoidworkspace accessibility
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The safety system dynamically adjusts workspace separation based on the operational mode. In fully automatic mode, protective fences are in place. When manual intervention is required, the system automatically removes or opens these protective barriers, allowing operators to access the workspace safely under controlled conditions.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The control system acts as an intermediary between safety requirements and operational needs. It manages the transition between protected automatic operation and accessible manual operation, coordinating protective measures with workspace accessibility requirements through centralized control.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

3Reliability

If robots are locked and shut down for manual tasks, then safety is maintained, but productivity and time efficiency worsen

Engineering Contradiction:
ImprovesafetyVSAvoidshutdown time
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The robot operates in dynamic modes rather than being statically locked or shut down. For simple tasks, it runs fully automatic. For complex tasks requiring human decision-making, it transitions to semi-automatic or manual teleoperation mode without complete shutdown, maintaining safety through controlled manual operation while avoiding productivity loss from repeated shutdowns.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

4Reliability

If telemanipulation mode is used, then safety and human decision-making are improved, but productivity and operational speed deteriorate

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedecision-making qualityVSAvoidoperational speed
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

Instead of using telemanipulation for all tasks, the system applies it only partially - specifically for complex tasks requiring human decision-making while maintaining fully automatic operation for routine tasks. This selective application preserves operational speed for simple tasks while utilizing human expertise only when necessary.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Solution Approach 2:

The work process is segmented into different task types: routine tasks handled automatically and complex tasks handled with human intervention. This segmentation allows the system to optimize for speed on routine tasks while maintaining high decision-making quality on complex tasks through appropriate mode selection.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Data Source

PatentEP2342031B1Robot interaction system
Publication Date: 2020.04.08 SMS GROUP GMBH
  • EP2342031B1 patent drawingFigure 1~2
  • EP2342031B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

In the case of a robot interaction system comprising a robot (1) having a robot controller with types of operation and operating modes which influence an associated man-robot interface, the aim is to provide a solution which allows flexible matching of a robot or robot system to different degrees of a man-robot interaction. This is achieved in that the robot controller is equipped with types of operation and operating modes which influence an associated man-robot interface and are designed to be matched and/or to be capable of being matched to different automation degrees of the robot (1) and/or to different time and/or physical positions of the man and robot as interaction partners in a working area.