Human-Robot Interaction

Safety, Standardization, and Benchmarking

Paolo Barattini, Federico Vicentini, Gurvinder Singh Virk, Tamas Haidegger, Paolo Barattini, Federico Vicentini, Gurvinder Singh Virk, Tamas Haidegger

• Publisher: Chapman and Hall/CRC
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9780367730222
• eBook ISBN: 9781351819626
• Topic: Computer Science
• Subtopic: Computer Science General
• Index: Computer Science

Human-Robot Interaction: Safety, Standardization, and Benchmarking provides a comprehensive introduction to the new scenarios emerging where humans and robots interact in various environments and applications on a daily basis. The focus is on the current status and foreseeable implications of robot safety, approaching these issues from the standardization and benchmarking perspectives. Featuring contributions from leading experts, the book presents state-of-the-art research, and includes real-world applications and use cases. It explores the key leading sectors—robotics, service robotics, and medical robotics—and elaborates on the safety approaches that are being developed for effective human-robot interaction, including physical robot-human contacts, collaboration in task execution, workspace sharing, human-aware motion planning, and exploring the landscape of relevant standards and guidelines.

Features

• Presenting a comprehensive introduction to human-robot interaction in a number of domains, including industrial robotics, medical robotics, and service robotics
• Focusing on robot safety standards and benchmarking
• Providing insight into current developments in international standards
• Featuring contributions from leading experts, actively pursuing new robot development

CHAPTER 1

The Role of Standardization in Technical Regulations

André Pirlet, Ir

Contents

1.1 Standardization: The Main Characteristics, the Benefits of Standardization, and the Choice of the Best Procedure

1.2 Improving a Given Situation through Project Approaches and Implementation

1.3 The Context of Technical Legislation

1.4 Conclusions

References

1.1 Standardization: The Main Characteristics, the Benefits of Standardization, and the Choice of the Best Procedure

Standards are formally defined as documents established by consensus that provide, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context. Standards should be based on consolidated results of science, technology and experience, and aimed at the promotion of optimum community benefits. Standards contain unambiguous requirements, but also, when needed, definitions and testing methods, to assess whether the prescribed requirements are fulfilled, facilitating certification. As they are built on consensus, groups of experts need to meet and communicate. This calls for management, rules and procedures, which form a standardization framework. Non-formal standards can be written by consortia, whether national, European or worldwide (IEEE, GS1, OASIS, etc.). Formal standards can be defined as standards prepared using formal procedures of openness and transparency and published by permanent and not-for-profit recognized standardization organizations. Most of the countries worldwide have a national standards body. At European level, three European standardization bodies can be found:

• ENELEC for Electro-technical Standardization
• ETSI for Telecommunications
• CEN for the rest

At worldwide level, we have similarly:

• IEC for Electro-technical Standardization
• ITU for Telecommunications
• ISO for the rest

It is essential for standards to be written in such a way that they allow evolution and progress, and do not block innovation. There should be flexibility for meeting the requirements specified in the standards, therefore the modern emphasis on “performance standards”. Similar possibilities are offered by CEN and CENELEC, while the ETSI standardization system is rather different and focuses only on telecommunications.

• An EN is a European Standard and enjoys the highest status. The acronym EN comes from “die Europäischen Normen”, in German. A very important aspect of CEN-CENELEC Internal Rules is that, when an EN is adopted by CEN or CENELEC, their members, who are national standardization bodies, are forced to adopt the full EN as one of their national standards and also to withdraw any conflicting national standard. An EN is issued by CEN-CENELEC in three official languages (French, English and German), but the national standardization bodies in Europe generally issue these standards in their national language(s), and this is a key advantage which is frequently overlooked.
• A Technical Specification (TS) is a prospective standard for provisional application. It is mainly used in fields where the innovation rate is high, or when there is an urgent need for guidance, and primarily where aspects of safety for persons and goods are not involved. Conflicting national standards may be kept in force in parallel with the national implementation of the TS.
• A Technical Report is a non-normative CEN (or CENELEC) publication authorized by the CEN (or CENELEC) Technical Board.
• A CEN Workshop Agreement (CWA) is a document prepared rapidly by experts, without formal consultations (Enquiry, Formal Vote) at national level. It is a frequent standardization deliverable from research projects, and in the case of European R&D projects, a large part of the cost of producing the CWA can frequently be publicly supported. This type of publication aims at satisfying market demands for a more flexible and timelier alternative to the traditional EN, but it still possesses the authority derived from the openness of participation and agreement inherent in the operations of CEN. These CWAs are produced in flexible structures called CEN Workshops, where the registered participants are in charge of both the drafting and the management. CWAs are particularly suited for the exploitation of results of Research Projects and that approach is much appreciated by research consortia.
• Similarly at ETSI, you find ISGs, the Industry Specification Groups.

Formal standardization takes place in technical committees (TCs), where national delegations are in charge of the management, while the drafting of standards is made by experts sitting in working groups (WGs), reporting to their relevant TC. The national delegates at TC level need to reflect national positions, obtained by consensus, while the experts in the WGs are allowed to speak in their own name.

The cross-fertilization nature of standardization committees, due to the involvement of researchers and the various stakeholders, is felt as an additional benefit.

Whenever possible, preference should be given to the drafting of performance standards, which are defined as standards where requirements allow evolution and progress, and do not block but rather enhance innovation. They offer flexibility for meeting the requirements.

The aforementioned deliverables are quite similar to those found in the international standardization organizations ISO and IEC. The rapidly increasing globalization of the economy is concomitant with an increased preference for worldwide standards. The most important difference is that there is no mandatory national implementation of the standards published by ISO and IEC.

When wishing to initiate a new standardization activity, it is important to take into account the pros and cons of these deliverables, and subsequently choose the most relevant procedure in a tailored manner.

Some standards are jointly produced by two bodies, like CEN-CENELEC standards or ISO-IEC standards. Coordination groups exist also sometimes between three bodies, like CEN-CENELEC-ETSI or ISO-IEC-ITU. Other famous standards are those produced by NATO, the STANAGs, including the so-called “dual use” standards.

1.2 Improving a Given Situation through Project Approaches and Implementation

Imagine that you wish to improve an existing industrial situation or to address a societal challenge. It is important to realize that large scale beneficial changes rarely happen by chance, but result from a set of well-planned moves and actions. The “driving” forces for leading and carrying the actions should logically be the groups penalized by a given situation and who could expect substantial improvements by taking the right steps. To really “solve” a problem, there is therefore a need to use a Project Approach which should encompass the following steps:

• The starting point should be to clearly define the difficulties and the challenge(s) one wishes to address.
• Then there is a need for that “driving” group to express a clear objective, which should logically be to minimize or to entirely suppress the difficulty.
• Once there is a consensus within the group on the objective to be reached, the necessary time must be allocated to the careful drafting of the corresponding “business plan”, which explains in sufficient detail what needs to be reached and why, and then how this could be reached. To reach an ambitious objective, a multi-faceted approach should frequently be used.
• Some results of research might be needed, whether from already carried research or from current research projects or already planned research. The CORDIS system enables a rather good view on collaborative European research. In certain cases, it will be necessary to initiate specific new research activities.
• Then comes the issue of legislation. Current legislation might apply and the stakeholder group should examine how to adapt to any new legislation, but also whether amendments are needed (or are desirable) for reaching their objective. Alternatively, no legislation may yet exist, but is nevertheless needed and should be put in place (for example, a European-wide legislation).
• Similarly, amendment of existing standards or drafting of entirely new standards might be a necessity. This would take place rarely at a purely national level, but more and more frequently at the European or worldwide level.
• As a last step, but quite importantly, there are “complementary measures”. Here we find additional actions like marketing, education, training, promotion, protection of “Intellectual Property Rights” and so on, in order to have a comprehensive approach, also called an integrated approach. Again, most of the efforts will come from the “driving forces” mentioned above, and these “driving forces” need to include, for all important steps, a risk analysis and potential corrective measures.
• It is useful to take the analogy of a puzzle: You need to have all the pieces to get a nice picture! The same applies for reaching an ambitious objective.
• Using such an “Integrated Approach” will give the confidence that the goals can be reached in practice in an efficient way.

Standards can provide clarity on issues of terminology and definitions, durability, recyclability, sharing and comparing data, warranties, counterfeiting, and they can enable interoperability and economies of scale. They can also form the basis for rules of best practice. Standardized protocols and improved information technology compatibility are bringing more progress and efficiency, as explained by Pirlet [1]. The methodology of the “Integrated Approach” can now be summarized through the diagram shown in Figure 1.1.

FIGURE 1.1 The integrated approach.

Of course, having the right business plan, using this integrated approach concept, is a good start, but the “driving forces” need to select the right people to ensure the best implementation of the plan, within the decided timeframe. This also calls for careful monitoring of the implementation, in general, by these so-called “driving forces”; possibly some amendments and contingency measures will be decided by these forces and take place, anticipated as much as possible through regularly updated risk assessment.

At this stage, it is good to briefly address the “motivation” factor. In research activities, people are frequently “highly motivated”, even passionate, this “comes with the territory”. Motivating legal experts to work on new pieces of legislation is in general not too difficult. On the other hand, it is important to use a careful message in order to ensure a long-term commitment in a standardization activity, frequently characterized as “technical, convoluted, long lasting and dull!” People need first to be convinced by the intrinsic importance of the end goals, and second, need to be convinced that a “support through standards” is vital to help reach these goals. The importance of these goals will then generate the necessary motivation. It is, however, harder and harder to find the right kind of people for...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Editor Bios
• Contributors
• Chapter 1 The Role of Standardization in Technical Regulations
• Chapter 2 The Intricate Relationships Between Private Standards and Public Policymaking in Personal Care Robots: Who Cares More?
• Chapter 3 Standard Ontologies and HRI
• Chapter 4 Robot Modularity for Service Robots
• Chapter 5 Human–Robot Shared Workspace in Aerospace Factories
• Chapter 6 Workspace Sharing in Mobile Manipulation
• Chapter 7 On Rehabilitation Robotics Safety, Benchmarking, and Standards Safety of Robots in the Field of Neurorehabilitation—Context and Developments
• Chapter 8 A Practical Appraisal of ISO 13482 as a Reference for an Orphan Robot Category
• Chapter 9 Safety of Medical Robots, Regulation, and Standards
• Chapter 10 The Other End of Human–Robot Interaction
• Chapter 11 Passive Bilateral Teleoperation with Safety Considerations
• Chapter 12 Human–Robot Interfaces in Autonomous Surgical Robots
• Index