Collaborative robots are advanced Industry 4.0 systems that have changed the role of humans in the operations system. Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) are a major safety concern. Robot integrators must conduct a risk assessment to demonstrate that collaborative tasks can be performed safely. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15066 proposes guidelines for implementing a cobot system and the related collaborative workspace. Different techniques have been proposed in the literature to conduct risk assessments for collaborative robots. However, there is still no practical, easy-to-use tool to assist practitioners in the early stages of risk assessment. Furthermore, the security of these systems is almost always focused on the technological aspects involved in the interaction in order to safeguard the operator, demonstrating a lack of consideration of other factors involved, such as psychosocial ones. This research work aims to build a preliminary Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) risk assessment template containing the potential failure modes from which cobot integrators and practitioners can start to conduct the risk analysis of the collaborative robot system. The importance of considering more than only technological variables is highlighted by dividing the template into classes, each relating to a fundamental aspect of HRI.
Automotive Industry Action Group & Verband der Automobilindustrie. AIAG & VDA FMEA handbook: Design FMEA, Process FMEA, and supplemental FMEA for monitoring and system response. 1st ed.Automotive Industry Action Group & Verband der Automobilindustrie, 2019.
2.
KeshvarparastABattiniDBattaiaO, et al. Collaborative robots in manufacturing and assembly systems: literature review and future research agenda. J Intell Manuf2024; 35: 2065–2118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-023-02137-w
3.
MathesonEMintoRZampieriEGG, et al. Human-robot collaboration in manufacturing applications: a review. Robotics2019; 8(4): 100. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics8040100
4.
VillaniVPiniFLealiF, et al. Survey on human–robot collaboration in industrial settings: safety, intuitive interfaces and applications. Mechatronics2018; 55: 248–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechatronics.2018.02.009
5.
FranklinCSDominguezEGFrymanJD, et al. Collaborative robotics: new era of human-robot cooperation in the workplace. J Saf Res2020; 74: 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2020.06.013
6.
PanagouSNeumannWPFruggieroF. A scoping review of human robot interaction research towards industry 5.0 human-centric workplaces. Int J Prod Res2024; 62(3): 974–990. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2023.2172473
7.
BerxNDecréWPintelonL. A tool to evaluate industrial cobot safety readiness from a system-wide perspective: an empirical validation. Saf Sci2024; 170: 106380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106380
8.
AdriaensenAPintelonLCostantinoF, et al. An STPA Safety Analysis Case Study of a collaborative robot application. IFAC-PapersOnLine2021; 54(1): 534–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2021.08.061
9.
CardosoAColimABichoE, et al. Ergonomics and human factors as a requirement to implement safer collaborative robotic workstations: a literature review. Safety2021; 7(4): 71. https://doi.org/10.3390/safety7040071
10.
PinheiroSCorreia SimõesAPintoA, et al. Ergonomics and safety in the design of industrial collaborative robotics. In: ArezesPMSantos BaptistaJCarneiroP, et al. Occupational and environmental safety and health III. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control. vol 406. Springer, Cham, 2022, pp.465–478, Vol. 406. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89617-1_42
11.
ChemwenoPPintelonLDecreW. Orienting safety assurance with outcomes of hazard analysis and risk assessment: a review of the ISO 15066 standard for collaborative robot systems. Saf Sci2020; 129: 104832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104832
12.
International Organization for Standardization. Risk management — Principles and guidelines (ISO Standard 31000:2009), https://www.iso.org/standard/43170.html (2009, accessed 18 December 2024).
13.
RezazadeganFGengJGhirardiM, et al. Risk-based design for the physical human-robot interaction (pHRI): an overview. Chem Eng Trans2015; 43: 1–43. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1543209
14.
AdriaensenACostantinoFDi GravioG, et al. Teaming with industrial cobots: a socio-technical perspective on safety analysis. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind2022; 32(2): 173–198. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20939
15.
MartinettiAChemwenoPKNizamisK, et al. Redefining safety in light of human-robot interaction: a critical review of current standards and regulations. Front Chem Eng2021; 3: 666237. https://doi.org/10.3389/fceng.2021.666237
16.
StormFAChiappiniMDeiC, et al. Physical and mental well-being of cobot workers: a scoping review using the Software-Hardware-Environment-Liveware-Liveware-Organization model. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind2022; 32(5): 419–435. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20952
17.
GervasiRMastrogiacomoLFranceschiniF. A conceptual framework to evaluate human-robot collaboration. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2020; 108(3): 841–865. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-05363-1
18.
GopinathVJohansenKGustafssonÅ, et al. Collaborative assembly on a continuously moving line – an automotive case study. Procedia Manuf2018; 17: 985–992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.10.105
19.
Inam RafiaRKlausHHataA, et al. Risk assessment for human-robot collaboration in an automated warehouse scenario. In: Proceedings of IEEE, 2018.
20.
VicentiniFAskarpourMRossiMG, et al. Safety assessment of collaborative robotics through automated formal verification. IEEE Trans Robot2020; 36(1): 42–61. https://doi.org/10.1109/tro.2019.2937471
21.
VasicMBillardA. Safety issues in human-robot interactions. In: Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), 2013, pp.197–204. IEEE
22.
MarvelJAFalcoJMarstioI. Characterizing task-based human–Robot Collaboration Safety in manufacturing. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst2015; 45(2): 260–275. https://doi.org/10.1109/tsmc.2014.2337275
International Organization for Standardization. Safety of machinery — General principles for design — Risk assessment and risk reduction (ISO Standard 12100:2010), https://www.iso.org/standard/51528.html (2011, accessed 18 December 2024).
25.
International Electrotechnical Commission & International Organization for Standardization. Risk management — Risk assessment techniques (IEC/ISO Standard 31010:2009). https://www.iso.org/standard/51073.html (2009, accessed 18 December 2024).
26.
International Organization for Standardization. Robots and robotic devices — Collaborative robots (ISO/TS 15066:2016). https://www.iso.org/standard/62996.html (2016, accessed 18 December 2024).
AlenjareghiMJKeivanpourSChinniahYA, et al. Safe human-robot collaboration: a systematic review of risk assessment methods with AI integration and standardization considerations. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2024; 133(9-10): 4077–4110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-024-13948-3
30.
HuckTPMünchNHornungL, et al. Risk assessment tools for industrial human-robot collaboration: novel approaches and practical needs. Saf Sci2021; 141: 105288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105288
31.
RazaMMalikAABilbergA. Virtual modeling as a safety assessment tool for a collaborative robot (Cobot) TS 15066/TS 15066:2016. In: AndersenALAndersenRBrunoeTD, et al. (eds). Towards Sustainable Customization: Bridging Smart Products and Manufacturing Systems. CARV MCPC 2021 2021. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. Springer, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90700-6_26
32.
ChoiSHParkKBRohDH, et al. An integrated mixed reality system for safety-aware human-robot collaboration using deep learning and digital twin generation. Robot Comput Manuf2022; 73: 102258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2021.102258
33.
RamasubramanianAKMathewRKellyM, et al. Digital twin for human–robot collaboration in manufacturing: review and outlook. Appl Sci2022; 12(10): 4811.
HuangJYouJXLiuHC, et al. Failure mode and effect analysis improvement: a systematic literature review and future research agenda. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2020; 199: 106885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2020.106885
36.
AleksićATadićDKomatinaN, et al. Failure mode and effects analysis integrated with multi-attribute decision-making methods under uncertainty: a systematic literature review. Mathematics2025; 13(13): 2216. https://doi.org/10.3390/math13132216
LiuHCLiuLLiuN. Risk evaluation approaches in failure mode and effects analysis: a literature review. Expert Syst Appl2013; 40(2): 828–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.08.010
40.
BluvbandZGrabovPNakarO. Expanded FMEA (EFMEA). In: Proceedings of the annual reliability and maintainability symposium, 2004, pp.31–36. https://doi.org/10.1109/rams.2004.1285419
41.
Ford Motor Company. Failure mode and effects analysis: FMEA handbook (with robustness linkages) (Version 4.2). Ford Motor Company. https://www.ford.com (2011, accessed 18 December 2024).
FaccioMGranataIMeniniA, et al. Human factors in cobot era: a review of modern production systems features. J Intell Manuf2023; 34: 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-022-01953-w
44.
DallatCSalmonPMGoodeN. Risky systems versus risky people: to what extent do risk assessment methods consider the systems approach to accident causation? A review of the literature. Saf Sci2019; 119: 266–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.03.012
45.
NeumannWPWinkelhausSGrosseEH, et al. Industry 4.0 and the human factor – a systems framework and analysis methodology for successful development. Int J Prod Econ2021; 233: 107992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107992
46.
BerxNAdriaensenADecréW, et al. Assessing system-wide safety readiness for successful Human–Robot Collaboration Adoption. Safety2022; 8(3): 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/safety8030048 Article 380.
47.
BerxNDecréWMoragI, et al. Identification and classification of risk factors for human-robot collaboration from a system-wide perspective. Comput Ind Eng2022; 163: 107827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107827
48.
LutherBGunawanINguyenN. Identifying effective risk management frameworks for complex socio-technical systems. Saf Sci2023; 158: 105988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105989
49.
AntonelliDStadnickaD. Predicting and preventing mistakes in human-robot collaborative assembly. IFAC-PapersOnLine2019; 52(13): 743–1178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.11.204
WuZLiuWNieW. Literature review and prospect of the development and application of FMEA in manufacturing industry. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2021; 112: 1409–1436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-06425-0
52.
NgYJYeoMSKNgQB, et al. Application of an adapted FMEA framework for robot-inclusivity of built environments. Sci Rep2022; 12: 3408. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-06902-4
53.
AmruthaHAjinkyaJSurabhiM. Application of failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) in automated spot welding process of an automobile industry: a case study. J Eng Educ Transform2021; 34: 281–289. https://doi.org/10.16920/jeet/2021/v34i0/157156
54.
HuckTPLedermannCKrogerT. Testing robot system safety by creating hazardous human worker behavior in simulation. IEEE Robot Autom Lett2022; 7(2): 770–777. https://doi.org/10.1109/lra.2021.3133612
55.
LópezLMockRZipperC. Operationalization of an ISO 31000-compliant resilience engineering method, applied to the temperature control in a smart building. In: Proceedings of the international disaster and risk conference: integrative risk management – towards resilient cities, 2016, pp.393–397.
