3D Collision-Force-Map for Safe Human-Robot Collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The need to guarantee safety of collaborative robots limits their performance, in particular, their speed and hence cycle time. The standard ISO/TS 15066 defines the Power and Force Limiting operation mode and prescribes force thresholds that a moving robot is allowed to exert on human body parts during impact, along with a simple formula to obtain maximum allowed speed of the robot in the whole workspace. In this work, we measure the forces exerted by two collaborative manipulators (UR10e and KUKA LBR iiwa) moving downward against an impact measuring device. First, we empirically show that the impact forces can vary by more than 100 percent within the robot workspace. The forces are negatively correlated with the distance from the robot base and the height in the workspace. Second, we present a data-driven model, 3D Collision-Force-Map, predicting impact forces from distance, height, and velocity and demonstrate that it can be trained on a limited number of data points. Third, we analyze the force evolution upon impact and find that clamping never occurs for the UR10e. We show that formulas relating robot mass, velocity, and impact forces from ISO/TS 15066 are insufficient—leading both to significant underestimation and overestimation and thus to unnecessarily long cycle times or even dangerous applications. We propose an empirical method that can be deployed to quickly determine the optimal speed and position where a task can be safely performed with maximum efficiency.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".