Advertisement

Augmented reality system to guide operators in the setup of die cutters

  • Hugo ÁlvarezEmail author
  • Igor Lajas
  • Andoni Larrañaga
  • Luis Amozarrain
  • Iñigo Barandiaran
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

This paper describes an Augmented Reality system for the improvement of the manufacturing process in the packaging sector. It presents a successful use case of how to integrate the Augmented Reality technology in a factory shop floor by providing a tool that helps operators in their daily work. Given a product reference, the proposed system digitizes the setting of the die cutter automatically from an image and stores it in a database to subsequently consult and analyze. Furthermore, the content display is not carried out as a conventional Augmented Reality system (wearable devices such as glasses or mobile), but projecting directly on the workspace to facilitate its interpretation. Compared to the current workflow, where the data is recorded on sheets of paper and stored physically in warehouses, the proposed system offers several advantages such as preventing data loss, reducing costs, or the possibility of increasing knowledge from the post-processing of digitized data.

Keywords

Augmented reality Projection mapping Manufacturing Packaging 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Funding information

This work has been partially funded with a Torres Quevedo grant from the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of the Goverment of Spain.

References

  1. 1.
    Yang X, Plewe DA (2016) Advances in ergonomics of manufacturing: managing the enterprise of the future proceedings of the AHFE 2016 international conference on human aspects of advanced manufacturing. Springer, Florida, pp 279–289Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Regenbrecht H, Baratoff G, Wilke W (2005) Augmented reality projects in the automotive and aerospace industries. In: IEEE computer graphics and applications, vol 25, pp 48–56Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nee AYC, Ong SK, Chryssolouris G, Mourtzis D (2012) Augmented reality applications in design and manufacturing. In: CIRP annals, vol 61, pp 657–679Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wang X, Ong SK, Nee AYC (2016) A comprehensive survey of augmented reality assembly research. Adv Manuf 4:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pierre FG (2011) Is there a reality in industrial augmented reality? 10th IEEE international symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR), 201–210, Basel, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gauglitz S, Lee C, Turk M, Höllerer T (2012) Integrating the physical environment into mobile remote collaboration, proceedings of the 14th international conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services, ACM, 241–250Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caudell TP, Mizell DW (1992) Augmented reality: an application of heads-up display technology to manual manufacturing processes, proceedings of the twenty-fifth Hawaii international conference on system sciences, vol 2, 659–669, Kauai, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Henderson SJ, Feiner S (2009) Evaluating the benefits of augmented reality for task localization in maintenance of an armored personnel carrier turret, 8th international symposium on mixed and augmented reality, 135–144Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bimber O, Raskar R (2006) Modern approaches to augmented reality, international conference on computer graphics and interactive technique, Los Angeles, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bimber O, Raskar R (2005) Spatial augmented reality: merging real and virtual worlds, A. K. Peters, Ltd., Natick, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rodriguez L, Quint F, Gorecky D, Romero D, Siller HR (2015) Developing a mixed reality assistance system based on projection mapping technology for manual operations at assembly workstations. In: Procedia computer science, vol 75, pp 327–333Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Korn O, Funk M, Schmidt A (2015) Design approaches for the gamification of production environments: a study focusing on acceptance proceedings of the 8th ACM international conference on PErvasive technologies related to assistive environments (PETRA), 1–7, Corfu, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sand O, Büttner S, Paelke V, Röcker C (2016) SmARt.assembly - projection-based augmented reality for supporting assembly workers, virtual augmented and mixed reality: 8th international conference. Springer, Toronto, pp 643–652Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kern J, Weinmann M, Wursthorn S (2017) Projector-based augmented reality for quality inspection of scanned objects, ISPRS annals of photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences, IV-2/W4, 83–90Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leutert F, Schilling K (2018) Projector-based augmented reality for telemaintenance support. International Federation of Automatic Control (IFAC-PapersOnLine) 51:502–507Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Büttner S, Mucha H, Funk M, Kosch T, Aehnelt M, Robert S, Röcker C (2017) The design space of augmented and virtual reality applications for assistive environments in manufacturing: a visual approach proceedings of the 10th international conference on PErvasive technologies related to assistive environments, 433–440, Island of Rhodes, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Posada J, Toro C, Barandiaran I, Oyarzun D, Stricker D, de Amicis R, Pinto EB, Eisert P, döllner J, Vallarino I (2015) Visual computing as a key enabling technology for industrie 4.0 and industrial internet. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 35:26–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wagner D, Schmalstieg D (2007) ARTOolkitplus for pose tracking on mobile devices, computer vision winter workshop, St. Lambrecht, Austria, February, 68Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fiala M (2005) ARTAg, a fiducial marker system using digital techniques. IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 2:590–596Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moreno D, Taubin G (2012) Simple, accurate, and robust projector-camera calibration, second international conference on 3D imaging, modeling, processing, visualization and transmission, 464–471 ZurichGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brooke J (1996) SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale, usability evaluation in industry. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hugo Álvarez
    • 1
    Email author
  • Igor Lajas
    • 2
  • Andoni Larrañaga
    • 2
  • Luis Amozarrain
    • 2
  • Iñigo Barandiaran
    • 1
  1. 1.Paseo Mikeletegi 57, Parque Cientifico y Tecnologico de GipuzkoaSan SebastianSpain
  2. 2.C/ Padurea 9, Pol. Ind. GoiainLegutianoSpain

Personalised recommendations