An augmented reality tool to detect and annotate design variations in an Industry 4.0 approach

  • Fabio Bruno
  • Loris BarbieriEmail author
  • Emanuele Marino
  • Maurizio Muzzupappa
  • Luigi D’Oriano
  • Biagio Colacino


Augmented Reality (AR) is one of the nine key technologies of Industry 4.0 and one of the most promising innovation accelerators that in the next years will bring smart factories to a higher level of efficiency. In this context, the paper presents an AR tool that improves and increases the efficiency of data collection and exchange of information among different professional figures involved in the design and production processes of products for the oil and gas sector. In fact, prototyping and labour-intensive activities usually require modifications and improvements to be made on-site that should be sent as feedback to the technical office. To this end, the proposed AR tool supports workers at the workplace to easily detect and annotate design variations made during their working activities and furthermore to formalize and automate the collecting and transferring of this data to the designers in order to prevent loss of information. Field experimentation has been carried out with end-users to evaluate their acceptance by means usability studies, based on objective and subjective metrics, and personal interviews. Experimental results show that the proposed AR tool provides medium-to-high levels of usability and has been positively accepted by all the participants involved in the study.


Augmented reality Design discrepancies Technical instructions Industry 4.0 



  1. 1.
    Esengün M, İnce G (2018) The role of augmented reality in the age of Industry 4.0. In: Industry 4.0: managing the digital transformation. Springer, Cham, pp 201–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davies R (2015) Industry 4.0: digitalisation for productivity and growth, European Parliamentary Research Service, Briefing.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Henderson SJ, Feiner S (2007) Augmented reality for maintenance and repair (ARMAR). Technical report AFRL-RH-WP-TR-2007-0112, United States Air Force Research Lab, July 2007.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hermann M, Pentek T, Otto B (2016) Design principles for Industrie 4.0 scenarios. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on pp. 3928-3937. IEEE (2016).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caudell TP, Mizell DW (1992) Augmented reality: an application of heads-up display technology to manual manufacturing processes. In Proc HICSS’92, Vol. 2. IEEE, pp 659–669.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Henderson SJ, Feiner SK (2011) Augmented reality in the psychomotor phase of a procedural task. In Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), 2011 10th IEEE International Symposium on. IEEE, pp 191–200.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zheng XS, Foucault C, Matos da Silva P, Dasari S, Yang T, Goose S (2015) Eye-wearable technology for machine maintenance: effects of display position and hands-free operation. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, pp 2125–2134.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang ZB, Ong SK, Nee AYC (2013) Augmented reality aided interactive manual assembly design. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 69(5-8):1311–1321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Echtler F, Sturm F, Kindermann K, Klinker G, Stilla J, Trilk J, Najafi H (2004) The intelligent welding gun: augmented reality for experimental vehicle construction. In: Virtual and augmented reality applications in manufacturing. Springer London, pp 333–360Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Korn O, Schmidt A, Hörz T (2013) The potentials of in-situ-projection for augmented work-places in production: a study with impaired persons. In: CHI’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, pp 979–984Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Büttner S, Sand O, Röcker C (2015) Extending the design space in industrial manufacturing through mobile projection. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct. ACM, pp 1130–1133Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Doshi A, Smith RT, Thomas BH, Bouras C (2017) Use of projector based augmented reality to improve manual spot-welding precision and accuracy for automotive manufacturing. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 89(5-8):1279–1293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Uva AE, Gattullo M, Manghisi VM, Spagnulo D, Cascella GL, Fiorentino M (2018) Evaluating the effectiveness of spatial augmented reality in smart manufacturing: a solution for manual working stations. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 94(1-4):509–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hakkarainen M, Woodward C, Billinghurst M (2008) Augmented assembly using a mobile phone. In Proceedings of the 7th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, pp.167-168. IEEE Computer SocietyGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gavish N, Gutiérrez T, Webel S, Rodríguez J, Peveri M, Bockholt U, Tecchia F (2013) Evaluating virtual reality and augmented reality training for industrial maintenance and assembly tasks. Interact Learn Environ ahead-of-print:1–21Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hořejší P (2015) Augmented reality system for virtual training of parts assembly. Procedia Eng 100:699–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Webel S, Bockholt U, Engelke T, Gavish N, Olbrich M, Preusche C (2013) An augmented reality training platform for assembly and maintenance skills. Robot Auton Syst 61(4):398–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nee AY, Ong SK, Chryssolouris G, Mourtzis D (2012) Augmented reality applications in design and manufacturing. CIRP 61(2):657–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Regenbrecht H, Baratoff G, Wilke W (2005) Augmented reality projects in the automotive and aerospace industries. CGA 25(6):48–56Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang X, Ong SK, Nee AYC (2016) A comprehensive survey of augmented reality assembly research. Adv Manuf 4(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fraga-Lamas P, Fernández-Caramés TM, Blanco-Novoa Ó, Vilar-Montesinos MA (2018) A review on industrial augmented reality systems for the Industry 4.0 shipyard. IEEE Access 6:13358–13375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nolle S, Klinker G (2006) Augmented reality as a comparison tool in automotive industry. In Proceedings of the 5th IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, pp 249-250. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Georgel P, Schroeder P, Navab N (2009) Navigation tools for viewing augmented cad models. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 29(6),Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schoenfelder R, Schmalstieg D (2008) Augmented reality for industrial building acceptance. In 2008 IEEE Virtual Reality Conference,Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Project Tango homepage, Accessed 31 July 2019
  26. 26.
    Vuforia homepage, Accessed 31 July 2019
  27. 27.
    Lenovo Phab 2 Pro homepage, Accessed 31 July 2019
  28. 28.
    Wiedenmaier S, Oehme O, Schmidt L, Luczak H (2003) Augmented reality (AR) for assembly processes design and experimental evaluation. Int J Hum Comput Interact 16:497–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    ARCore homepage, Accessed 31 July 2019
  30. 30.
    ARKit homepage, Accessed 31 July 2019
  31. 31.
    ISO 9241-210:2019. Ergonomics of human-system interaction - Part 210: human-centred design for interactive systems.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Barbieri L, Marino E (2019) An augmented reality tool to detect design discrepancies: a comparison test with traditional methods. In: De Paolis L, Bourdot P (eds) Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality, and Computer Graphics. AVR 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 11614. Springer, Cham, pp 99–110Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    ANSI (2001) Common Industry Format for Usability Test Reports, ANSI-NCITS 354-2001, American National Standards InstituteGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    ISO 9241-11:2018. Ergonomics of human-system interaction - Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lewis JR (2006) Usability testing. In: Salvendy G (ed) Handbook of human factors and ergonomics. Wiley, New York, pp 1275–1316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lewis JR (1995) IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int J Hum Comput Interact 7:57–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sauro J, Lewis JR (2016) Quantifying the user experience: practical statistics for user research, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical, Energy and Management Engineering (DIMEG)University of CalabriaArcavacata di RendeItaly
  2. 2.BHGE Nuovo Pignone SrlVibo ValentiaItaly

Personalised recommendations