Augmented Reality for Remote Maintenance

  • Katharina Buckl
  • Stefan Misslinger
  • Piero Chiabra
  • Glyn Lawson
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

The high rate of innovations being introduced on high-tech products requires fast and efficient approaches for information and knowledge transfer, especially in the area of service and maintenance tasks. The Digital Factory, with its methods and tools, can help to improve the service quality and at the same time reduce the costs associated with maintenance operations. The developed tool for augmented reality (AR) based maintenance supports the creation of AR-based workflows and their execution within a collaborative environment. Targeted to small and medium enterprises, the DiFac development is based on the three theoretical pillars of presence, collaboration, and ergonomics. The achieved results are continuously validated by end users and human factors experts. This chapter presents the conceptual training framework developed within the DiFac project, its realization for the task of AR-based maintenance, and the evaluation of the developed components.

Keywords

Augmented Reality Training Simulator Maintenance Task Augmented Reality System Maintenance Procedure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Artesas (2004) ARTESAS: Advanced augmented reality technology for industrial service application. Siemens, AG 2004. http://www.artesas.de. Accessed 28 Aug 2009
  2. Bauer M, Brügge G, Klinker G, MacWilliams A, Reicher T, Riss S, Sandor C, Wagner M (2001) Design of a component based augmented reality framework. In: Second IEEE and ACM international symposium on augmented reality (ISAR 2001), New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck K (1999) Extreme programming explained: embrace change. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourguignon D, Lawson G, Pentenrieder K, Pavlopoulos C (2007) D17 specification of DiFac CME tools/services components and technical assessment. DiFac IST5–035079. MASA, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  5. Chiabra P, Masotti S (2007) D8: preliminary market study and methodologies for SME user group. DiFac IST5–035079. PRIMA, Turin, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  6. Friedrich W (2002) ARVIKA–augmented reality for development, production and service. In: First IEEE/ACM international symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR 2002). Darmstadt, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  7. Grimm P, Haller M, Paelke V, Reinhold S, Reimann C, Zauner J (2002) AMIRE: authoring mixed reality. In: The first IEEE international augmented reality toolkit workshop. Darmstadt, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  8. Haller M, Stauder E, Zauner J (2005) AMIRE-ES: authoring mixed reality once, run it anywhere. In: 11th international conference on human-computer interaction. Las Vegas, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. Kuka (2008) KUKA Roboter erweitern Realitätswahrnehmung in der Robotik, KUKA Roboter GmbH. http://www.kuka-robotics.com/germany/de/pressevents/news/NN_060313_KUKA_Roboter_erweitert_Realitätswahrnehmung_in_der_Robotik.htm. Accessed 28 Aug 2009
  10. Lawson G, D’Cruz M (2009) Evaluation report. DiFac IST5–035079. University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UKGoogle Scholar
  11. Lawson G, D’Cruz M, Bourguignon D, Pentenrieder K (2007) Training in the digital factory. In: IFAC workshop on manufacturing modelling, management and control. Budapest, HungaryGoogle Scholar
  12. Ledermann F, Istvan B, Schmalstieg D (2006) Abstraction and implementation strategies for augmented reality authoring. In: Billinghurst M, Haller M, Thomas B (eds) Emerging technologies of augmented reality: interface and design. Idea Group Publishing, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. MacIntyre B, Gandy M, Dow S, Bolter JD (2004) DART: a toolkit for rapid design exploration of augmented reality experiences. In: 17th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology (UIST 2004), New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  14. Metaio (2008) Metaio GmbH 2008. http://www.metaio.com. Accessed 28 Aug 2009
  15. Pentenrieder K, Bade C, Doil F, Meier P (2007) Augmented reality-based factory planning: an application targeted to industrial needs. In: Sixth IEEE/ACM international symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR 2007). Nara, JapanGoogle Scholar
  16. Platonov J, Heibel H, Meier P, Grollmann B (2006) A mobile markerless AR system for maintenance and repair. In: Fifth IEEE/ACM international symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR 2006). Santa Barbara, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. Regenbrecht H (2006) Industrial augmented reality applications. In: Haller M, Thomas B, Billinghurst M (eds) Emerging technologies of augmented reality: interfaces and design. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PAGoogle Scholar
  18. Tang A, Owen C, Brocca F, Mou W (2003) Comparative effectiveness of augmented reality in object assembly. In: SIGCHI conference on human factors in computer systems. New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  19. Tromp JG, Nichols S (2003) VIEW-IT: A VR/CAD inspection tool for use in industry. In: 10th international conference on human–computer interaction. London, UKGoogle Scholar
  20. Witmer BG, Singer MJ (1998) Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleop Virtual Environ, MIT Press 7:225–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katharina Buckl
    • 1
  • Stefan Misslinger
    • 1
  • Piero Chiabra
    • 2
  • Glyn Lawson
    • 3
  1. 1.Metaio GmbHMunichGermany
  2. 2.PRIMA IndustrieTurinItaly
  3. 3.Human Factors Research Groupthe University of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations