ACS6503: Manipulator Robotics
Assignment 1 – Safety of
Collaborative Robots
2022-2023



Updated: 28 October 2022










Automatic Control &
Systems Engineering
2


Contents
1 Report .........................................................................................................................................3
1.1 Assignment .............................................................................................................................3
1.2 Marking Criteria......................................................................................................................4
1.3 Style ........................................................................................................................................4
1.4 Report Formatting ..................................................................................................................4
1.5 Schedule of Project Deliverables/Assessment .......................................................................4
1.6 Penalties for Late Submission ................................................................................................5
1.7 Use of Unfair Means in the Assessment Process (non-vigilated assessment) .......................5
Appendix 1 – Assessment: General Grade Descriptors for Projects & Reports (100 point scale) ..8



3

1 Report
1.1 Assignment
This assignment involves the understanding of the safety surrounding collaborative robotics, and the
development and analysis of a potential implementation. To provide a start to the assignment some
materials have been provided on Blackboard:
• ISO-10218:1 – Robots and Robotic Devices – Safety Requirements for Industrial Robots: Part
1: Robots
• ISO-10218:2 – Robots and Robotic Devices – Safety Requirements for Industrial Robots: Part
2: Robot Systems and Integration
• ISO TS 15066 – Robotics and Robotic Devices – Collaborative Robots
• Polverini, Matteo Parigi, Andrea Maria Zanchettin, and Paolo Rocco. "A computationally
efficient safety assessment for collaborative robotics applications." Robotics and Computer-
Integrated Manufacturing 46 (2017): 25-37.
• Maurtua, Iñaki, et al. "Human–robot collaboration in industrial applications: Safety, interaction
and trust." International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems 14.4 (2017):
1729881417716010.
• Halme, Roni-Jussi, et al. "Review of vision-based safety systems for human-robot
collaboration." Procedia CIRP 72 (2018): 111-116.

These three standards and papers will give extra background and provide the beginnings of the
literature survey required for this project. You should substantially extend these to discuss the
current state of the art in safety-rated and safety-related systems for collaborative robotics.
1. Highlight the potential modes of operation and how these modes are characterised.
2. Detail potential sensing systems (examples of which detailed in the standards, especially
ISO-10218:1) and operational configurations that can be deployed in order to achieve the
modes of operation.
3. Review how collaborative robots are currently being deployed, and highlight the areas in
which they excel compared with traditional solutions. (Hint: Some considerations in this area
can be found in the case studies identified in points 4 and 5).
4. Case study evaluation: Consider and report on ONE (a OR b) of the case studies detailed
below:
a. Case 1: Evaluate the Case Study Universal Robots provide on an assembly task
(https://www.universal-robots.com/case-stories/darex/); detail the safety
considerations that will have taken place developing the cell, and their likely
application. Consider how this application could be improved, and each different
mode of collaborative operation applied.
b. Case 2: Evaluate the Case Study Universal Robots provide on material handling and
machine tending (https://www.universal-robots.com/case-stories/bajaj-auto/);
detail the safety considerations that will have taken place developing the cell, and
their likely application. Consider how this application could be improved, and each
different mode of collaborative operation applied.
5. Conclude, considering future directions of collaborative robots, and the future of safety
systems, including the sensing methodology that may be used.

4

1.2 Marking Criteria
Detailed marking criteria for each of the report are provided in Appendix 1 and a general guide to the
marks attributable to different levels of attainment is also given. Please ensure you read the marking
criteria in detail and that you cover all aspects of the marking criteria in each deliverable.
For each deliverable, marks are provided under various criteria based on the given guidelines. The
comments by the marker will reflect how the deliverable has been marked to ensure that the student
can understand the mark given and to provide advice on how to improve in the future.
1.3 Style
The report should be produced in a professional manner as if you are working in industry. The page
limit for this report is 2,500 words.
1.4 Report Formatting
All reports should be word processed, professionally produced and submitted in pdf format. You
should use either Times New Roman or Calibri and 11 point type with at least 2cm margins at the
top/bottom and sides of the page. You should use 1.5 line spacing. Where a page limit (meaning
number of A4 sides) is given this does not include the title page, abstract/executive summary, contents
page, list of figures, list of tables, list of references or appendices. However, you should keep
appendices to a minimum and they should only be used for additional information and not for
information that is key to understanding the report. Appendices will not be marked so do not rely on
them for important information.
All figures must be professionally produced and not hand drawn. Figures and tables should be
numbered appropriately, referred to in the main text and include a long enough caption to be able to
understand the figure/table without reading the main text, i.e. captions should be at least 1-2
sentences long.
You can use any correct referencing style. The following library resources are very good guides to
referencing in the (author, year) and [numbered] formats
http://www.librarydevelopment.group.shef.ac.uk/shef-only/referencing/engineering_harvard.html
http://www.librarydevelopment.group.shef.ac.uk/shef-only/referencing/engineering_ieee.html
Write professionally, do not use first person, i.e. “I” or “we”.
Do not underestimate how long it takes to compile a professional report.
1.5 Schedule of Project Deliverables/Assessment
All deliverables must include the group number and full list of registration numbers.
Deadline Deliverable Percentage of total
marks
Feedback

Semester 1
23.59, Monday,
PGT week 11 (5th
December)
Report on Robot Safety
Word Limit: 2,500
25% Marksheet and written feedback within
2 teaching weeks of submission: i.e. start
of Semester 2.
5

1.6 Penalties for Late Submission
Late submission will result in a deduction of 5% of the total mark awarded for each working
day after the submission date.

Day late Marked reduced by 5% Mark Awarded when reduced by 5%*
Multiply by Original 60 Original 50
1 0.95 57 47.5
2 0.90 54 45
3 0.85 51 42.5
4 0.80 48 40
5 0.75 45 37.5
* standard mathematical founding rules should be applied and marks should be
rounded up.
The 5 working day deadline for late submission is absolute and any work submitted after the
5 working day period without a special dispensation will receive zero.
For further information see http://www.shef.ac.uk/ssid/exams/policies.

1.7 Use of Unfair Means in the Assessment Process (non-vigilated assessment)
As taken from http://shef.ac.uk/ssid/exams/plagiarism.
The University expects its graduates to have acquired certain attributes. (See the Sheffield Graduate
- http://www.shef.ac.uk/sheffieldgraduate) Many of these relate to good academic practice:
• a critical, analytical and creative thinker
• an independent learner and researcher
• information literate and IT literate
• a flexible team worker
• an accomplished communicator
• competent in applying their knowledge and skills
• professional and adaptable.
Throughout your programme of study at the University you will learn how to develop these skills and
attributes. Your assessed work is the main way in which you demonstrate that you have acquired
and can apply them. Using unfair means in the assessment process is dishonest and also means that
you cannot demonstrate that you have acquired these essential academic skills and attributes.
What constitutes unfair means?
The basic principle underlying the preparation of any piece of academic work is that the work
submitted must be your own work. Plagiarism, submitting bought or commissioned work, double
submission (or self plagiarism), collusion and fabrication of results are not allowed because they
6

violate this principle (see definitions below). Rules about these forms of cheating apply to all
assessed and non-assessed work.
1. Plagiarism (either intentional or unintentional) is the stealing of ideas or work of another person
(including experts and fellow or former students) and is considered dishonest and unprofessional.
Plagiarism may take the form of cutting and pasting, taking or closely paraphrasing ideas, passages,
sections, sentences, paragraphs, drawings, graphs and other graphical material from books, articles,
internet sites or any other source and submitting them for assessment without appropriate
acknowledgement.
2. Submitting bought or commissioned work (for example from internet sites, essay “banks” or
“mills”) is an extremely serious form of plagiarism. This may take the form of buying or
commissioning either the whole assignment or part of it and implies a clear intention to deceive the
examiners. The University also takes an extremely serious view of any student who sells, offers to
sell or passes on their own assignments to other students
3. Double submission (or self plagiarism) is resubmitting previously submitted work on one or more
occasions (without proper acknowledgement). This may take the form of copying either the whole
assignment or part of it. Normally credit will already have been given for this work.
4. Collusion is where two or more people work together to produce a piece of work, all or part of
which is then submitted by each of them as their own individual work. This includes passing on work
in any format to another student. Collusion does not occur where students involved in group work
are encouraged to work together to produce a single piece of work as part of the assessment
process.
5. Fabrication is submitting work (for example, practical or laboratory work) any part of which is
untrue, made up, falsified or fabricated in any way. This is regarded as fraudulent and dishonest.
How can I avoid the use of unfair means?
To avoid using unfair means, any work submitted must be your own and must not include the work
of any other person, unless it is properly acknowledged and referenced.
As part of your programme of studies you will learn how to reference sources appropriately in order
to avoid plagiarism. This is an essential skill that you will need throughout your University career and
beyond. You should follow any guidance on the preparation of assessed work given by the academic
department setting the assignment.
You are required to attach a declaration form to all submitted work (including work submitted
online), stating that the work submitted is entirely your own work.
If you have any concerns about appropriate academic practices or if you are experiencing any
personal difficulties which are affecting your work, you should consult your personal tutor or a
member of staff involved with that unit of study.
The following websites provide additional information on referencing appropriately and avoiding
unfair means:
7

The Library provides online information literacy skills tutorials
http://www.shef.ac.uk/library/services/infoskills.html
The Library also has information on reference management software
http://www.shef.ac.uk/library/refmant/refmant.html
The English Language Teaching Centre operates a Writing Advisory Service through which students
can make individual appointments to discuss a piece of writing. This is available for all students, both
native and non-native speakers of English.
http://www.shef.ac.uk/eltc/services/writingadvisory
What happens if I use unfair means?
Any form of unfair means is treated as a serious academic offence and action may be taken under
the Discipline Regulations. For a student registered on a professionally accredited programme of
study, action may also be taken under the Fitness to Practise Regulations. Where unfair means is
found to have been used, the University may impose penalties ranging from awarding a grade of
zero for the assignment through to expulsion from the University in extremely serious cases.
Detection of Unfair Means
The University subscribes to a national plagiarism detection service which helps academic staff
identify the original source of material submitted by students. This means that academic staff have
access to specialist software that searches a database of reference material gathered from
professional publications, student essay websites and other work submitted by students. It is also a
resource which can help tutors to advise students on ways of improving their referencing
techniques. Your work is likely to be submitted to this service.
For further information
(www.shef.ac.uk/ssid/charter/guidance_taught.html)
(www.shef.ac.uk/ssid/procedures/grid.html#discipline)
IMPORTANT NOTE:
You should thoroughly read and understand the above section on unfair means. If you are at all
unsure about what this means and the implications for your work, then you should consult the
module leader.

8

Appendix 1 – Assessment: General Grade Descriptors for Projects & Reports (100 point scale)

I
(70 -100)


• Extensive knowledge of the subject area and the engineering context. A perceptive and focused use of
the relevant material. Widespread evidence of independent sourcing and original thought.
• Shows an insight and depth of understanding, including an awareness of the complexities and
subtleties.
• Very high standard of critical analysis and evaluation.
• Clearly structured presentation, showing logical development of arguments and properly referenced
data and examples.

II:1
(60 - 69)

• A sound knowledge of the subject area and engineering context. A comprehensive use of the relevant
material with some evidence of independent sourcing and original thought.
• Shows an understanding of arguments, contribution and context, including some awareness of the
complexities and subtleties.
• High standard of critical analysis of the source material. Evidence of some evaluation and synthesis.
• Clearly structured presentation, showing logical development of arguments and properly referenced
data and examples.

II:2
(50 - 59)

• Some knowledge of the subject area and engineering context. Makes some use of the relevant
material with little or no evidence of independent sourcing, or original thought.
• Shows some understanding of arguments, contribution and context.
• Attempts analysis of the source material but may include some errors/omissions. Little evidence of
evaluation and synthesis.
• Presentation reasonably clear with arguments not fully developed and data and examples not fully
referenced.

Fail
(45 - 49)

• Some knowledge and appreciation of the engineering context. Superficial use of the material
provided. No evidence of independent sourcing, or original thought.
• Some areas of understanding of the arguments, contribution and context.
• Confused analysis including errors and omissions. No evidence of evaluation and synthesis.
• Descriptive presentation based on confused arguments. Includes poorly referenced data and
examples provided during the lecture.

Fail
(40 - 44)

• Limited and patchy knowledge and appreciation of the engineering context. Poor use of the material
provided. No evidence of independent sourcing, or original thought.
• Limited understanding of the arguments. No understanding of the contribution and context.
• Confused analysis including a number errors and omissions. No evidence of evaluation and synthesis.
• Descriptive presentation based on confused arguments. Poor use of data and examples provided
during the lecture. No references

Fail
(0 - 39)

• Inadequate knowledge and no appreciation of the engineering context. Poor use of the material
provided. No evidence of independent sourcing, or original thought.
• Inadequate understanding of the arguments, contribution and context.
• Inadequate grasp of the analysis including many errors and omissions. No evidence of evaluation and
synthesis.
• Presentation that contains no data, examples or even class notes.




9


ACS6503 – Report
Registration Number: ……………….…………………………………………

INFORMATION ON THIS FORM WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE STUDENTS
Marks
Background, aims and objectives: summarises the key background to the work,
clear aim(s) and objectives.
/10
Literature survey: summarises the key papers within the area, produces a summary
of key areas within the standards. This should be extended through an up to date
literature survey detailing advances in the area, and also current applications being
developed and deployed in industry.
/20
Evaluation of Current Usage (Chosen Case Study): operational case evaluated in
the context of the criteria for collaborative robotics mode applied. Extended to
discuss how other operational modes could be applicable, highlight advantages and
disadvantages of each potential option.
/20
Potential Addition of Sensors (Chosen Case Study): considering industrially-rated
relevant sensors, and their application in the context of the chosen Case Study.
/30
Evaluation of Future Directions: Suggestions made about future development of
sensors or operational modes based on evidence from literature survey.
/10
Style and presentation of the report: organisation, clarity, conciseness, referencing,
quality of presentation, use of English, figures, tables, correct captioning of
diagrams, diagrams well visible. Code produced for report is well formatted and
easy to read/understand.
/10
Total /100

Comments to students:

Signature……………………………………………………… Date………….………