Advertisement

Experimental comparison of dynamic tracking performance of iGPS and laser tracker

  • Zheng Wang
  • Luca MastrogiacomoEmail author
  • Fiorenzo Franceschini
  • Paul Maropoulos
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

External metrology systems are increasingly being integrated with traditional industrial articulated robots, especially in the aerospace industries, to improve their absolute accuracy for precision operations such as drilling, machining and jigless assembly. While currently most of the metrology assisted robotics control systems are limited in their position update rate, such that the robot has to be stopped in order to receive a metrology coordinate update, some recent efforts are addressed toward controlling robots using real-time metrology data. The indoor GPS is one of the metrology systems that may be used to provide real-time 6DOF data to a robot controller. Even if there is a noteworthy literature dealing with the evaluation of iGPS performance, there is, however, a lack of literature on how well the iGPS performs under dynamic conditions. This paper presents an experimental evaluation of the dynamic measurement performance of the iGPS, tracking the trajectories of an industrial robot. The same experiment is also repeated using a laser tracker. Besides the experiment results presented, this paper also proposes a novel method for dynamic repeatability comparisons of tracking instruments.

Keywords

Indoor GPS Laser tracker Dynamic performance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kayani A, Jamshidi J (2007) Measurement assisted assembly for large volume aircraft wing structures. Proceedings of DET2007, 4th International Conference on Digital Enterprise Technology, BathGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rooks B (2001) Automatic wing box assembly developments. Ind Rob 28(4):297–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eastwood SJ, Webb P, Mckeown C (2003) The use of the TI2 manufacturing system on a double-curvature aerospace panel. Proceedings of Institute of Mechanical Engineers Part B. Journal of Engineering Manufacture, vol 217, pp 849Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Webb P, Eastwood SJ (2004) An evaluation of the TI2 manufacturing system for the machining of airframe subassemblies. Proceedings of Institute of Mechanical Engineers Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, vol 218, p 819 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alici G, Shirinzadeh B (2003) Laser interferometry based robot position error modelling for kinematic calibration. Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE/RSJ, International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Las Vegas, Nevada, 27–31 October 2003Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maisano D, Jamshidi J, Franceschini F, Maropoulos PG, Mastrogiacomo L, Mileham AR, Owen GW (2008) Indoor GPS: system functionality and initial performance evaluation. IJMR 3:335–349 (no. 3)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Muelaner JE, Wang Z, Jamshidi J, Maropoulos PG, Mileham AR, Hughes EB, Forbes AB (2008) iGPS—an initial assessment of technical and deployment capability. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Manufacturing Engineering (ICMEN), Chalkidiki, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang Z, Jamshidi J, Maropoulos P, Owen G, Mileham T (2008) “Experimental deployment of the indoor gps large volume metrology system in a large scale production facility” Proceedings of the 3 rd International Conference on Manufacturing Engineering (ICMEN), Chalkidiki, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Muelaner J, Hughes B, Forbes A, Maropoulos P, Jamshidi J, Wang Z, Sun W (2008) iGPS capability assessment. Large Volume Metrology Conference, LiverpoolGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    VIM (2004) International vocabulary of basic and general terms in metrology, third edition. ISO/DG 99999. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ARCSecond (2002) Indoor GPS technology for Metrology. White Paper 071502, ARCSecond, DullesGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    ASME B89.4.19 (2006) Performance evaluation of laser-based spherical coordinate measurement systems http://catalog.asme.org/Codes/PrintBook/B89419_2006_Performance.cfm
  13. 13.
    Estler WT, Edmundson KL, Peggs GN, Parker DH (2002) Large scale metrology—an update. CIRP Annals, NIST TechnipubsGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    FARO Europe GmbH & Co. KG (2004) New faro laser tracker SI. 2: tougher with exclusive features. Faro UK technical specification sheetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang Z (2008) “KUKA KR240 robot repeatability study”, Airbus ALCAS internal reportGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Street JO, Carroll RJ, Ruppert D (1988) A note on computing robust regression estimates via iteratively reweighted least squares. Am Stat 42:152–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    KUKA Roboter GmbH, Germany (2002) KR 240-2–KR 240 L210-2 –KR 240 L180-2 (Series 2000) Technical data. KWM–Nr. 841612–86/D+E/3/04.05Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zheng Wang
    • 1
  • Luca Mastrogiacomo
    • 2
    Email author
  • Fiorenzo Franceschini
    • 2
  • Paul Maropoulos
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of BathBathUK
  2. 2.DISPEAPolitecnico di TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations