Advertisement

Relevant factors for the energy consumption of industrial robots

  • Raphael Rustici Garcia
  • André Carvalho Bittencourt
  • Emilia Villani
Technical Paper
  • 54 Downloads

Abstract

This work investigates the energy consumption of industrial robots in the context of automotive industry. The purpose is to identify the most influencing parameters and variables and to propose best practices with focus on energy efficiency. The analysis approach is composed of three experiments performed in a simulation environment that test different values of programming parameters and variables, such as joint speed, acceleration, robot payload. The first experiment focuses on energy consumption of robots at standstill. The second one considers the robot moving along different paths. Finally, the third one analyses how the joint friction is affected by load, speed and temperature and how it influences the energy consumption. Results show that at standstill, it is important to reduce dwell time, select an energy efficient position and reduce the programmed value of the timer responsible for turning off the servomotors. While moving, it is important to select maximum continuous termination for intermediate points and avoid low speeds. Regarding friction variation, results show that at high motor speed, low temperatures increase energy consumption. In order to evaluate the contribution of the best practices in a real environment, they are applied to a welding robotic cell of an automotive industry.

Keywords

Energy consumption Industrial robots Friction modelling Automotive industry 

References

  1. 1.
    Åstrom KJ, De-Wit CC (2008) Revisiting the LuGre friction model. IEEE Control Syst Mag 28(6):101–114MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berger EJ (2002) Friction modeling for dynamic system simulation. ASME Appl Mech 55(6):535–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bittencourt AC, Axelsson P (2014) Modeling and experiment design for identification of wear in a robot joint under load and temperature uncertainties based on friction data. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron 19(5):1694–1706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bittencourt AC, Gunnarsson S (2012) Static friction in a robot joint—modeling and identification of load and temperature effects. ASME J Dyn Syst Meas Control 134(5):10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Björkman M, Norrlöf M (2011) A method for reducing the energy consumption of an industrial robot and an industrial robot system. Patente WO2011042293A1Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borgstrom PH, Singh A, Jordan BL, Sukhatme GS, Batalin MA, Kaiser WJ (2008) Energy based path planning for a novel cabled robotic system. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2008), Nice, pp 1745–1751Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chemnitz M, Schreck G, Krüger J (2011) Analyzing energy consumption of industrial robots. In: IEEE 16th conference on emerging technologies and factory automation (ETFA 2011), ToulouseGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    FANUC (2006) FANUC Robot R-2000iB—Unidad Mecánica—Manual De Mantenimiento, 08860 Castelldefels, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Field G, Stepanenko Y (1996) Iterative dynamic programming: an approach to minimum energy trajectory planning for robotic manipulators. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Minneapolis, pp 2755–2760Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hamon P, Gautier M, Garrec P (2011) New dry friction model with load- and velocity-dependence and dynamic identification of multi-DOF robots. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Shanghai, pp 1077–1084Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harnoy A, Friedland B, Cohn S (2008) Modeling and measuring friction effects. IEEE Control Syst Mag 28(6):82–91MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    International Federation of Robotics (2017) Executive summary world robotics 2017 industrial robots (online). https://ifr.org/downloads/press/Executive_Summary_WR_2017_Industrial_Robots.pdf. Accessed 09 Feb 2018
  13. 13.
    Ishikawa J, Tei S, Hoshino D, Izutsu M, Kamamichi N (2010) Friction compensation based on the LuGre friction model. In: SICE annual conference, Taipei, pp 9–12Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mashaei M, Lennartson B (2014) Energy reduction in cyclic flow shop plants through on–off control of robots. In: The 7th IEEE international conference on automation science and engineering (CASE), Taipei, pp 492–497Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Meike D, Ribickis L (2011) Energy efficient use of robotics in the automobile industry. In: The 15th international conference on advanced robotics, Tallinn, pp 507–511Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Montgomery DC (2013) Design and analysis of experiments, 8th edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Neugebauer H (2012) Parameter identification of a permanent magnet synchronous motor. MSc thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, GothenburgGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Niglis A, Oberg P (2015) Modelling high-fidelity robot dynamics. MSc thesis, Linköping University, LinköpingGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Othman A, Belda K, Burget P (2015) Physical modelling of energy consumption of industrial articulated robots. In: The 15th international conference on control, automation and systems (ICCAS 2015), Busan, pp 784–789Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Paes K, Dewulf W, Elst KV, Kellens K, Slaets P (2014) Energy efficient trajectories for and industrial ABB robot. Procedia CIRP 15:105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Paryanto P, Brossog M, Kohl J, Merhof J, Spreng S, Franke J (2014) Energy consumption and dynamic behavior analysis of a six-axis industrial robot in an assembly system. Procedia CIRP 23:131–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Paryanto P, Brossog M, Kohl J, Merhof J, Spreng S, Franke J (2015) Reducing the energy consumption of industrial robots in manufacturing systems. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 78:1315–1328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ruff M, Grotstollen H (1996) Off-line identification of the electrical parameters of an industrial servo drive system. In: The 31st IEEE industry applications conference (IAS 1996), San Diego, pp 213–220Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shugen MA (1995) Real-time algorithm for quasi-minimum energy control of robotic manipulators. In: The 21st international conference on industrial electronics, control, and instrumentation (IECON 1995), Orlando, pp 1324–1329Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    van Geffen V (2009) A study of friction models and friction compensation. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, EindhovenGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vas P (1998) Sensorless vector and direct torque control, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wigstrom O, Lennartson B (2014) Towards integrated OR/CP energy optimization for robot cells. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Hong-KongGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center of Competence in Manufacturing (CCM)Aeronautics Institute of Technology (ITA)São José dos CamposBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Electrical EngineeringLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations