Advertisement

Increasing Machining Accuracy of Industrial Manipulators Using Reduced Elastostatic Model

  • Shamil Mamedov
  • Dmitry Popov
  • Stanislav Mikhel
  • Alexandr KlimchikEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 613)

Abstract

For a long time, the field of machining has been dominated by computer numerical control (CNC) machines as they are simple from the kinematic point of view and stiff that ensures high positioning accuracy. However they are very expensive and occupy large space, thus there is a demand from industry for cheaper and smaller alternatives. The most promising one is an industrial manipulator which is indeed cheaper and have the lower footprint to workspace ration. The reason why industrial manipulators have not yet replaced CNC machines is their comparatively low stiffness that causes deflections in the end-effector position and orientation due to an external force applied to it during a machining operation. Therefore, an extensive research is being conducted in this area that focuses on developing accurate stiffness model of the robot and incorporating it into the control scheme. As the majority of stiffness models include stiffness of the links as well as joints even though the former cannot be obtained from the parameters provided by the robot manufacturer, that is why it is important to understand how accurately a reduced stiffness model, which lumps all the stiffness properties in the joints, can replicate the deflections of the full model. In this paper, we focus on analyzing the quantitative difference between these two models using Virtual Joint Modeling method and its effect on the trajectory tracking. The systematic analysis carried out for FANUC R-2000iC/165F robot demonstrates that reduced stiffness model can quite accurately replicate the full one so that up to 92% of the end-effector deflection can be compensated. The average deflection error after compensation is about 0.7 \(\upmu \text {m}/\text {N}\) for a typical heavy industrial robot under the loading.

Keywords

Elastostatics Virtual joint method Industrial manipulators Machining Deflection compensation 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This research has been supported by the grant of Russian Science Foundation 17-19-01740.

References

  1. 1.
    Alici G, Shirinzadeh B (2005) Enhanced stiffness modeling, identification and characterization for robot manipulators.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2004.842347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belchior J, Guillo M, Courteille E, Maurine P, Leotoing L, Guines D (2013) Off-line compensation of the tool path deviations on robotic machining: application to incremental sheet forming. Robot Comput Integr Manufact 29(4):58–69.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2012.10.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen Y, Gao J, Deng H, Zheng D, Chen X, Kelly R (2013) Spatialstatistical analysis and compensation of machining errors for complex surfaces. Precis Eng 37(1):203–212.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precisioneng.2012.08.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Corradini C, Fauroux JC, Krut S, et al (2003) Evaluation of a 4-degree of freedom parallel manipulator stiffness. In: Proceedings of the 11th world congress in mechanisms and machine science, Tianjin, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Daney D, Papegay Y, Madeline B (2005) Choosing measurement poses for robot calibration with the local convergence method and Tabu search. Int J Robot Res 24(6):501–518.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364905053185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guillo M, Dubourg L (2016) Impact & improvement of tool deviation in friction stir welding: weld quality & real-time compensation on an industrial robot. Robot Comput Integr Manufact 39:22–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2015.11.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guo Y, Dong H, Ke Y (2015) Stiffness-oriented posture optimization in roboticmachining applications. Robot Comput Integr Manufact 35:69–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2015.02.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Klimchik A, Ambiehl A, Garnier S, Furet B, Pashkevich A (2017) Efficiency evaluation of robots in machining applications using industrial performancemeasure. Robot Comput Integr Manufact 48:12–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2016.12.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klimchik A, Caro S, Pashkevich A (2015) Optimal pose selection for calibrationof planar anthropomorphic manipulators. Precis. Eng. 40:214–229.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precisioneng.2014.12.001, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141635914002116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klimchik A, Chablat D, Pashkevich A (2014) Stiffness modeling for perfect andnon-perfect parallel manipulators under internal and external loadings. Mech Mach Theory 79:1–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2014.04.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klimchik A, Chablat D, Pashkevich A (2019) Advancement of MSA-technique for stiffness modeling of serial and parallel robotic manipulators. In: Arakelian V, Wenger P (eds) ROMANSY 22 - robot design, dynamics and control. Springer, Cham, pp 355–362 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klimchik A, Furet B, Caro S, Pashkevich A (2015) Identification of the manipulator stiffness model parameters in industrial environment. Mech Mach Theory 90:1–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2015.03.002, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094114X15000397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Klimchik A, Pashkevich A, Chablat D (2013) CAD-based approach for identification of elasto-static parameters of robotic manipulators. Finite Elem Anal Des 75:19–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.finel.2013.06.008MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Klimchik A, Pashkevich A, Chablat D (2018) MSA - technique for stiffness modeling of manipulators with complex and hybrid structures. In: 12th IFAC symposium on robot control - SYROCO 2018, Budapest, Hungary, June 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Klimchik A, Wu Y, Pashkevich A, Caro S, Furet B (2012) Optimal selection of measurement configurations for stiffness model calibration of anthropomorphic manipulators. Appl Mech Mater 162:161–170.  https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.162.161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Le Digabel S (2011) Algorithm 909: NOMAD: nonlinear optimization with the mads algorithm. ACM Trans Math Softw (TOMS) 37(4):44MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leon SJ, Bica I, Hohn T (1980) Linear algebra with applications. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mamedov S, Popov D, Mikhel S, Klimchik A (2018) Compliance error compensation based on reduced model for industrial robots. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on informatics in control, automation and robotics, ICINCO 2018, Porto, Portugal, 29–31 July 2018, vol 2, pp 190–201Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Martin HC (1966) Introduction to matrix methods of structural analysis. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nubiola A, Bonev IA (2013) Absolute calibration of an ABB IRB 1600 robot using a laser tracker. Robot Comput Integr Manufact 29(1):236–245.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2012.06.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Olabi A, Damak M, Bearee R, Gibaru O, Leleu S (2012) Improving the accuracy of industrial robots by offline compensation of joints errors. In: 2012 IEEE international conference on industrial technology (ICIT), IEEE, pp 492–497Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ozaki T, Suzuki T, Furuhashi T, Okuma S, Uchikawa Y (1991) Trajectory control of robotic manipulators using neural networks. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron 38(3):195–202.  https://doi.org/10.1109/41.87587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pan Z, Zhang H, Zhu Z, Wang J (2006) Chatter analysis of robotic machining process. J Mater Process Technol 173(3):301–309.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2005.11.033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pashkevich A, Chablat D, Wenger P (2009) Stiffness analysis of over constrained parallel manipulators. Mech Mach Theory 44(5):966–982.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2008.05.017CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pashkevich A, Klimchik A, Chablat D (2011) Enhanced stiffness modeling of manipulators with passive joints. Mech Mach Theory 46(5):662–679.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2010.12.008CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pigoski T, Griffis M, Duffy J (1998) Stiffness mappings employing different frames of reference. Mech Mach Theory 33(6):825–838.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0094-114X(97)00083-9CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Salisbury JK (1980) Active stiffness control of a manipulator in cartesian coordinates. In: 1980 19th IEEE conference on decision and control including the symposium on adaptive processes, IEEE, vol 19, pp 95–100.  https://doi.org/10.1109/CDC.1980.272026
  28. 28.
    Sun Y, Hollerbach JM (2008) Observability index selection for robot calibration. In: 2008 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, pp 831–836, May 2008.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2008.4543308
  29. 29.
    Taghaeipour A, Angeles J, Lessard L (2010) Online computation of the stiffness matrix in robotic structures using finite element analysis. McGill University, Montreal, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Centre for Intelligent MachinesGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zargarbashi S, Khan W, Angeles J (2012) Posture optimization in robot-assisted machining operations. Mech Mach Theory 51:74–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2011.11.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhang H, Wang J, Zhang G, Gan Z, Pan Z, Cui H, Zhu Z (2005) Machining with flexible manipulator: toward improving robotic machining performance. In: 2005 IEEE/ASME international conference on advanced intelligent mechatronics, proceedings, IEEE, pp 1127–1132.  https://doi.org/10.1109/AIM.2005.1511161

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shamil Mamedov
    • 1
  • Dmitry Popov
    • 1
  • Stanislav Mikhel
    • 1
  • Alexandr Klimchik
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Center for Technologies in Robotics and Mechatronics ComponentsInnopolis UniversityInnopolisRussia

Personalised recommendations