Advertisement

Measurement of the Accuracy of a Puma 560 Industrial Robot

  • D. A. Hornshaw
  • A. J. Day
Chapter

Abstract

In this paper, industrial robot accuracy and repeatability are introduced and discussed, and methods for assessing these performance parameters are described. Using a direct measurement system, the position repeatability, relative and absolute accuracy of a PUMA 560 industrial robot have been measured. Experimental results indicate that position repeatability of the robot is good, up to ± 0.04 mm, but relative accuracy can be worse than 1.5 mm depending significantly on the position of the end effector within the working volume. Absolute accuracy is difficult to measure but can have an error up to 10.7 mm. Theoretical results from a forward kinematics analysis with introduced errors indicates that joint errors can generate significant position errors, up to 2.5 mm at the end effector for a 0.1° error in joint angles 1, 2 and 3.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    ACKERSON D., “Theory, experimental results, and recommended standards regarding the static positioning and orienting precision of industrial robots”, Robotics and Computer Integrated manufacture V2. N3/4 1985 p. 247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 3.
    LANGMOEN R., “Testing of industrial robots”, Proc.14th Intern. symp. on ind. robots 1984, p. 201Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    ALBERTSON P., “Verifying robot performance”, Robotics today Oct 1983, p. 33Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    CHEN J., “Positioning error analysis for robot manipulators with all rotary joints”, IEEE, J Robotics Automation RA-3(6) Dec 1987 p. 579Google Scholar
  5. 7.
    PHILLIPS J., “The measurement capability of an industrial robot”, Proc. of the 24th Int. Machine Tool Design and Research Conf 1984 p. 423Google Scholar
  6. 8.
    COLSON J., PERREIRA N., “Robotic system pose performance: definitions and analysis”, Proc. of Conf. on Computers in England 1985Google Scholar
  7. 10.
    COLSON J., PERREIRA N., “Quasi-static performance of robots”, Robotics and CIM, V2 N3/4 1985 p. 261Google Scholar
  8. 11.
    RANKY P., International encyclopaedia of robotics, John Wiley & Sons 1988 p. 1Google Scholar
  9. 12.
    TAYLOR P., “Robotic Control”, Macmillan new electronics series 1990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 13.
    LAU K., “International encyclopaedia of robotics”, John Wiley & Sons 1988 p. 1753Google Scholar
  11. 15.
    LAU K., “Robot performance measurements using automatic laser tracking techniques”, Robotics and CIM V. 2 N. 3/4 1985 p. 227Google Scholar
  12. 17.
    NOWROUZI A., “An overview of robot calibration techniques”, The industrial robot V. 15 N. 5 1988 p. 229Google Scholar
  13. 19.
    DUKOVSKY V., “Robot accuracy and stiffness-an experimental study”, Robotics and CIM. V. 2 N3/4 1990 p. 321Google Scholar
  14. 20.
    FU K.S. et al., “Robotics: control, sensing, vision and intelligence”, McGraw-Hill 1987 Ch.5Google Scholar
  15. 21.
    KOREN Y., “Robotics for engineers”, McGraw-Hill 1985 Ch.3Google Scholar
  16. 22.
    HORNSHAW D.A., “A study of robot accuracy”, MSc thesis, University of Bradford, 1991Google Scholar
  17. 23.
    WHITNEY D., “Industrial robot forward calibration method and results”, Journal of dynamic systems, measurement and control March 1986 V. 108/1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. A. Hornshaw
    • 1
  • A. J. Day
    • 1
  1. 1.University of BradfordUK

Personalised recommendations