Manipulator Brake Testing via Dynamic Drive Torque

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing methods for testing manipulator brakes, such as those used in robots, are inadequate for evaluating the functionality of brakes as service brakes, especially for speed-dependent brakes like eddy current brakes, and often subject the brakes and motors to high loads, which is not suitable for modern force-controlled robot systems.

Innovation Solution

A method involving the application of a predetermined driving force to the manipulator, which can vary over time or depend on state variables, to check the brake's functionality by detecting movement and comparing it with permissible limit values, allowing for the evaluation of braking force and deceleration, and assessing the brake's quality based on its ability to provide the required braking force.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If the motor current is recorded after the brake has been closed to test brake functionality, then the operating torque of the brake can be recorded, but the brake and electric motor are subjected to high loads

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvebrake torque measurementVSAvoidbrake and motor load
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSStrength

Solution Approach 1:

The patent changes the test parameters by applying a predetermined drive torque that is specifically designed to be sufficient for brake testing but not excessively high. The drive torque is set to a value that allows accurate brake evaluation while avoiding unnecessary overloading of the brake and motor during the test procedure.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Reliability

If a stationary axle is subjected to a predetermined drive torque when the brake is closed to test brake function, then brake functionality can be evaluated, but the test is not suitable for evaluating service brakes and speed-dependent brakes

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvebrake function evaluationVSAvoidbrake type applicability
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The patent transitions from a static brake test (stationary axle) to a dynamic test where the manipulator is set into motion before closing the brake. This dynamic approach allows the brake to be tested under conditions that reflect its actual service operation, making the test applicable to speed-dependent brakes like eddy current brakes that only provide significant braking torque during movement.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

3Measurement precision

If the electric motor moves the axle further applying greater drive torque to overcome the closed brake, then the operating torque of the brake can be recorded, but the brake and electric motor are subjected to high loads

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvebrake operating torqueVSAvoiddrive torque requirement
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSPower

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies a predetermined drive torque that is partially sufficient for the test purpose - not excessively high like in previous methods. The drive torque is carefully selected to be just enough to enable accurate brake evaluation without causing unnecessary overloading, representing a partial action approach that avoids excessive power consumption and component stress.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Data Source

PatentEP2108933B1Testing method and device for a manipulation brake
Publication Date: 2018.06.20 KUKA DEUT GMBH
  • EP2108933B1 patent drawingFigure 1~3
  • EP2108933B1 patent drawing
  • EP2108933B1 patent drawing

AI summary

The method involves applying a given driving power on a manipulator (S10), locking a brake (S20), and detecting the movement of the manipulator (S30). The brake is assessed (S40) on basis of the detected movement. The driving power is applied on the manipulator such that the manipulator is changed in direction of motion or rate of motion for testing. Independent claims are included for the following: (1) a testing device for a manipulator; (2) a computer program for the execution of testing method; and (3) a computer program product with a program code.