Robotic Manipulator Brake Release for Safe Shutdown Repositioning
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing robotic systems lack adequate safety features to prevent accidents when operating in close proximity to humans or deformable bodies, particularly in scenarios where traditional safety measures like gates, cages, floor sensors, and light curtains are ineffective, and there is a need for improved safety mechanisms to ensure the safety of both operators and subjects being manipulated by the robots.
Innovation Solution
The implementation of a robotic system with a controller that enables the disabling of brakes on specific joints, allowing for manual movement of the robotic arm away from the body, combined with a solenoid mechanism that disengages the robot arm from its base, enabling safe repositioning and preventing the robot from falling or causing harm during power loss or shutdown.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If traditional safety measures (gates, cages, floor sensors, light curtains) are used to protect operators from robotic arms, then operator safety is improved, but these measures are ineffective when the robot operates in close proximity to humans or deformable bodies where such measures cannot be implemented
Solution Approach 1:
The patent replaces traditional mechanical safety systems (gates, cages, light curtains) with an electromechanical brake system integrated into the robotic arm joints. This substitution allows safety functionality to be embedded within the robot itself rather than requiring external protective structures, enabling safe operation in close proximity to humans and deformable bodies where traditional measures cannot be implemented.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent divides the braking system into multiple independent brakes corresponding to different joints of the robotic arm. Each joint has its own brake that can be independently controlled, allowing selective restriction of movement in specific directions while maintaining flexibility in others. This segmentation enables precise safety control adapted to the specific operational context and direction of potential harm.
2Reliability
If brakes are enabled on all joints to restrict robotic arm movement during shutdown, then operator safety is improved, but the robotic arm may fall or cause damage due to unrestricted movement
Solution Approach 1:
The patent applies different brake states to different joints based on their specific functional requirements and potential harm directions. Critical joints that control movement toward operators or deformable bodies have brakes enabled, while other joints maintain disabled brakes to allow natural movement and prevent falling. This localized differentiation of brake application optimizes safety while minimizing harmful effects.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent implements dynamic brake control where the brake state of each joint can change based on operational conditions, shutdown signals, and safety requirements. During normal operation, brakes are disabled for flexibility; during shutdown or emergency, specific brakes are enabled to restrict movement in dangerous directions while allowing movement in safe directions, preventing both operator harm and robotic arm damage.
3Ease of operation
If brakes are disabled on all joints to allow free movement of the robotic arm, then ease of operation is improved, but safety is compromised when shutdown or power loss occurs
Solution Approach 1:
The patent implements periodic or conditional brake activation based on operational phases. During normal operation, brakes remain disabled to allow free movement and ease of operation. Upon detection of shutdown signals, power loss, or emergency conditions, the system periodically activates specific brakes to restrict movement and ensure safety. This periodic transition between disabled and enabled states optimizes both operational ease and shutdown safety.
Applied Scientific Principles
This section explains which scientific principles are used to turn an abstract innovation direction into a practical engineering solution.
Function Achieved in This Case
This solution enhances safety by allowing for controlled movement of the robotic arm away from the body during shutdowns, preventing injury to both the operator and the subject, and maintaining the robot's integrity by avoiding unnecessary damage.
Implementation Method 1
combined with a solenoid mechanism that disengages the robot arm from its base
Implementation Method 2
Each joint from the set of joints includes a brake from a set of brakes. The set of brakes includes a first subset of brakes and a second subset of brakes. Each brake from the set of brakes is configured to be enabled or disabled
Data Source
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
AI summary
An apparatus includes a base and a robotic arm operatively coupled to the base via a connector. The robotic arm includes a set of links interconnected by a set of joints. A first link from the set of links is operatively coupled to the connector. Each joint from the set of joints includes a brake from a set of brakes, each brake from the set of brakes configured to be enabled or disabled. The apparatus further comprises an end effector operatively coupled to the robotic arm via a second link from the set of links different from the first link. The apparatus further comprises a controller, communicably coupled to at least one of the base, the robotic arm, or the end effector. The controller is configured to cause the robotic arm to perform a task, and determine, during the task, that movement of the robotic arm is to be restricted.