Robot Force-Guided Correction for Adaptive Arm Positioning

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current robot systems require significant human labor for cooperative work, as they struggle to adapt to varying work environments and accurately perform tasks without manual intervention, leading to inefficiencies and potential errors.

Innovation Solution

A robot system comprising a multi-articular arm with a normal controller, force guide controller, relative information obtainer, and correction controller, which allows for external force guidance and correction control based on relative command information, enabling the robot to adjust its position and posture in response to human input and adapt to changing work environments.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Extent of automation

If a robot system uses traditional motion programs for automated operation, then productivity is improved through automation, but the system lacks adaptability to varying work environments and requires significant human labor for manual intervention

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveautomation levelVSAvoidadaptability to varying work environments
Core Design Contradiction:
Extent of automationVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The system dynamically switches between normal control mode (for automated operation) and force guide control mode (for human-guided adaptation). This dynamic control architecture allows the robot to transition from rigid program execution to flexible force-based manipulation, resolving the contradiction between automation and adaptability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The force guide controller acts as an intermediary between the human operator and the robot system. It processes external forces applied by the human and translates them into corrective motion commands, enabling seamless collaboration between human intent and robotic execution without requiring full manual control.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Manufacturing precision

If a robot system operates strictly according to a motion program, then manufacturing precision is maintained, but the system cannot accurately adapt to unexpected conditions or environmental changes

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvetask accuracyVSAvoidability to handle unexpected conditions
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The system incorporates force sensing as a feedback mechanism. When external forces are detected during normal operation, the force guide controller receives this feedback and generates corrective commands to adjust the robot's motion, allowing the system to maintain precision while adapting to unexpected conditions through real-time force-based feedback.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The control system dynamically adjusts its behavior based on detected external forces. During normal operation, it follows the motion program precisely; when forces are detected, it transitions to force guide mode to handle the unexpected condition, then returns to normal control, maintaining precision through dynamic adaptation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

3Adaptability or versatility

If a robot system requires manual intervention for correction, then adaptability is improved, but human labor and time consumption increase significantly

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveability to handle varying conditionsVSAvoidhuman labor efficiency
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The force guide controller serves as an intermediary that automates the correction process. Instead of requiring full manual control, it mediates between small human guidance inputs and the robot's motion execution, enabling efficient corrections with minimal human effort and time investment.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The system replaces traditional manual positioning operations with force-based control. Instead of requiring humans to physically reposition components or manually program corrections, the force guide controller translates human-applied forces into precise motion corrections, substituting mechanical manual operations with automated force-based control.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

4Adaptability or versatility

If a robot system allows direct manipulation during operation, then adaptability is improved, but the complexity of control systems increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveresponsiveness to human inputVSAvoidcontrol system complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The control system is segmented into distinct functional modules: normal controller for program execution, force guide controller for handling external forces, and correction controller for executing corrections. This segmentation allows each module to specialize in specific tasks, improving adaptability while managing complexity through modular architecture.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The force guide controller performs multiple functions: detecting external forces, determining whether corrections are needed, generating correction commands, and managing transitions between control modes. This multi-functionality reduces the need for separate specialized components, managing system complexity while maintaining high adaptability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Data Source

PatentEP3546137B1Robot system and method for controlling robot
Publication Date: 2023.05.03 YASKAWA DENKI KK
  • EP3546137B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP3546137B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP3546137B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

A robot system includes a robot including a leading end, a base, and a multi-articular arm. A normal controller moves the leading end based on a motion program specifying a transition of a target position and a target posture of the leading end relative to the base. A force guide controller moves the leading end in response to a guide manipulation of applying an external force to the robot during normal control. A relative information obtainer obtains relative command information specifying the target position and posture at points of a correction target section of the transition including a start point and an end point. Based on the information, a correction controller moves the leading end from its position and posture as of a point of time when movement of the multi-articular arm controlled by the force guide controller ended.