Robotic Assembly Force Parameter Tuning for Tight-Tolerance Insertion

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

The process of programming industrial robots with force control for assembly tasks has become more complex due to the dependence on interaction forces between parts, making the selection of optimal parameters tedious and time-consuming, often requiring trial and error or offline analysis tools.

Innovation Solution

A method and system that categorize assembly processes into types like cylindrical, radial, and multi-stage insertion, specify search patterns and parameters, use Design of Experiment techniques to find optimal parameters, and verify these parameters to ensure efficient robotic assembly, utilizing a computing device and industrial robot to automate the optimization process.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Manufacturing precision

If force control is used for robotic assembly, then the robot can perform tight-tolerance assembly tasks, but the programming complexity increases and parameter optimization becomes time-consuming

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveassembly precisionVSAvoidprogramming complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies parameter changes by systematically varying force control parameters (search force, insertion force, approach speed, search speed) through Design of Experiment methodologies. This allows optimization of assembly precision while reducing programming complexity through structured parameter exploration rather than trial-and-error approaches.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements preliminary action by pre-defining search patterns (linear, circular, spiral, radial) and parameter ranges before actual assembly execution. This preliminary structuring of the control approach reduces programming complexity during actual operation while maintaining tight-tolerance assembly precision.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

2Reliability

If trial and error or offline analysis tools are used for parameter selection, then optimal parameters can be obtained, but the process becomes tedious and time-consuming

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveparameter optimization reliabilityVSAvoidparameter selection time
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces manual trial-and-error mechanical parameter tuning with automated computational Design of Experiment systems. This substitution uses algorithmic parameter exploration and statistical analysis to automatically identify optimal parameters, significantly reducing selection time while maintaining or improving optimization reliability compared to manual methods.

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

3Adaptability or versatility

If the actual robot path depends on interaction forces, then flexible assembly is enabled, but the control process becomes more difficult

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveassembly flexibilityVSAvoidcontrol ease
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the assembly process into distinct phases (approach, search, insertion, withdrawal) with specific force control parameters for each phase. This segmentation enables flexible adaptation to interaction forces while simplifying control by providing structured guidance for each segment, making the overall control process more manageable despite force-dependent path variations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent introduces search patterns as intermediary control structures between the robot controller and the force-controlled end effector. These patterns act as mediators that guide the force control behavior during approach and alignment phases, enabling assembly flexibility while reducing control difficulty through standardized intermediate control logic.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Data Source

PatentEP2114631B1Method and system for robotic assembly parameter optimization
Publication Date: 2021.03.03 ABB INC
  • EP2114631B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP2114631B1 patent drawingFigure 2~2c
  • EP2114631B1 patent drawingFigure 3(a)~3(c)

AI summary

A method and system to optimize the parameters of a robot used in an assembly process. The assembly process is categorized based on its nature which may be cylindrical, radial and multi-stage insertion. The search pattern and search parameters are specified. The parameters are optimized and the optimized parameter set are verified and when a predetermined criteria such as assembly cycle time set and/or success rate is met the optimization process stops. When the optimization stops the verified parameters are used to cause the robot to perform the categorized assembly process. If the parameters do not meet the predetermined criteria, another round of optimization using the same or other parameters can be performed.