Robotic Deburring Path Planning With Force Feedback Compensation

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current robotic deburring processes face challenges due to lack of absolute accuracy, insufficient stiffness of robot arms, and time-consuming expert-dependent programming, limiting their adoption in high-value added material removal applications.

Innovation Solution

A robotic deburring apparatus equipped with a robot arm, deburring tool, force sensors, and a controller that predicts burr characteristics using manufacturing data, calculates joint positions and deburring tool trajectories using CAM data, and directs the robot's motion to automate the deburring process, compensating for stiffness issues with real-time force feedback.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Ease of manufacture

If robotic systems are used for deburring operations, then cost and flexibility improve, but absolute accuracy and stiffness deteriorate

Engineering Contradiction:
ImprovecostVSAvoidabsolute accuracy
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of manufactureVSManufacturing precision

Solution Approach 1:

The system employs force sensors to provide real-time feedback on contact forces between the deburring tool and workpiece, allowing the controller to adjust robot arm movements dynamically. This feedback mechanism compensates for the inherent lack of absolute accuracy and stiffness in robotic systems, enabling precise deburring operations despite these limitations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The system changes operational parameters by using force sensor data to dynamically adjust deburring parameters such as contact force, tool position, and motion speed. This allows the robotic system to adapt to variations in workpiece geometry and burr characteristics, maintaining manufacturing precision despite the robot's inherent accuracy limitations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Adaptability or versatility

If robotic systems are used for deburring operations, then versatility improves, but stiffness deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveflexibilityVSAvoidstiffness
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSStrength

Solution Approach 1:

The system transitions from static, pre-programmed robot movements to dynamic, real-time control based on force sensor feedback. This allows the robotic system to adapt its motion and contact forces dynamically during deburring operations, maintaining effectiveness despite the robot arm's inherent flexibility and lack of stiffness.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

Real-time force feedback enables the system to compensate for robot arm flexibility by continuously adjusting movements based on actual contact conditions. This feedback loop allows versatile robotic operations while compensating for the lack of inherent stiffness in the robot arm.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

3Manufacturing precision

If expert-dependent programming is used for robotic deburring, then accuracy improves, but time consumption increases

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveaccuracyVSAvoidprogramming time
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system enables the robot to perform deburring operations autonomously using force sensor feedback and automated control algorithms, eliminating the need for expert programming. The robot adapts to different workpieces and burr conditions automatically, reducing programming time while maintaining accuracy through real-time force-based adjustments.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system automatically adjusts deburring parameters based on force sensor data and burr characteristics, replacing manual expert programming with automated parameter optimization. This reduces programming time significantly while maintaining or improving accuracy through data-driven adaptations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

4Manufacturing precision

If force sensors and real-time control are added to compensate for robot limitations, then manufacturing precision improves, but device complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveaccuracyVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

Force sensors provide essential feedback to compensate for robot inaccuracies, and while this adds components, it enables precise deburring operations that would otherwise be impossible with standard robotic systems. The complexity is justified by the significant improvement in manufacturing precision.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

Force sensors act as intermediaries between the robot arm and workpiece, providing critical information about contact conditions. This intermediary component enables the controller to make precise adjustments, compensating for robot limitations and achieving high accuracy despite the added system complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Data Source

PatentUS10976728B2Automatic process planning for robotic deburring operations
Publication Date: 2021.04.13 RTX CORP
  • US10976728B2 patent drawing
  • US10976728B2 patent drawing
  • US10976728B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A robotic deburring process that automatically, accurately, and efficiently removes burrs from a workpiece. The robotic deburring process uses CAM location data to establish deburring trajectory, physics based machining models to predict burr type and size, and force control functions to compensate inaccuracies due of inaccuracies of robots arms.