In this video we are shown key examples of the application of these robotic arms in the automotive industry, Whether it is to paint, place or move objects or even complete cars!
|
Robotic arms in automated assembly linesRobotic arms are used in assembly line production throughout many industries, a key industry is the automotive industry where throughout the 1950s and 1960s engineers around the world experimented with robots as a means of industrial development. These robots were put into use to assist humans through the development cycle of vehicles, robotic arms can place items from doors to motors into cars and with the help of humans they can essentially build the entire vehicle, they take the employee out of the immediate workplace reducing the risk of hazards from possible falling cars and other items. Raw materials enter the assembly line at one end of the line, proceed through a numerous amount of workstations and emerge a complete product. Many of these workstations involve the use of robotic arms to move and manufacturer the product, due to either heavy lifting, unsafe environments or to reduce the amount of workers needed for the business. Robotic arms in these industries tend to have either 3 or 6 axis, in the development of our robotic arm we were given 3 motors, one for each axis of movement.
Design Robotic arms within the automotive industry have many different applications including robotic vision where the robot is able to place panels, fenders, windshields etc more precisely. Collaborative robots are robots that aim to make employees jobs more efficient and easy to use, these robots are human controlled robots often used in the final stages of assembly. The robotic arm we have designed aims to model an example of a collaborative robotic arms. Construction We used one large motor for the claw( one moving arm and one static arm), another large motor was used for the Y movement, going up and down, as shown on the left. We then used a gear to increase force. We used a simple gear setup which consisted of one small gear with its teeth connecting to a much larger gear, this means by turning the small wheel, the large will will spin a slower but with a lot more force, since we had to lift quite a heavy box this was a key element in our design as it allowed us to lift the box all the way up and lower it with ease. When then used our last motor as a rotational axis to allow our robotic arm to spin around 360 degrees. Programming The programming for this challenge involved the buttons on the control brick of the EV3 robot. We used the left and right buttons to make the medium motor spin on its axis, up and down buttons lifted and lowered to arm into place while the middle button was used to close the claw whilst pressed down and stayed in that position until released. |
Documentation throughout our development
To produce our robot we researched the best practices and used them to design, develop and refine our product.
We found that the best way to make our robotic arm was using rotational movement as it allows for a greater area of effect. Our research also showed us the best ways to develop not only our robot but also our program, using buttons correlating to the movement allows for ease of usability and allows the user to easily pickup the concept and use our robot/program. To refine our robot we used various tests to ensure it worked the best it could, an example of this was our gears, using a gear with teeth that didn't correctly fit into the larger gear made the gears slip. Through research and looking into manufacturing and automotive robotic arms we found that using a gear with the same amount of teeth in a smaller version allowed to us to present the correct amount of force to the arm lifting the box or even heavier objects with ease. At the start of our project we followed the structured approach but since this challenge had a short deadline we shortened the documentation and only included the required diagrams and information, a simple problem with this is if future developers were to pick up our program they may not be able to fully understand the program as the documentation is very thin and doesn't explain everything and the reasons why we chose to do what we did. INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT DIAGRAM GANTT CHART
Other Helpful diagrams
Requirements reportRobotic arms are used in automated industries to assist humans. However these robots do require human supervision. However one person can monitor multiple robots instead of a human for each robot the employer can reduce the amount of employees saving them money and increasing consistency along the production line.
The requirements of this challenge are to research and report on the construction/development and use of robotic arms in the automated manufacturing line within the automotive industry. To completely understand the requirements of this challenge we undertook the process of creating a requirements report. Structured approachAs stated previously we decided that the best approach for this challenge would be the structured approach as it follows a strict process of development and focuses on understanding what the problem at hand is.
Planning: Planning for this challenge involved completely understanding what we had to do. To do this we conducted extensive research into automotive industries and where they use these robotics in manufacturing their products. We also had to plan what our robot would have to do and what parts we would use to do so. Through planning we encountered the problem of which axis of movement we would prefer to have, but with the end result concluding in using the 360 degrees of rotation. Designing: To design our robotic arm, we modelled it using Lego digital designer this program allowed us to predict future problems and solve them before implementing the design. Implementation: Implementing our design was simple with few errors encountered due to the use of the structured approach we had already eliminated most of the possible problems we could encounter. One problem we encountered was that we did not have enough force to support the weight of the robotic arm, to solve this issue we implemented a gear to support the force required to lift the arm and box. We constructed our robotic arm in a step by step process, building the base first, then the arm and finally the claw. This allowed us to make a stable and secure end product. Team communicationMe and my team member Chayce used verbal communication to develop, design and implement our ideas. We used programs such as team speak and Skype to do so. We also used a team forum to get our ideas across when the other member wasn't available at the time so when they were available they could catch up on the other members ideas.
for each challenge we started by creating a gantt chart to assist with scheduling each challenge and the overall project. We planned when each member was available and used those time periods to work on the project. We also had to plan the sequence in which we would undertake our project, we decided that the best way to do so was to take the project in order doing challenge 1 then 2 and finally 3 last. This worked well as our understanding from the previous challenge would transfer into the design and way we developed the next challenge. |
|
Project development report
- Preliminary research, Our preliminary research involved researching how robotic arms are used in manufacturing systems and in particular the automotive industry, we also looked at what the best ways to design and implement a robotic arm are.
- Problem definition, Defining the problem was a key point for us in this assignment, To do this we carefully dissected the challenge criteria and gathered all relevant information from it.
- Requirements report, Our requirements report covered the needs of the end users/participants, the data inputs and outputs(IPO) and the scope of the project.
- Project management plan. Our project management plan involved mainly scheduling as we had to find times when we were both available to complete the project.
- Possible solutions, We were presented with a few possible solutions for different points in this challenge, such as the way the claw would be designed, how we would design the base and whether or not we would use a rotational or moving base.
- Feasibility study, Our feasibility report included, Economic, technical, scheduling and operation feasibility. Since this project did not require any money to create we could rule that out, the technical feasibility was very simple as the only program we could use to design our program was the mind storms app and we feel that our design would be operationally feasible, meeting the needs of the project that we identified in the scope.
- Analysis report. Our analysis report involved reporting on our scope and how well we met the scope, what we could improve and what we have done better then we intended on.
-Recommendation of solutions. Our recommended solutions involved a small list of possible designs that we could undertake to develop our robot. It not only involved the building of the robot but also the design and programming recommendations.
- Design specifications We decided that our robot had to meet certain needs, such as ensuring that the arm would have a full 360 degrees of movement. This was a good way to set our standards for coding, designing and implementing our design.
- Testing procedures To test our robot we used hands on methods such as seeing what the limits and problems were, we then documented these problems and accounted for them by solving the problem.
- Evaluation We designed our robot to be able to work in an industry such as the automotive industry, and following a specific criteria we were able to produce a viable robotic arm that can be applied to any situation.
- Problem definition, Defining the problem was a key point for us in this assignment, To do this we carefully dissected the challenge criteria and gathered all relevant information from it.
- Requirements report, Our requirements report covered the needs of the end users/participants, the data inputs and outputs(IPO) and the scope of the project.
- Project management plan. Our project management plan involved mainly scheduling as we had to find times when we were both available to complete the project.
- Possible solutions, We were presented with a few possible solutions for different points in this challenge, such as the way the claw would be designed, how we would design the base and whether or not we would use a rotational or moving base.
- Feasibility study, Our feasibility report included, Economic, technical, scheduling and operation feasibility. Since this project did not require any money to create we could rule that out, the technical feasibility was very simple as the only program we could use to design our program was the mind storms app and we feel that our design would be operationally feasible, meeting the needs of the project that we identified in the scope.
- Analysis report. Our analysis report involved reporting on our scope and how well we met the scope, what we could improve and what we have done better then we intended on.
-Recommendation of solutions. Our recommended solutions involved a small list of possible designs that we could undertake to develop our robot. It not only involved the building of the robot but also the design and programming recommendations.
- Design specifications We decided that our robot had to meet certain needs, such as ensuring that the arm would have a full 360 degrees of movement. This was a good way to set our standards for coding, designing and implementing our design.
- Testing procedures To test our robot we used hands on methods such as seeing what the limits and problems were, we then documented these problems and accounted for them by solving the problem.
- Evaluation We designed our robot to be able to work in an industry such as the automotive industry, and following a specific criteria we were able to produce a viable robotic arm that can be applied to any situation.
Setbacks and failures
Throughout the process of development we had multiple setbacks and failures, such as the initial design of our robotic arm. At first we struggled to design an appropriate base that would support the weight of the robot. Secondly we had an issue coding the robotic arm so that it could close the claw. We found the solution to this was to have the claw close to a certain degree e.g. 90 degrees until it is released, therefore holding pressure on the block, however this was also not feasible as it will burn out the motor. We did not come up with a final solution as we did not realise that this was happening during the final stages of this challenge. Our final setback was in the actual lifting of the robotic arm. The motor could not support the weight without gears to provide enough force so we implemented a gear system, we ran into the problem of using a gear wheel that had less teeth and therefore was slipping. We overcame this issue by getting a different gear wheel that had the same amount of teeth and therefore not slipping anymore.