Journal of Manufacturing Systems

Volume 12/No. 6

Multivariable Effects on an Automatic Screw-Torquing Process

S.S. Malek, IBM Corporation, Rochester Storage Products, Rochester, Minnesota Y.J. Chiang, University of Detroit Mercy, Detroit, Michigan J.E. Mason, IBM Corporation, Rochester Storage Products, Rochester, Minnesota

Abstract
Laboratory instrumentation of an automatic screwfastening process for small screws was successfully set up and tested. Three different sensors were used to measure the force curve, torque curve, and rotating speed of a screwdriver. A programmable horizontal servoslide was taught to do the fastening job. Design of experiments was employed to identify the significant factors that might have an impact on the final torquing process. In addition to the size of screw and workpiece material, screwhead geometry, rotating speed of the driver, and servoslide speed have significant individual effects on the final torquing process. Two 2-factor interactions also influence the final torquing process. When the peak torque of a screw-fastening process falls within a certain range value of the predicted value, it is identified as a sound fastening.

Keywords: Automatic Fastening, Peak Torque, Screwdriver, Vacuum Pressure, Screw Size, Coefficient of Friction, Screwhead Geometry, Design of Experiments

Introduction
To improve productivity, the use of automated screw-torquing devices in manufacturing assembly has rapidly increased. A flowchart on automatic screw fastening is presented in Figure 1. In general, the screwdriving process can be divided into three basic events. The first is engagement, going from no contact to the first full revolution of the screw into the part. The second step is the screw-down phase, defined as subsequent rotations that bring the head of the screw in contact with the part. The final phase is the torquing process, which consists of applying a prescribed torque to the screw for joint creation. In this report, the investigation is focused on the final torquing process because that is the most

important phase in the creation of a good joint. In the case of an automated process, the major obstacle to successful implementation of this manufacturing process is to understand the impact of different mechanical factors on the final torque value for the assembly. Many studies on bolts emphasize the static stress analysis of engagement 1-8 or fatigue strength of the joint. 9 Some investigations 1'1a were conducted to qualify the relationship between final torque and joint tension--a more meaningful measure of a good joint. In the case of an automated fastening process, torque is a variable that is measurable on line; however, characterization of the factors that influence the final value of the applied torque on a dynamic torque process remains an open problem, although computer-assisted m e a s u r e m e n t for torque-angle control has been promoted. 11 The main effects and multifactor interactions, which have significant influences on the final torquing process, are identified and discussed. The peak torque (peak value of a torque curve), used as the quality indicator of fastening here, is assumed to be statistically normally distributed. The predicted peak torque can be used to quantify the qualification of a torque process. A torquing process is identified as sound if its peak torque falls within a certain range of the process value, for example, 93% of confidence limits. In the case of closed-loop control, knowing the variation that the system can induce will help to determine the compensation range that the controller must have to get consistent final torque levels.

Instrumentation
The setup of equipment in the laboratory is shown in Figure 2. A programmable servoslide was

457

Journal of Manufacturing Systems Volume 12/No. 6

+ j Cri*ical Variables

i Process

i Screw Feeder I I f o r Pick-Up iI

~<

[o Number of Threads [~ $crtw Heed Geomltry T h r e a d s S u r f a c e Finish o Mechanical Gripper Bit

<

IScrew Geometry
Pick Up

Identification

<-'-"--I Is .... Presenter )owl Feeder

I
!

o Magnetic

<

from P r e s e n t e r

o {: Vacuum Pick-Up " Vision 5yltam

C om p l i ence

Ulvice

Parts Alignment

Screw &

[:
i

Part Chamfer Angle

Number o f ThPsads

Primary <-~Engegement [ (Scre~ S Pert)

t
t , I
[

A p p l i e d Torque D r i v e r Speed Manipulator Torque A n a l y s i s

Threads Englgement
Process

<-i~S

II~rlvi.g
....

o Statlstical Process J Control Io Analyze t h t Jamming

o Expert System

I IT.... ,sV
<~ I--~ Feedback [Control

I f
[ ' I

- - J - -

[Q ~ i c k - U p

Torque

--'l ~ "
Figure 1

H T'" .... ~zs~,,

.... -t~l

"

'

Schematic Flowchart for the Automatic

Screw-Fastening Process
Figure 2
Equipment

taught to transfer the screws from the bowl feeder to the workpiece. The servoslide is a linear positioning device with a fully operational servoactuator system. The bowl feeder constantly presents screws in the horizontal position for pickup by the electric driver, which is rigidly mounted onto the slide for torquing the screw into the workpiece. A vacuumpressure bushing is installed at the end o f the electric driver to suck the screw and align it such that the screw axis is coincident with the central axis of the hole in the workpiece. Because of the variation of the fastened workpiece and the inability of the mechanical system to position the screw exactly, sensor information is required to monitor the fastening process in case, for example, screw jamming should occur. If a fastening process is completed, the sensor can also verify when a proper torque is applied. Three specific sensors were implemented in this laboratory experiment. First, a linear force cell was installed on the slide that positions the driver as a means of measuring the contact force between the driver and screw. This sensor verifies that a proper force is maintained on the screw to avoid slipping. Another sensor is an on-board torque sensing system. With the driver on a rotationally free ball bearing system, the torque sensor consists of a

Setup for

an Automatic Screw-Fastening

Process

linear force cell connected to the driver through the arm at a known distance. For a small rotation, the torque is proportional to the measured force. This torque sensor determines whether the proper level of final torque is reached when the screw is fully engaged. The third sensor is an angle encoder mounted to the rotation shaft of the driver. It measures the rotation speed of the driver in revolutions per minute (rpm) and detects when the rotation stops. In conjunction with the force sensor, the angle encoder can also check if the screw is fully engaged. If peak torque is reached within a certain range of revolutions after engagement, the process is declared successful. If not, one can conclude that the screw is j a m m e d and an attempt to rotate the screw out of the workpiece ought to be made. In these electric drivers, when the present torque is reached, the reaction torque causes the outer ring gear case to slip while simultaneously activating a limit switch. The limit switch then activates an electromagnetic brake preventing overtorquing. In this experiment, the driver was set on maximum torquing capacity to be able to react to respondentapplied torque to the workpiece.

458

Journal of Manufacturing Systems

Volume 12/No. 6

Typical torque curves produced in this experimental work are shown in Figure 3. The bottom trace is the output from the torque sensor. The top trace is the external torque measuring device set to a peak-hold state. Good correlation between these two independently measured peak torques was seen, thereby justifying the accuracy of the on-board torque sensor. A trace of the external torque measuring device sensor is made. The peak torque values are very close, thereby supporting the correlation results. Also, from the trace there is some amount of recoil from the driver. The trace illustrates two things: the ability to characterize a successful screwdriving process and the ability to sense the final torque applied to a screw.

Figure 3 Example of Output from the Torque Sensor

Factorial Analysis
Eight relevant factors that may have influence on the torque curve and can be controlled in a fastening process are investigated. As illustrated in the causeand-effect analysis diagram of Figure 4, they can be allocated to the following three different sources: 1. Screw Size of screw: M2 versus M3 (stainless steel) Head geometry: Button head versus flat head
Torque

MACHINE

FASIENING

Oriver

Pressure

Tipping

Angle

Vacuum Chamfer
Eccentricity Servo.Slide

Spee >Torquing Process

(Pe~k

C o e f f i c i e n t of F r i c t i o n (Cub

Ory)

Head G e ~ e t r y

/
SCREH FLAT HEAD
~ oF c~W~-t iURFAt2 ~

Torque)

(Figure 5)
2. Workpiece Workpiece material: Acetal homopolymer versus stainless steel Eccentricity (misalignment): 0.25 m m versus 0.5 mm Tipping angle: 1 versus 3 3. Machine Servosliding speed: 10 mrn/sec versus 20 mm/ sec Rotating speed of driver: 600 rpm versus 910 rpm Vacuum pressure: 10 m m of Hg versus 14 m m of Hg A full factorial design to investigate these eight factors would require 28 = 256 experimental conditions. Instead, the 2~av fractional factorial design 4

Figure 4 Cause-and-Effect Diagram for Torquing Process

BUTTON HEAD

HK41~

so~ t42 BUT. I.~). ~SUR~ACE -A~ S ~ r A C E "A"

RI 1.90

n: H S t.O0 . . . . . .

N, 8.20

M~.ea BUT. 14D 2.55. ~., rL~T ~ 2 . 3 5 5 u ~ , NO. 2.80 M3 fLAt MO. 2.90 our. HO. ~.6s, ~'LAT F~O. ~.95
~

1.25~ " - - I . . . . '15.5a

e.2~[ I . s
1

~.a6 6.~a

I.So[ . . . . . . 1.5012.0 2.~q 2.ooJ . . . . . . . . 2.00[ 3.0 3.e;0

17.~6

I0.?'4
~.2~' 21.~

~qEA Or SUb'rACE -A'=

J~A o~ S~q~CE "~-=

Figure 5 Screwhead Geometry

matrix for eight variables with Resolution IV, as shown in Table 1, was used to reduce the number of experiments, lz It is constructed based on confounding a two-factor interaction with three other twofactor interactions. Three-order and higher interac-

459

Journal of Manufacturing Systems

Volume 12/No. 6

tions are assumed negligibly small. The model representing the effects and interactions for the design of experiments i n T a b l e 2 may be written as:
Conditlml

Table 1 Layout of Design Matrix and Results

Mean I M
I

2 W

3 II

4 R +

5 S +

6 P + -~

T = + + + + + + + + + + +

~o + otlm + ~2w + ~3h tx4r + O~sS + txrp oL7t + else + ot9mw o~lomh + cxnmr + Otl2mS cq3mP + tx14mt + tXlsme Otl6Wh + Otl7we + 018ws otlgwp + ot20wt + ot2]we o~22hr + tx23hs q- 0~24h p ot2sht + ot26he + o~27rs et28rp + c~29rt + a3ore OL31S + Ot32St + o~33se p t~34Pt + ot3sPe + ot36te

+ ~ + + + + + + + +
+ +

]7-~g~.6 --

1.2

2 3 4 5

+ . . . . . . . . . + ~ + + + + + + + +
+

+ + + + 4 + + + "" ~~ -" 1.2

6
7 8

+ 4 + +
+ +

+- ?(~1
"~ 90 +-" - - / 2 J ~ -

-~7,5 II .4 --

9
Ill II

-:
+

%
6.t)

45
5.7

12 13 14 15

+ +
+

+ + +
+ +

+ +

+ +
+

-~ ~

-~2S--- 19~
- -C~-- -IT6.11 7.5 " 3.75 214

+ +

-]"

(l)

16

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

The significant levels for the effects and interactions listed in Table 2 are obtained by checking the t distribution, t = Calculated Effect - Mean Value Sample Standard Deviation
Variable
G r a n d average

Table 2 Significance of Main Effects and Interactions

Effect o r I n l e r a d ~ e 4.939 3.41 5,32 1915 1.291 -I.gl6 0,g83 -(I.0025 -0.058 1.365 0.548 1.046 11.266 -I.608 0.51 (L259 4.217 658 2366 1.596 2.24 I.II92 0 J)~13 0.07 I 1.688 0.677 1.2q3 0329 1,988 0.63 (1319 3.5% 6% I 5% 0.05% 0.05% I%
I-Ratio

S i g n i l k ' a n c 1.vt

I-Size o f screw, M 2-Workpiecc material, W 3 - S c r e w head geometry, 11

4 - R o t a t i n g speed of driver ( R P M ) , R

in which the mean value is assumably 0 by the null hypothesis in this study. The sample standard deviation is the square root of the sample variance. In general, n sample variances of the collected data corresponding to individual experimental conditioning, S 2, i = 1, 2 . . . . . n can be combined to give the pooled estimate of the within-treatment sample variance for an effect or interaction,

5-Servo-slide speed, S 6 - V a c u u m pressure, p 7-'lipping angle, T 8- F,ccentricity, E 12 + 37 + 4 8 + 56 13 + 2 7 + 4 6 + 58 1 4 + 2 8 + 3 6 + 57 15+26+38+47 1 6 + 2 5 + 3 4 + 78

= VlSI +
v, +

+ . . . + v.s .
+ ... + v .

17+ 23+68+45 1 8 + 2 4 + 3 5 + 67

where V 1, V 2 . . . . and V, are degrees of freedom for n different experimental conditions; here n = 16. Variable S 2 is the sample variance for experimental conditions derived from two replicated runs in the experiment. Finally, the preductive equation for the peak torque can be formulated as: T = 4.939 + 1.705m + 2.660w + 0.958h + 0 . 6 4 6 r - 0.908s + 0 . 6 8 3 m f O. 804fs (2) where m, w, h, r, and s are dimensionless variables for size of screw, workpiece material, screwhead geometry, rotating speed of driver, and servoslide speed, respectively, and they take the value of - 1

or + 1 according to the signs in Table 1. The coefficient for each individual effect or interaction in Eq. (1) is obtained with a confidence coefficient of no less than 93% as shown in Table 2. The numbers 1-8 denote the eight factors sequentially listed in Table 3. The double-digit numbers stand for interactions; for example, 12 means the interaction between factor 1 (size of screw) and factor 2 (workpiece material). The normal probability plot in Figure 6 shows that there are two significant two-factor interactions in addition to the five significant main effects. The adequacy of fit for the entire model can be checked by analyzing the sample means and sample

460

Journal of Manufacturing Systems Volume 12"/No. 6

Table 3 Levels for Relevant Variables

-1

3,=~.=-7. ............
,~izc . f ~rc'.'.', M "-

I.,-d (-)
~M'-2. . . . . . . . . . .

iL.,,J ( + )
1',13

2 I 3
4

Workpiccc material. W Screw hcad get)merry, H Rolating sfx.'cd of driver

(RI'M), R

A,'ctal Itutto.
~)0 I(~ ..............

~;lu'cl
Flat ql()

Scrvo-slidc Sl~Ccd (Inmlscc), S

i Vacuum pressure (I [g), P Tipping angle (dcgrc~s), T

2{I
14 3 {).5 i 42

1{1
I

I;xccntricity (ram), l i 0.25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

,8

e6 13:
17 $15

variances (mean squares) from two different sources, predictions and residuals. Because of the overwhelming significance of predictions when measured by the residuals, as shown in Table 4, the model of Eq. (1) is statistically adequate.
I

%
7 8

I'
Discussion
As expected by following rules for the design of experiments, the validity of analysis for the test results are restricted within the range assigned in Table 3. Some of the concerns about the experimental work are: 1. The workpiece material can be further decomposed into two different factors: Coefficients of friction Stiffness of materials However, the selection of materials to separate these two major factors for the design of experiments seems extremely difficult, if not impossible. The coefficients of friction for acetal homopolymer and stainless steel used in the experiment are 0.04 and 0.42, respectively. 2. To examine its effect, the servoslide speed in this experiment was set independently. It was not coupled to the rotating speed of driver by the pitch and lead, as expected in a regular fastening process. 3. Because the influence of factors 6 (vacuum pressure), 7 (tipping angle), and 8 (eccentricity) are not significant, the dubious confounding of two-factor interactions in the term 12 + 37 + 48 + 56 is resolved automatically. The contribution comes from 12 (interaction between size of screw and part material).
Prcdiclion IIll IIII III Illl

I I

Ill

Figure 6 Normality Plot of Effects and Interactions Table 4 Analysis of Variance to Check Adequacy of Fit

I ~ ....

6(1329

H:~-~---~J
g

75.41

. . . . .

55.~

< 0.1%

. . . . . . . . .

-L-_

4. The effect produced by the confounded twofactor interactions in the term 16 + 25 + 34 + 78 can be attributed to 25 or 34 because the influence of factors 6 (vacuum pressure), 7 (tipping angle), and 8 (eccentricity) are not significant. Furthermore, the interaction between 3 (screwhead geometry) and 4 (rotating speed of driver) should increase the required peak torque for fastening. Therefore, 25 is the interaction that makes a significant reduction in the required torque. 5. When a small peak torque is observed, the measured value tends to have a large variation.

461

Journal of Manufacturing Systems

Volume 12/No. 6

We extended the trajectory development system to include motion control so that the whole painting procedure from part design through workcell control can be performed in a unified fashion. To implement such a scheme, we developed a prototype hardware system and integrated with it an extensive automatic programming system. The developed integrated robotic painting system (IRPS) is a generically integrated system in which hardware and software can be readily modified and upgraded and can be used as a test-bed for the development of integrated robot painting systems for CAD/CAM/CNC.

IRPSCAD

E X E C U T I O N U S E R

"1 2S=n

1. CAGD

r
C A

" i 3. Process plan I TRAJECTORY GENE- ~4--~ L RATION ~[[ v 4. Spray gun path 6. Analysis
5. Robot trajectory

N N Painting
mechanics Robot kinematics

GN

Integrated Robotic Painting System

Because on- or off-line teaching cannot cope with the desire for complete automation and optimization, an automated off-line programming system should be implemented in a robotic painting system. Even if an automated system is implemented, it cannot eliminate the discrepancy between computer and real models. To solve these problems, software should contain hardware interfacing modules so the computer model can be derived based on the real model. Implementing this feature on a commercial robot painting system is difficult due to limited access to the internal controller. We developed a prototype hardware and software system to fully implement the interface between an automated offline programming system and the robot controller.

A C E

~1

MOTION CONTROL 7. Manualcontrol

8. Automatic control

L -

E R F A C
i E

HARDWARE

[
I

Workcell
controller

I
~[

I-4F--~]

Figure 1
Structure of the IRPS

Modes of Operation The IRPS is currently implemented on an IBM PC-386 compatible microcomputer with custom hardware units. Software modules, written in C, plan and control robot motions and are executed by the hardware units. In the IRPS, the workcell controller installed in one of the PC slots functions as a link between software and hardware (see Figure 1). Software modules include part design, process planning, robot trajectory generation, and motion control. Hardware is composed of the workcell controller, motor drivers, robot manipulator, surface scanner, and paint delivery units. During the IRPS execution there are three modes of operation--CAD, PLAN, and CONTROL. The main functions and interactions among the different

modules, together with processing hardware, are shown in Figure 2. In the CAD mode, part geometry of a painting object is specified and stored in the CAD database. Using the interactive geometric modeler (CAGD), users create new parts and modify existing ones. In addition, the IRPS accepts geometric data from part surface scans. In the PLAN mode, robot trajectories are determined by an iterative procedure--painting process planning, robot trajectory generation, and evaluation of the results. Planned trajectories are then executed by the CONTROL mode that activates the hardware units.

Characteristics of the IRPS Because the IRPS is an integrated system in which motion planning and control can be performed in a unified fashion, it can be viewed as an extended robot controller containing an automatic programming feature. (Considering the cost and capacity of the microcomputer, implementation of the IRPS in the robot controller is realistic.) This is a novel departure from contemporary robotic paint-

464

Journal of Manufacturing Systems

Volume 12/No. 6

Operation Modes

Processing Modules

Processing Hardwares

Hardware Configuration in the IRPS

To realize the presented method, we developed a hardware system composed of a robot manipulator, motor drivers, a workcell controller, a surface scanner, and a paint delivery unit, each briefly described here. Because the hardware has been developed as a test-bed for the IRPS, it is basically in prototype form.
Robot Manipulator and Drivers A main function of the robot manipulator is to carry the spray gun. A joint-revolute type configuration is typically employed. In this research, however, we chose a gantry type for several reasons. First, the gantry type is simple to develop and sufficient for a prototype painting simulator. More importantly, surface measurement can be performed by the same robot with its CMM structure. (Note, however, that we do not mean that the gantry type is the only configuration for surface measurement; a typical joint-revolute type system could be fitted with accurate encoders and probe head, making it less accurate but probably acceptable.) Using the same mechanism for planning and execution without moving the object to be painted eliminates workpart setup errors, as stated earlier. The developed gantry robot has five joints as shown in Figure 3, view a. The wrist center is positioned by three sliding joints and oriented by two revolute joints. Three Cartesian joints are driven by dc servomotors via ballscrews (lead of 10 mm for x and y axes and 5 m m for the z axis), and two rotational joints are driven by stepping motors with harmonic gears (gear reduction of 1/50 and 1/80 for the fourth and fifth axes, respectively). The drivers used are commercial, taking pulse signals to run the dc servo and stepping motors. Figure 3, view b, shows the control cabinet with the dc servodrivers and the PC-386 with the workcell controller. Surface Scanner and Paint Delivery Unit Although surface scanning could be done with a dedicated CMM, positioning errors can occur when the part is moved for painting. With the 1RPS, scanning and painting are done in the same position, eliminating setup errors and reducing part handling. Scanning is done with a touch probe on the robot

CAD
Mode

IRPSCAD 1. CAGD 2. Scan

3. Processplan I

PLAN
Mode

i ~

TRAJECTORYGENERATION
4. Spray gun path 5. Robot trajectory

,dr, raject

6. Analysis

MOTION CONTROL 7, Manualcontrol 3NTROL

Mode 8. Automatic control

Workcell controller

Hardware Units

1. Robot manipulator 2. Pa nt de very un t

Figure 2

Three OperatingModes and Interactions

ing systems based on the lead-through method and off-line robot programming mentioned earlier. For robot trajectory planning, the IRPS is an integrated CAD/CAM system. Robot trajectories are determined based on the underlying CAD model of the object. The IRPS builds the CAD model from either direct geometric input or actual part scan data. The latter is particularly useful when the object is complex. The ability to use scan data is a powerful method to reduce geometric modeling errors and workpart setup discrepancies present in typical off-line programming systems with only a geometric modeler. Also, because robot motion is computed based on the part geometry together with painting mechanics characteristics and robot kinematic information, it is possible to obtain efficient robot motions and painting conditions for uniform coating thickness. This feature enhances coating quality compared with conventional manual teaching methods. Finally, the IRPS is modular so it can be readily expanded and modified for a user's local needs.

465

Journal of Manufacturing Systems

Volume 12/No. 6

Figure 3(a) Robot Manipulator

Figure 3(b)
C o n t r o l Cabinet

end effector; a drawback is that a sensitive touch probe should be used in a painting environment. The surface scanning hardware is composed of the probe assembly, interface box, and pulse counter. The touch probe is a Renishaw TP1 model with various ball sizes. The interface box detects surface contact and sends a signal to the workcell controller. As explained later, the pulse counter included in the workcell controller computes the z value at the indicated point by counting the number of pulses sent to the z-axis before contact is made. Finally, the paint delivery unit is composed of an automatic spray gun, solenoid, regulator, and air compressor. Painting conditions, such as flow rate and air pressure, are preset by the regulator, and the painting operation is controlled in an on/off manner by the workcell controller.

Workcell Controller Hardware units are controlled by the control software--the PCAD module (described later) for scanning and the CONTROL module for painting (described later). The main function of the workcell controller is to generate electrical signals to run the hardware based on numerical data (or motion parameters) from the software. To perform such functions, a control board shown in Figure 4 was developed and installed in a PC slot.

The control board performs four main functions: (a) PC interface, (b) pulse generation, (c) spray gun control, and (d) probe interface. These are fundamental for the workcell controller to integrate the IRPS software with the hardware system. Passage from software modules to workcell controller is established by the PC interface function, and other functions provide passage from workcell controller to hardware. Specifically, the PC interface establishes the data address (via an address decoder) through which all motion parameters computed by the software modules are delivered to the appropriate chips (by chip-selection circuit). The motion parameters are given by the CONTROL module (or PCAD module) in terms of pulse direction, number of pulses, and pulse patterns for each driver for each trajectory interval. Then they are converted to electrical signals via a pulse generation circuit consisting of a PPI-1 chip (i82C55) and five LSI chips (MPG 1010) (see Figure 4). These functions are used to control the gantry motion and invoked by the CONTROL module (or the PCAD module) to execute the painting operation (scanning operation). In executing the robot motion, the PPI-1 chip commands the emergency stop and pulse direction for the five LSI chips. Along the specified direction, each LS! chip generates the programmed number of

466

Journal of Manufacturing Systems

Volume 12/No. 6

the automatic control mode in CONTROL module. The touch probe interface is made by the pulse counter counting the number of pulses sent to the z-axis of the manipulator until the touch probe contacts the part surface. This is invoked by the PCAD module when performing the scanning operation.

Part Design in the IRPS

The first step in the painting procedure is to design the object to be painted. The purpose of the design is to provide a geometric model of the painting object for automatic trajectory planning. For sculptured surfaces--the main type of painting object to be dealt with by the IRPS--two methods are adequate: CAGD (for computer-aided geometric design) and SBGD (for scanning-based geometric design). CAGD (or SBGD) is commonly used to realize the conceptual (physical) part in the computer. The IRPS is developed to support these two methods by the ICAD and PCAD modules. The choice of which to use is based on the availability of the physical model.

(~ayGu~
Workcell Controller pulses in a controlled fashion, achieving the desired trapezoidal velocity profile. Note that the trapezoidal parameters are computed and downloaded by the software modules. Because the LSI chip is a highspeed pulse generator (up to 8 million pulses per second) containing an interpolation function, ~3 a fast and smooth motion can be readily achieved. Pulse generation is terminated by the counter in the LSI chip or by limit switches in the joints (there are 10 limit switches in the five joints). In this way, electrical signals for the programmed position and velocity for each axis (that is, trajectory) can be generated within the operating range. Other functions performed in the controller are spray-gun control and touch-probe interfacing. The spray gun is controlled for on/off by a PPI-2 chip via a solenoid circuit. Currently, the spray gun is automatically set to " o n " when painting is performed by
Figure 4

Design Via Interactive Geometric Modeling In CAGD, sculptured surfaces are modeled by many schemes: Ferguson, Bezier, B-spline [ and its derivatives, such as NUB (nonuniform B-spline) and NURB (nonuniform rational B-spline) ], and compound forms. For an interactive design, B-spline based schemes are powerful due to their localized propagation and shape controllability. 9'1 Including these modelers, the professional CAGD system offers many detailed functions. However, because developing such an extensive system is time consuming and out of the scope of this research, our system is in a prototype form. With an IGES converter, it can be interfaced with the professional CAGD system. In this case, ICAD module can be used for a partial modification of the surface designed in the professional system. In the developed ICAD module, a NUB modeler (NUBS) and the Sweep, Ferguson, and Compound modelers are incorporated so they can be selectively used for a surface design. Because each modeler is directly interfaced with a set of utility functions, the surface can be created, modified, and viewed at different angles. In NUB modeling, a surface is

467

Journal of Manufacturing Systems

Volume 12/No. 6

defined by a set of control points and knot values defining blending functions. 9'1 Figure 5, view a, shows an example bicubic surface designed by NUBS, defined by 20 x 10 control points with 25 15 knot values along the u and w directions. Control points and knot values are interactively given via a mouse or read from previously stored data. With the View utility, the entire surface or a portion can be seen from various view points with automatic scaling. If the designed surface is not as desired, it should be changed in some fashion. The Modify utility allows the user to change the location and/or number of control points. The modification process begins by displaying the current control polyhedron and its surface (see Figure 5, view b), followed by sequential operations: changing, inserting, and deleting the current control points. In this process, control points to be modified are specified by four rectangle bars (for u + , u-, w + , w- directions) on the lower-left screen (see Figure 5, view b), and 3-D coordinates of the new control points are input via mouse (coordinate values are dynamically displayed as the mouse is moved). After each modification, the user can see the new surface through the Redraw utility. Figure 5, view c, shows a modified surface after changing one column of control points. By repeating the modification process, the desired surface can be designed and confirmed.

m__M T

........

File
NUBS ~MEEP B~IER }

/ rEnCUS0N ]

Figure 5(a)
Example Surface

33 426

--~Z

Depth

e+ +is+:,+,:+c+.- ,.,+ i '.'-

Select

One Command !
m

tlave/lnsert/Erase/Redraw/Con~rol/Overlep/Selec% Curve
other/Quit

Design via Surface Scanning

When a physical model is available, surface scanning can be used. Scanning, accomplished with the PCAD module (of the IRPS software), is performed by a touch probe that is attached to the end effector of the gantry manipulator. This module is initiated by placing an object in an appropriate location within the manipulator workspace, followed by specifying a reference coordinate frame. After the reference coordinate frame is set, surface data is obtained for each grid point of the x,y plane. As illustrated in Figure 6, the surface coordinate at the grid is given by Pid = [ Xi' Yj' Z ], where x i = dx(i-1) and yj = dy(j-1), and z is the measured z value at (xi,3)). In the above, the grid interval along q-axis, dq = Oq/Nq, where Dq and Nq are the specified scan distance and number of scan intervals along the axis.
,itb ~.~b

Figure 5(b)
Modification Utility
, ~+Bt~ ,01 ION : HflLYSI S t ONTP

Figure

5(c)

M o d i f i e d Surface

468

Journal of Manufacturing Systems

Volume 12/No. 6

Figure 6 Scanning Points

Once scanning data is obtained for every grid point, the surface can be generated by applying a surface fitting algorithm. Taking the bicubic Bspline interpolation algorithm, 9 the problem of finding the surface equation is finding a set of control points such that the interpolated surface passes through the scanning data smoothly. The PCAD module is developed to support the above procedure including the hardware interface and the interpolation algorithm. Specifically, initialization is made with "Setup," by which the probe control is activated, and scanning parameters are specified after moving the probe to the default reference position. (Note that the reference position can be modified by moving the robot via the manual control mode of the CONTROL module.) The actual scanning operation is performed by selecting " E x e c , " by which all the coordinate values are automatically measured and stored in a data file. An example scanning operation is shown in Figure 7, view a, the scanned data in view b, and the interpolated surface in view c. The above scanning method is straightforward and can be used for a relatively simple free surface. However, as the surface geometry becomes complex, determining the scan intervals is not straightforward. Further, because of the probe radius the measured coordinate value does not reflect the surface point. For more accurate modeling, the probe radius should be compensated in some way. A more detailed discussion is found in Reference 11.

Figure 7(a) Scanning Operation

.-.']'~'% . . - . . . . . : .'.:'..
oee ee e e e e oe e o , e l e l e o o o e e e o e e o e o oe I o e l e e e $ ooe o o Q e I e e ee eo e eo e o o eo e e o o e o e e e e I o o o o D I e o l e I o eeee e Q e o l e e
e e o e e

e e j

Figure 7(b) Obtained Surface Points

469

Journal of Manufacturing Systems

Volume 12/No. 6

Figure 7(c) Interpolated Surface

Robot Motion Planning

For a given surface model, robot motion is computed and verified. Robot motion should be planned such that its trajectory results in uniform coating thickness. Such trajectory planning is inherently complicated as it involves geometric modeling, painting mechanics, and robot dynamics. Thus, the problem of determining an optimal trajectory (in the sense of coating uniformity and painting time) must be found by an iterative process, that is from selection of painting parameters and evaluation of results. Previously, we derived a solution procedure for finding an optimal robot trajectory for the given painting conditions. 7 Based on the solution procedure, the developed modules allow users to determine optimal painting parameters iteratively, by generating spray gun paths and robot trajectories and by displaying the distribution of the coating thickness and painting time so that the users can decide whether to try alternate painting parameters. Specifically, painting conditions, such as desired coating thickness and tolerance, spray distance, spray angle, overlap coefficient, number of passes, flow rate, transfer efficiency, and so on are specified by PARA. Based on these conditions, together with painting mechanics, surface sweep velocity for the spray gun is computed. This velocity is used as the nominal velocity in robot trajectory planning. The robot path is determined considering the spray gun. To determine the spray gun path, the

surface is divided into a finite number of intervals along the specified sweep pattern. Then, the spray gun path is determined by intrapath planning (within the path intervals) and interpath planning (between the path intervals). In intrapath planning, the bounded surface is decomposed into a finite number of planes, and the path is obtained by connecting path segments. In this way, the spray gun path. and sweep velocity are determined, and robot trajectory is obtained by offsetting in the surface normal direction by the spray distance. The generated trajectory is then evaluated in terms of coating uniformity and painting time and verified via graphic simulation. (See Reference 7 for the details on the theoretical background on this scheme.) The above scheme is implemented in the MOTION and ANALYSIS modules of the IRPS. To illustrate the function of the MOTION module, the scanned surface of Figure 7(c) is used. With the selected painting conditions in the PARA module (see Figure 8, view a), together with the sweeping direction, the spray gun path on the part surface is computed as shown in view b. Then the corresponding robot trajectory is computed and displayed dynamically as shown in view c. Robot motion performance is evaluated in the ANALYSIS module. As shown in Figure 8, view d, the ANALYSIS module displays coating thickness for the entire surface via a spectrum of colors. Also, overall statistics including overcoat and undercoat percentages and painting time are displayed. Based on these results, the user can decide to try alternate painting parameters. Figure 8, view e, shows an improved result with different painting conditions.

Robot Motion Control

Planned robot trajectories for painting and scanning operations are executed by activating hardware units via the workcell controller, which is the task of the CONTROL module. This module is composed of control software and workcell controller, and is in essence a link between software and hardware. The CONTROL module allows the gantry manipulator to be used in two modes: (a) manual or (b) automatic control. The manual control mode (MCM) is a teach-pendent operation in the typical robot system and is used to operate the robot

470

Journal of Manufacturing Systems

V o l u m e 12/No. 6

ICG

~l)

IFff

"lONI

;fiHALYS

n:hti,

--

Enter ne~ v a l u e Z5 20 1.8 1.8 8.5 1 t.8 8.85 1.15_

Sprag d i s t . (am) Spra9 an91e (degree)

Plow r a t e ( m l / s e c ) Transfer efflcienc 9 Overlap c o e f f i c i e n t | of i t e r a t i o n Desired t h i c k . (um) Lower l i m i t (am) Upper l i m i t (am) :

: : :

I
Figure 8(c)
Robot Trajectory Simulation
I CAD ICeD ~qEA IOTI i
Undercoat Within t o l e r a n c e | Oyez

(cm) (era) (ca) (dog.) (dog.) (sec)

7"
Figure 8(a)
Selection of Painting Conditions Path Condltlo~ Path Generate
S h ~ Gun Path Gun Animation ation

- - P a i n t l n 9 Conditions - $pra9 d i s t . Spra9 angle Overlap coef. Flou r a t e Transfer eft. Desired t h i c k .

28.0 ca 15,0 ' 8.5 1.8 m l / s e 1.8 1.8 um

--

A n a l g s i s Result

--

flean t h i c k n e s s Undercoat ~ Overcoat Z Within t o l . ~ Coatin 9 time

: 1.675 : 8.8 : 98.1 : 9.9 : 232.Z

Figure 8(b)
Spray-Gun P a t h o n the S u r f a c e

Figure 8(d)
Coating Thickness Analysis

manually. In the MCM, the PC keyboard is used to move each robot axis and control the pneumatic trigger of the paint delivery unit (see Figure 9 for the MCM screen). For instance, the F1-F2 keys are used for the pneumatic on/off, and direction keys are used for selection of items such as jog distance ( " C o u n t " ) , jog speed ("Pulse/sec"), and axis and direction of the move. The MCM is useful in setting up the reference position before switching to automatic scanning (in the PCAD module) or to automatic control for trajectory execution. Note that the MCM can be invoked by " S e t u p " in PCAD module.

To operate the robot in such a fashion, the CONTROL module is programmed to execute appropriate actions for each key input. For instance, if X + is selected and the carriage return is depressed once, a predefined number of pulses are sent to the address of the X + direction at a specified rate. By depressing the carriage return repeatedly, the end effector moves further along the designated direction. The automatic control mode (ACM) allows the robot to operate automatically as specified by robot trajectory data (for a painting operation) or scanning parameters (for a scanning operation). To perform

471

Journal of Manufacturing Systems Volume 12/No. 6

ICeD

iCRD

i~]

1( -P a l n t i n 9 Conditions - : : : : :
2 8 . B c~ 2B.B ' 8.3 1.Bml/sec 1,8 1.B um z-~6]d~i,(F3, F~I)" ] OFF $ ~ , ~ ( F 1~F2)'
Dlii. ,'~n9 le ~J~ ISBB

B Undercoat

Nithin tolerance

Over

Spra 9 dist. Spra9 angle Overlap coef. Flow r a t e

Transfer eft. Desired thick.:

Pulse/se~ [ ] 568 Hz D it~ecJcior ] Z-__

-Mean

~nalgsis

Result

--

thickness Undercoat ~ Overcoat z ~ithin tol. z Coatin9 time

1.153 lfl. G
34.4

55.B 195.3

I n i t i l a i z e ... Press ALT a I key

:, .[ [51111
Figure 9 M a n u a l Control Mode

Figure 8(e)

Improved Results
I f, t. . . . . . . . . . . ...........

these operations automatically, CONTROL software computes the number of pulses and pulse rates for each axis for every successive trajectory position. Because the number of pulses and the pulse rate determine position accuracy and motion smoothness, the pulse generation scheme is important. Figure 10 illustrates a simple trapezoidal velocity scheme used in the developed system. It is a common scheme for CNC. For this scheme, the time interval for the ith interval in the acceleration region is computed as follows: ~z - g + %/g2 + 2i[~
ti =

* . . . . . .

-,fit, I-il
1 2

IL II11
[ I I[111
3 4

time(t) - - ~ -

llJll

I I I

.I.
Acceleration C o n s t a n t Velocity

.P

Deceleration

Figure 10

Trapezoidal Velocity Profile

13

,i=

1 .... ,M

where

2(f~ -f~)
[3 = V(2M_3)2 + q./So)2_
and
g = fo 2fo

+ (2M-3)

In the above, f~ is the maximum velocity (in pulses per second) to be attained, fo is the starting velocity, and M is the total number of pulses in the acceleration phases. Note that the above scheme is hard to implement in software due to the computing burden for on-line control of five axes. For this reason, it has been realized by the LSI chip in the

developed controller. With the LSI chip, accurate velocity control can be readily achieved by specifying characteristic parameters, such as N (total number of pulses), fo, fs, M, a (the slope at acceleration and deceleration regions), and so on. 13 Thus, the LSI chip can automatically generate pulses in a controlled fashion for each joint driver without imposing computing burden to the software. In other words, the software task is reduced to compute the characteristic parameter values to achieve the desired trajectory given by the time schedule of the joint positions. For a scanning operation, trajectory data is planned somewhat differently. First, the trajectory is given for the f'trst two Cartesian joints, and the two rotational axes are fixed to zero. At every scan point (determined by setup parameters in the PCAD module), the end effector moves down slowly in the z direction from a

472

Journal of Manufacturing Systems Volume 12/No. 6

preset level until the probe contacts the surface. Control software for scanning is designed to count the number of pulses at the contact point and then to retract rapidly to the preset level to move to the next scanning point. Finally, an example of using the IRPS for a painting operation is presented in Figure 11, showing the actual painting operation for a bathtub whose geometric model and trajectory are respectively obtained by the scanning operation (Figure 7) and trajectory planning (Figure 8).

Concluding Remarks
Effectiveness of the presented scheme has been tested via computer simulations and real experim e n t s . R e s u l t s h a v e c o n v i n c e d u s t h a t it c a n b e u s e d as a n e f f i c i e n t m e t h o d f o r a r o b o t i c p a i n t i n g o p e r a t i o n in w h i c h t h e w h o l e p a i n t i n g p r o c e d u r e c a n b e p e r f o r m e d in a u n i f i e d w a y . H o w e v e r , a s f a r a s c o n s i s t e n c y o f r e s u l t s ( s i m u l a t i o n a n d r e a l r e s u l t s ) is c o n c e r n e d , an e x a c t c o m p a r i s o n is h a r d t o m a k e d u e to l a c k o f a p p r o p r i a t e m e a s u r i n g d e v i c e s . C o a t i n g t h i c k n e s s s e e m s u n i f o r m , b u t t h e c o a t e d s u r f a c e is n o t in v e r y g o o d c o n d i t i o n . F o r a p r o f e s s i o n a l treatment, an apparatus for ventilation and drying, together with a fine paint material, should be incorporated.

Figure 11 Experimental PaintingOperation

6. G. Duelen, H. Stahlmann, and X. Liu, "An Off-line Planning and Simulation System for the Programming of Coating Robots," Annals of the CIRP (vol. 38, no. 1, 1989), pp. 369-372. 7. S. Suh, I. Woo, and S. Noh, "Automatic Trajectory Planning System (ATPS) for Spray Painting Robots," Journal of Manufacturing Systems (vol. 10, no. 5, 1991), pp. 396-406. 8. P. Svejda, H. Warnecker, and K. Mertz, "Computer Simulation des Spitz-lackierene," Metalloberflache (vol. 44, no. 1, 1990), pp. 33-36. 9. D. Qiulin and B. Davies, Surface Engineering Geometry for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacture (UK: Ellis Horwood, 1987). 10. M. Mortenson, Geometric Modeling (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1985). 11. S, Sub and S. Lee, "Compensating Touch Probe Radius in Measuring Free Surfaces," Proceedings, Korea Society of Precision Engineering Conference (Seouh October 1992), pp. 71-76. 12. K. Jin, Controller Design for Stepping and DC Servo Motors (Seoul: Sewan Publishing Co., trans., 1988). 13. "MPG1010: User's Manual" (Japan: Mycom Inc., 1992),

Acknowledgment
T h i s r e s e a r c h w a s s u p p o r t e d in p a r t b y t h e R I S T development fund, KOSEF-ERC fund for Intelligent A u t o m a t i o n o f P r o c e s s I n d u s t r i e s at P O S T E C H , a n d the Corex Industrial Affiliate under contract N921582.

Authors' Biographies
Suk-Hwan Suh received his BS in industrial engineering from Korea University, his MS in industrial engineering from KAIST, Seoul, and his PhD from Ohio State University. He was with the Center for Research on Integrated Manufacturing at the University of Michigan before joining the POSTECH Department of Industrial Engineering, where he is now an associate professor. He founded the Computer Automated Manufacturing Laboratory, where he and his students are currently developing an intelligent NC system for net shape machining. Professor Suh has published in the areas of CAD/CAM, CNC, and NC machining and robotics and automation. Jung-Jae Lee received his BS in industrial engineering from Korea University and his MS in industrial engineering from POSTECH. He is currently a doctoral candidate in industrial engineering at POSTECH. His research interests include CAD/CAM for NC machining and robot motion planning. Yong-Jong Choi has a BS in industrial automation engineering from Inha University (Ineheon, Korea) and an MS in industrial engineering from POSTECH. He is now with Samsung Data Systems, Seoul. His research interests include CNC control and NC machining. Sung-Kwon Lee holds BS and MS degrees in industrial engineering from POSTECH. He is presently with Samsung Data Systems. His research interests are CAD/CAM and manufacturing systems engineering.

References
1. K. McDermont, "Original Equipment Manufacturers," Encyclo. pedia of Robotic Systems and Control, J. Diponio, ed. (Rockville, MD: ITC Publication, 1987), pp. 1014-1026. 2. P. Howie, "Graphic Simulation for Off-line Programming," Robotics Today (vol. 6, no. 1, Feb. 1984), pp. 63-66. 3. W. Long, "Off-line Programming Reaches the Paint Spray Booth," RobCAD-Paintmaster Manual (Technomix, 1991). 4. T. Bublick, "Robot Applications in Finishing and Painting," Handbook oflndustrial Robotics, S. Nof, ed. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1985), pp. 1249-1263. 5. R. Lamboum, Paint and Surface Coating: Theory and Practice (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1987).

473