Design of a compliant device for peg-hole separation in robotic disassembly

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1428150/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Design of a compliant device for peg-hole separation in robotic disassembly

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1428150/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Disassembly is the first step in the remanufacturing of a product. This paper presents the design of a robot end-of-arm tool for removing a peg from a hole, a common operation in the disassembly of mechanical products. The device is a compliant structure that enables the peg to be pulled out of a closely fitting hole without jamming or wedging. The device is reminiscent of the Remote Centre Compliance (RCC) mechanism used by assembly robots to insert cylindrical pegs into cylindrical holes with small clearances. However, whereas the RCC mechanism has primarily to withstand compressive forces, the proposed compliant device must resist tensile forces because of the nature of disassembly operations. The paper details a finite-element modelling study of peg removal with and without using the compliant structure. The results obtained show that the structure markedly reduces the stresses at the points of contact between the peg and the hole and, consequently, the risk of damage to the components being disassembled.

Robotic disassembly

RCC device

Peg-hole insertion

Peg-hole separation

Peg-hole disassembly

Remanufacturing

Remanufacturing can obtain the highest value of parts from used products, as well as a proportion of the original manufactured value to minimise environmental pollution and maximise resource utilisation [1]. A complete remanufacturing process comprises the following stages: disassembly, cleaning, inspection, repairing or replacing of damaged parts, reassembly and testing [2, 3].

1.1 Background

As the first and most important stage in the remanufacturing process, disassembly is the key link that connects product returns with product recovery [4, 5]. Although manual disassembly enables a precise disassembly operation that can protect components more effectively, it is inefficient. Automated disassembly with robotic devices can greatly reduce time and labour cost, which improves the efficiency of disassembly [6]. A critical problem that arises during component disassembly is that lateral and angular misalignment between the components being separated can produce large reaction forces. These reaction forces may lead to jamming and wedging, which would prevent the successful completion of the disassembly task and cause damage to the parts and robotic devices [7].

A compliant device, called Remote Centre Compliance (RCC), was invented at the MIT Draper Laboratories in the 1970s to solve jamming and wedging problems for ‘peg-in-hole’ insertion in robotic assembly. The device is to be mounted between the robot arm and the end effector to enable passive accommodation of the contact forces, allowing them to guide the insertion process [8, 9]. However, the original RCC device cannot be directly applied to the ‘peg-out-of-hole’ case in disassembly because the large tensile forces generated between the upper and lower plates of the RCC device would damage its elastic beam structure. To overcome the limitation of conventional RCC devices when applied to peg-out-of-hole operations in robotic disassembly, a new compliant device with an improved structure of elastic elements is proposed.

1.2 Literature review

Functionality and structure of the RCC device

Researchers have described several compliance concepts to enable robots to perform high-precision assembly tasks [10, 11]. A compliance strategy is passive accommodation, which uses an elastic structure to compensate for misalignments between the mating parts [12]. Contact forces arising when a part is being inserted into another cause elastic deformation of the compliant components in the structure to achieve this passive compensation function [13]. The RCC device is probably the best known passive compliant device [14]. It was evaluated by General Motors and used in several assembly applications [15][16].

The idea of the remote centre originated from the dynafocal method of supporting aircraft engines over 80 years ago [17]. The concept of a compliance centre located at the tip of the peg was proposed by Watson and Whitney [18]. At that point, contact forces and torques between mating parts, respectively, produce linear and rotational movements to accomplish the peg-in-hole assembly operation. Gustavson distinguished the types of contacts that may occur between the peg and the hole, namely, one-point contact, two-point contact, and line contact. Two-point contact can cause different assembly issues during the insertion process [19].

However, if an RCC device is mounted between the robot’s wrist and gripper, the compliance centre could be placed at the tip of the peg to ensure that the contact forces assist the robot in accomplishing the operation. The function of the RCC in peg-in-hole assembly depends upon the existence of a chamfer on either or both peg and hole surfaces to locate the mating parts initially relative to each other [20]. When the peg contacts the hole, reaction forces acting on the compliance centre only produce lateral motion without rotation, and moments only generate rotation about the compliance centre. This allows the insertion to be accomplished without jamming or wedging problems [21].

An RCC device used for assembly usually consists of two rigid plates, a top plate and a bottom plate, connected by elastic beams (see Fig. 1) [22]. In the unstressed state, the plates are parallel to each other [23]. In a top-down insertion scenario, the top plate is mounted on the wrist of the robot, while the bottom plate houses the gripper which holds the peg (the gripper is omitted from Fig. 1 where the peg is shown directly fixed to the bottom plate). The compliance centre is designed to be located at the tip of the peg [24]. The positioning of the elastic beams projects a predetermined compliance centre remote from the bottom plate of the RCC device, which indicates that the position of the compliance centre changes with the angle and the position of the elastic beams [25].

Properties of elastomeric shear pads

The elastic beams in an RCC device are usually elastomeric shear pads (ESPs). An ESP is a rubber-metal sandwich comprising alternating layers of rigid washers and elastomers [26]. This kind of arrangement can provide a structure relatively stiff in the axial direction yet soft in shear. Early analyses of RCC devices assumed that the ESPs were linear elements [27] with four main elastic constants: lateral stiffness, bending stiffness, lateral and bending coupling stiffness, and torsional stiffness. However, Joo et al. found that this assumption was inadequate to explain the behaviour of an ESP and RCC because the stiffness of an ESP exhibits nonlinearity [28]. Lee proposed a modified ESP design using the dependence of an ESP’s stiffness on shear stress to yield an RCC device with a variable compliance centre [29].

In this work, the properties of ESPs are regarded as linear to simplify calculations. However, due to their construction, ESPs can only withstand large compressive forces, not tensile forces, and a conventional RCC device would be damaged by large pulling forces during disassembly.

1.2 Calculation of compliance centre

A large projection of the compliance centre and low stiffness of ESPs are two major factors that need to be considered when designing an RCC device [30]. Rebman proposed that trade-offs must be made between size, stiffness, and projection because of the difficulties in achieving the desired requirements in a fixed diameter device [31]. A mathematical model was established by Whitney to describe the relationships between the projection of the compliance centre and the tilt angle, position and stiffness of ESPs [32] and the basic sizing decisions for an RCC design can be made based on those relationships [33].

The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. Section 2 describes the design of the new compliant device for peg-out-of-hole operations. Section 3 discusses the Finite Element modelling of the device to determine the compliance centre and the stresses and deformations during disassembly. Section 4 presents the results obtained. Section 5 concludes the paper and gives suggestions for future work.

The new RCC device is inspired by the original device with a single layer of three ESPs arranged symmetrically in a circle and projecting a compliance centre below the bottom plate. As mentioned previously, the function of the ESPs is to absorb the forces and moments generated by peg-hole contact and provide compliance for the peg to compensate for misalignments during the insertion process. Owing to the laminated structure of ESPs, their extension is not restricted under pulling loads. This can lead to damage to the ESPs if the original RCC device is used for peg-out-of-hole operations.

The new RCC device comprises three plates and six ESPs. Unlike in the original RCC device, here, the upper plate and bottom plate of the new RCC device are integrated into one component. In addition, the peg is no longer mounted on the bottom plate but the middle plate. This restricts the extension of the ESPs and helps protect the ESPs from being damaged by high pulling forces.

Figure 2a shows a sketch of the proposed RCC device. Figure 2b depicts its 3D CAD models. The ESPs in top layer can be seen in Fig. 2a as consisting of nine layers each, four of metal and five of elastomer. The ESPs in bottom layer can be seen in Fig. 2a as consisting of seven layers each, three of metal and four of elastomer. The next section looks at the finite-element modelling of the RCC device to find the compliance centre and the stresses and deformations in the peg and the hole during the disassembly operation.

Finite element modelling using ANSYS Workbench Version 19.1 was undertaken to show that the proposed device had a remote centre of compliance and to determine the location of that centre. The withdrawal of a cylindrical peg from a cylindrical hole with and without the assistance of the RCC device was then simulated to show the effect of using it on the resulting contact stresses and deformations in the components being separated.

3.1 Centre of compliance

Table 1a shows the key dimensions of the proposed RCC device and the construction details of its ESP shear pads. Table 1b gives the properties of the neoprene rubber used as the elastomer in the ESP shear pads. For simplicity, it was assumed that the deformations of the aluminium body of the RCC device (comprising the integrated upper and lower plates), the floating aluminium middle plate and the carbon steel (ASTM A307) shims in the ESPs were negligible.

Table 1: Geometric and material details of the proposed RCC device

(a) Geometric details of the RCC and ESPs

RCC Body
Pitch Circle Diameter (Top plate)	143mm
Pitch Circle Diameter (Middle plate)	56mm
Pitch Circle Diameter (Bottom plate)	62mm
Distance between top and bottom plates	47mm
ESP
Number of top ESPs	3
Number of bottom ESPs	3
Natural (unstressed) length of a top ESP	27mm
Natural (unstressed) length of a bottom ESP	21mm
Number of steel shims in top ESPs	4
Number of steel shims in bottom ESPs	3
Number of elastomeric layers in top ESPs	5
Number of elastomeric layers in bottom ESPs	4
Thickness of an elastomeric layer	3mm
Thickness of a steel shim	3mm
Diameter of top ESP cross-section	8mm
Diameter of bottom ESP cross-section	8mm

(b) Properties of the neoprene material in the ESPs

Tensile Strength (GPa)	200
Maximum Elongation (%)	600
Initial Shear Modulus (GPa)	26.7

A rigid peg of length l was fitted to the middle plate as shown in Fig. 2a. Forces and moments (F_x, F_y, F_z, M_x, M_y, M_z) were applied at/about the tip of the peg when the length l is varied. The translational and rotational movements of the peg in response to the exerted forces and moments were computed. The centre of compliance of the device was the point where an applied force caused the peg only to translate and an applied moment makes it rotate about that point.

3.2 Contact stresses and deformations

Simulation was conducted of the withdrawal of a steel peg of length Lp = 70mm and diameter D_p = 24.95mm from a hole machined in a block of the same steel. The diameter of the hole was D_h = 25.05mm. The steel used in the simulation was a high-carbon steel with a hardness of 64 HRC and a yield strength of 525 MPa. The coefficient of friction between the peg and the hole was 0.1. The direction of the withdrawal force was assumed to be 1.95\(^\circ\) relative to the vertical axis. 1.95\(^\circ\) is the jamming angle for the chosen peg-hole configuration [7]. As previously mentioned, two cases were investigated. In one case, the RCC device was not used and the peg was fixed directly to the robot wrist (or rigidly held in the robot gripper). In the other case, the RCC device was fitted to the robot wrist and the peg was mounted on the lower face of the middle plate.

From Fig. 2a, based on tilted angle (Ang) and length of ESPs the compliance centre is calculated and located at 71mm from the bottom of the middle plate. A force exerted at that point will cause pure translation of the peg and a moment about that point will make it rotate without translating.

Thus, for the given dimensions and geometry, the proposed device behaves as an RCC mechanism with a remote centre of compliance positioned 71mm below the middle plate. The compliance matrix of the device expressed in a coordinate system located at the compliance centre is a diagonal matrix given by Eq. 1, in which K_x=K_y=\(420N/mm\), K_z=\(2.62N/mm\), K_α=K_β=\(420Nmm/rad\),K_𝛾=\(48.95Nmm/rad\).

[C] = \(\left[\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{cc}Kx& 0.0\\ 0.0& Ky\end{array} \begin{array}{cc}0.0& 0.0\\ 0.0& 0.0\end{array} \begin{array}{cc}0.0& 0.0\\ 0.0& 0.0\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{cc}0.0& 0.0\\ 0.0& 0.0\end{array} \begin{array}{cc}Kz& 0.0\\ 0.0& K\alpha \end{array} \begin{array}{cc}0.0& 0.0\\ 0.0& 0.0\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{cc}0.0& 0.0\\ 0.0& 0.0\end{array} \begin{array}{cc}0.0& 0.0\\ 0.0& 0.0\end{array} \begin{array}{cc}K\beta & 0.0\\ 0.0& K\gamma \end{array}\end{array}\right]\) (1)

As shown in Fig. 4a and Fig. 4b, when the RCC device was not used, it is obvious that the peg could not be pulled out of the hole as the relative position between the peg and the hole did not change. Moreover, there was a huge equivalent stress change on the peg due to jamming as the direction of the withdrawal force was equal to the jamming angle.

The FEM software gave a warning that the contact status had experienced an abrupt change during the simulation process (see the blue line in Fig. 5), and was unable to converge on a solution for this problem. As shown in Fig. 5c, the maximum equivalent stress (represented by the green line) kept rising with time.

As shown in Fig. 6a, with the RCC device fitted, the peg could be completely pulled out of the hole. The stress distribution in the peg during the separation process can be seen in Fig. 6b. The stresses in the ESPs, especially at the connections between them and the middle plate were significantly greater than the stresses in other components, causing them to deform, the middle plate to move and the peg to accommodate itself to the hole thus facilitating the withdrawal process.

The stresses on the peg (see Fig. 6c) were much reduced when the RCC device was used, never approaching the material yield stress during the disengagement process. This shows the effectiveness of the device at preventing damage to components, enabling them to be reused following disassembly. It was also noted in the simulation that the contact state between the peg and the hole changed to one-point contact from two-point contact, which eliminated the possibility of wedging between the peg and the hole.

The colour of the stress map for the body of the RCC device (the integrated top and bottom plates) stayed blue during the whole separation process, which indicates that, throughout, there were negligible stresses in the body of the device. Therefore, it could be made of a suitably light aluminium alloy to keep the weight of the device down.

Figure 7 shows the evolution of deformations in the system. The red line represents the minimum deformation which remained close to zero during the disengagement of the pin from the hole. This indicates that there were parts of the system, notably, the body of the RCC device, where the deformation could be neglected, as previously assumed. The green line in Fig. 7 represents the maximum deformation in the entire geometry. This occurred at the ESPs where, according to Fig. 6b, stresses were also the highest, which shows the ability of the RCC device to absorb the load transferred to it during the disengagement of the peg from the hole. As the peg moved to conform to the position of the hole, the maximum deformation kept increasing until the peg became fully disengaged when all deformations became virtually null. Note that the initial deformations in the system were non-zero because it started from a stressed state with the peg and hole being misaligned relative to each other. The final deformations were also not exactly null as the weight of the peg caused the ESPs to remain slightly stretched or compressed even after full disengagement.

Figure 8 plots the stresses in the system. The red line in Fig. 8 represents the evolution in the minimum stress over the entire geometry, which confirms the previous observation that the minimum stress remained close to zero throughout the peg removal operation. The green line represents the maximum stress in the system. As mentioned above, stresses were highest in the ESPs and at the joints between them and the middle plate. The maximum stresses were well below the shear strength of the neoprene rubber in the shear pads as previously observed.

Again, it can be noted that the green line in Fig. 8 does not start from zero due to the initial stressed state of the RCC device. The line does not drop fully to zero when the peg was completely removed from the hole. This is because there are still small residual stresses due to the weight of the peg transmitted to the ESPs via the middle plate of the RCC device.

The results obtained from this finite-element modelling work have shown that the proposed device has a remote compliance centre and the effect of fitting the device to the wrist of a robot is to enable it to remove a peg from a hole without jamming or wedging even when the peg-hole clearance is very small.

Remanufacturing is an important part of a circular economy, saving raw material and energy and drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the need for landfill space. The first operation in remanufacturing is the disassembly of the product to be remanufactured to recover its components for repair or, preferably, reuse. To preserve the maximum value of the components that are being disassembled, they must not be damaged during the disassembly process. For this reason, disassembly requires skills and, as products at the end of their service life tend to be difficult to disassemble, human operators are usually needed to perform disassembly tasks.

The work reported here was part of a research programme aimed at robotising disassembly [34]. The project began with an analysis of more than four hundred products to determine frequently occurring disassembly operations. The removal of a peg from a hole, representing, for example, the disassembly of a shaft from a bearing, was found to be one such operation. It was thus chosen as the target for the present study the aim of which was to design an end-of-arm tool to enable a robot to perform the operation without causing undue stresses in the peg or the hole.

The device is a compliant structure that enables the peg to be pulled out of a closely fitting hole without jamming or wedging. The device was inspired by the Remote Centre Compliance (RCC) mechanism used by assembly robots to insert cylindrical pegs into cylindrical holes with small clearances. However, rather than compressive forces as in the case of peg-hole insertion, the proposed device must resist the tensile forces that occur as the peg is pulled away from the hole. To achieve this, the device was constructed with two layers of elastic shear pads (ESPs) instead of just one layer as in the original RCC device, with the peg rigidly fixed to a plate fitted between the two ESP layers.

The finite-element modelling study conducted shows that the centre of compliance of the device is located remotely from the plate holding the peg. As expected, at that location, the 6x6 compliance matrix of the device is diagonal. By appropriately choosing the dimensions of the device, it is possible to make the centre of compliance coincide with the tip of the peg. The simulated disassembly experiments without and with the device fitted to the wrist of the disassembly robot demonstrate the effectiveness of the device at keeping the stresses in the peg and the hole well beyond the level that can cause damage to them.

In addition to testing physical prototypes of the proposed RCC device, future work could proceed in two directions. First, the sensitivity of the performance of the device to the location of the centre of compliance should be investigated in detail and its range of operation maximised to cater for pegs of widely different lengths. Second, the feasibility of the device as a tool to aid the undoing of threaded fasteners, the most common disassembly operation – twice as frequent as peg-hole removal [34] – should be studied. Because such unscrewing operations would involve torsional deformation, the device would probably need to be redesigned to give it greater torsional strength.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), UK (AUTOREMAN project, Grant No. EP/N108524/1).

1. Funding: AUTOREMAN (Robotic disassembly technology as a key enabler of autonomous remanufacturing, £1.9 million from EPSRC) project led by Prof D.T. Pham as a principle investigator.

2. Competing interests: We declare that we have no competing interests.

3. Authors' contributions: S. Su and D.T. Pham contributed to the proposed compliant device mechanism and drafted the manuscript. C. Ji, Y. Wang and J. Huang provided the comments on the compliant device models and modelling simulation results. W. Zhou and H. Wang contributed to CAD modelling and FEM simulation in their final year projects and contributed to the manuscript writing. D.T. Pham and S. Su supervised their research of the peg–hole separation. Y. Wang and J. Huang supervised their experimental work of robotic disassembly process. All authors approved the final version of the paper.

Kumar V, Shirodkar PS, Camelio JA, Sutherland JW (2007) “Value flow characterization during product lifecycle to assist in recovery decisions,” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 45, no. 18–19, pp. 4555–4572, Sep.
Ijomah WL, McMahon CA, Hammond GP, Newman ST (2007) “Development of robust design-for-remanufacturing guidelines to further the aims of sustainable development,” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 45, no. 18–19, pp. 4513–4536, Sep.
Ayres R, Ferrer G, Van Leynseele T (1997) “Eco-efficiency, asset recovery and remanufacturing,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 557–574, Oct.
Johnson MR, Wang MH (1998) “Economical evaluation of disassembly operations for recycling, remanufacturing and reuse,” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 36, no. 12, pp. 3227–3252, Dec.
Vongbunyong S, Chen WH (2015) Disassembly Automation. Springer International Publishing, Cham
Tang Y, Zhou M, Zussman E, Caudill R (2002) “Disassembly modeling, planning, and application,” J. Manuf. Syst., vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 200–217, Jan.
Usubamatov R, Leong KW (2011) “Analyses of peg-hole jamming in automatic assembly machines,” Assem. Autom., vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 358–362, Sep.
Fei Y, Zhao X (2005) “Jamming analyses for dual peg-in-hole insertions in three dimensions,” Robotica, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 83–91, Jan. Mettam GR, Adams LB (1999) How to prepare an electronic version of your article. In: Jones BS, Smith RZ (eds) Introduction to the electronic age. E-Publishing Inc, New York, pp 281–304
Bruyninckx H, Dutre S, De Schutter J (1995) “Peg-on-hole: a model based solution to peg and hole alignment,” in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 2, pp. 1919–1924
Koditschek DE (1994) “An approach to autonomous robot assembly,” Robotica, vol. 12, no. 02, p. 137, Mar.
Hormann A, Rembold U “Development of an advanced robot for autonomous assembly,” in Proceedings 1991 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 2452–2457
Sturges RH, Laowattana S “Passive assembly of nonaxisymmetric rigid parts,” in Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS’94), vol. 2, pp. 1218–1225
McCallion H, Johnson GR, Pham DT “A compliant device for inserting a peg in a hole,”The Industrial Robot, vol. 6, no. 2, pp.81–87
Chen H, Wang J, Zhang G, Fuhlbrigge T, Kock S (2009) “High-precision assembly automation based on robot compliance,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., vol. 45, no. 9–10, pp. 999–1006, Dec.
Du K-L, Zhang B-B, Huang X, Jianyuan, Hu “Dynamic analysis of assembly process with passive compliance for robot manipulators,” in Proceedings 2003 IEEE International Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation. Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation for the New Millennium (Cat. No.03EX694), vol. 3, pp. 1168–1173
Nguyen Trong D, Betemps M, Jutard A (1995) “Analysis of dynamic assembly using passive compliance,” in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 2, pp. 1997–2002
Lee S, Won, Choi S (2000) “Development of a new variable remote center compliance for assembly robots,” Adv. Robot., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 241–255, Jan.
Nevins JL, Whitney DE (1977) “Research on Advanced Assembly Automation,” Computer (Long. Beach. Calif)., vol. 10, no. 12, pp. 24–38, Dec.
Gustavson RE (1985) “A Theory for the Three-Dimensional Mating of Chamfered Cylindrical Parts,” J. Mech. Transm. Autom. Des., vol. 107, no. 1, p. 112, Mar.
Zhao F, Wu PS (1998) “VRCC: a variable remote center compliance device,” Mechatronics, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 657–672, Aug.
Haskiya W (2000) “Robotic assembly: chamferless peg-hole assembly operation from X/Y/Z directions.,”
Kim W, Yi B-J, Cho W (2000) “RCC Characteristics of Planar/Spherical Three Degree-of-Freedom Parallel Mechanisms with Joint Compliances,” J. Mech. Des., vol. 122, no. 1, p. 10, Mar.
Ciblak N, Lipkin H (2003) “Design and Analysis of Remote Center of Compliance Structures,” J. Robot. Syst., vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 415–427, Aug.
Kim W, Yi B-J, Cho W (2000) “RCC Characteristics of Planar/Spherical Three Degree-of-Freedom Parallel Mechanisms with Joint Compliances,” J. Mech. Des., vol. 122, no. 1, p. 10, Mar.
Ciblak N, Lipkin H “New properties of the remote center of compliance,” in Proceedings of International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 2, pp. 921–926
Lee S (2005) “Development of a New Variable Remote Center Compliance (VRCC) With Modified Elastomer Shear Pad (ESP) for Robot Assembly,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 193–197, Apr.
Ciblak N, Lipkin H (1996) “Remote center of compliance reconsidered, Proceedings ASME 1996 Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Irvine, Paper No. Proceedings ASME 1996 Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Irvine, Paper No.96-DETC-MECH-1167,
Joo S, Miyazaki F (1998) “Development of variable RCC and its application,” in Proceedings. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. Innovations in Theory, Practice and Applications (Cat. No.98CH36190), vol. 2, pp. 1326–1332
Lee S (2009) “Shear Control of Elastomer Shear Pads for Variable Remote Center Compliance,” Adv. Robot., vol. 23, no. 1–2, pp. 227–237, Jan.
Lipkin H, Patterson T “Generalized center of compliance and stiffness”, in Proceedings 1992 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 1251–1256
Rebman J (1979), Compliance for Robotic Assembly using Elastomeric Technology, 9th ISIR, Washington, DC, 13–15 March, pp. 153–166
Whitney DE (1982) “Quasi-Static Assembly of Compliantly Supported Rigid Parts,” J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control, vol. 104, no. 1, p. 65, Mar.
Whitney DE, Rourke JM (1986) “Mechanical Behavior and Design Equations for Elastomer Shear Pad Remote Center Compliances,” J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control, vol. 108, no. 3, p. 223, Sep.
Pham DT, Cripps RJ, Castellani M, Essa K, Saadat M, Ji C, Su SZ, Huang J, Wang Y, Kerin M, Zhou Z, Liu Q, Xu W, Fang Y, Liu J, Li R, Zhang Y, Laili Y, Ramirez FJ (2021) “AutoReman – The Dawn of Scientific Research into Robotic Disassembly for Remanufacturing,” in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Production Research Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering, G Gencyilmaz and N Durakbasa, Springer Nature, Cham, Switzerland, 2022

Download PDF

Reviews received at journal
18 Mar, 2022
Reviewers invited by journal
17 Mar, 2022
Editor assigned by journal
16 Mar, 2022
First submitted to journal
07 Mar, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

Design of a compliant device for peg-hole separation in robotic disassembly

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

1.2 Calculation of compliance centre

2.0 Design Of New Rcc Device

3.0 Finite Element Modelling

3.1 Centre of compliance

3.2 Contact stresses and deformations

4.0 Results And Discussions

5.0 Conclusion And Future Work

Declarations

References

Status:

Version 1