Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T11:32:00.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experimental analysis of the automated process of sanding aircraft surfaces

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

B. Giublin ,
J. A. Vieira ,
T. G. Vieira ,
L. G. Trabasso  and
C. A. Martins
B. Giublin
Affiliation:
Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica, São José dos Campos, Brazil
J. A. Vieira
Affiliation:
Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica, São José dos Campos, Brazil
T. G. Vieira
Affiliation:
Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica, São José dos Campos, Brazil
L. G. Trabasso
Affiliation:
Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica, São José dos Campos, Brazil
C. A. Martins*
Affiliation:
Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica, São José dos Campos, Brazil
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

ITA and EMBRAER are currently executing the research project Automation of Aircraft Structural Assembly (AASA) whose goal is to implement a robotic cell for automating the riveting process of aeronautical structures. The proposal described herein complements the AASA project, adds other manufacturing processes, namely sanding and polishing of aircraft surfaces. To implement the additional processes AASA project resources and facilities were used (robots and metrology systems) and devices designed and /or acquired to allow sharing of these resources. Among these, an Automatic Tooling Support for AERonautics structures (ATS_AER) was designed and built; also, a robot tool changer with high load capacity was acquired. The outcome of this research project is the evaluation of the feasibility of automating the processes of sanding and polishing metal surfaces in the aircraft manufacture using robots. The operating method adopted for surface treatment employed the ‘U’ type trajectory optimised to be run by a KUKA robot KR 500. The sanding process has been applied to aluminum metal sheet specimen sized 2•18ft2 (0•20m2) and used commercial 600 and 800 sandpaper. The automated sanding process yielded an average value of RA 0•48 ± 0•08 which is 25% more efficient when compared to the traditional, manual process whose average value of RA is 0•75 ± 0•51.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 118 , Issue 1199 , January 2014 , pp. 53 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Eguti, C.A.A., Trabasso, L.G. and Gomes, J.O. An experimental orbital drilling device for automating thedrill process of aeronautical structures, In Proceedings of the 11th Mechatronics Forum International Conference. Limeric, Ireland, 2008.Google Scholar
2. Kruusmaa, M., Fioroni, P., Laschi, C., Madhavan, R. and Tan, X. Guest editorial: New boundaries for robotics, Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 2012.Google Scholar
3. Slack, N. and Slack, N. Operations Strategy, 2nd ed, Harlow: Prentice Hall, 2007, pp 496.Google Scholar
4. Summers, M. Robot Capability Test and Development of Industrial Robot Positioning System for the Aerospace Industry. In Proceedings of SAE Aerospace Automated Fastening Conference & Exposition, 2005.Google Scholar
5. Rangel, R. Robôs garantem precisão na montagem de aeronaves. FINEP – Inovação em Pauta., 8, p 27, November 2009 –January 2010 Google Scholar
6. Erlbacher, E.A. Force control basics, Industrial Robot: An International Journal, Dallas, Texas, USA, pp 20–29, 2000.Google Scholar
7. Pagilla, P.R. and Yu, B. Robotic surface fnishing processes: modeling, control, and experiments, J Dynamic Systems, Measurement, And Control, Oklahoma, USA, pp 93–102, 2001.Google Scholar
8. Márquez, J.J., Pérez, J.M., Ríos, J. and Vizán, A. Process modeling for robotic polishing. J Materials Processing Technology, Madrid, Spain, pp 69–82, 2005.Google Scholar
9. Drotning, W., Kozlowski, D., Loucks, C., Prentice, W. and Watterberg, P. Automation Tools for Flexible Aircraft Maintenance. Sandia Report, Albuquerque, USA, pp 3–30, 2003.Google Scholar
10. Petropoulos, G.P., Pandazaras, C.N. and Davim, J.P. Surface Texture Characterisation and Evaluation Related to Machining, Surface Integrity In Machining, London, UK, pp 37–66, 2010.Google Scholar
11. Montgomery, D. Design and Analysis of Experiments, 5th ed, New York, USA, John Wiley, 2004, pp 555.Google Scholar