Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T14:25:37.444Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A model and strategy analysis of the peg-hole system in the search process associated with robotic assembly operations without chamfers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2009

Hong Qiao ,
Philip Moore  and
Jeff Knight
Hong Qiao
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Manufacture Engineering, School of Engineering and Manufacture, De Montfort University, Leicester LEI 9BH (UK)
Philip Moore
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Manufacture Engineering, School of Engineering and Manufacture, De Montfort University, Leicester LEI 9BH (UK)
Jeff Knight
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Manufacture Engineering, School of Engineering and Manufacture, De Montfort University, Leicester LEI 9BH (UK)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Robotic peg-hole insertion operations can play a very important role in manufacturing industry because it is a common requirement in the manufacturing process and, it requires high precision and high speed.

In general, this operation can be divided into two processes: Search process to engage the peg and the hole and, insertion process.

The search process is critical in the assembly operation. It can be defined as a process where the angular.and the translational errors between the peg and the hole are reduced until insertion can occur.

Keywords

Robotic assemblyPeg-hole systemChamferlessModelling.
Type
Research Article
Information
Robotica , Volume 14 , Issue 6 , November 1996 , pp. 647 - 658
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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.Cho, H.S., Warnecke, H.J. and Cweon, D.G., “Robotic Assembly: a synthesizing review” Robotica 5, Part 2, 153–165 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Desai, Rajiv S. and Volz, Richard A., “Identification and Verification of Termination Conditions in Fine Motion in Presence of Sensor Errors and Geometric Uncertainty” IEEE Int. of Conf. Robotics and Automation (1989) pp. 800–807.Google Scholar
3.Erdmann, M., Using Backprojections for Fine Motion Planning with Uncertainty, The Int. J. of Robotics Res., 19–60, (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Erdmann, Michael and Mason, Matthew T., “An Exploration of Sensorless Manipulation” Proc. of 1986 IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (1986) pp. 1569–1574.Google Scholar
5.Goto, T., Inoyama, T. and Takeyasu, K., “Precise insert operation by tactile-controlled robot” Robotics Sensors 2, 45–51 (1981).Google Scholar
6.Hopkins, S.H., Bland, C.J. and Wu, M.H., “Force sensing as an aid to assembly” Int. J. Prod. Res. 29, No. 2, 293–301 (1991).Google Scholar
7.Lozano-Perez, Tomas, Mason, Matthew T. and Taylor, Russell H., “Automatic Synthesis of Fine-Motion Strategies for Robots” In. J. Rob. 3, No. 1, 65–96 (1984).Google Scholar
8.Simunovic, Serigo, “Force information in assembly process” 5th Int. Symp. on Ind. Robots (1975) pp. 415–431.Google Scholar
9.Whitney, D.E., “Quasi-static assembly of compliantly supported rigid parts” Transaction of the ASME, Journal of Dynamics Systems, Measurement and Control 104, 65–77 (1982).Google Scholar
10.Qiao, H., Dalay, B.S. and Parkin, R.M., “A Novel and Practical Strategy for the Precise Robotic Peg-Hole Insertion Operation” Robotica 13, Part 1, 29–35 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Qiao, H., Dalay, B.S. and Parkin, R.M., “Precise Robotic Chamferless Peg-Hole Insertion Operation without Force Sensors and RCC, “Proc. Journal of Mechanical Engineering 208, 89–104 (1993).Google Scholar
12.Qiao, H., Dalay, B.S. and Parkin, R.M., “Fine Motion Strategies for the Assembly Operations” (Accepted by Proc. Journal of Mechanical Engineering).Google Scholar