Author Affiliations
1School of Aerospace Engineering, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361005, China2Shenzhen Research Institute of Xiamen University, Shenzhen 518000, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Robot bonnet polishing system
Fig. 2. Mode shapes of the industrial robot
Fig. 3. Sensor placement in pulse excitation method modal experiment
Fig. 4. Acceleration response spectrum of each measuring point of the robot in dual postures
Fig. 5. Industrial robot vibration measurement site
Fig. 6. Displacement response of each joint point of an industrial robot at variable speed idling
Fig. 7. Elastic component simulation model
Fig. 8. Simulated energy consumption values of elastic components of different specifications
Fig. 9. Three-dimensional structure diagram of bonnet tool
Fig. 10. Free vibration curves
Fig. 11. Comparison of fixed-point polishing RMS between ordinary bonnet tool and vibration suppression bonnet tool
Fig. 12. Comparison of spectra of fixed-point polishing spots between ordinary bonnet tool and vibration suppression bonnet tool
Fig. 13. Comparison of the polishing effect of the original bonnet tool and the vibration suppression bonnet tool
Fig. 13. [in Chinese]
Fig. 14. Comparison of the Y-direction mid-frequency error between the whole surface polishing of the original bonnet tool and the whole surface polishing of the vibration suppression bonnet tool
scope of work/m | carrying capacity/kg | repeatability/mm | repeat path accuracy/mm | total mass/kg | 2.6 | 200 | 0.05 | 0.10 | 1170 |
|
Table 1. Bonnet polishing system parameters
material | density/(kg/m3)
| Young’s modulus/MPa | Poisson’s ratio | gray cast iron | 7200 | 1.1×1011 | 0.28 | aluminum alloy | 2770 | 7.1×1010 | 0.33 | concrete | 2300 | 3×1010 | 0.18 | sand | 2000 | 1×108 | 0.25 | 60Si2MnA
| 7740 | 2.06×1011 | 0.29 |
|
Table 2. Simulation material parameters
| joint1 | joint2 | joint3 | joint4 | joint5 | joint6 | joint stiffness/(mm∙N/rad) | 2.53×109 | 9.31×108 | 6.52×108 | 9.12×107 | 4.36×107 | 2.34×107 |
|
Table 3. IRB 6700 joint stiffness
material constant/Pa | C10 | C01 | 2.45×106 | −9.58×105 |
|
Table 5. Mooney-Rivilin hyperelastic constitutive model
dimensionless material constant | | relaxation time/s | g1 | g2 | g3 | τ1 | τ2 | τ3 | 0.10293 | 0.57067 | 0.05479 | | 0.02905 | 0.00082 | 0.78611 |
|
Table 6. The third-order generalized Maxwell viscoelastic constitutive model
comparison parameters | | originary bonnet | vibration suppression bonnet | relative reduction rate | PV/μm | before polishing | 2.866 | 2.000 | — | after polishing | 2.809 | 1.948 | PSD/(mm·nm2)
| before polishing | — | — | 40% | after polishing | 316.9 | 187.5 | RMS/nm | before polishing | 540.773 | 395.562 | — | after polishing | 534.043 | 382.256 |
|
Table 7. Comparison of the polishing effect of the original bonnet tool and the vibration suppression bonnet tool