4.6 Article

Peg-hole disassembly using active compliance

Journal

ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE
Volume 6, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.190476

Keywords

robotic disassembly; remanufacturing; robotics; active compliance; peg-hole disassembly; remote centre compliance (RCC)

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51675393]
  2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) [EP/N018524/1]
  3. Royal Society [IEC\NSFC\181018]
  4. Special Fund for Key Project of Science and Technology of Hubei Province [2017AAA111]
  5. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2016-YB-021]
  6. Chinese Government Scholarship by the China Scholarship Council [201706950051]
  7. EPSRC [EP/N018524/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

When considered in two-dimensional space, a cylindrical peg being withdrawn from a clearance-fit hole can exhibit one of four contact states: no contact, one-point contact, two-point contact and line contact. Jamming and wedging can occur during the two-point contact. Effective control of the two-point contact region can significantly reduce resistance in peg-hole disassembly. In this paper, we explore generic peg-hole disassembly processes with compliance and identify the effects of key parameters including the degree of compliance, the location of the compliance centre and initial position errors. A quasi-static analysis of peg-hole disassembly has been performed to obtain the boundary conditions of the two-point contact region. The effects of key variables on the two-point contact region have been simulated. Finally, peg-hole disassemblies with different locations of compliance centre achieved using active compliance have been experimentally investigated. The proposed theoretical model can be implemented to predict the range and position of the two-point contact region from the perspective of peg-hole disassembly.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available