A framework for geometric reasoning about tools in assembly

When assembling a product, humans, robots, and other automation employ a variety of tools to manipulate, attach, and test parts and subassemblies. This paper proposes a framework to represent and reason about geometric accessibility constraints for a wide variety of assembly tools. Central to the framework is a volume encoding a minimum space that must be free in an assembly state to apply a given tool, and constraints on the placement of that volume relative to the parts on which the tool acts. Determining whether a tool can be applied in a given assembly state is an instance of the FINDPLACE problem. In addition, we present more efficient methods to integrate the framework into assembly planning. For tools that are applied either before or after their target parts are mated, one method preprocesses a single tool application for all possible states of assembly. For tools applied after their target parts are mated, a complementary method guarantees polynomial-time assembly planning. We describe experiments with an initial implementation of the framework and a library of eight tools.

[1]  R. V. Narang,et al.  Development of a framework to automate process planning functions and to determine machining parameters , 1993 .

[2]  Michael Brady,et al.  The Mechanic's Mate , 1984, ECAI.

[3]  Aristides A. G. Requicha,et al.  Accessibility analysis for the automatic inspection of mechanical parts by coordinate measuring machines , 1990, Proceedings., IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[4]  Jean-Claude Latombe,et al.  Planning motions with intentions , 1994, SIGGRAPH.

[5]  Arthur C. Sanderson,et al.  A correct and complete algorithm for the generation of mechanical assembly sequences , 1991, IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom..

[6]  Jean-Claude Latombe,et al.  Geometric Reasoning About Mechanical Assembly , 1994, Artif. Intell..

[7]  Geoffrey Boothroyd,et al.  Product design for manufacture and assembly , 1994, Comput. Aided Des..

[8]  Randall H. Wilson,et al.  Geometric Reasoning about Assembly Tools , 1998, Artif. Intell..

[9]  Randall H. Wilson,et al.  Lessons learned from a second generation assembly planning system , 1995, Proceedings. IEEE International Symposium on Assembly and Task Planning.

[10]  A. Diaz-Calderon,et al.  Measuring the difficulty of assembly tasks from tool access information , 1995, Proceedings. IEEE International Symposium on Assembly and Task Planning.

[11]  Tomás Lozano-Pérez,et al.  Spatial Planning: A Configuration Space Approach , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[12]  Alain Bourjault,et al.  LEGA: a computer-aided generator of assembly plans , 1991 .

[13]  John Canny,et al.  The complexity of robot motion planning , 1988 .

[14]  S. Basu,et al.  A New Algorithm to Find a Point in Every Cell Defined by a Family of Polynomials , 1998 .

[15]  Randall H. Wilson,et al.  The Archimedes 2 mechanical assembly planning system , 1996, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[16]  Joseph M. Miller,et al.  Automatic assembly planning with fasteners , 1989, Proceedings, 1989 International Conference on Robotics and Automation.