Gantry wash robots vs. articulated wash Robots

The utilisation of robots in the washing machines began for the need to wash different parts in the same machine or the need to high pressure deburr of some areas of the parts .

The german Dürr Ecoclean starts to use the robots in their in-line transfer DGI machines as a complementary high pressure wash of  cylinder blocks or cylinder heads. The parts were transferred in a lift and carry transfer trough the machine an in one station it was the robot with the high pressure jet in the wrist that  works on the part. The robot was located vertical with base at the floor outside the machine with a complete glove on the arm to protect the robot arm inside the machine.

The same philosophy was applied by Stic-Hafroy (now Dürr Ecoclean) ,  ICOM , Valiant , ITF and others. But it happen also the application of deburring small parts like ABS distributors or injectors components where the robot ( or robots) were picking the parts from a pallet and presenting the parts in front of HP jets or lances . In this case the wrist of the robot had grippers for the part and no jets as before.

The”flexibility” of the machine in this case is coming from the possibility to have several wash/deburr programs inside the same machine , but the gripper of the robot need to have at least common points in the component to be washed in order to pick the parts.

Here is appearing the two different concepts on the robotic wash/deburr applications : a robotic wash/deburr operation with a jet moved by the robot against a part transferred by a mechanical system or a robot with a gripper picking the part and moving the part against HP wash/deburr fixed location jets.

In the first case( robot moving the jet) the robot is less exposed to the direct splash of water and there is no mechanical-pneumatic-electric components on the wrist.

 

In the second case (the robot moving the part) the robot wrist is exposed to receive direct high pressure splash , and it has mechanical-pneumatic-electric components on the part gripper risking to be wet .

Some people with experience in robot automation have plunge in the wash/deburr applications with robots gripping the parts without evaluating the additional risk on the wrist. The robot suppliers are working hard to protect the articulated robot but the maximum protection proposed is a IP65 for the arm , with stainless steel covers , and IP68 for the wrist( see my before “post” concerning the IP validity’s). Some of them they are also adding  air over pressure for the wrist. In any case in these applications there is much more risk than in the case of the robot moving the jet.

 In the before post I mentioned the advantages of the Agullo gantry moving the jet at the end of the vertical arm with all the mechanical outside the machine.

 

 

 

The same disposition is adapted by the japanese SUGINO . Sugino is living in the country with more robot suppliers of the world . Why Sugino is not using the articulated robot in their machines? : Because they are more confident with the gantry on the top of the machine than with a robot.

 

 

 

Other manufacturers like the german Arau has presented in the Parts2clean Stuttgart exhibition his robot cell using also a gantry in the roof of the machine. (years before it was using articulated robots inside the machine).Another example is the german Piller that is using the gantry on top of the machine for the HP deburr jet in his cells.

Another advantage of the gantry robot utilisation is that the machine has only one electric control: a CNC known by the users and easy to run. In the case of the articulated robots inside machines , the machine needs a PLC and the robot has his own electronic control( two controls units in one machine).

But the articulated robot has also good points :It can load/unload the part in the machine by himself  when the gantry robot moving the jet , needs of  another transfer device for the parts, it can be produced in advance and customised in the last moment (gripper and programme) ..

So , what a dilemma ¡¡… Yes , and there is another interesting point : the total investment for the machine.

The Robot cells with articulated robots carrying the part are as single  cell an “economic” machine compared with a transfer-robotic  in line machine , or a rotary transfer-robotic machine. But the throughput is not the same.

In a robotic cell loading and unloading the part with the articulated robot you have dead time( load/unload) that penalize the complete cycle of the machine . More big is the part to be washed ( heavier) more time you will spend on the load/unload( lower speed on the movements due to the inertia). The wash time and the blow-off /dry times can not be fully reduced and then there is a need to use several robotic cells according with the requested throughput production .That’s means that you will need two,four.. or five robotic cells versus one equivalent transfer in line or rotary transfer robotic machines.

As a general rule we can say that in the majority of the automotive cylinder blocks and cylinder heads applications the investment is higher with the robotic cells . But is also an strategic choice: you can have one robotic cell as spare , in case of a shutdown in another, or you can increase the production step by step buying the cells in several years … Interesting comparison.