Vibro-impact dynamics of material removal in a robotic grinding process

  • Farzad Rafieian
  • Bruce HazelEmail author
  • Zhaoheng Liu


This paper studies the vibratory dynamics governing material removal performed by a compliant robot. The objective is to understand whether metal removal at a target rate or to a target depth of cut is possible given the unavoidable significant and sustained vibrations inherent to the process. Robotic grinding by the SCOMPI robot developed at Hydro-Québec’s research institute for field maintenance work on hydroelectric equipment is studied. A test rig is developed to investigate the instantaneous process of material removal. The setup employs the methodology of angular analysis to detect and locate the discrete cutting events with respect to the instantaneous angular position of the spindle. Test results confirm that the grinding wheel exhibits cyclic impacting oscillations while removing material. This vibro-impact behavior is explained by the nonsmooth nature of the system arising from the substantial difference between process stiffness and stiffness of the robot. Grinding force and power are formulated based on the impacting dynamics of material removal (impact cutting). Parameters of the impact-cutting model are determined experimentally. The impact-cutting model is found well-suited to predicting the grinding power required to remove metal at a target rate. The conclusion is reached that metal removal to a target depth and with acceptable surface waviness is possible despite high-amplitude vibro-impacts between the grinding wheel and workpiece.


Impact cutting Robotic grinding Vibro-impact Grinding force model Robotized surface profiling 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

170_2014_5838_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (140 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 139 kb)
Online resource 1

(MPG 18949 kb)


  1. 1.
    Chen Y, Dong F (2013) Robot machining: recent development and future research issues. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 66(9–12):1489–1497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hazel B, Côté J, Laroche Y, Mongenot P (2012) A portable, multiprocess, track-based robot for in situ work on hydropower equipment. J Field Robot 29(1):69–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Asada H, Goldfine N (1985) Optimal compliance design for grinding robot tool holders. Paper presented at the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), St. Louis, USA, 25-28 MarchGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Asada H, West H (1984) Kinematic analysis and design of tool guide mechanisms for grinding robots. ASME Winter Annual Meeting, Session of Computer Integrated Manufacturing and RoboticsGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang J, Zhang H, Pan Z (2006) Machining with flexible manipulators: Critical issues and solutions. In: Huat LK (ed) Industrial Robotics: Programming, Simulation and Applications. Pro Literatur Verlag, Germany/ ARS, Austria, pp 515–536Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Takeuchi Y, Ge D, Asakawa N (1993) Automated polishing process with a human-like dexterous robot. Paper presented at the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Atlanta, USA, 2–6 MayGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lin F, Lü T (2005) Development of a robot system for complex surfaces polishing based on CL data. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 26(9–10):1132–1137Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dai H, Yuen KM, Elbestawi MA (1993) Parametric modelling and control of the robotic grinding process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 8(3):182–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huang H, Gong ZM, Chen XQ, Zhou L (2002) Robotic grinding and polishing for turbine-vane overhaul. J Mater Process Technol 127(2):140–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu L, Ulrich BJ, Elbestawi MA (1990) Robotic grinding force regulation: Design, implementation and benefits. Paper presented at the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Cincinnati, USA, 13–18 MayGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kunieda M, Nakagawa T (1985) Robot-polishing of curved surface with magneto-pressed tool and magnetic force sensor. Paper presented at the 25th International Machine Tool Design and Research Conference, Birmingham, UK, 22–24 AprilGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ren X, Kuhlenkötter B, Müller H (2006) Simulation and verification of belt grinding with industrial robots. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 46(7–8):708–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hazel B, Côté J, Laroche Y, Mongenot P (2012) Field repair and construction of large hydropower equipment with a portable robot. J Field Robot 29(1):102–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Giroux AM, Houde S, Laroche Y, Dubois R (2008) Improving the performance of a 20 year-old Francis turbine using numerical simulations and robotized intervention. Paper presented at the 24th Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems, Iguassu, Brazil, 27–31 OctoberGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pan Z, Zhang H, Zhu Z, Wang J (2006) Chatter analysis of robotic machining process. J Mater Process Technol 173(3):301–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rafieian F, Girardin F, Liu Z, Thomas M, Hazel B (2014) Angular analysis of the cyclic impacting oscillations in a robotic grinding process. Mech Syst Signal Process 44(1–2):160–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kita Y, Ido M, Hata S (1978) The mechanism of metal removal by an abrasive tool. Wear 47(1):185–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heamawatanachai S, Bamberg E (2010) Cutting force model of orbital single-point micromachining tool. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 50(9):815–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Altintas Y (2000) Manufacturing automation: metal cutting mechanics, machine tool vibrations, and CNC design. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rafieian F, Liu Z, Hazel B (2009) Dynamic model and modal testing for vibration analysis of robotic grinding process with a 6DOF flexible-joint manipulator. Paper presented at the IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation (ICMA), Changchun, China, 9–12 AugustGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Comparin RJ, Singh R (1989) Non-linear frequency response characteristics of an impact pair. J Sound Vib 134(2):259–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Li Y, Gu F, Harris G, Ball A, Bennett N, Travis K (2005) The measurement of instantaneous angular speed. Mech Syst Signal Process 19(4):786–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tahvilian AM, Liu Z, Champliaud H, Hazel B (2013) Experimental and finite element analysis of temperature and energy partition to the workpiece while grinding with a flexible robot. J Mater Process Technol 213(12):2292–2303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Malkin S, Guo C (2008) Empirical relationships. In: Grinding technology—Theory and applications of machining with abrasives, 2nd edn. Industrial Press, 152–153Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringÉcole de technologie supérieureMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Department of RoboticsHydro-Québec’s research institute, IREQVarennesCanada

Personalised recommendations