Peculiar issue, need solution

TL;DR Just read the damn thing.

Alright so the issue itself isn't nornally peculiar, it's management's response that makes it peculiar. We have a metal grinding process that uses two different grinders. One is large, and the other is quite a bit smaller. We've been having a constant issue with the smaller one blowing wheels apart because the operators are sending parts in with the 'gate' above the height that's its allowed to be sent in. I know what you're thinking. Change the grind to start out further so it doesn't happen. Simple right? Wrong. Management is also obsessed with cycle times. They want it done in as few passes as possible, hence the max height. My first solution to this was to set up a height check in the program with LIN movements and simple math. Worked great on my trial runs. Didn't add much to the cycle time either. However, this was a no-go because they didn't want to run more wires from the PLC. . . So this is where I'm at now. My thoughts now are, maybe theres a way I can check it with the robot itself. Is there a way to monitor something like the axis amperage? If there is, I may be able to devise a quick solution where I set up a check point 1mm or so away from the max allowable height. I'm not sure how accurate this would be though.. any other solutions? Aside from, convince management and train operators (dead horse)

Edit: KR C 5.5.xx

Quote from panic mode

[size=2]hmmm, management who wants something and makes decisions but does not do wiring or reading of robot documentation itself. who do they think they are?

next thing you know, they will completely optimize production and only people working there will need to have skill and creativity or they will call in contractors.

https://www.robot-forum.com/robotforum/kuk…rum/read-first/[/size]

Or assist in further education. Or buy more manuals.

Quote from NPG92

TL;DR Just read the damn thing.

Alright so the issue itself isn't nornally peculiar, it's management's response that makes it peculiar. We have a metal grinding process that uses two different grinders. One is large, and the other is quite a bit smaller. We've been having a constant issue with the smaller one blowing wheels apart because the operators are sending parts in with the 'gate' above the height that's its allowed to be sent in. I know what you're thinking. Change the grind to start out further so it doesn't happen. Simple right? Wrong. Management is also obsessed with cycle times. They want it done in as few passes as possible, hence the max height. My first solution to this was to set up a height check in the program with LIN movements and simple math. Worked great on my trial runs. Didn't add much to the cycle time either. However, this was a no-go because they didn't want to run more wires from the PLC. . . So this is where I'm at now. My thoughts now are, maybe theres a way I can check it with the robot itself. Is there a way to monitor something like the axis amperage? If there is, I may be able to devise a quick solution where I set up a check point 1mm or so away from the max allowable height. I'm not sure how accurate this would be though.. any other solutions? Aside from, convince management and train operators (dead horse)

Edit: KR C 5.5.xx

Question still stands. Are there any built in functions that could aid in this type of sensing?

Quote from panic mode

[shadow=yellow,left][size=32px]can you please start from begin and provide something valuable? information shared so far is very sketchy. if you have an issue, try getting to the point and facts instead of using flowery language.[/size]

[size=32px]it does not help us to know managmenet wants and does something or sentences like:[/size]
[size=32px]"Just read the damn thing." [/size]

[size=32px]it would be better to show current solution and state what specifically is not good about it.[/size]

[size=32px]yes there is a system variable telling motor current. you can find it if you follow link shared. hint, it is in the system variables manual and it came up in previous forum conversations so no need to repeat it. [/size]

[size=32px]i dont think that relying on motor current is a good approach since it is inprecise. it is like trying to determine if you are out of milk by weighing the fridge. it is much better to use more direct approach.[/size][/shadow]

In order,

I literally stated the entire issue. I don't need anyone to program it for me, I simply need to know what my options are for checking the height of said pads with, A: Just the robot and, B: Just the part. I then suggested that maybe my solution lies somewhere is the system that detects collisions, which probably means I don't need to measure anything. But if you need it spelled out, no it doesn't need to measure, just be able to tell if something is there or not, also suggested by "setting a test point using a part with the max allowable height and moving a mm or so away"

I'm describing part of the issue? How does it not help to know that management does not want to use sensors or increase cycle time by too much?

Some people have better senses of humor than others I guess?

There is no solution. Wheels are still blowing up. Hence my desperation for answers by posting in this forum. Also implied by "my last solution" and "they didn't want to do it"

I did click the link and read through your OP, but within the same post you say "don't post kuka manuals" and then later "here's a subforum for kuka manuals." As far as not repeating things, it's difficult to search for something I don't know the name of, however, I did attempt to search the kuka forums for a similar fanuc option, to no avail.

I still agree with that. And I'm still open to other suggestions.

/replies

I'll take a look at that manual subforum. I only need suggestions and/or names of options. I'm a big boy, I can figure out the rest on my own.

G'day

Edit: I did go back and reread that post. I was wrong about the stated manual policy, and I'll run a search later.

Stiiiiiiiiiiiill open to suggestions

Quote from panic mode

[size=2]i don't mean to harass you or anyone but here is a clarification:[/size]
[size=2]* system variables manual covers - system variables. it is in the first pinned post in manuals section:[/size]
[size=2]https://www.robot-forum.com/robotforum/man…ss-version-5-2/[/size]

[size=2]* you are not allowed to share Kuka College manual (training manuals). Manuals delivered with robots are ok. Your robot was sold with a set of manuals too.[/size]

[size=2]* forum has search function and filter allowing to restrict search to specific forum... [/size]

I apologize for being a D

Quote from Tyler Robertson

Hours of programming something that may or not work vs. 4-wires max on an $100 sensor, and some basic PLC programming ... unless there are other barriers there (PLC licensing etc.) I would go with the sensor over motor current checking, just in case.

As would I. However.... I don't have control over the sensor side of things. Thats's PLC, aka electricians. I'm strictly robot.