Propuesta de inclusión de esfuerzos en el control de un brazo robot para asegurar el cumplimiento de la rugosidad superficial durante operaciones de lijado en diferentes materiales

Tesis por compendio[ES] El mecanizado con brazos robots ha sido estudiado aproximadamente desde los años 90, durante este tiempo se han llevado a cabo importantes avances y descubrimientos en cuanto a su campo de aplicación. En general, los robots manipuladores tienen muchos beneficios y ventajas al ser usados en operaciones de mecanizado, tales como, flexibilidad, gran área de trabajo y facilidad de programación, entre otras, frente a las Máquinas Herramientas de Control numérico (MHCN) que necesitan de una gran inversión para trabajar piezas muy grandes o incrementar sus grados de libertad. Como desventajas, frente a las MHCN, los brazos robóticos poseen menor rigidez, lo que combinado con las altas fuerzas producidas en los procesos de mecanizado hace que aparezcan errores de precisión, desviaciones en las trayectorias, vibraciones y, por consiguiente, una mala calidad en las piezas fabricadas. Entre los brazos robots, los brazos colaborativos están en auge debido a su programación intuitiva y a sus medidas de seguridad, que les permiten trabajar en el mismo espacio que los operadores sin que estos corran riesgos. Como desventaja añadida de los robots colaborativos se encuentra la mayor flexibilidad que estos tienen en sus articulaciones, debido a que incluyen reductores del tipo Harmonic drive. El uso de un control de fuerza en procesos de mecanizado con brazos robots permite controlar y corregir en tiempo real las desviaciones generadas por la flexibilidad en las articulaciones del robot. Utilizar este método de control es beneficioso en cualquier brazo robot; sin embargo, el control interno que incluyen los robots colaborativos presenta ventajas que permiten que el control de fuerza pueda ser aplicado de una manera más eficiente. En el presente trabajo se desarrolla una propuesta real para la inclusión del control de esfuerzos en el brazo robot, así como también, se evalúa y cuantifica la capacidad de los robots industriales y colaborativos en tareas de mecanizado. La propuesta plantea cómo mejorar la utilización de un control de fuerza por bucle interior/exterior aplicado en un brazo colaborativo cuando se desconocen los pares reales de los motores del robot, así como otros parámetros internos que los fabricantes no dan a conocer. Este bucle de control interior/exterior ha sido utilizado en aplicaciones de pulido y lijado sobre diferentes materiales. Los resultados indican que el robot colaborativo es factible para realizar tales operaciones de mecanizado. Sus mejores resultados se obtienen cuando se utiliza un bucle de control interno por velocidad y un bucle de control externo de fuerza con algoritmos, Proporcional-Integral-Derivativo o Proporcional más Pre-Alimentación de la Fuerza.[CA] El mecanitzat amb braços robots ha estat estudiat aproximadament des dels anys 90, durant aquest temps s'han dut a terme importants avanços i descobriments en el que fa al seu camp d'aplicació. En general, els robots manipuladors tenen molts beneficis i avantatges al ser usats en operacions de mecanitzat, com ara, flexibilitat, gran àrea de treball i facilitat de programació, entre d'altres, davant de Màquines Eines de Control Numèric (MECN) que necessiten d'una gran inversió per treballar peces molt grans o incrementar els seus graus de llibertat. Com a desavantatges, enfront de les MECN, els braços robòtics posseeixen menor rigidesa, el que combinat amb les altes forces produïdes en els processos de mecanitzat fa que apareguin errors de precisió, desviacions en les trajectòries, vibracions i, per tant, una mala qualitat en les peces fabricades. Entre els braços robots, els braços col·laboratius estan en auge a causa de la seva programació intuïtiva i a les seves mesures de seguretat, que els permeten treballar en el mateix espai que els operadors sense que aquests corrin riscos. Com desavantatge afegida als robots col·laboratius es troba la major flexibilitat que aquests tenen en les seves articulacions, a causa de que inclouen reductors del tipus Harmonic drive. L'ús d'un control de força en processos de mecanitzat amb braços robots permet controlar, i corregir, en temps real les desviacions generades per la flexibilitat en les articulacions del robot. Utilitzar aquest mètode de control és beneficiós en qualsevol braç robot, però, el control intern que inclouen els robots col·laboratius presenta avantatges que permeten que el control de força es puga aplicar d'una manera més eficient. En el present treball es desenvolupa una proposta real per a la inclusió del control d'esforços en el braç robot, així com s'avalua i quantifica la capacitat dels robots industrials i col·laboratius en tasques de mecanitzat. La proposta planteja com millorar la utilització d'un control de força per bucle interior/exterior aplicat en un braç col·laboratiu, quan es desconeixen els parells reals dels motors del robot, així com altres paràmetres interns que els fabricants no donen a conèixer. Aquest bucle de control interior/exterior ha estat utilitzat en aplicacions de polit sobre diferents materials. Els resultats indiquen que el robot col·laboratiu és factible de realitzar aquestes operacions de mecanitzat. Els seus millors resultats s'obtenen quan s'utilitza un bucle de control intern per velocitat i un bucle de control extern de força amb els algoritmes Proporcional-Integral-Derivatiu o Proporcional més Pre-alimentació de la Força.[EN] Machining with robot arms has been studied approximately since the 90s; during this time, important advances and discoveries have been made in its field of application. In general, manipulative robots have many benefits and advantages when they are used in machining operations, such as flexibility, large work area, and ease of programming, among others, compared to Numerical Control Machine Tools (NCMT) that need a great investment to work very large pieces or increase their degrees of freedom. As for disadvantages, compared to NCMT, robotic arms have lower rigidity, which, combined with the high forces produced in machining processes, causes precision errors, path deviations, vibrations, and, consequently, poor quality in the manufactured parts. Among robot arms, collaborative arms are on the rise due to their intuitive programming and safety measures, which allow them to work in the same space without risk for the operators. An added disadvantage of collaborative robots is their flexibility in their joints because they include Harmonic drive type reducers. The use of force control in machining processes with robot arms makes possible to control and correct, in real-time, the deviations generated by the flexibility in the robot's joints. The use of this control method is beneficial for any robot arm. However, the internal control included in collaborative robots has advantages that allow the force control to be applied more efficiently. In this work, a real proposal is developed to include effort control in the robot arm. The capacity of industrial and collaborative robots in machining tasks is evaluated and quantified. The proposal recommends how to improve the use of an inner/outer force control loop applied in a collaborative arm, when the real torques of the robot's motors are unknown and other internal parameters that manufacturers do not disclose. This inner/outer control loop has been used in polishing and sanding applications on different materials. The results indicate that the collaborative robot is feasible to perform such machining operations. Best results are obtained using an internal velocity control loop and external force control loop with Proportional-Integral-Derivative or Proportional plus Feed Forward.The authors are grateful for the financial support of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and European Union, grant DPI2016-81002-R (AEI/FEDER, UE). This work was funded by the CONICYT PFCHA/DOCTORADO BECAS CHILE/2017 – 72180157.Pérez Ubeda, RA. (2022). Propuesta de inclusión de esfuerzos en el control de un brazo robot para asegurar el cumplimiento de la rugosidad superficial durante operaciones de lijado en diferentes materiales [Tesis doctoral]. Universitat Politècnica de València. https://doi.org/10.4995/Thesis/10251/182000TESISCompendi

Force Control Improvement in Collaborative Robots through Theory Analysis and Experimental Endorsement

[EN] Due to the elasticity of their joints, collaborative robots are seldom used in applications with force control. Besides, the industrial robot controllers are closed and do not allow the user to access the motor torques and other parameters, hindering the possibility of carrying out a customized control. A good alternative to achieve a custom force control is sending the output of the force regulator to the robot controller through motion commands (inner/outer loop control). There are different types of motion commands (e.g., position or velocity). They may be implemented in different ways (Jacobian inverse vs. Jacobian transpose), but this information is usually not available for the user. This article is dedicated to the analysis of the effect of different inner loops and their combination with several external controllers. Two of the most determinant factors found are the type of the inner loop and the stiffness matrix. The theoretical deductions have been experimentally verified on a collaborative robot UR3, allowing us to choose the best behaviour in a polishing operation according to pre-established criteria.The authors are grateful for the financial support of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and European Union, grant DPI2016-81002-R (AEI/FEDER, UE), to the research work here published. Rodrigo Perez-Ubeda is grateful to the Ph.D. Grant CONICYT PFCHA/DOCTORADO BECAS CHILE/2017-72180157.Pérez-Ubeda, R.; Zotovic Stanisic, R.; Gutiérrez, SC. (2020). Force Control Improvement in Collaborative Robots through Theory Analysis and Experimental Endorsement. Applied Sciences. 10(12):1-24. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10124329S1241012Top Trends Robotics 2020—International Federation of Robotics https://ifr.org/ifr-press-releases/news/top-trends-robotics-2020Gaz, C., Magrini, E., & De Luca, A. (2018). A model-based residual approach for human-robot collaboration during manual polishing operations. Mechatronics, 55, 234-247. doi:10.1016/j.mechatronics.2018.02.014Iglesias, I., Sebastián, M. A., & Ares, J. E. (2015). Overview of the State of Robotic Machining: Current Situation and Future Potential. Procedia Engineering, 132, 911-917. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2015.12.577Perez-Ubeda, R., Gutierrez, S. C., Zotovic, R., & Lluch-Cerezo, J. (2019). Study of the application of a collaborative robot for machining tasks. Procedia Manufacturing, 41, 867-874. doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2019.10.009Spong, M. W. (1989). On the force control problem for flexible joint manipulators. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 34(1), 107-111. doi:10.1109/9.8661Ren, T., Dong, Y., Wu, D., & Chen, K. (2019). Impedance control of collaborative robots based on joint torque servo with active disturbance rejection. Industrial Robot: the international journal of robotics research and application, 46(4), 518-528. doi:10.1108/ir-06-2018-0130Ajoudani, A., Tsagarakis, N. G., & Bicchi, A. (2017). Choosing Poses for Force and Stiffness Control. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 33(6), 1483-1490. doi:10.1109/tro.2017.2708087Magrini, E., & De Luca, A. (2016). Hybrid force/velocity control for physical human-robot collaboration tasks. 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). doi:10.1109/iros.2016.7759151Ahmad, S. (1993). Constrained motion (force/position) control of flexible joint robots. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 23(2), 374-381. doi:10.1109/21.229451Calanca, A., & Fiorini, P. (2018). Understanding Environment-Adaptive Force Control of Series Elastic Actuators. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 23(1), 413-423. doi:10.1109/tmech.2018.2790350Oh, S., & Kong, K. (2017). High-Precision Robust Force Control of a Series Elastic Actuator. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 22(1), 71-80. doi:10.1109/tmech.2016.2614503Yin, H., Li, S., & Wang, H. (2016). Sliding mode position/force control for motion synchronization of a flexible-joint manipulator system with time delay. 2016 35th Chinese Control Conference (CCC). doi:10.1109/chicc.2016.7554329Ma, Z., Hong, G.-S., Ang, M. H., Poo, A.-N., & Lin, W. (2018). A Force Control Method with Positive Feedback for Industrial Finishing Applications. 2018 IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM). doi:10.1109/aim.2018.8452689Huang, L., Ge, S. S., & Lee, T. H. (2006). Position/force control of uncertain constrained flexible joint robots. Mechatronics, 16(2), 111-120. doi:10.1016/j.mechatronics.2005.10.002Chiaverini, S., Siciliano, B., & Villani, L. (1999). A survey of robot interaction control schemes with experimental comparison. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 4(3), 273-285. doi:10.1109/3516.789685Winkler, A., & Suchy, J. (2016). Explicit and implicit force control of an industrial manipulator — An experimental summary. 2016 21st International Conference on Methods and Models in Automation and Robotics (MMAR). doi:10.1109/mmar.2016.7575081Neranon, P., & Bicker, R. (2016). Force/position control of a robot manipulator for human-robot interaction. Thermal Science, 20(suppl. 2), 537-548. doi:10.2298/tsci151005036nChen, S., Zhang, T., & Zou, Y. (2017). Fuzzy-Sliding Mode Force Control Research on Robotic Machining. Journal of Robotics, 2017, 1-8. doi:10.1155/2017/8128479Lin, H.-I., & Dubey, V. (2018). Design of an Adaptive Force Controlled Robotic Polishing System Using Adaptive Fuzzy-PID. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 825-836. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-01370-7_64Perez-Vidal, C., Gracia, L., Sanchez-Caballero, S., Solanes, J. E., Saccon, A., & Tornero, J. (2019). Design of a polishing tool for collaborative robotics using minimum viable product approach. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 32(9), 848-857. doi:10.1080/0951192x.2019.1637026Chen, F., Zhao, H., Li, D., Chen, L., Tan, C., & Ding, H. (2019). Contact force control and vibration suppression in robotic polishing with a smart end effector. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 57, 391-403. doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2018.12.019Mohammad, A. E. K., Hong, J., & Wang, D. (2018). Design of a force-controlled end-effector with low-inertia effect for robotic polishing using macro-mini robot approach. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 49, 54-65. doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2017.05.011Xiao, C., Wang, Q., Zhou, X., Xu, Z., Lao, X., & Chen, Y. (2019). Hybrid Force/Position Control Strategy for Electromagnetic based Robotic Polishing Systems. 2019 Chinese Control Conference (CCC). doi:10.23919/chicc.2019.8865183Li, J., Zhang, T., Liu, X., Guan, Y., & Wang, D. (2018). A Survey of Robotic Polishing. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO). doi:10.1109/robio.2018.8664890Zollo, L., Siciliano, B., De Luca, A., Guglielmelli, E., & Dario, P. (2004). Compliance Control for an Anthropomorphic Robot with Elastic Joints: Theory and Experiments. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 127(3), 321-328. doi:10.1115/1.1978911Han, D., Duan, X., Li, M., Cui, T., Ma, A., & Ma, X. (2017). Interaction Control for Manipulator with compliant end-effector based on hybrid position-force control. 2017 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation (ICMA). doi:10.1109/icma.2017.8015929Schindlbeck, C., & Haddadin, S. (2015). Unified passivity-based Cartesian force/impedance control for rigid and flexible joint robots via task-energy tanks. 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). doi:10.1109/icra.2015.7139036Zotovic Stanisic, R., & Valera Fernández, Á. (2009). Simultaneous velocity, impact and force control. Robotica, 27(7), 1039-1048. doi:10.1017/s0263574709005451Volpe, R., & Khosla, P. (1993). A theoretical and experimental investigation of explicit force control strategies for manipulators. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 38(11), 1634-1650. doi:10.1109/9.262033Zeng, G., & Hemami, A. (1997). An overview of robot force control. Robotica, 15(5), 473-482. doi:10.1017/s026357479700057xSalisbury, J. (1980). Active stiffness control of a manipulator in cartesian coordinates. 1980 19th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control including the Symposium on Adaptive Processes. doi:10.1109/cdc.1980.272026Chen, S.-F., & Kao, I. (2000). Conservative Congruence Transformation for Joint and Cartesian Stiffness Matrices of Robotic Hands and Fingers. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 19(9), 835-847. doi:10.1177/02783640022067201Institute of Robotics and Mechatronics DLR Light Weight Robot III https://www.dlr.de/rm/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-12464/#gallery/2916

Behavioural Study of the Force Control Loop Used in a Collaborative Robot for Sanding Materials

[EN] The rise of collaborative robots urges the consideration of them for different industrial tasks such as sanding. In this context, the purpose of this article is to demonstrate the feasibility of using collaborative robots in processing operations, such as orbital sanding. For the demonstration, the tools and working conditions have been adjusted to the capacity of the robot. Materials with different characteristics have been selected, such as aluminium, steel, brass, wood, and plastic. An inner/outer control loop strategy has been used, complementing the robot¿s motion control with an outer force control loop. After carrying out an explanatory design of experiments, it was observed that it is possible to perform the operation in all materials, without destabilising the control, with a mean force error of 0.32%. Compared with industrial robots, collaborative ones can perform the same sanding task with similar results. An important outcome is that unlike what might be thought, an increase in the applied force does not guarantee a better finish. In fact, an increase in the feed rate does not produce significant variation in the finish¿less than 0.02 m; therefore, the process is in a ¿saturation state¿ and it is possible to increase the feed rate to increase productivity.Rodrigo Perez-Ubeda is grateful to the Ph.D. Grant CONICYT PFCHA/Doctorado Becas Chile/2017-72180157 and the University of Antofagasta, Chile.Pérez Ubeda, R.; Gutiérrez, SC.; Zotovic Stanisic, R.; Perles, A. (2020). Behavioural Study of the Force Control Loop Used in a Collaborative Robot for Sanding Materials. Materials. 14(1):1-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14010067S11914

Design and Manufacturing of an Ultra-Low-Cost Custom Torque Sensor for Robotics

[EN] This article describes a new, very low-cost torque sensor. It was designed to obtain a geometric shape suitable for very affordable manufacturing by machining. The torque sensor was developed under the principle of measurement by strain gauges. It has been designed in order to make manufacturing operations as simple as possible. Optimization was achieved through finite element analysis. Three test sensors for 1, 5, and 20 Nm were designed and machined. Calibration of the three sensors has been carried out obtaining excellent results. An analysis of the dimensional quality of the product and associated costs demonstrates that manufacturing is possible with very simple machining operations, standard tools, and economic equipmentThe authors are grateful for the financial support of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and European Union, grant DPI2016-81002-R (AEI/FEDER, UE).Pérez-Ubeda, RA.; Gutiérrez, SC.; Zotovic Stanisic, R.; Perles Ivars, A. (2018). Design and Manufacturing of an Ultra-Low-Cost Custom Torque Sensor for Robotics. Sensors. 18(6):1-18. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18061786S11818

Current threats faced by amphibian populations in the southern cone of South America

In this work, we update and increase knowledge on the severity and extent of threats affecting 57 populations of 46 amphibian species from Chile and Argentina in southern South America. We analyzed the intrinsic conservation problems that directly impact these populations. We shared a questionnaire among specialists on threats affecting target amphibian populations with information on i) range, ii) historical occurrence and abundance, iii) population trends, iv) local extinctions, v) threats, and vi) ongoing and necessary conservation/research. We assessed association patterns between reported threats and population trends using multiple correspondence analysis. Since 2010, 25 of 57 populations have declined, while 16 experienced local extinctions. These populations were affected by 81% of the threat categories analyzed, with those related to agricultural activities and/or habitat modifications being the most frequently reported. Invasive species, emerging diseases, and activities related to grazing, ranching, or farming were the threats most associated with population declines. Low connectivity was the most frequent intrinsic conservation problem affecting 68% of the target populations, followed by low population numbers, affecting 60%. Ongoing monitoring activity was conducted in 32 (56%) populations and was the most frequent research activity. Threat mitigation was reported in 27 (47%) populations and was the most frequent ongoing management activity. We found that habitat management is ongoing in 5 (9%) populations. At least 44% of the amphibian populations surveyed in Chile and Argentina are declining. More information related to the effect of management actions to restore habitats, recover populations, and eliminate threats such as invasive species is urgently needed to reverse the conservation crisis facing amphibians in this Neotropical region.Fil: Kacoliris, Federico Pablo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. División Zoología de Vertebrados. Sección Herpetología; ArgentinaFil: Berkunsky, Igor. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Ecosistemas y Desarrollo Sustentable; ArgentinaFil: Acosta, Juan Carlos. Universidad Nacional de San Juan. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Departamento de Biología; ArgentinaFil: Acosta, Rodrigo. Universidad Nacional de San Juan. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Departamento de Biología; ArgentinaFil: Agostini, Maria Gabriela. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria. Instituto de Ecología, Genética y Evolución de Buenos Aires. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Ecología, Genética y Evolución de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Akmentins, Mauricio Sebastián. Universidad Nacional de Jujuy. Instituto de Ecorregiones Andinas. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Salta. Instituto de Ecorregiones Andinas; ArgentinaFil: Arellano, María Luz. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. División Zoología de Vertebrados. Sección Herpetología; ArgentinaFil: Azat, Claudio. Universidad Andrés Bello; ChileFil: Bach, Nadia Carla. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - San Luis. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Investigaciones Biológicas de San Luis. Universidad Nacional de San Luis. Facultad de Ciencias Físico Matemáticas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Investigaciones Biológicas de San Luis; ArgentinaFil: Blanco, Mirta Blanco. Universidad Nacional de San Juan. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Departamento de Biología; ArgentinaFil: Calvo, Rodrigo. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. División Zoología de Vertebrados. Sección Herpetología; ArgentinaFil: Charrier, Andres. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile; ChileFil: Corbalán, Valeria Elizabeth. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mendoza. Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones de las Zonas Áridas. Provincia de Mendoza. Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones de las Zonas Áridas. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones de las Zonas Áridas; ArgentinaFil: Correa, Claudio. Universidad de Concepción. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Oceanografía. Departamento de Zoología; ChileFil: Cuello, Maria Elena. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universitario Bariloche; ArgentinaFil: Deutsch, Camila. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria. Instituto de Ecología, Genética y Evolución de Buenos Aires. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Ecología, Genética y Evolución de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Di Pietro, Diego Omar. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. División Zoología de Vertebrados. Sección Herpetología; ArgentinaFil: Gastón, María Soledad. Universidad Nacional de Jujuy. Instituto de Ecorregiones Andinas. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Salta. Instituto de Ecorregiones Andinas; ArgentinaFil: Gomez Alez, Rodrigo. Universidad Nacional de San Juan. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Departamento de Biología; ArgentinaFil: Kaas, Camila. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. División Zoología de Vertebrados. Sección Herpetología; ArgentinaFil: Kaas, Nicolas. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. División Zoología de Vertebrados. Sección Herpetología; ArgentinaFil: Lobos, Gabriel. Universidad de Chile; ChileFil: Martínez, Tomás Agustín. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - San Juan; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de San Juan. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Departamento de Biología; ArgentinaFil: Martínez Aguirre, Tomás. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. División Zoología de Vertebrados. Sección Herpetología; ArgentinaFil: Mora, Marta. Vida Nativa NGO; ChileFil: Nieva Cocilio, Rodrigo Alfredo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - San Juan; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de San Juan. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Departamento de Biología; ArgentinaFil: Pastore, Hernán. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Administración de Parques Nacionales; ArgentinaFil: Pérez Iglesias, Juan Manuel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - San Luis. Instituto de Química de San Luis. Universidad Nacional de San Luis. Facultad de Química, Bioquímica y Farmacia. Instituto de Química de San Luis; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de San Luis. Facultad de Química, Bioquímica y Farmacia. Laboratorio de Biología; ArgentinaFil: Piaggio Kokot, Lia Elena. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - San Juan; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de San Juan. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Departamento de Biología; ArgentinaFil: Rabanal, Felipe. Universidad Austral de Chile; ChileFil: Rodríguez Muñoz, Melina Jesús. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - San Juan; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de San Juan. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Departamento de Biología; ArgentinaFil: Sanchez, Laura Cecilia. Provincia de Entre Ríos. Centro de Investigaciones Científicas y Transferencia de Tecnología a la Producción. Universidad Autónoma de Entre Ríos. Centro de Investigaciones Científicas y Transferencia de Tecnología a la Producción. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Centro de Investigaciones Científicas y Transferencia de Tecnología a la Producción; ArgentinaFil: Tala, Charif. Ministerio del Medio Ambiente de Chile; ChileFil: Ubeda, Carmen Adria. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universitario Bariloche; ArgentinaFil: Vaira, Marcos. Universidad Nacional de Jujuy. Instituto de Ecorregiones Andinas. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Salta. Instituto de Ecorregiones Andinas; ArgentinaFil: Velasco, Melina Alicia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. División Zoología de Vertebrados. Sección Herpetología; ArgentinaFil: Vidal, Marcela. Universidad del Bio Bio. Facultad de Ciencias. Departamento de Ciencias Basicas; ChileFil: Williams, Jorge Daniel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. División Zoología de Vertebrados. Sección Herpetología; Argentin

Force Control Improvement in Collaborative Robots through Theory Analysis and Experimental Endorsement

Due to the elasticity of their joints, collaborative robots are seldom used in applications with force control. Besides, the industrial robot controllers are closed and do not allow the user to access the motor torques and other parameters, hindering the possibility of carrying out a customized control. A good alternative to achieve a custom force control is sending the output of the force regulator to the robot controller through motion commands (inner/outer loop control). There are different types of motion commands (e.g., position or velocity). They may be implemented in different ways (Jacobian inverse vs. Jacobian transpose), but this information is usually not available for the user. This article is dedicated to the analysis of the effect of different inner loops and their combination with several external controllers. Two of the most determinant factors found are the type of the inner loop and the stiffness matrix. The theoretical deductions have been experimentally verified on a collaborative robot UR3, allowing us to choose the best behaviour in a polishing operation according to pre-established criteria

Behavioural Study of the Force Control Loop Used in a Collaborative Robot for Sanding Materials

The rise of collaborative robots urges the consideration of them for different industrial tasks such as sanding. In this context, the purpose of this article is to demonstrate the feasibility of using collaborative robots in processing operations, such as orbital sanding. For the demonstration, the tools and working conditions have been adjusted to the capacity of the robot. Materials with different characteristics have been selected, such as aluminium, steel, brass, wood, and plastic. An inner/outer control loop strategy has been used, complementing the robot’s motion control with an outer force control loop. After carrying out an explanatory design of experiments, it was observed that it is possible to perform the operation in all materials, without destabilising the control, with a mean force error of 0.32%. Compared with industrial robots, collaborative ones can perform the same sanding task with similar results. An important outcome is that unlike what might be thought, an increase in the applied force does not guarantee a better finish. In fact, an increase in the feed rate does not produce significant variation in the finish—less than 0.02 µm; therefore, the process is in a “saturation state” and it is possible to increase the feed rate to increase productivity

Weaning from mechanical ventilation in intensive care units across 50 countries (WEAN SAFE): a multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study

Background Current management practices and outcomes in weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation are poorly understood. We aimed to describe the epidemiology, management, timings, risk for failure, and outcomes of weaning in patients requiring at least 2 days of invasive mechanical ventilation. Methods WEAN SAFE was an international, multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study done in 481 intensive care units in 50 countries. Eligible participants were older than 16 years, admitted to a participating intensive care unit, and receiving mechanical ventilation for 2 calendar days or longer. We defined weaning initiation as the first attempt to separate a patient from the ventilator, successful weaning as no reintubation or death within 7 days of extubation, and weaning eligibility criteria based on positive end-expiratory pressure, fractional concentration of oxygen in inspired air, and vasopressors. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients successfully weaned at 90 days. Key secondary outcomes included weaning duration, timing of weaning events, factors associated with weaning delay and weaning failure, and hospital outcomes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03255109. Findings Between Oct 4, 2017, and June 25, 2018, 10 232 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 5869 were enrolled. 4523 (77·1%) patients underwent at least one separation attempt and 3817 (65·0%) patients were successfully weaned from ventilation at day 90. 237 (4·0%) patients were transferred before any separation attempt, 153 (2·6%) were transferred after at least one separation attempt and not successfully weaned, and 1662 (28·3%) died while invasively ventilated. The median time from fulfilling weaning eligibility criteria to first separation attempt was 1 day (IQR 0–4), and 1013 (22·4%) patients had a delay in initiating first separation of 5 or more days. Of the 4523 (77·1%) patients with separation attempts, 2927 (64·7%) had a short wean (≤1 day), 457 (10·1%) had intermediate weaning (2–6 days), 433 (9·6%) required prolonged weaning (≥7 days), and 706 (15·6%) had weaning failure. Higher sedation scores were independently associated with delayed initiation of weaning. Delayed initiation of weaning and higher sedation scores were independently associated with weaning failure. 1742 (31·8%) of 5479 patients died in the intensive care unit and 2095 (38·3%) of 5465 patients died in hospital. Interpretation In critically ill patients receiving at least 2 days of invasive mechanical ventilation, only 65% were weaned at 90 days. A better understanding of factors that delay the weaning process, such as delays in weaning initiation or excessive sedation levels, might improve weaning success rates

Weaning from mechanical ventilation in intensive care units across 50 countries (WEAN SAFE): a multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study

International audienceBackground: Current management practices and outcomes in weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation are poorly understood. We aimed to describe the epidemiology, management, timings, risk for failure, and outcomes of weaning in patients requiring at least 2 days of invasive mechanical ventilation. Methods: WEAN SAFE was an international, multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study done in 481 intensive care units in 50 countries. Eligible participants were older than 16 years, admitted to a participating intensive care unit, and receiving mechanical ventilation for 2 calendar days or longer. We defined weaning initiation as the first attempt to separate a patient from the ventilator, successful weaning as no reintubation or death within 7 days of extubation, and weaning eligibility criteria based on positive end-expiratory pressure, fractional concentration of oxygen in inspired air, and vasopressors. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients successfully weaned at 90 days. Key secondary outcomes included weaning duration, timing of weaning events, factors associated with weaning delay and weaning failure, and hospital outcomes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03255109. Findings: Between Oct 4, 2017, and June 25, 2018, 10 232 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 5869 were enrolled. 4523 (77·1%) patients underwent at least one separation attempt and 3817 (65·0%) patients were successfully weaned from ventilation at day 90. 237 (4·0%) patients were transferred before any separation attempt, 153 (2·6%) were transferred after at least one separation attempt and not successfully weaned, and 1662 (28·3%) died while invasively ventilated. The median time from fulfilling weaning eligibility criteria to first separation attempt was 1 day (IQR 0–4), and 1013 (22·4%) patients had a delay in initiating first separation of 5 or more days. Of the 4523 (77·1%) patients with separation attempts, 2927 (64·7%) had a short wean (≤1 day), 457 (10·1%) had intermediate weaning (2–6 days), 433 (9·6%) required prolonged weaning (≥7 days), and 706 (15·6%) had weaning failure. Higher sedation scores were independently associated with delayed initiation of weaning. Delayed initiation of weaning and higher sedation scores were independently associated with weaning failure. 1742 (31·8%) of 5479 patients died in the intensive care unit and 2095 (38·3%) of 5465 patients died in hospital. Interpretation: In critically ill patients receiving at least 2 days of invasive mechanical ventilation, only 65% were weaned at 90 days. A better understanding of factors that delay the weaning process, such as delays in weaning initiation or excessive sedation levels, might improve weaning success rates. Funding: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, European Respiratory Society

Weaning from mechanical ventilation in intensive care units across 50 countries (WEAN SAFE): a multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study

Background: Current management practices and outcomes in weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation are poorly understood. We aimed to describe the epidemiology, management, timings, risk for failure, and outcomes of weaning in patients requiring at least 2 days of invasive mechanical ventilation. Methods: WEAN SAFE was an international, multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study done in 481 intensive care units in 50 countries. Eligible participants were older than 16 years, admitted to a participating intensive care unit, and receiving mechanical ventilation for 2 calendar days or longer. We defined weaning initiation as the first attempt to separate a patient from the ventilator, successful weaning as no reintubation or death within 7 days of extubation, and weaning eligibility criteria based on positive end-expiratory pressure, fractional concentration of oxygen in inspired air, and vasopressors. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients successfully weaned at 90 days. Key secondary outcomes included weaning duration, timing of weaning events, factors associated with weaning delay and weaning failure, and hospital outcomes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03255109. Findings: Between Oct 4, 2017, and June 25, 2018, 10 232 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 5869 were enrolled. 4523 (77·1%) patients underwent at least one separation attempt and 3817 (65·0%) patients were successfully weaned from ventilation at day 90. 237 (4·0%) patients were transferred before any separation attempt, 153 (2·6%) were transferred after at least one separation attempt and not successfully weaned, and 1662 (28·3%) died while invasively ventilated. The median time from fulfilling weaning eligibility criteria to first separation attempt was 1 day (IQR 0-4), and 1013 (22·4%) patients had a delay in initiating first separation of 5 or more days. Of the 4523 (77·1%) patients with separation attempts, 2927 (64·7%) had a short wean (≤1 day), 457 (10·1%) had intermediate weaning (2-6 days), 433 (9·6%) required prolonged weaning (≥7 days), and 706 (15·6%) had weaning failure. Higher sedation scores were independently associated with delayed initiation of weaning. Delayed initiation of weaning and higher sedation scores were independently associated with weaning failure. 1742 (31·8%) of 5479 patients died in the intensive care unit and 2095 (38·3%) of 5465 patients died in hospital. Interpretation: In critically ill patients receiving at least 2 days of invasive mechanical ventilation, only 65% were weaned at 90 days. A better understanding of factors that delay the weaning process, such as delays in weaning initiation or excessive sedation levels, might improve weaning success rates. Funding: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, European Respiratory Society