Base sizing of a robotic arm for maximum stability

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion focuses on the design and sizing of a base for a robotic arm, emphasizing stability and structural integrity. Participants explore various aspects of base attachment, material choices, and calculations related to forces and moments affecting the design.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest using triangular gusset plates for added stability, while others indicate that the design constraints of the robotic arm prevent this.
  • There is a discussion about the appropriate thickness of the base, with one participant proposing an 8mm thickness based on a referenced paper.
  • Participants raise questions about the method of attachment to the floor, specifically regarding the number and size of bolts needed to ensure stability.
  • Concerns are expressed about the bending moment at the base and how it relates to the diameter of the base and the strength of the bolts.
  • Some participants emphasize the importance of calculating the moment caused by the weight of the robotic arm and its payload, and how this affects the base design.
  • There is mention of the need to consider the elastic deformation of bolts and the rigidity of the base plate in relation to the applied loads.
  • One participant expresses frustration with the calculations and seeks guidance on how to size the base effectively.
  • Another participant discusses the implications of the distance of bolts from the tipping point and how it affects load distribution and stability.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the importance of calculating forces and moments but have differing views on specific design choices, such as the use of gusset plates and the thickness of the base. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the optimal base design and sizing methodology.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention various assumptions, such as the rigidity of the base plate and the quality of welds, which may impact the calculations. There is also uncertainty about the exact conditions under which the base will be anchored, including the type of concrete and the embedment depth of the bolts.

Who May Find This Useful

Engineers and designers working on robotic systems, particularly those focused on structural stability and load calculations in mechanical design.

  • #31
I was going to consider both case. You think an advanced fea simulation is the way to go?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Aaron Mac said:
I was going to consider both case. You think an advanced fea simulation is the way to go?
First figure out why you may wish to choose one base over another. If you aren't bolting it down then the base needs massive enough (and/or with some footprint) so the robot doesn't tip during its maneuvers. You can solve that problem with Dynamics. If you want a lighter weight solution that doesn't need to be "moved" you can focus on designing the bracket, bolts, and substrate.
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K