How to Streamline Robotics in Packaging

Select open control platforms for easier programming and runtime for various robots, and consider whether other systems make more sense in certain applications.

EtherCAT provides the optimal fieldbus for synchronizing robotics with mechatronics, like the XTS, which can replace robotic functions in some instances.
EtherCAT provides the optimal fieldbus for synchronizing robotics with mechatronics, like the XTS, which can replace robotic functions in some instances.
Beckhoff Automation

Robots have provided important advances in the packaging industry for many years. And the technology continues to mature. With innovations like collaborative robots (cobots), autonomous mobile robots (AMRs) and real-time coordination with vision systems, use of robotics will only continue to expand throughout plants—from upstream processing to all levels of packaging and to end-of-line and intralogistics operations. Robots of all types are a significant tool to design and build machines ready for Industry 4.0 and lot-size-one production. But in practice, they still present some challenges. Mark Ruberg, Packaging Industry Manager, Beckhoff Automation LLCMark Ruberg, Packaging Industry Manager, Beckhoff Automation LLC

As I talk to engineers in the field, two key sticking points keep coming up: lack of truly open standards for communication, programming, etc., and limitations in terms of footprint and adaptiveness. Robot vendors work hard to differentiate themselves, and while these decisions might benefit performance, they can have dramatic effects on interoperability. Beyond that, robots are often the most flexible part of a system; they can adapt to processes more adeptly than traditional mechanical components.


Read article   Read this story: Collaborative Robots Expand in Scope

However, even cobots without traditional safety fences or enclosures take up significant floorspace and have hard limits on accommodating situations the design engineer didn’t imagine in the beginning.

How can you get past these hurdles and make the most out of robotics? Let’s look at the root causes of these issues and what solutions can help streamline control and functionality. With the M3000 case packer for stacks of frozen pizzas, Brenton chose to use mechatronics to replace numerous traditional mechanical components, which proved more efficient and dynamic than adding robotics.With the M3000 case packer for stacks of frozen pizzas, Brenton chose to use mechatronics to replace numerous traditional mechanical components, which proved more efficient and dynamic than adding robotics.Beckhoff Automation

Standardize on consolidation, openness, and flexibility

Open robotics standards do exist. For example, PLCopen Motion Control Part 4 includes kinematics in its definition, which is a common standard for PLC vendors to supply IEC 61131-3 based programming. The problem with robotics standards isn’t with the standards, but with the automation vendors. Practically every commercially available robot requires a different control platform and different programming methodology. The controllers are typically standalone “black boxes.” On the software side, vendors often close off the kinematic formula for robotic movement and the interface, simply to keep machine builders locked into a single solution.

This approach not only requires more hardware and increased footprint, but also creates communication delays between the robot controller and main PLC and peripheral field devices. So, you must decide whether to reduce throughput or quality—or face the added expense of installing more robots to make up the difference. In addition, engineers and maintenance staff must learn additional software for programming and provide regular updates for yet another system, with less connectivity for remote troubleshooting and performance statistics. The lack of openness is a real predicament for nearly all robotics applications, but there are some ways to address it.

First, explore options for open control. While some vendors like to lock you into their walled garden for everything, the reality is that practically every machine requires a mix of components and communication protocols. Maybe your preferred cobot supplier is different from your preferred delta or SCARA robot vendor, which are all different from your vendors for machine vision, HMI, PLC, safety, IoT, machine learning, etc. Open control platforms offer advantages when bringing together these existing systems in brownfield applications, but more importantly, they offer opportunities to combine the control on a single software with one piece of control hardware.

Beckhoff’s TwinCAT 3 automation software, for example, provides a comprehensive engineering and runtime environment for all the functions mentioned above, including robotic programming and control. Engineering for all functionality, including robot kinematics, takes place in the familiar Visual Studio environment. With scalable Industrial PC (IPC) hardware from Beckhoff, ranging from micro-controllers to 40-core industrial servers, engineers can select the right controller to suit their applications, and individual cores can be dedicated to specific tasks. For example, a multicore CPU might run PLC on core 0, HMI on core 1, robotics on core 2 and so on. In addition, the real-time communication and high synchronization of the EtherCAT industrial Ethernet system make it ideal for highly coordinated motion. EtherCAT can also establish connectivity with simple gateways to almost any other industrial Ethernet system, fieldbus, and protocol you’d encounter in the field for true openness.