Mechatronic Solution for Machine Builders

MILWAUKEE, WI — Rockwell Automation and Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Corp. (DS SolidWorks) plan to broaden their work together by developing a joint mechatronic solution for machine builders that helps allow mechanical, electrical and controls design engineers to work together to analyze, optimize, simulate and select machine designs in a virtual design and production environment before committing to a final machine design.

Machine builders will benefit from the joint solution through increased machine value, improved machine sustainability, and greater innovation agility. The solution allows designers to test various component selections and designs virtually, rather than building and testing multiple physical prototypes. As a result, they can select the design that provides the highest machine throughput, thus improving the machine’s effectiveness.

Designers also can focus on developing sustainable machines because they will be able to run efficiency analyses and select designs that decrease energy consumption and reduce waste. Similarly, they will have the ability to try new and creative options without incurring costs for building physical prototypes. This allows the engineers to select the optimal mix of cost savings and energy efficiency.

“Many issues can arise during the initial design phase of a machine because there is a lack of collaboration and communication between mechanical and controls designers,” said John Pritchard, product marketing manager for Kinetix, Rockwell Automation. “We’re expanding our alliance with DS SolidWorks to develop a mechatronic design environment that will allow engineers to communicate throughout the design process and work together in an integrated design platform. The primary objective is to foster innovation while reducing costs and compressing the time it takes to design, develop and deliver reliable machines.”

Craig Therrien, product manager of DS SolidWorks, said “Our two companies have a shared vision of the benefits manufacturers could achieve when leveraging solutions that combine 3-D technology with automation control software. This mechatronic solution is a natural next step in our journey together. We are looking forward to the opportunity to help designers use our complementary technologies to improve the work they’re doing.”

Scheduled for release this fall, the joint solution moves Rockwell Automation one step closer toward creating a virtual design and production environment that helps manufacturers collaborate seamlessly through the full design life cycle. The new solution will link mechanical design with controls design by integrating SolidWorks design software from DS SolidWorks with Rockwell Automation Motion Analyzer software. As a result, machine builders can expect shorter lead times and reduced risk by predicting the likely outcome of design changes before committing to a physical prototype.

“This latest development in the relationship between Rockwell Automation and DS SolidWorks has the potential to revolutionize machine design,” said Sal Spada, research director, ARC Advisory Group.

“Machine builders that are quick to adopt mechatronic system design will have a distinct competitive advantage. They will be able to offer end users sustainable and optimized machines in a fraction of the time.” The partnership between Rockwell Automation and DS SolidWorks began in late 2007. Last fall, the companies announced availability of their first joint solution – a virtual design and production utility that merges virtual simulation and automation for production.

Rockwell Automation and DS SolidWorks Mechatronic Solution
www.rockwellautomation.com/partners/dassault.html

Top Ten Mechatronic Challenges – Follow the Sun

Edison was once heard to say he would ‘put his money on energy from the sun’.   An interesting insight circa 1931.  And it should come as no surprise to anyone in the engineering community that solar power is the “focus” of a lot of semiconductor, electronics and mechatronic attention. This could be for a number of very good reasons.  Such as;

1) Solar cell manufacturing was using so much silicon in 2008 that there was actually enough pressure in the marketplace to cause price increases for silicon wafer.  Of course, as with all things electronic, the industry has responded and sufficient supplies have levelled pricing.  But the market is expected to reach $22B by 2012, which isn’t too far away, so silicon will continue to have high value.

2) For semiconductor manufacturing machinery makers, Applied Materials especially, markets with double digit growth opportunities attract a lot of attention.  So much attention, in fact, that solar manufacturing processes and machinery are the top focus of everyone’s list of things to do.

3) Billions of dollars of funding are being invested to increase the efficiency of solar panel technology from the dismal 8% – 11% range for low quality panels to 12% – 14% for high performance cells and potentially higher efficiency for Copper Indium solar cells.  Large scale solar concentrators have achieved efficiencies of 33% but the systems are not suitable for residental or local use.

4) Emergence of many new applications in the “balance of system” products that are necessary when putting a system together.  Inverter technology is necessary to convert the dc output of the solar to 120Vac for residential use, or 3 phase 480V for commercial use.  Since the inverter is based on transistor technology, this is another huge market application for semiconductors that ends up competing for the silicon itself.

The major mechatronic challenge is keeping the solar cells, and solar concentrators pointed at the sun.   Which turns out to be no small task.  Solar tracking is particularly important because keeping the solar panel perpendicular to the sun increases the output energy harvest by 25% to 35% depending on the type of system used.  This increase is far more valuable than anything happening in the physics lab to increase the efficiency of solar energy.

The nice part of solar tracking for conventional photovoltaics is that the accuracy requirement is not very precise.  And since the PV panel is following the sun in it’s patch, the speed is slow, position updates can be done every few minutes, and it’s only on during daylight hours.  For concentrating systems it’s a lot more complicated since the sun’s energy is being reflected to a target.  Very slight misalignments can have catastrophic results, so accuracy and speed of updates are much more critical.

The geometry problem is pretty complex too.  Each location on the Earth’s curve have different ranges of motion.  So there are two axes of motion, azimuth which is the daily motion from sunrise to sunset, and elevation angle which varies over 365 days as the Earth’s orbit changes it’s orientation to the sun.

Big Wind and the Absolute Cost of Technology

The American Wind Energy Association published results for last year’s spending on wind energy.  The US spent $16.4B on new wind tubines and installed 8500 megawatts of generating capacity.  That’s $1.93 million dollars per megawatt of capacity.  That’s a lot of money.  Especially when a megawatt of capacity of wind energy may only produce 300kW of actual power based on the amount of wind that can be harvested.

The efficiency rating of a wind generator is not related to the equipment, but rather to the average wind speed and number of hours out of a year’s time that the system is generating power.  So this number can vary quite a bit, and of course, the generated electricity varies with the wind.  So a lot of effort is put into the site survey to determine if a particular location can generate enough power to pay back the cost of the equipment.

At 30% efficiency the average power generated is 300kW.  This is enough electricity to power 231 homes if the homes are all using about 1300 kWh per month.  Personally, I have not been able to get my power usage under 200kWh per month, so it might be many less homes in actual practice, but you get the idea.  If you are paying 11.5 cents per kilowatt hour that’s only $149 per month in electricity.  So the revenue for 1 megawatt of capacity is $34,535 per month.  And since a wind farm has operating costs, usually estimated at 10%, the revenue minus operating cost is $31,082.  To pay off that $1.93 million invested will take 62 months.  Sure, it will go a lot quicker if the electricity rate is high like in California.  But it looks like everyone is making money at this alternative energy stuff except the consumer.

Texas has very low energy costs to begin with, and solar power has slightly lower net efficiency than wind power due to the number of hours of daylight, the number of days of sunshine, etc.  So the local utility has begun suggesting to customers that because of expensive investments in wind and solar alternative energy systems, that we (the customers) will have to pay increasing rates for power to “help shoulder the costs”.   Really?  I thought all this alternative energy stuff was going to lower our costs.

I’m not a financial genius, but I can tell there’s a problem.  Especially when no one in the alternative energy industry ever talks about return on investment. We have to focus on technology that has better financial performance.  And I think it’s out there, and my company is working on some of the solutions.  We’re just stuck behind the slow moving giants of the industry who are dominating the landscape.  It’s time for some of that Yankee Ingenuity to come to the forefront.

Accuriss™ Series Step Motors

LAGUNA HILLS, CA — USAutomation introduces the Accuriss™ Series of fully integrated and packaged intelligent step motors. Accuriss motors combine a 1.8° hybrid step motor with a microstep drive and an intelligent controller in one easy-to-mount package.

Measuring only 1.1 inches across, the Accuriss 28 is capable of microstepping at up to 1,600 steps per revolution which virtually eliminates the resonance inherent in step motors. The Accuriss 60 is 2.36 inches across and can microstep up to 51,200 steps per revolution. A high level command language is embedded in the controller to allow users to execute real-time motion commands or write programs which can be executed with a start command, upon power-up, or via input signals.

Both Accuriss motors include programmable I/O ports. Communication to the motors is via RS485 and up to 16 units can be daisy-chained together. A USB-to-RS485 converter is a standard Accuriss option to allow users to communicate with standard USB ports.

Three different lengths of each motor are available allowing the Accuriss 28 to achieve up to 11 oz in of dynamic torque and the Accuriss 60 to achieve more than 300 oz in. The Accuriss 28 can be supplied as a standard motor option on USAutomation’s Microstage™ positioning system.

Accuriss motors can be programmed from any standard terminal program (such as HyperTerminal) or from the Accuriss Terminal™ program, a free dedicated terminal program available for Windows. Once the Accuriss is programmed it is capable of independent motion sequences with only the DC power source connected.

USAutomation
www.usautomation.com

Program Practices for Packaging Robots

By Tom Jensen
ELAU Packaging Solutions
Schneider Electric

Packaging robots execute tasks not found in other applications, so it would not suit to use program practices geared for an automotive or welding robot. Here’s a look at control strategies specific to packaging.

What distinguishes a packaging robot from welding, material handling, painting and assembly robots, or the traditional SCARA, portal and articulated robot configurations with teach pendants mounted in safety cages out on the plant floor? For the most part, those industrial robots move heavy objects from Point A to Point B using mechanical end effectors to handle loads at relatively low speeds, constantly looking for collisions.

When a robot moves an engine block, programming issues revolve around picking up the block and moving it to a new position. Welding applications typically use an articulated robot with a wrist that necessitates that all six axes must synchronize around a radius – the tool center point (TCP).

Packaging applications rarely requires these two tasks – with the exception of a palletizing robot, which is a material handling or tertiary packaging application, since both primary and secondary packaging have been completed. Packaging robot configurations tend to be three-dimensional (delta 3) and two-dimensional (delta 2) arm configurations.

You could program a packaging robot using the same approaches used in automotive or welding, but a different control strategy works better.

The packaging difference
Belt tracking, belt collation, path planning, acceleration control, and customer specific kinematics are motion tasks specific to packaging.

Belt tracking — In many packaging applications, it is critical for a conveyor belt to keep moving. Therefore, a robot must track belt motion and calculate where a product on the belt will be after it is detected. This task often requires that a robot operate in a three-dimensional space; picking objects from a belt, orienting them, and placing them into a tray or case. In some cases, though, the size of the object (more than 1 lb) will require the use of a two-dimensional robot.

Belt collation — such as the classic dual belt – is found in 70% of packaging applications. Two dimensional robots are used here because you must stage the product.

Two dimensional robots with collation can perform several complex tasks.

Path planning — Collisions are not a high concern in packaging because the robot is harmonized with the rest of the equipment. But you are operating at high speeds — say, 70 picks per minute — so an optimal path can yield higher productivity.

In path planning, you draw a spline through space for the shortest distance and smoothest accelerations through that space, then store that as a planned path. From that path, the robot goes to pick positions and place positions with a standard software cam profile.

If you have programmed robots in automotive applications, for example, you probably used a teach pendant. This technique works in packaging too, but may not always be efficient for high speed operations.

Acceleration control — Once the path is planned, you command the robot to run it at a programmed speed. What speed is right? A customer may arbitrarily calcu

late a speed of 60 picks per minute. But they don’t know the G force at the vacuum point and on the product, so they can end up damaging or losing control of the product by applying excessive G force.

Acceleration (G force) control is a software function for programming the robot to a maximum speed while maintaining a specific G force in all control dimensions (up, down, front, back).

Customer kinematic — Off-the-shelf robots typically use a standard control package that includes program features for kinematics. Such a package, however, tends to limit an OEM’s flexibility to program the robot to a specific application not included in the standard package. Other robot designs encounter the same limitation, such as a global robot or a robot on a pedestal combining up and down and portal movements with a rotating base, a configuration often used for tool changers in CNC machines.

You could take a three-axis robot and add it to one of these robot formats. But a packaging robotic system is not just about adding robot types together, but adding uncommon mechanics — such as a crank transformation — to achieve a complex mechanical motion.

With many packaging robot systems, the control of all the different planes in space is core to the packaging machine, enabling the customer to program whatever is needed. Any unusual collection of mechanics can be changed into dimensions with however many degrees of robotic freedom, and programmed. The software that handles such programming is known as transformations.  It gives the customer a way to articulate their kinematic.

Example packaging applications
Rainbow packs are the multi-flavor packs of beverages, yogurt, confections, snacks and other single serving size products. For profitability, they are largely repacked by hand at distribution centers and co-packer facilities — adding cost, time, the potential for shrinkage, and sometimes less than ideal secondary packages. As long as club stores and other influential retailers demand these variety packs, there will be a need to repack them more cost-effectively.

One way to handle this task is with robots, but not the familiar articulated robots found in palletizing and sometimes case packing applications.  Instead, delta 2 and gantry-style robots make the most sense, along with sophisticated end of arm tooling that may be equipped with vacuum and servo actuation.

The XPAK USA, LLC introduced the Variety Pack Assembly System (V-PASS) at the most recent Pack Expo show using servo automation systems. The robot mechanisms descend upon filled single-flavor multipacks, pluck groupings out, and repack them into the openings it has created. The system suits smaller, regional contract packagers who make up the bulk of food industry co-packing.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is OYSTAR A+F’s massive SetLine packaging and sleeving machine. In operation at Germany’s Interpack show, the SetLine comprises three sets of twin delta 2 robot arms, two carriages on parallel tracks, and in rainbow configuration with up to four infeed conveyors.

The first robot picks four groups of three tubs of one flavor from a tray on the first input conveyor. The tooling expands to place one tub into each of four fixtures. The robot arm then picks from the infeed conveyor until all four flavors are transferred into variety pack configurations.

Then the carriage indexes to the next station where a sleeve is picked, erected into the carriage and filled with cups by a second robot. At Station 3, a robot glues and seals the filled sleeves and places them into the trays on a discharge conveyor.

The SetLine machine is the ‘big brother’ of A+F’s TwinLine twin axis robot, believed to be the very first case packing delta 2 robot. It fits larger packaging operations, including food processing plants where products may be diverted from dedicated single flavor filling lines after tray/case packing to a separate rainbow line. The SetLine machine can just as easily be configured to pack single flavors on the main packaging lines.

The trend in packaging has been to shift away from third-party, general purpose robots in primary and secondary packaging applications to embedded robots implemented by packaging machine builders. Embedded robots are compact, offer good payloads and freedom of movement, are highly synchronized with the rest of the packaging machine, and they are applied with the OEM’s knowledge of the packaging process.

Case packing in particular has benefited from compact, self-contained delta 2 robots.  A delta 2 robot from Nuspark Engineering Inc. can case pack, de-case empty bottles for filling, or orient and transfer packages from one belt to the next.  A second arm can fit on the same frame, doubling throughput without any increase in footprint.

In all of these examples, an IEC-compliant automation control system replaces the traditional proprietary ‘black box’ robot controllers. Where complex kinematic algorithms are required, these are calculated behind the scenes, so programming is the same as for ‘normal’ servo packaging machines.

ELAU Packaging Solutions,
Schneider Electric
www.schneider-electric.us/solutions/packaging/

Rescuing Auto Makers

Sandeep Kumar,
Chief Executive Officer
Microstaq

Let’s face it; the auto industry has fallen behind the curve.  Older mechanical systems that could have been converted to next-generation mechatronics still populate even the most technologically advanced vehicles.  Why? Because older mechanical systems are safe (as in: low job risk), thoroughly engineered, completely market accepted, and perceived to be very cost effective.

For example, we once had a conversation with an Opel executive engineer about air conditioning systems.  He said that Opel would always sacrifice access to airflow for coefficient of drag.  In other words, improving airflow to air conditioning heat exchangers right behind the bumper in the front of the car would always take a back seat to overall vehicle aerodynamics as a method to improve fuel economy.  The problem is that aerodynamics can’t make up for the horsepower drain an air conditioning compressor puts on an engine when the air conditioner is on.

Well, it turns out that OEMs like Opel can have their cake and cool it too.  Leave the front end aerodynamics alone and approach the compressor horsepower drain a separate way: electronic compressor displacement control.  A simple upgrade to electronic compressor displacement control system will optimize the compressor horsepower drain as much as possible.  In fact, electronic displacement control can improve fuel economy by as much as four miles per gallon depending on the engine size.

In addition to the fuel economy improvement, the upgrade actually can save the OEM money in other areas.  As a simple example, by integrating sensing into the electronic valve package, the OEM can eliminate the packaging and the wire harness associated with
the sensor.

That’s around a $7.00 savings.  On top of the material cost savings, the sensor and wire harness assembly step in the vehicle production process goes away.  So what does that mean from a bottom line?  It’s HUGE.  For the entire US market, the savings would equal $200 million a year for making one small (really small) change.

So why aren’t the US auto makers all over this new technology?

First, until recently, CAFÉ numbers in the US were calculated with the air conditioning off.  Second, until the advent of silicon-based control systems, electronic displacement control added weight, cost, size and complexity to the vehicle.  Third, aerodynamics, amongst other things, is sexier than compressor displacement control.

And fourth, surprisingly enough, compressor people don’t talk to air conditioning people.  Compressors as manufactured products are machining and assembly intensive.  Air conditioning modules, on the other hand, are design intensive and relatively easy to manufacture (brazed heat exchangers are bolted into snap-together injection molded plastic cases).  The engineering disciplines are not remotely similar, so air conditioning engineers and compressor engineers are in different buildings and never talk.

The same dynamic is going on in automatic transmissions.  Automatic transmissions are electronically controlled, but have you ever seen the transmission fluid routing valve body on an automatic transmission?  Valve bodies range in size from a small dictionary to an over-stuffed three-inch binder and weigh anywhere from six to fifteen pounds.  An integrated silicon valve body looks and weighs the same as a Blackberry.  An automatic transmission is just like a manual transmission except that the driver doesn’t have to push in the clutch and work the lever.  The trick is knowing when to shift, and how quickly to shift.  Most of the smarts in an electronic automatic transmission are employed in figuring out those two things: when to shift, and how quickly to shift.  Consequently, transmission engineers grab what’s available to hydraulically push in the clutch, which typically includes a solenoid valve to turn on and off the flow of transmission fluid.  Solenoid valves do the job, but they’re bulky, heavy, costly, impossible to integrate with sensors, and not particularly easy to control electronically.

So, come on auto industry!  Let’s work together to save hundreds of dollars by converting mechanical systems into electronics and software.  Let’s use the next generation of micro electromechanical systems (MEMS) fluid management devices, where integration will save space, weight, and cost while improving not only subsystem performance but fuel economy too!

Let’s look at how we can combine MEMS sensors and valves with custom ASICs to achieve unprecedented control and performance improvement.  76% of cars on the planet have an air conditioning system, and around 90% of all cars have automatic transmissions.  Here’s an opportunity in two segments to help the planet and reduce the energy burden: the silicon MEMS based control systems have less moving parts and so last virtually forever.  Reducing loads on moving systems like engines and transmissions by better control lengthens the lives of those systems: longer lives equals longer vehicle retention and less material in landfills and salvage yards.  Engines working less to provide air conditioning means lower emissions and less gasoline consumption.

Automotive engineering prowess —once the pride of the industrial world — could once again earn global admiration and respect, attracting the best and brightest new graduates. And customers will come flocking back for cars and trucks that are easier on the gas pump.

Microstaq
www.microstaq.com

Consider 3D Microstructures for Mechatronics Technology

By Luke Volpe
Director of Engineering
Metrigraphics Precision Components
Dynamics Research Corporation
Wilmington, Mass.

3D microstructures are electro-mechanical devices that bridge the gap between conventional manufacturing techniques and MEMS technology.

As the drive to build smaller and more complex electro-mechanical devices or microdevices continues, design engineers struggle to bridge the gap between conventional micromachining techniques such as laser, water jet, microEDM, micromilling and Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS). Specifically, design engineers are discovering that many products now in the design stage are too small to be built with these manufacturing techniques, and are not candidates for the MEMS technology because of size, cost, or material limitations. The problem is apparent for both the mechanical and electronic interconnects portion of microdevices and affects many application areas including medical, optical, space-based and semiconductor manufacturing equipment.

The Big Picture
Typically, “three-dimensional (3D) micros” are defined by dimensional relationships where the aspect ratio (height divided by the minimum feature width) is greater than one. Structures with aspect ratios of one or less than one are considered planar. They are usually, but not always, metallic structures with precisely controlled X, Y, and Z dimensions that may range from 0.002 mm to 0.500 mm. Depending on the application, the structure could be as simple as a doughnut-shaped flat washer or as complex as a multi-planed, magnetically actuated control device. If a structure is large enough to be formed by conventional machine-tool technology it is not considered a 3D microdevice. Also, MEMS, silicon-based devices with sub-micron dimensions and embedded electronics, are not considered 3D microdevices.

3D Micros are manufactured in several forms. They can be (1) free standing structures, or (2) sheets of linked structures that can be singulated, (3) structures that are adhered to rigid substrates, (such as glass or alumina) or (4) structures that adhere to flexible substrates (such as metal foils or plastics).

Applications for 3D microdevices include medical implants, optics, micro fluidics and space based systems. Medical applications include micro-capillary systems for controlled fluid transfer and micro-induction coils for radio frequency coupling devices. Such coupling devices can be used to transmit data from outside the body to an implanted receiver.

Optical applications include micro-lenses and laser mounts, while space-based applications include solid gold or copper foils with specific thicknesses and slit widths designed to filter out all but selected wavelengths.

The process is such that virtually any complex combination of structural feature shapes like curves, spirals and straight lines, can be linked together in the X, Y plane. The Z plane (thickness) can be formed as a single layer of electrochemically deposited metal of one thickness or several layers of varying thicknesses and X, Y,  and Z dimensions. The ability to control X,Y, and Z dimensions, independently and in multiple layers, makes it possible to form blind holes or recessed areas, channels, cantilevered beams, and spring structures. Essentially, the X, Y-plane dimensions are controlled by the UV (ultraviolet) photolithography and the Z dimensions are controlled by the plating thickness within the aspect ratio limits of the UV photoresist. It is this design freedom, within defined limits, that makes this technology attractive and enabling to design engineers.

The Process
The building process for 3D microdevices is based on three disciplines: Semiconductor and micron level photolithography, thin film metal processing (sputter deposition and removal), and Electro-chemical metal deposition (electroplating/electroforming). Each discipline takes advantage of recent developments in semiconductor photoresist chemistry, electrochemical metal deposition and traditional thin film sputtering and ion milling.

In its simplest form, the process consists of:
• Creating a photoresist “mold” of the intended structure on a previously prepared, electrically conductive substrate, typically metal-coated glass.
• The metal seed coating provides the electrical conductance for electroplating into the photoresist mold.
• Removal of the photoresist mold from the conductive substrate.
• Removal of the completed 3D Micros from the conductive substrate.

Following is a more detailed description of the process model:

First, create a smooth, flat, electrically conductive substrate to be used as a building platform or substrate. This is usually accomplished by sputter depositing a thin film seed layer (<5000 angstroms) of conductive metal onto a base carrier. The seed metal layer must bond well to the substrate, and the seed metal/air interface must be sufficiently active to induce and maintain a bond during the plating process.

Second, deposit and image photoresist using pre-defined photo mask. This process step defines the X, Y-plane dimensions and creates the mold into which the electroformed metal will be deposited. Issues to be considered when selecting a photoresist are minimum feature size, maximum aspect ratio (maximum thickness/minimum feature size), number of (Z) layers and required dimensional tolerances.

As a rule, minimum feature size is 0.002mm, maximum aspect ratio 5/1, and critical dimension (CD) tolerances are +/-0.001mm. However, these values and tolerances are limited with regard to the aspect ratios required. The higher the ratio, the greater the tolerance needed. Depending on the particular structure, feature sizes as small as 0.001mm and aspect ratios as high 10/1 are possible.

Third, Using the sputter deposited seed metal (step one) as the conductor, electrochemically deposit the desired metal into the photoresist mold created in step two above. Metal options include, but are not limited to, nickel (Ni), nickel cobalt (NiCo), pure gold (Au), hard gold, and copper (Cu). Selection of the metal to be used depends on the particular application. Pure gold is essential for implantable devices, but NiCo is most commonly used where hardness, surface finish, tensile strength, and spring qualities are critical. Various combinations of hard gold and copper are most common in devices requiring subsequent bondability or critical electrical characteristics.  The actual metal deposition process is based on traditional electrochemical technology that has been finely tuned to result in metal deposits that closely match application requirements.

Fourth and finally, remove the photoresist mold and in some cases separate the completed 3D microstructures from the base mandrel. This last step can be as simple as pealing the individual structures from the base or may require some chemical immersion. The ease of releasing the completed 3D microstructure from the base mandrel is related to the surface energy of the top layer of the seed metal. For example, the more active the surface energy the better the bond between the electroplated deposit and the seed metal and the more difficult it is to remove. If the surface energy is lower, there will be a poor bond between the electroplated deposit and the seed metal making it easier to remove the 3D microstructure.

The intent is to create a surface energy high enough to maintain adhesion of the electroplated material until completion of the plating process, but also low enough to insure easy removal from the base mandrel. This is accomplished by applying appropriate activation or passivation treatments as required for the material being electroplated.

Sometimes the intention is to leave the 3D Micros permanently bonded to the carrier.  In those cases, the unplated seed metal around the 3D Micros may be removed to electrically isolate each structure on the base mandrel.

Material considerations
There are a number of variables to consider when choosing the design material. Once it has been established that the intended device is a candidate for the 3D Micro process the next consideration should be the material. As stated above the most commonly used 3D Micro materials are Ni, NiCo, Au, hard gold, and Cu. For those structures intended for implanted medical devices, pure Au may be the only available option. Other noble metals may be considered but are typically more difficult to electroform.

Applications that require greater physical strength, hardness, or smoother surface finish (smaller grain structure) and good spring qualities would use NiCo. Electroformed NiCo is a laminar (as opposed to columnar) growth material. This laminar growth molecular structure gives NiCo the above stated unique characteristics.

For those applications requiring corrosion resistance, pure Ni or Ni overplated with gold are both acceptable options. It should also be understood that solid hard gold and pure gold are both excellent options for applications involving extreme corrosive conditions. Likewise, applications demanding high conductance and low impedance would consider copper or copper overplated with gold.

Application examples
An example of 3D Micro applications is fluid jetting. Possible structure configurations include aperture holes, both straight walled and funnel shaped down to 0.001mm. In the case of fluid jetting systems, funnel shaped, single hole apertures holes are used to control pressure and direction. (See Figure 2)

In another, more familiar application, ink jet printing, one 5mm x 10mm hole array may contain up to 300 precisely (+/-0.001mm) shaped and positioned nozzle holes. Such hole arrays are usually manufactured in 300mm square sheets with the arrays connected by easily parted connecting links. The ability to temporarily link thousands of 3D micros together during the manufacturing process aids handling and assembly.

On the medical front, high aspect ratio conductive coils have been built for RF coupling applications used in data transfer in and out of the human body and for other areas where remote data transfer is required. An advantage of building coils with this process is the 3D Micros’ square or rectangular cross section, which can carry larger current loads and increase signal power over traditional round wire wound coils with similar dimensions. (See Figure 3)

In a more complex example, the 3D Micros technology has been used to build multi-level freestanding magnetically actuated switching devices. These devices consist of unconstrained micro springs with 0.050 mm square cross section and a 0.150 mm second layer for structural stability. The material for the device, shown in figure 4, is hard gold, chosen because its modulus of elasticity matched the device requirement.

In a more common application, the process has been used to form 3D Micro springs used for a variety of IC chip probing systems. In this case, the material of choice was NiCo because of its structural strength and spring characteristics. The overall dimensions of the springs were 0.010 mm x 0.020 mm x 1.4 mm long with a precisely controlled 12.0 mm radius of curvature along the 1.4 mm length. Figure 5 shows a 3D Micro probe with 0.050 mm x 0.100 mm spring cross section.

Experience has taught that this technology is most effective when the product or device design engineers collaborate with the manufacturing engineers early in the design stages. Early, and sometimes frequent, design review meetings involving both engineering organizations may significantly improve device functions and reduce cost. Most of the devices used today do not replace a component in an existing device, but instead enable a generational improvement in a family of devices.

Advantages and Disadvantages
The 3D Microstructures process does not come without advantages and disadvantages. The process allows for freedom of design within the defined dimensional ranged previously stated. Consider the repeatable precision of the lithography-based process as it consistently reproduces dimensional tolerances in the +/-0.001-mm range.  In terms of cost, most devices are built on a 150 mm or 300 mm square carrier substrate. When selling at a per substrate process cost, smaller devices mean greater number of devices on a single processed sheet, thus lowering the substrate unit cost.

On the contrary, you may find that total thicknesses are usually limited to 0.250 mm (but in extreme cases, a 0.500-mm thickness is possible) and active electronic devices are not included. Although the end product can result in more devices at a lower unit cost, the original tooling can sometimes be costly.

The strength of this technology lies in its ability to manufacture simple and complex three-dimensional microstructures in the 0.002 mm to 0.500-mm realm with 0.001-mm tolerances in a production-manufacturing environment. Additionally, the economics of the process have been demonstrated in its ability to build many thousands of complex and precise structures on a single processed substrate.

Metrigraphics Precision Components
www.drc.com/metrigraphics/metrigraphics.htm

Digital Prototyping in Mechatronic Design

By Keith Perrin
AUTODESK

Today’s manufacturers are using a mechatronics-based approach to integrate the electronic, mechanical, and software components of their increasingly complex products. Digital prototyping allows disparate engineering teams to work from a single digital model, saving time and reducing errors throughout the design process. The Autodesk solution for digital prototyping enables manufacturers to achieve the full benefits of mechatronics product development.

The need for a new approach
Today’s manufacturers face unrelenting pressure to continuously develop innovative new products. According to a survey of CEOs, two-thirds of executives believe that innovation is vital to the future of their companies. Their concern is understandable; according to one estimate, the products that generate nearly 70% of revenues today will be obsolete by 2010.

In response to this call for innovation, manufacturers have accelerated their adoption of electronics. Research shows that 92 percent of manufacturers now incorporate electronic elements into their products.

The automotive industry provides a prime example. While the proportion of a car’s cost that can be attributed to electronic systems has increased by an average of 8.3% per year over the past eight years, the proportion attributed to mechanical systems has decreased by an average of 3.2%. These trends are broadly consistent across all industries.

As manufacturers respond to the demands of the market, they must deal with the added complexities of synchronizing mechanical, electronic, and software elements into one integrated system. In the process, they must effectively coordinate disparate engineering teams. A mechatronics-based approach can help.

Effective mechatronics product development demands a focus on three key engineering activities:
• Multi-Disciplinary Design and Engineering. Mechatronics refers to the integration of control systems, electrical systems, and mechanical systems. A mechatronics system is not just a marriage of electrical and mechanical systems, and is more than just a control system. It is a complete integration of all of them. Top-performing manufacturers are 3.2 times more likely to allocate design requirements to systems.
• Managing Communication and Workflow. Integration of systems should be coupled with improvements in the coordination between the discipline-specific teams that are responsible for creating individual subsystems.

The often complex inter-relationships between individual sub-systems demand effective communication and clear ownership.7 Top-performing manufacturers are 2.8 times more likely to communicate change among their engineering disciplines.8
• Effective Early Validation. If manufacturers are going to develop cheaper, more reliable, and more flexible ystems, they must validate across the traditional boundaries of mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, electronics, and control engineering at the earliest stages of the design process. Top-performing manufacturers are 7.3 times more likely to digitally validate system behavior.

The mechatronics advantage
Manufacturers that harness the best practices of mechatronics can achieve significant benefits. Best-inclass manufacturers are more able to reach their targets for development costs, product revenue, and product quality, and to hit their product launch dates. Such manufacturers can also:
•  Add more features and functions.
•  Reduce the size, weight, and cost of their products.
•  Improve their overall efficiency.
• Leverage adaptive control and diagnostics to improve reliability and reduce maintenance costs.
•  Customize or upgrade products by reprogramming embedded firmware.

In addition, a mechatronics-based approach mitigates risk and solves common design challenges such as the slow, serial machine design process; poor communication between machine designers and customers; and risky physical machine testing.

Challenges of adopting a mechatronics approach
As manufacturers focus on improving their mechatronics product development processes, they often face significant challenges:

Finding design conflicts across disciplines depends largely on the knowledge base of the staff—and yet manufacturers list a lack of cross-functional knowledge as their leading challenge. Although hiring issues are partly to blame, manufacturers seldom have design tools that can integrate design data from all the elements that make up a product. As a result, their teams fail to understand the impact of design change across disciplines.

If manufacturers are going to achieve all the benefits of mechatronics product design, they clearly need technology solutions that enable their design disciplines to collaborate and communicate seamlessly, while also helping them identify system-level problems early, verify that all design requirements are met, and predict the behavior of the final product.

Key elements of a mechatronics solution
Ideally, a mechatronics solution should support the following best practices:
1. Multi-disciplinary design and engineering
2. Managing communication and workflow
3. Effective early validation

Multi-Disciplinary Design and Engineering
As the saying goes, “If you don’t know where you’re going, you’ll end up somewhere else.” In product development, knowing what you need is the first step to getting the final product right. Outlining product level requirements is necesssary to achieve the first step in outlining product performance. The ability to drive these key parameters into system and sub-system operational performance goals is often what sets leading manufacturers apart from their peers.

Many manufacturers assume that building a single, integrated design process across all disciplines is the best way to coordinate multi-disciplinary design and engineering so that all product requirements are met.

But statistics show that the extra effort spent on process engineering ultimately goes to waste. Instead, best-in-class manufacturers use separate design processes across disciplines in order to leverage the domain expertise of their designers. However, this requires that they be diligent in coordinating and synchronizing their engineering groups. This synchronization is key.

This approach is a best practice that should be adopted by other manufacturers seeking to improve their mechatronics design processes. From a practical perspective, this will require manufacturers to deploy focused engineering tools that allow individual disciplines to excel at their work, while providing the ability to share information easily. But it is not enough to be able to model these systems. System-level performance is usually a function of the disparate engineering and design needs of various sub-systems. Breaking down a system into its core constituents, therefore, demands some formality. As a result, it is essential to establish clear processes for effectively communicating changes, and to align collaboration and system engineering tools that can help make sure teams communicate changes effectively.

Managing communication and workflow
As manufacturers seek to coordinate and synchronize their separate engineering groups, there are many ways to bring information together. The average company often prefers to generate the bill of materials (BOM) from a customer database application. However, this method requires not only dedicated maintenance and support, but also manual synchronization of design information—making it complex and errorprone for a structure that contains thousands of parts.

Best-in-class manufacturers take advantage of discipline-specific structures for designing products. Rather than maintaining one large database across all groups, companies can use individual, discipline-specific databases that allow groups to manage their workgroup-level data and workflow at a local level.

But even the discipline-specific approach can create problems if manufacturers do not manage it correctly. Ultimately, manufacturers must strike a balance between providing the focus that engineering disciplines require and making certain that the data they create can be brought together easily.

Effective early validation
No one disputes that it is a good idea to resolve integration issues before committing money to tooling and manufacturing ramp-up. Leading manufacturers focus on resolving integration issues early in product development, and maintain this focus right up until verification and testing.

By focusing on validation, simulation, and verification earlier in the development process, manufacturers can avoid the costs and delays associated with resolving integrations later on. But to achieve these benefits, manufacturers must bring together a wide variety of design and engineering information for review. The goal is to synchronize the efforts of larger teams into single design reviews where all pertinent information is available at once. This is just one of the benefits of digital prototyping.

Driving mechatronics product development with digital prototyping
Rather than trying to integrate information from disconnected engineering systems, manufacturers can save time and money by enabling all their teams to work from the same digital model. Today, many best-in-class manufacturers are augmenting traditional physical prototyping by building digital prototypes. By tracking and comparing physical and digital prototype test results, these companies are gaining a deeper understanding of their products and the environments in which they operate—leading to greater overall product quality.

How digital prototyping enables best-in-class manufacturing
According to recent research, best-in-class manufacturers that use digital prototyping outpace averagemanufacturers by:
• Building 50 percent fewer physical prototypes.
• Getting products to market 58 days faster.
• Reducing prototyping costs by 48 percent.
• Freeing up time and resources for greater innovation.13

An action plan for mechatronics excellence
Although manufacturers have been talking about the benefits of digital prototyping for many years, the ability to build and test a true digital prototype has, until recently, been beyond the budgets of most manufacturing companies. In recent years, however, vendors have introduced increasingly practical solutions that are more attainable, scalable, and cost-effective than their predecessors.

Aberdeen Group has identified four key capabilities needed for best-in-class mechatronics product development:
• Implement processes to overcome the lack of cross-functional knowledge and promote better communication.
• Use simulation to identify system-level problems early in the design process.
• Manage design requirements throughout the entire design lifecycle.
• Accelerate the design of system controls with automated software tools and simulations.14

For all of these reasons, manufacturers should look for an integrated engineering suite that enables a digital prototyping workflow.

The Autodesk solution for digital prototyping
The Autodesk solution for Digital Prototyping helps mainstream manufacturers realize the full benefits of mechatronics by allowing them to quickly create and easily maintain a single, digital model. This model connects mechanical and electrical teams by bringing together design data from all phases of development for use across all disciplines. Because the digital model simulates the complete product, engineers can better visualize, optimize, and manage their design before producing a physical prototype.

As engineering teams work on the digital prototype, Autodesk’s data management tools integrate electrical and mechanical components into a single bill of materials (BOM). Using tightly integrated mechanical and electrical information, teams create more accurate 2D and 3D mechatronics designs in less time, enabling manufacturers to get to market faster.

Car Wars?

For seventy years what was good for Detroit was good for America.  The major auto makers could sell as many cars as they could make.  And Americans were enthusiastic about the freedom offered by relatively inexpensive personal transportation.  Since Henry Ford’s introduction of the mass produced Model T and John D. Rockefeller’s agreement to provide gasoline at cheap prices, the gasoline powered automobile has dominated the landscape. Great fortunes were made.  And lost.

The steam and electric cars of the early 20th century were swept away by the low cost gasoline powered Model T.  The true cost of technology in action.

Since the first oil embargo in the 1970’s (under the Carter administration) energy costs have been fluctuating.  And how have the automaker’s responded?  With the same vehicles they have been making for decades.  American car makers have had problems with low cost, high mileage cars for a long time.

As people have progressively become more environmentally aware, the by-products of combustion have become an attribute that people would like to change in large measure.  This could come about by increased efficiency or alternative technology.  In the last few years, all the hybrid vehicles sold in the US have been imports.  The current sales rate puts imported hybrids at 300,000 vehicles a year in the US.  That’s a lot of cars we didn’t build.

The Environmental Protection Agency has been trying to get American automakers to improve vehicle efficiency for 30 years or more.  The response from Detroit has always been reluctant.  Change will be costly and take a long time.  And even when mileage target agreements were made, they never seem to be met.

In most businesses, when you stop meeting the customer’s needs, you stop selling product.   That’s exactly what has happened.  American car buying has dropped from 13 million units/year to 8 million units a year.  Big change.  Regardless if you blame it on the car companies or economic conditions, or both.  And a lot of harmful consequences to the economy since cars consume more steel, glass, carpet and just about anything you can think of, than any other sector of the economy.

Foreign manufacturers have settled into the US market and established themselves taking a share of market away from Detroit.  I didn’t hear anyone calling for reorganization of the industry during the last two decades while Japan set up shop on our soil.

So it seems a little strange to have government, which doesn’t actually know how to produce anything, dictating how the automakers need to produce cars.  One aspect that concerns me about the current plan from Washington is that it is based on projections of sales volumes ‘returning to normal’.  At sales volumes of 12 to 13 million the current plan will restore the automakers to financial health.   Does anyone believe that the American car makers can sell that many cars per year any time soon?

Yaskawa Releases MotionWorks IEC Pro and MP2310iec

Waukegan, IL – Yaskawa Electric America, Inc. announces the release of MotionWorks IEC Pro and MP2310iec, important additions to the MotionWorks IEC / MP2000iec Product Series.

MotionWorks IEC Pro

MotionWorks IEC Pro is a new Integrated Development environment based on the IEC61131-3 international programming standard. MotionWorks IEC Pro is built upon the same code as our proven MotionWorks IEC Express software including all additions made to the MotionWorks IEC Express software since the May 2008 release. The Pro version allows users to program in Sequential Function Chart language, configure projects with up to 16 tasks, and support all of the MP2000iec controller models.

MP2310iec Controller

The MP2310iec machine controller offers three new models that allow up to three local modules of digital or analog I/O to be controlled. The MP2310iec controller includes the following:

–Communication Protocols – open standards EtherNet/IP and Modbus/TCP for connectivity to nearly every HMI and PLC on the market.
–Standard Programming Languages – IEC61131-3 means that programs are developed and executed with predictable behavior.
–Programmable Amplifier Outputs – the controller can operate local Sigma-5 outputs. This reduces panel cost and space requirements when just a couple of outputs are necessary.
–Controller-Centric Commissioning – the MECHATROLINK motion network provides a channel for configuring the machine from a single location with one software tool even when complex motion such as camming or gearing functions are required.
–A Multitude of Options – choose from eight option cards offered for the three expansion slots to accommodate most machine requirements.
–Expandable I/O – numerous third-party remote I/O modules such as Phoenix, Wago, and Opto 22 can be interfaced with the system via the MECHATROLINK, EtherNet/IP or Modbus/TCP networks.
–Built-in Web Server – offers standard controller diagnostic information eliminating the need for special software for maintenance personnel.

MotionWorks IEC Express users will need to upgrade to v1.1.2.7 in order to configure a MP2310iec system.

OPC Server Update

The MP2000iec OPC Server is optional software which provides data exchange between Windows applications and MP2000iec controllers via the manufacturer-independent client/server interface OPC (OLE for Process Control). OPC servers are commonly used to provide machine data to HMIs and SCADA systems in a standardized format. The MP2000iec OPC Server runs on Microsoft Windows 2000, XP, or Vista operating systems.

Yaskawa Electric America, Inc.
www.yaskawa.com

Next Page »