Cobot or robot?
Here are some considerations.
• Is there a cobot that will do the job? Options of payload, geometry, etc. are very limited
with cobots. Universal Robots has 3 cobot models and all are
serial manipulators (3 kg - 10 kg). Fanuc has more than 100
traditional industrial robot models, including: serial and
parallel manipulators, scara robots and delta robots (up to
2,300 kg).
• Deployment cost - Please read
below for further discussion on the considerations, but If either a cobot or a robot
will do the job, the deployment cost often becomes the driving
factor, and here is where it gets interesting. The traditional
robot manufacturers tend to assume their customers will be
using robot integrators to deploy their robots and in this
model the base robots are less expensive. Cobot manufacturers
foster a "do it yourself" culture for their
customers. Consequently, an ecosystem of hundreds of products
supporting the deployment of cobots has evolved. This
ecosystem features software, grippers, cameras, feeders,
conveyors and various specialized end-effectors produced by
companies around the world. These companies can often move
much faster integrating the latest technologies than can
traditional robot manufacturers.
• Traditional robots are cheaper - A cobot is roughly 50% more expensive than the
corresponding traditional robot.
• Safety fencing - The primary feature making a cobot a cobot is that people can potentially be in a cobot’s workspace while it is moving without violating safety standards.
If your application requires a fence or barrier around the
process, because of high voltage for example, then a cobot
becomes less attractive. Fences around work cells can take a lot of space, but they do simplify (at least conceptually) the machine guarding task. A fence around a work cell can guard a bunch of machines that all require point of operation guarding.
• If there aren’t good reasons to have people in the robot’s workspace while it is moving, then a traditional industrial robot
can be the better choice. Traditional industrial robots are less expensive and there are vastly more choices of sizes, shapes, features sets, etc. The
reason to go with a cobot in this case is to keep the options open with regards to future tasks for the robot. This could be a reasonable consideration. I would expect cobots from the major manufacturers to last for years. They could be redeployed in a future task where they would use their cobot capabilities.
Robot – If you decide to go with a traditional industrial robot, then I don’t have any more rules of thumb for you. There are so many different sizes, shapes, payloads, speeds, etc. available with traditional industrial robots, that I would have to see the application to give more guidance. On the other hand, I don’t see a lot of general differences between the major brands of traditional industrial robots. Fanuc, ABB and Yaskawa all make excellent systems.
Cobot – If you decide to go with a cobot, then I see the options breaking down two ways. Either a cobot from a traditional robot company or a cobot from Universal Robots.
• Product line - Breadth of product line from traditional companies. Spiders, big robots, small robots, etc. These are available now
from traditional robot manufacturers, and I expect we will see more offered as cobots. UR has three
cobots models, all of which are serial geometries. The biggest is the UR10e with a 10 kg payload. Fanuc offers the CR-35iA
collaborative robot with a 35 kg payload. UR is not an option
for applications that require more the 10 kg payload.
• Eco-system – Advantage UR. Traditional
robot companies are trying hard to close this gap, but UR and their Eco-system grew
up together.
UR has made it very easy to choose hardware and software
that works with their cobots. They have also made it easier
for developers to extend the UR software. This is not
something the traditional robot manufacturers are comfortable
with. If you are looking for cutting edge software, you are
more likely to find it with UR.
• Ease of use, Used to be with UR, but
traditional robot companies are catching up. For example, I think
the Smart pendant from Yaskawa is easier to use than UR's
pendant.
Mechanical - I created the table below to help understand the choice. It lists what I believe are the most important mechanical specifications for evaluating a robot.
|
|
The reach, payload and repeatability numbers are taken straight from the specification sheets for each manipulator. I will also note that both companies measure repeatability to the industry standard ISO 9283, so I think this a fair comparison.
My gut feel is that the cobots from the traditional manufacturers should have better mechanical performance. The specs seem to indicate this to be the case, but I would
very much like to see an independent, side-by-side analysis of comparable manipulators performing the same
variety of tasks. Nevertheless, here are some thoughts
on the spec comparison in the table.
• Warranty – Fanuc robots have twice the warranty because Fanuc doesn’t think you will ever use that warranty. Their designs have been honed over millions of hours of hard operation in the auto industry. If you follow the prescribed maintenance (which isn’t much), I would not expect anything to go wrong with the mechanicals of these
robots for more than ten years - advantage traditional
industrial robots
• Reliability – The UR cobots have harmonic
speed reducers, which don’t even need prescribed maintenance (a plus), but
harmonic reducers are sensitive to shock (a minus). UR robots also have pretty quick delivery time for new arms
& parts and a modular design for quicker repair (plusses). Availability is the important measure here. Availability accounts for both the time between failures (MTBF) and time to repair
(MTTR). The modular design of the UR robots helps their
availability, but traditional industrial robots do not break -
advantage traditional industrial robots
• Payload - Robots tend to get shaky when they get near their payload limits. They must move slowly (more slowly than required for safety) to let vibration modes settle down.
All else being equal, I'll take headroom on the payload -
advantage traditional industrial robots
• Repeatability - Many tasks may not "need"
the better repeatability of the Fanuc robot, but my experience
is that better repeatability of the manipulator makes
everything it interacts with more forgiving. All else being
equal, I'll take better repeatability - advantage traditional
industrial robots
|
