Joe Jancsurak
Associate Editor

Part-Handling Choices for Advancing Automation

When it's time to step up your automation efforts, don't overlook material selection for tooling.

This comparison of steel, aluminium and carbon fiber automotive cross bars (photo) shows carbon fiber as having a slightly higher stiffness profile (lower deflection) than steel and significantly higher stiffness than aluminium.

The material from which such tooling is made can be a game-changer when it comes to automating part flow, say Tom Garant, general manager of Bilsing North America, a Roseville, MI-based provider of carbon fiber tooling solutions. Garant says such options as carbon fiber crossbar beams, loading and unloading beams, destacking beams, panel loading t-booms, and tooling supports are lighter, stiffer and vibrate less than tooling made of steel and aluminum, resulting in improved production rates and longer life for the robot “with lighter end effectors saving on overall wear and tear.”

While automotive companies such as Jaguar and Chrysler accept that the carbon fiber design is more expensive than aluminum and steel, they recognize that more parts/min. and increased equipment life results in an attractive return on investment, says Zdenek Posvar, Bilsing’s account manager at Compotech (Czech Republic), the company’s technology partner in carbon fiber solutions. “Customers require faster run times and with the carbon fiber they achieve that because of the material’s greater stiffness and lower deflection, resulting in less part vibration,” he says.

So how does greater stiffness and lower deflection affect common manufacturing scenarios?

Garant points to a Tier One automotive supplier that manufactures a tubular part weighing about 20 lb. for an engine cradle. The production line features a hydraulic preform press, hydroforming press, five integrated robots and baseline tooling constructed of aluminum with a rotation device mounted on the leading end of the end effector. Two blanks were handled by a common tool; the first was picked and placed for cleaning and lubrication and the second was placed into the die cavity following lubrication.

“Although it was a two-cavity die, the robot could only load one component at a time due to the combined weight of the parts and end effector,” says Garant. “While one part was set in a nesting station, the robot would select the second part for lube using a separate gripper. The weight of the tooling also affected robot efficiency and became cumbersome for the operators during changeover.”