Within a mature aerospace manufacturing industry, is the surface finishing of aero engine parts in automated robotic cells about to undergo a revolutionary makeover?

Back in the 1990s, it was a difficult task for any component manufacturer to justify an investment in robotics as the new technology made it difficult to calculate the total cost of ownership. Whilst the price/performance ratio and high quality results are undoubtedly key issues to any investment, today these decisions are supported by an increasing familiarity with robot technology, as well as new levels of user-friendliness.

These days, use of robotics is justified - especially for complex and high volume parts requiring 100% quality assurance. Precision parts, such as vanes, blades and turbine structures with tight radii and negative angles are ideal for flexible 6-axis robotic surface finishing, with significant cost reductions compared to manual operations being achieved.

Surface treatment of aero engine parts are traditionally performed by manual operations using handheld tools, which can lead to health and safety problems. In addition, inconsistent quality of manually finished parts on top of the difficult training of skilled precision grinders and polishers sees manufacturers looking for alternative methods.

Automation is the natural answer as it removes the tedious, hazardous work and can lead to significant cost reductions and improved quality at the same time. Consequently, these time and labour intensive surface finishing processes are about to take a giant leap forward.

Regardless of the list of direct benefits robotics offers, the path is not always easy. It’s said that success in 6-axis robot investment is determined by part complexity, volume, size, edge and size tolerances and proximity to other edges and surfaces. However, this is only half the story: the process flow and part requirements will need to match the available system solution. The amount of variables in ‘part to tool’ and ‘tool to part’ development is already a minefield of decisions that again requires extra knowledge.

The process flow can be verified by demonstrating the system solution ‘virtually’. However, when it comes to quality issues, the best way to prove the required outcome is by performing the robotic process in a workshop. Manufacturers have increased investments in R&D and demand more from system integrators. Factories of the future cannot afford half-proven investments.
Petri Kosonen, key account director of robot integrator company, Master Automation Group (MAG), says that process tests are still ‘door openers’ to any project. “The more we and our customers obtain cumulative know-how about robotic surface finishing, the more we value the pre-studies.”

Kosonen adds that MAG is about to launch its new state of the art test laboratory in Oulunsalo, Finland. “With the focus on process and tool development, we are implementing a complete 7-axis test environment,” he states. “Besides robots, this includes a rotary table and a cutting fluid system for titanium alloys. Requirements are at an all-time high, which keeps us on the move.”

Indeed, another requirement MAG faces concerns the ever increasing demands for Manufacturing Execution Systems (MES), which provide further technology challenges on the robot integrators’ software knowledge. Whilst the robot itself has become a more obvious commodity, the overall system competitiveness is now evaluated by the level of service capabilities on offer from the system integrator. Before any data collection monitoring systems are linked to MES, an efficient and seamless partnership with the customer is vital for the successful implementation of any robotics solution. After more than 10 years of 6-axis robotics know-how in surface finishing, mature users are now expecting even more solutions coming out of the robot’s toolbox!

www.mag.fi