Test the production conditions around the robot.
A conveyor feeds machined housings to a robotic inspection-and-packing station. Compare faster robot motion with a second tray drawer, then introduce longer inspection times or bursts of incoming parts.
Watch the cell and the comparison.
Replay the same production window.
The first three cases use the same 24 incoming parts, two-second inspection and 22-second external tray-exchange delay. Each clip compresses 180 simulated seconds into 30 seconds. Choose a case, then press Play.
One four-pocket tray. The cell waits while the full tray is exchanged.
Recorded scenario, not a live connection to physical equipment. The queue count includes parts waiting upstream of the four-position conveyor.
- Simulated time
- 0.0 s
- Completed
- 0
- Waiting to enter the station
- 0
Waiting for playback
12 of 24 parts completed
66 seconds waiting for a tray
What changes the result?
| Case | Completed / 24 | Waiting for tray | Peak waiting queue |
|---|---|---|---|
| One tray | 12 | 66 s | 13 |
| Faster robot | 16 | 66 s | 12 |
| Two tray drawers | 19 | 0 s | 8 |
| Longer inspection | 11 | 0 s | 14 |
| Bursty arrivals | 19 | 0 s | 12 |
The second drawer lets the robot continue while the other tray is exchanged. Faster robot motion also improves output here, but the single tray still interrupts production. When inspection increases to eight seconds, that longer process becomes the constraint even with two drawers.
Bursty arrivals increase the peak queue without changing completed output in this particular run. Extra storage can absorb a burst; it does not increase the inspection station’s processing capacity.
A four-part contact trial on the same cell.
Separately from the timing scenarios, four parts were picked from the conveyor and placed in a tray under simulated contact physics, and the mounting interfaces and clearances were checked in the authored geometry.
| Check | Result |
|---|---|
| Four-part pick and place, normal speed, 240 Hz time step | Passed. Placement error below 0.3 mm |
| Four-part pick and place, faster motion, 240 Hz time step | Passed. Placement error below 0.3 mm |
| Same trial at a 480 Hz time step | Passed. All four parts within 0.08 mm; differs from the 240 Hz run by at most 0.21 mm |
| Low-friction control (friction 0.01 instead of 0.6) | Failed as expected. The part is not lifted |
| Mounting interfaces, tool clearances and drawer-rail engagement | Checked against the authored geometry |
- Gravity, a friction-driven conveyor and a retractable stop
- Finite-force jaw drives; the part stays a free body through pickup and release, with no fixed grasp attachment
- Stationary trays and a Cartesian wrist-drive model
- Assumed, not measured: mass and inertia, from the modelled geometry and assumed material densities; friction; servo settings
- Not in the model: vision — pickup uses perfect simulated pose feedback and inspection is a timed step; the robot’s motors, structural compliance and vendor controller
- Authored, not simulated: the robot motion in the three-minute comparisons, which are event-model studies
- Needs the physical equipment: gripping, sensing, tray exchange, guarding and production rates
- Robot: Epson’s published GX8 CAD
- Setting: NVIDIA warehouse assets
- Conveyor, camera mount, fixture, gripper and drawers: concept assemblies built for this demo
Bring one automation decision to the model.
A layout, part drawing, cycle-time observations and a clear success criterion provide a starting point for comparing alternatives. Agree what the model needs to answer and what must be measured on equipment.