A Review of CAD Based Robot Path Planning For Spray Painting

Industrial Robot: An International Journal
A review of CAD-based robot path planning for spray painting

Heping Chen Thomas Fuhlbrigge Xiongzi Li
Article information:
To cite this document:
Heping Chen Thomas Fuhlbrigge Xiongzi Li, (2009),"A review of CAD-based robot path planning for spray painting", Industrial
Robot: An International Journal, Vol. 36 Iss 1 pp. 45 - 50
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01439910910924666
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE At 23:36 05 June 2015 (PT)
Downloaded on: 05 June 2015, At: 23:36 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 17 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 793 times since 2009*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Heping Chen, Weihua Sheng, Ning Xi, Mumin Song, Yifan Chen, (2002),"CAD-based automated robot trajectory planning
for spray painting of free-form surfaces", Industrial Robot: An International Journal, Vol. 29 Iss 5 pp. 426-433 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/01439910210440237
Pedro Neto, Nuno Mendes, Ricardo Arajo, J. Norberto Pires, A. Paulo Moreira, (2012),"High-level robot programming based
on CAD: dealing with unpredictable environments", Industrial Robot: An International Journal, Vol. 39 Iss 3 pp. 294-303 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/01439911211217125
Weihua Sheng, Ning Xi, Mumin Song, Yifan Chen, (2001),"CAD-guided robot motion planning", Industrial Robot: An
International Journal, Vol. 28 Iss 2 pp. 143-152 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01439910110382738
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 178629 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Research article
A review of CAD-based robot path planning

for spray painting
Heping Chen, Thomas Fuhlbrigge and Xiongzi Li
Robotics and Automation Laboratory, ABB Corporate Research Center, Windsor, Connecticut, USA
Abstract
Purpose Paint path planning for industrial robots is critical for uniform paint distribution, process cycle time and material waste, etc. However, paint
path planning is still a costly and time-consuming process. Currently paint path planning has always caused a bottle-neck for manufacturing automation
because typical manual teaching methods are tedious, error-prone and skill-dependent. Hence, it is essential to develop automated tool path-planning
methods to replace manual paint path planning. The purpose of this paper is to review the existing automated tool path-planning methods, and
investigate their advantages and disadvantages.
Design/methodology/approach The approach takes the form of a review of automated tool path-planning methods, to investigate the advantages
and disadvantages of the current technologies.
Findings Paint path planning is a very complicated task considering complex parts, paint process requirements and complicated spraying tools. There
are some research and development efforts in this area. Based on the review of the methods used for paint path planning and simulation, the paper
concludes that: the tessellated CAD model formats have many advantages in paint path planning and paint deposition simulation. However, the
tessellated CAD model formats lack edge and connection information. Hence, it may not be suitable for some applications requiring edge following,
such as welding. For the spray gun model, more complicated models, such as 2D models, should be used for both path planning and paint distribution
simulation. Paint path generation methods should be able to generate a paint path for complex automotive parts without assumptions, such as
presupposing a part with a continuous surface.
Practical implications The paper makes possible automated path generation for spray-painting process using industrial robots such that the pathplanning time can be reduced, the product quality improved, etc.
Originality/value The paper provides a useful review of current paint path-planning methodologies based on the CAD models of parts.
Keywords Robotics, Control applications, Coating processes, Painting, Computer aided design
Paper type Research paper
each manufacturing engineers skill. Path planning usually

requires the engineers to use a trial-and-error approach to find
a good robot tool path for spray painting processes. The
generated path is usually operator-dependent and errorprone. It is even harder for engineers to figure out better paths
when some performance criteria have to be considered.
Computer aided tool path planning (CATP), an automated
tool planning process, is desirable for robot tool path
planning. CATP, which automatically establishes
correlations between the CAD model of a part and the
product manufacturing processes, reduces human labor
dramatically, and keeps human operators from being
exposed to harmful working environments. Currently,
automated tool planning has always caused a bottleneck for
spray painting because the production volumes are being
reduced and customization requirements are increasing.
Hence, it is essential to develop an automated tool path
planning methodology to replace manual tool path planning
methods. This challenging research topic has been receiving
more and more attention from academia and industry.
Therefore, a technical review for automated tool path
1. Introduction
Spray painting is widely used in industry, especially in
automotive. The uniformity of paint thickness on a product
can strongly influence its quality, which is typically
determined by the robot tool path. Robot path planning
with uniform material distribution remains a challenging
research topic in the spray painting processes. Currently, there
are two robot path planning methods: manual and automatic.
Manual robot path planning methods (teaching methods) are
based on manufacturing engineers experience and knowledge
of production facilities, equipment, their capabilities,
processes, and tools. A manufacturing engineer has to carry
out extensive tests on a work cell to improve a tool path in
order to obtain a good paint distribution. This process is
complex and very time-consuming. The results vary based on
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-991X.htm

36/1 (2009) 45 50
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0143-991X]
[DOI 10.1108/01439910910924666]
The authors would like to thank ABB Corporate Research for funding
their study and their co-worker Gregory Rossano for polishing the paper.
45
Volume 36 Number 1 2009 45 50
planning is necessary to investigate the advantages and

disadvantages of the current technology.
The objective of this review is to provide a guideline for the
new technology development in paint path planning. This
review will discuss the following major issues:
.
path generation parameters for the painting process;
.
CAD model formats;
.
material deposition patterns;
.
tool models;
.
automated paint path planning methods; and
.
paint deposition simulation methods.
Easy to analyze. The normal, location, and area of

each triangle are known. Since the paint deposition on
an area is related to its location and orientation, this
information is very important to analyze the paint
distribution on a part.
.
The tessellated part can be considered as one piece. This
makes the data processing and analysis much easier.
Disadvantages:
.
No information regarding material properties.
.
Lack of geometrical features, such as edges.
.
Errors in mesh data, such as missing and overlapping
facets. This problem is due, in part, to the difficulties
encountered in tessellating trimmed surfaces, surface
intersections and controlling numerical errors.
.
The size of the data is quite large.
.
In this review, the robot constraints, collision avoidance and

kinematics performance are not addressed because they have
been discussed in many other areas and are a general robot
path planning problem. In addition, robot path planning
without CAD models of parts is not included in the review,
such as (Pichler et al., 2002). This review will focus more on
the uniform material distribution problem based on known
CAD models of parts in spray painting. Section 2 discusses
the parameters related to robot path generation. Section 3
reviews the automated robot path planning methodology.
Section 4 concludes the review and presents some suggestions
in robot path planning for spray painting.
Figure 2 shows a parametric model of a part. The advantages

and disadvantages of the parametric models can be
summarized as follows:
1 Advantages:
.
Precise representation the part geometry. It provides
entities such as points, lines, arcs, splines, NURBS
surfaces and solid elements. This is useful for some
applications, such as welding, which needs the edge/
feature information.
.
All information, such as material properties and
geometrical features, is recorded.
2 Disadvantages:
.
Too much redundant information.
.
Each surface is independent. It is difficult to analyze
the whole surface, especially for a surface with many
small surfaces as shown in Figure 2.
.
It has to be discretized when calculating the coverage
of an area using spray tools.
2. Path planning related parameters

To generate a robot path for spray painting automatically, the
path parameters that determine the paint distribution have to
be understood. These include:
.
Part to be painted, i.e. the CAD model of the part.
.
Paint gun model. The paint gun model determines the
paint distribution on a part. In this report, we only
consider the paint distribution on a flat surface with fixed
paint gun parameters, such as paint flow rate, atomizer
pressure and spray air pressure.
.
Path patterns. Typically the raster and spiral path patterns
are used.
.
Process requirements, including paint thickness, paint
thickness deviation, paint waste, optimal cycle time, etc.
.
Paint path planning, including position, orientation, and
paint gun velocity. These parameters are determined using
the CAD model of a part, tool model and material
distribution requirements.
These advantages and disadvantages will be analyzed more in

the path planning section.
2.2 Path patterns
The material deposition can be applied continuously with
stopping the tool or discontinuously by turning the tool on
and off. There are two main material deposition patterns,
raster and spiral, as shown in Figure 3(a) and (b), respectively.
Both the raster and the spiral patterns are implemented in
continuous and discontinuous material deposition. Kao and
Prinz (1998) claims that the spiral material deposition pattern
is preferred for layered manufacturing. However, they do not
report any explanation. In our previous work (Kao and Prinz,
1998) a comparison between the two patterns regarding
continuous material deposition was made and we concluded
that the raster pattern is better in terms of material
distribution. However, there is no comparison regarding the
discontinuous material deposition, even though the raster
pattern is commonly used in most of the material deposition
processes. Therefore, some comparisons should be performed
to compare the performance of the two patterns regarding
discontinuous material deposition.
All these related parameters affect the final robot path.

Therefore, each of them will be reviewed.
2.1 CAD model formats for automated path planning
There are two kinds of CAD models typically used in paint
path planning: parametric and mesh. There are several
formats of parametric models, such as STEP and IGES.
Similarly, there are several formats of tessellated models, such
as VRML, STL and NASTRAN. We will focus our
investigation more on IGES and STL formats since they are
representative and can be output from most CAD software
tools. Both models have some advantages and disadvantages
for automated path planning.
Figure 1 shows a tessellated model of a part. The tessellated
models typically have the following advantages and
disadvantages:
1 Advantages:
.
Simple modeling method. Typically the polygon
(triangle) mesh is used.
2.3 Tool models

The tool model or paint distribution model is used for two
primary purposes:
1 for paint path planning; and
2 for the paint distribution simulation after the paint path is
generated.
46
Figure 1 A tessellated CAD model
Height (m)
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Width (m)
0.6
0.8
1.4
1.2
Length (m)
1.6
Note: The whole part can be considered as one piece
Figure 2 A parametric CAD model with many small surfaces
complicated, asymmetric deposition models (Heping, 2004;

Suh et al., 1991; Asakawa and Takeuchi, 1997). In this paper,
we classify these models as 1D and 2D models. The 1D
model means the paint distribution is only related to the
distance of the point to the tool center. The 2D model
computes the paint distribution based on the location of the
point on the flat surface.
The 1D tool models are an approximation for a
complicated paint distribution. Many automated path
planning methods use simplified models (Heping, 2004;
Suh et al., 1991; Asakawa and Takeuchi, 1997; ABB Inc.,
n.d.; Conner et al., 2005, 2002, such as parabolic, Gaussian,
Cauchy and b-models.
The parabolic model for spray forming process (Heping,
2004) was used to generate the robot paths. The parabolic
model is sufficient for the spray forming process because only
one air flow is controlled to spray the material on a surface
and the length of the material is quite long (about 50 mm).
Since, the spray painting process is much more complicated
than the spray forming process, simplified models may not
generate satisfactory paint paths to satisfy the paint
distribution requirements.
Some researchers (Conner et al., 2005, 2002; Sahir and
Balkan, 2000; Hertling et al., 1996) developed 2D modeling
methods to model the material deposition for the spraying
processes. Conner et al. (2005, 2002) used two Gaussians
one offset 1D Gaussian revolved around the origin and one
2D centered Gaussian- and a scaling function that generates
Therefore, the accuracy of the paint deposition model

determines the final paint quality on a part. The paint
distribution model on a flat surface is essential for automated
paint path planning. Different tool models have been used in
tool path planning, such as simple constant profile, circular
profile, parabolic profile, b -distribution, and more
Figure 3 Material deposition patterns: (a) raster pattern; (b) spiral pattern
(a)
(b)
47
Figure 5 A bounding box that holds a patch
an asymmetry in the model. The asymmetry is required

because significant asymmetry was found in the experiments.
Since there are many parameters to adjust in a paint spray
tool, the tool models are typically asymmetric. Therefore, the
2D modeling method could be used in robot path planning
for spray painting.
TOP
FRONT
3. Automated tool path planning
RIGHT
To generate a tool path, the tool position, orientation and

velocity have to be determined. It is challenging to generate a
tool path for complicated automotive parts as shown in
Figure 2. Although, there are many different tool path
planning methods, they can be categorized into two groups:
robot path planning based on parametric CAD models and
robot path planning based on tessellated CAD models. Since
the two models are compared in Section II.0, we only
compare the robot path planning methods here. Typically the
raster pattern is used in spray painting process as shown in
Figure 4.
Patch
the path is generated by cutting the bounding box along

the Top and Front directions based on the interval of the
spray width.
Details regarding the paint path planning can be found in

Heping (2004). Figure 6 shows generated paths for
complicated parts.
3.1 Tool path planning based on tessellated CAD model

The tessellated CAD models are widely used in layered
manufacturing, such as rapid prototyping and rapid tooling
due to its simplicity, and independency of CAD softwares.
Also it is available for almost all commercially available 3D
modeling systems. For the layered manufacturing, the path
planning is based on slicing the CAD models layer by layer.
The path is generated on each layered flat surface. The
generated paths for layered manufacturing can be found in
Luo and Tzou (2002), Tarabanis (2001) and Lalev et al.
(2007). Since the material is deposited point by point
(discretized), one of the main issues in layered manufacturing
is how to minimize the cycle time and how to cover the whole
flat surface without producing any holes. Even though the path
planning methods may not be efficient for paint path planning,
the tessellated model used in layered manufacturing is very
easily sliced into pieces. The whole part before slicing can be
considered as one piece no matter how complicated it is.
The tessellated models are also used in paint path planning
since automotive parts are typically complicated as shown in
Figure 2 and the part has to be uniformly covered. The
process for paint path planning described in Heping (2004)
can be summarized as follows:
.
optimal spray width determination (W as shown in
Figure 4);
.
find a bounding box that holds the part tightly, as shown
in Figure 5; and
3.2 Tool path planning based on parametric CAD model

There are different robot path planning methods developed
based on parametric CAD model.
3.2.1 2D path planning
2D path planning is mainly focused on path optimization
since the spray gun path can be easily generated using the
parametric CAD model. Antonio (1994) and Ramabhadran
and Antonio (1997) developed a method to optimize the
spray gun velocity by discretizing the spray gun path point by
point. At each point, the velocity is considered to be constant.
The surface is represented using a parametric model. Even for
a simple flat surface shown in Antonio (1994) and
Ramabhadran and Antonio (1997), the mathematical
development to generate a paint path and optimize the
paint distribution is quite complicated.
3.2.2 Surface approximation path planning
Surface approximation path planning is widely used because
the automotive parts are typically too complicated as shown in
Figure 2. A complicated part is simplified using one or a few
parametric surfaces (Asakawa and Takeuchi, 1997). Based on
the parametric surfaces, the spray gun path is planned.
The bumper surface in Figure 2 is quite complicated and
consists of many small surfaces. There are some issues related
to the surface approximation path planning method:
.
Features are lost during surface approximation. Thus, the
paint gun position and orientation is only determined
using the smoothed surface. Large paint distribution
deviation may occur. This is evidenced by the paint
distribution results presented in Antonio (1994). The
paint distribution is from 10 to 20 mm.
.
It may be difficult to approximate a complicated part
using only one parametric surface. Most of industrial parts
are quite complex, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 4 A part and the generated robot path
3.2.3 Single surface path planning based on plane approximation

Without considering the complexity of industrial parts, some
researchers only study the paint path planning for continuous
surfaces. Suh et al. (1991) presented a paint path planning
48
Figure 6 (a) Tessellated CAD model of the underside of a car hood; (b) the generated robot path
6
4
3
(a)
(b)
Figure 8 The start curve (seed curve) for paint path planning
method based on slicing a parametric surface along one of the

u-v directions. The obtained curve is then approximated using
a straight line. The tool position is determined using the
approximated straight line and the tool orientation using the
perpendicular vector of the line (Figure 7).
The issues related to this method are:
.
It can only deal with single parametric surfaces.
.
Since the surface is approximated using straight lines,
the generated paint gun position and orientation may be
quite different from the surface normal. This may cause
large paint distribution deviations. Their experimental
results showed that the deviation is more than 20 percent
without considering over-paint and under-paint points.
Starting Curve
Offset Curve
are geodesics. However, on a surface with non-zero

Gaussian curvature, the offset of a geodesic curve is, in
general, not a geodesic. In such a case, the position of the
start curve relative to the boundary dictates the resultant
geodesic curvature on the offset curves.
3.2.4 Single surface path planning based on surface curvature

Instead of approximating the surface with a plane, Atkar et al.
(2005) developed a path planning method based on the
curvature of a parametric surface. The path is generated by
offsetting the starting curve as shown in Figure 8.
The steps for the paint path planning can be summarized in
the following:
1 Select the start curve, as shown in Figure 8.
2 Offset the start curve and then continue to offset newly
generated passes until the surface is covered completely.
3 To ensure that the subsequent offset passes are also free
from self-intersections, the geodesic curvature on any
newly generated pass is also minimized. Thus, a start
curve should be selected such that all the resultant passes
There are some issues related to the paint path planning

method:
.
the surface should be continuous; and
.
there could be many start curves. It is difficult to select an
optimal start curve as shown in Figure 9.
The method requires that the surface must be continuous,
topologically simple and geodesic convex (Atkar et al., 2005).
However, most of the automotive parts are quite complex
with many small surfaces. For the part shown in Figure 2, it is
difficult to find a path using this method because it is an
irregular shape and consists of many small surfaces with
discontinuity.
Figure 7 Curve approximation for path planning: (a) the surface is cut
along the u-direction; (b) the intersection curve is approximated using a
straight line
3.3 Review of paint deposition simulation methods

To simulate the paint deposition, the intersection between the
spray cone and the surface has to be found. For one point on
Figure 9 The start curve can affect the generated path
v
(a)
(b)
Note: The center point is a generated path point and the vector is the tool
orientation
49
the surface, paint deposition could occur several times. Some

commercial products, such as IGRIP, use discretized surfaces
for paint distribution simulation. Antonio et al. (1994)
developed a very complicated simulation method based on the
parametric surface model of a flat surface. Therefore, the
paint deposition simulation using parametric models for any
free form surfaces could be very difficult. Hence, tessellated
surface models should be used.
trajectory planning on automotive surfaces, IEEE

Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, Vol. 2
No. 4, pp. 381-92.
Heping, C. (2004), A general framework for automated CADguided optimal tool planning in surface manufacturing, PhD
dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Hertling, P., Hg, L., Larsen, R., Perram, J.W. and
Petersen, H.G. (1996), Task curve planning for painting
robots Part I: process modeling and calibration, IEEE
Transactions on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 12 No. 2.
Kao, J. and Prinz, F.B. (1998), Optimal motion planning for
deposition in layered manufacturing, Proceedings of
DETC98 1998 ASME Design Engineering Technical
Conferences, Atlanta, Georgia, September.
Lalev, G., Dimov, S., Kettle, J., Van Delft, F. and Minev, R.
(2007), A CAD/CAM approach for layer-based FIB
processing, Proceedings of 4th Int. Conf. on Lasers in
Manufacturing, Munich, June.
Luo, R.C. and Tzou, J.H. (2002), Investigation of a linear
2-d planar motor based rapid tooling, IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation. Washington, DC,
USA, May, pp. 1471-6.
Pichler, A., Vincze, M., Andersen, H., Madsen, O. and
Hausler, K. (2002), A method for automatic spray
painting of unknown parts, IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robotics
and Automation, Washington, DC, 10-17 May, pp. 444-9.
Ramabhadran, R. and Antonio, J.K. (1997), Fast solution
techniques for a class of optimal trajectory planning
problems with applications to automated spray coating,
IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 13 No. 4.
Sahir, M.A. and Balkan, T. (2000), Process modeling,
simulation, and paint thickness measurement for robotic
spray painting, Journal of Robotic Systems, Vol. 17 No. 9.
Suh, S-H., Woo, I-K. and Noh, S-K. (1991), Development
of an automated trajectory planning system (ATPS) for
spray painting robots, paper presented at IEEE Intl Conf.
on Robotics and Automation, Sacramento, CA, April.
Tarabanis, K.A. (2001), Path planning in the Proteus rapid
prototyping system, Rapid Prototyping Journal, Aachen,
August 31-September 1, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 241-52.
4. Conclusions
Paint path planning is a very complicated task considering
complex parts, paint process requirements and complicated
spraying tools. There are some research and development
efforts in this area. Based on the review of the methods used
for paint path planning and simulation, we have the following
conclusions:
.
The tessellated CAD model formats have many
advantages in paint path planning and paint deposition
simulation. However, the tessellated CAD model formats
lack edge and connection information. Hence, it may not
be suitable for some applications requiring edge following,
such as welding.
.
For the spray gun model, more complicated models, such
as 2D models, should be used for both path planning and
paint distribution simulation.
.
Paint path generation methods should be able to generate
a paint path for complex automotive parts without
assumptions, such as presupposing a part with a
continuous surface.
References
ABB Inc. (n.d.), Virtual Applicator Manual, ABB Inc., Lake
Mary, FL (in press).
Antonio, J.K. (1994), Optimal trajectory planning for spray
coating, Proceedings, 1994 IEEE International Conference on
Robotics and Automation, Vol. 3, May, pp. 2570-7.
Asakawa, N. and Takeuchi, Y. (1997), Teachless spraypainting of sculptured surface by an industrial robot, paper
presented at IEEE Intl Conf. on Robotics and Automation,
Albuquerque, April.
Atkar, P.N., Greenfield, A., Conner, D.C., Choset, H. and
Rizzi, A.A. (2005), Uniform coverage of automotive
surface patches, The International Journal of Robotics
Research, Vol. 24 No. 11, pp. 883-98.
Conner, D.C., Atkar, P., Rizzi, A. and Choset, H. (2002),
Deposition Modeling for Paint Application on Surfaces
Embedded in R^3, Tech. Report CMU-RI-TR-02-08,
Robotics
Institute,
Carnegie-Mellon
University,
Pittsburgh, PA, October.
Conner, D.C., Greenfield, A.L., Atkar, P., Rizzi, A. and
Choset, H. (2005), Paint deposition modeling for
Further reading
Freund, E., Rokossa, D. and Romann, J. (1998), Processoriented approach to an efficient offline programming of
industrial robots, IECON 98: Proceedings of the 24th Annual
Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, Aachen,
31 August-4 September, Vol. 1.
Corresponding author
Heping Chen can be contacted at: heping.chen@us.abb.com
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
50
This article has been cited by:

1. Daniel Hegels, Thomas Wiederkehr, Heinrich Mller. 2015. Simulation based iterative post-optimization of paths of robot
guided thermal spraying. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 35, 1-15. [CrossRef]
2. Alexander Kout, Heinrich Mller. 2014. Tool-adaptive offset paths on triangular mesh workpiece surfaces. Computer-Aided
Design 50, 61-73. [CrossRef]
3. Alexander Kout, Heinrich Mller. 2014. Quantitative improvement of tool impact paths defined by isolines of scalar functions
on triangular mesh workpiece surfaces. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 70, 237-255. [CrossRef]
4. Pedro Neto, Nuno Mendes. 2013. Direct off-line robot programming via a common CAD package. Robotics and Autonomous
Systems 61, 896-910. [CrossRef]
5. Nuno Mendes, Pedro Neto, J. Norberto Pires, Altino Loureiro. 2013. Discretization and fitting of nominal data for autonomous
robots. Expert Systems with Applications 40, 1143-1151. [CrossRef]
6. A. Mohammed, L. Wang, R.X. Gao. 2013. Integrated Image Processing and Path Planning for Robotic Sketching. Procedia
CIRP 12, 199-204. [CrossRef]
7. Pedro Neto, Nuno Mendes, Ricardo Arajo, J. Norberto Pires, A. Paulo Moreira. 2012. Highlevel robot programming based
on CAD: dealing with unpredictable environments. Industrial Robot: An International Journal 39:3, 294-303. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]

A Review of CAD Based Robot Path Planning For Spray Painting

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

A Review of CAD Based Robot Path Planning For Spray Painting

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Industrial Robot: An International Journal