Organizations: Department of Systems Innovation, Graduate School of Engineering Science, The University of Osaka, 1-3 Machikaneyama, Toyonaka, Osaka, Japan · Industrial Cyber-physical Systems Research Center, The National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), 2-3-26 Aomi, Koto-ku, Tokyo, Japan
Stable support remains challenging in robotic disassembly of irregularly shaped products. As components are progressively removed, the available support surfaces, mass distribution, and task loads change throughout the process. A fixture layout designed for one workpiece state may therefore become infeasible at later stages, motivating unified support planning over the complete disassembly sequence. This paper presents a modular vacuum-based fixturing system that plans one shared support configuration for the complete disassembly sequence of a screwdriver or shaver, allowing each sequence to proceed without fixture reconfiguration. To search the mixed continuous--discrete layout space under repeated cross-stage evaluation, a denoising diffusion probabilistic model generates physics-informed initial configurations that are refined through Bayesian optimization. Robotic screw and component-removal experiments verified the disassembly feasibility of the planned layouts, while 11 directional-load tests quantified their stability. Comparisons between the measured operational loads and directional responses yielded mean empirical stability margins of 66.9% for the screwdriver and 81.6% for the shaver. These results demonstrate that a product-specific shared layout can provide stable support throughout the tested robotic disassembly sequence.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1 : Robotic disassembly workspace. (a) KUKA LBR iiwa 14 manipulator; (b) OnRobot Screwdriver and Robotiq Hand-E gripper; (c) Panasonic screwdriver and Panasonic shaver; (d) three vacuum-based balloon hands; (e) three height-adjustment modules; (f) magnetic worktable; and (g) robot table.
Fig. 3 : Predefined disassembly sequences for the screwdriver (top) and shaver (bottom). Stages 0–3 show the intact product and three successive component-removal states; arrows identify the component removed between adjacent stages.
Fig. 4 : Candidate-point classifications for the predefined object states: (a1) screwdriver, stages 0–1; (a2) screwdriver, stages 2–3; and (b) shaver, stages 0–3.
Model
Rsuc (mm)
Rphy (mm)
Fsuc (N)
Tsuc (N ⋅ m)
SGB10
5.0
15.0
7.5
0.06
SGB20
10.0
21.5
23.0
0.11
SGB30
15.0
33.0
57.0
0.17
SGB40
20.0
37.5
85.0
0.23
TABLE I : Physical parameters of the balloon-hand models.
Fig. 5 : DDPM-generated support-coordinate distributions over refinement rounds R0–R5 for (a) the screwdriver and (b) the shaver.
Fig. 6 : BO search results for the screwdriver and shaver. Panels (a1) and (b1) show the cumulative counts of unique all-stage-feasible configurations; panels (a2) and (b2) show the explored support locations and selected shared layouts.
Fig. 7 : Qualitative evaluation of conventional vise fixturing for the screwdriver and shaver. p1–p4 denote successive observed poses during vise testing.
Fig. 8 : Screw-operation and component-removal experiments. The plots show the mean resultant force and moment with one-standard-deviation bands; the bars report screw-removal success rates.
Screwdriver
Shaver
Response
Unit
Removal
Tightening
dis-1
dis-2
dis-3
dis-1
dis-2
dis-3
∣Fx∣
N
23.44
23.59
1.17
1.39
3.47
3.34
1.81
2.49
∣Fy∣
N
1.55
1.66
1.71
3.34
2.17
3.76
1.72
1.67
∣Fz∣
N
11.80
13.62
7.42
13.44
3.13
9.11
12.44
7.60
∣F∣
N
26.24
27.20
7.77
13.96
5.06
10.07
12.60
8.05
∣Mx∣
N ⋅ m
0.31
0.30
0.24
0.55
0.35
0.50
0.23
0.38
TABLE II : Mean six-axis operational peak responses during screw operations and component removal.
Fig. 9 : Directional-load responses in the 11 tests for (A) the screwdriver and (B) the shaver. Curves and bands show the mean incremental resultant loads and one standard deviation.
Direction
Peak force response (N)
Peak moment response (N ⋅ m)
∣ΔFx∣
∣ΔFy∣
∣ΔFz∣
∣ΔF∣
∣ΔMx∣
∣ΔMy∣
∣ΔMz∣
∣ΔM∣
x-p
6.07/14.54
36.68/45.36
13.01/70.53
37.20/79.09
5.04/5.01
1.48/0.79
2.16/2.19
5.61/5.47
x-n
7.65/18.52
27.38/24.72
48.80/84.86
56.13/88.75
4.62/4.86
2.72/4.16
1.45/0.35
5.46/6.03
y-p
28.35/36.99
9.44/15.79
42.04/42.53
50.79/52.97
2.18/3.71
4.96/5.00
0.85/0.72
5.29/6.26
y-n
31.12/31.94
15.05/8.45
16.09/53.55
38.64/58.02
1.55/2.42
4.86/4.96
0.90/0.40
5.12/5.45
z-p
9.65/6.52
7.59/4.45
25.33/32.17
27.62/32.49
1.02/0.47
1.74/0.83
0.39/0.44
2.02/1.02
TABLE III : Mean peak responses in the 11 directional-load tests, reported as screwdriver/shaver.
Operation
Translational direction
Rotational direction
Mean
x-p
x-n
y-p
y-n
z-p
a-p
a-n
b-p
b-n
c-p
c-n
Removal
29.5 / –
53.3 / –
48.3 / –
32.1 / –
5.0 / –
38.5 / –
48.8 / –
58.4 / –
55.0 / –
53.3 / –
54.4 / –
43.3 / –
Tightening
26.9 / –
51.5 / –
46.4 / –
29.6 / –
1.5 / –
39.3 / –
49.5 / –
58.9 / –
55.6 / –
53.9 / –
55.0 / –
42.6 / –
dis-1
79.1 / 87.3
86.2 / 88.7
84.7 / 81.0
79.9 / 82.6
71.9 / 69.0
89.2 / 51.0
91.0 / 63.2
92.7 / 84.9
92.1 / 86.4
91.8 / 88.4
92.0 / 85.9
86.4 / 78.9
dis-2
62.5 / 84.1
75.1 / 85.8
72.5 / 76.2
63.9 / 78.3
49.5 / 61.2
82.6 / 78.8
85.5 / 84.1
88.2 / 93.5
87.3 / 94.1
86.8 / 95.0
87.1 / 93.9
76.4 / 84.1
dis-3
86.4 / 89.8
91.0 / 90.9
90.0 / 84.8
86.9 / 86.1
81.7 / 75.2
81.0 / 55.0
84.2 / 66.2
87.1 / 86.1
86.1 / 87.5
85.6 / 89.3
85.9 / 87.1
86.0 / 81.6
TABLE IV : Direction-wise empirical stability margins ξd,o (%) under the unfavorable-direction assumption, reported as screwdriver/shaver.
Combination
Statistic
Stage quality
Cross-stage behavior
Objective distribution
Best new support
Q0
Q1
Q2
Q3
r4/4 (%)
rˉfeas10%
vˉ10%
Jˉk10%
Jˉktop100
Qmeannew,∗
J1 (0.60,0.70,0.60)
Trimmed mean
0.977
0.982
0.183
0.548
51.5
0.795
0.123
0.604
0.820
–
Best new
0.966
0.973
0.567
0.939
–
–
–
–
–
0.861
J2 (0.50,0.70,0.60)
Trimmed mean
0.979
0.984
0.148
0.471
43.2
0.751
0.149
0.529
0.775
–
Best new
0.967
0.973
0.464
0.940
–
–
–
–
–
0.836
J3 (0.70,0.70,0.60)
Trimmed mean
0.975
0.981
0.194
0.598
55.4
0.818
0.110
0.660
0.865
–
TABLE V : Multi-stage BO objective settings and ablation results.
Initialization
Trimmed-mean Stage quality
r4/4 (%)
rˉfeas10%
vˉ10%
Jˉk10%
N4/4uniq
Q0
Q1
Q2
Q3
Without DDPM seeds
0.965
0.972
0.000
0.000
0.0
0.500
0.386
0.348
0
With DDPM seeds
0.975
0.981
0.203
0.624
57.7
0.831
0.100
0.711
79
TABLE VI : DDPM-seed ablation under the fixed J4 BO setting.
To accelerate automated remanufacturing, robotic disassembly must be considered during the product design phase. However, designers currently lack quantitative feedback to identify which structural elements hinder robotic operations. To address this, this study proposes an analytical framework that provides actionable redesign guidance focused on fastener reduction, as fasteners are numerous and ubiquitous components found in almost all manufactured products. Using a Computer-Aided Design (CAD) model and its automatically generated Contact-Connection-Constraint (CCC) graph, the framework translates robotic disassembly sequence planning outcomes into component influence scores. These scores reflect how often a component causes structural constraint violations or evaluation objective deteriorations in the robotic disassembly sequence. To visually highlight structural hindrances, the framework projects these scores onto the CAD geometry as 3D heatmaps. The system then analytically simulates the removal of highly influential fasteners. It reports the expected reductions in structural constraints, tool changes, and robot travel distances, while preventing structurally unsafe modifications by evaluating geometric stability metrics. Experiments on seven household appliances demonstrate that the framework successfully targets redundant fasteners. Removing the recommended fasteners simplified the structural dependencies by eliminating between 8 and 132 structural constraints on the graph depending on each product's structural configuration. Furthermore, it improved robotic operational efficiency by eliminating unnecessary tool change operations and shortening travel distances by 165 to 1675 millimeters wherever structurally permissible.
Department of Systems Innovation, Graduate School of Engineering Science, The University of Osaka, 1-3 Machikaneyama, Toyonaka, Osaka, Japan. · Manufacturing Innovation Division, Panasonic Holdings Corporation Kadoma, Osaka, Japan
Assembly using robots often requires specially designed fixtures, or relies on top-down only assembly strategies. Using multiple robots, we can avoid using fixtures and make robotic assembly more flexible. Planning assembly sequences for multiple robots is challenging due to the high number of possible task assignments and orders. In addition, we need to reason over forces that occur during the assembly process, e.g., to decide if multiple robots are required for support, or if external support such as a table should be used. We present Wrap, a multi-robot assembly planner for multi-part assemblies, given the inter-part ordering-dependencies, the part meshes, and their initial state. We formulate a linear program to reason about valid grasps for supporting the forces that occur during assembly. The search leverages the assembly sequence, and greedily finds a feasible solution per assembly step by computing a heuristic via a cheap backwards search, and using the heuristic in the more expensive forward search. We then solve the multi-robot, multi-goal motion planning problem, and for execution, we split the plan into contact-rich assembly skills, and free space motion. We benchmark the planner on a variety of multi-part assemblies, and apply the planner to groups of robots differing in size and kinematics. We validate the work both in a physics simulation, and in real. Videos and code are available at https://www.vhartmann.com/wrap.
Long-horizon multi-part object disassembly requires robots to compute feasible sequences of collision-free removal motions, even in the presence of tight, narrow escape corridors. To efficiently solve such disassembly problems, we propose Parallel Extraction for Long-Horizon Disassembly (PEEL), an algorithm which efficiently computes disassembly motions for object assemblies and feeds them to a robot manipulator for execution. PEEL uses sampling-based motion planning to compute single-object motions through the use of a scale-invariant sampling scheme, where the object scale is estimated in a burn-in phase and a subsequent directional sampler exploits the scale. This sampling scheme is integrated into a multi-arm bandit rapidly-exploring random tree (MAB-RRT) planner, which switches between different samplers depending on the reward signal received. Using MAB-RRT, the PEEL algorithm runs a batch of planners in parallel to obtain an ordered graph specifying the sequence in which object parts have to be removed. We show that MAB-RRT can efficiently solve single-part disassemblies with 100 percent success rate on 76 assemblies, and that it is robust to its parameters. By integrating MAB-RRT into PEEL, we solve four long-horizon disassembly problems using the Fetch manipulator robot involving 10 to 17 individual object parts.
Servet B. Bayraktar, Andreas Orthey, Zachary Kingston +1