Journal of Automation, Mobile Robotics and Intelligent Systems VOLUME 15, N° 4 2021

Development of Grinding and Polishing Technology

for Stainless Steel With a Robot Manipulator
Submitted: 11th October 2021; accepted: 8th February 2022

Jinsiang Shaw, Yu-Jia Fang

DOI: 10.14313/JAMRIS/4-2021/25
operators. During the welding and polishing for met-
al processing, the time for grinding and polishing is
Abstract nearly four times the welding time. However, this
In traditional industries, manual grinding and polish- time-consuming and labor-intensive processing pro-
ing technologies are still used predominantly. However, cedure can be replaced by utilizing the high-efficiency
these procedures have the following limitations: exces- robot arm. Hence, it has become a popular research
sive processing time, labor consumption, and product topic. Modern robotic polishing systems are divided
quality not guaranteed. To address the aforementioned into hand-holding tools and handheld workpieces.
limitations, this study utilizes the good adaptability of a The former is used for large workpieces, and the lat-
robotic arm to develop a tool-holding grinding and pol- ter is suitable for smaller objects [1]. In the studies
ishing system with force control mechanisms. Specifically, on modern robotic arm polishing, most of the robotic
off-the-shelf handheld grinder is selected and attached arms are used for clamping workpieces that should be
to the robotic arm by considering the size, weight, and ground and polished. For example, Zhu et al. [2] pro-
processing cost of the stainless steel parts. In addition, posed a combination of a force model and abrasive
for contact machining, the robotic arm is equipped with belt grinding force to evaluate the surface roughness
a force/torque sensor to ensure that the system is active of a workpiece, and Ma et al. [3] performed polishing
compliant. According to the experimental results, the de- with a constant force in a self-designed abrasive belt
veloped system can reduce the surface roughness of 304 grinding system. The major limitation of this system
stainless steel to 0.47 µm for flat surface and 0.76 µm is that once the weight or size of the workpiece ex-
for circular surface. Moreover, the processing trajectory ceeds the range of the robotic arm, the workpiece can-
is programmed in the CAD/CAM software simulation not be clamped. Therefore, in the polishing process
environment, which can lead to good results in collision of large workpieces, the hand-holding polishing tool
detection and arm posture establishment. is optimal. Furthermore, the research of this robotic
polishing system is based on the combination and de-
Keywords: Active compliant, hybrid position/force con- sign of the end effector of the robotic arm and grind-
trol, robot manipulator, surface machining, surface ing tool [4-6]. In addition, it is worth mentioning that
roughness an active contact flange (ACF) based on active compli-
ant technology and powered pneumatically has been
available in the market for robotic grinding and pol-
1. Introduction ishing application [7]. The cost is yet expensive.
The world is facing many problems, including the In this study, a cost-effective robotic polishing sys-
effects of an aging society and declining birthrate tem equipped with a grinding and polishing module
in some countries. According to the statistics by the and a force sensor is proposed. Furthermore, experi-
United Nations, the global fertility rate continues to ments are conducted on 304 stainless steel, which is
fall, and the labor force is gradually aging. This will commonly used in the industry. The grinding experi-
significantly affect national competitiveness. It is of ments in this study are classified into two types. The
utmost important for the government and enterprises first type of experiments involve the position control
to find ways to replace labor after the supply of labor of the robotic arm according to the path planned by
has declined. Many companies started introducing RoboDK (a robot simulation software). The other
robotic arms to replace manpower. Currently, the in- type of experiments involve a hybrid position/force
dustry uses robotic arms for automated operations. control that combines the planning path and force
Since the first robotic arm was invented by Joseph control.
Engelberger in 1959, robots have been used in appli-
cations ranging from manufacturing of electronics to
agriculture, medical industry, and even service sec- 2. System Description
tors. Therefore, it is possible to use robotic arms in In this section, the experimental architecture includ-
any operation. To satisfy human needs and environ- ing hardware and computer software are described.
mental restrictions, the design of intelligent robotic
arms has been considered as a new topic of research. 2.1 Hardware Architecture
For typical contact processing tasks, such as grind- Hardware in this robotic polishing system mainly in-
ing and polishing, several steps require experienced cludes a robotic arm, a force sensor, and a grinding
37
 Journal of Automation, Mobile Robotics and Intelligent Systems VOLUME 15, N° 4 2021

module. The industrial robotic arm (Stäubli TX60L)

has six degrees of freedom which exhibits a high de-
gree of flexibility, solid structure, and special reduc-
tion gear system. The main task of the robotic arm in-
volves accepting the instructions provided by the host
computer and conducting grinding and polishing on
the workpiece. Second, the force sensor (ATI Axia80
EtherCAT F/T sensor) plays the role of calculating the
grinding force in this robotic polishing system. The
maximum force that this sensor can measure is 500 N
and the torque is 20 Nm. The application level of the
force sensor is extremely wide, including robotic arm
loading work, contact force feedback, and constant
force work. Finally, to reduce cost, a self-designed tool
holder by 3D printing and the off-the-shelf handheld
grinder are combined into a grinding module. The
grinding module performs functions including cut-
ting, grinding, and polishing solely by changing the
granularity of the grinding wheel. Figure 1 shows the Fig. 2. System communication protocol
hardware architecture used in this study.

2.2 Software Architecture

All software algorithms in this robotic polishing sys- 3. Control Method
tem are executed in a host computer. The program- This section describes the force control strategy of
ming language in host computer is C#. Tasks of the the system for grinding and polishing tasks. Most
host computer involve sending commands via Eth- robotic arms, either industrial or collaborative, are
ernet to the robot controller for moving the robotic typically used for repetitive and time-consuming ac-
arm, reading data of the force sensor via EtherCAT, tions, such as pick-and-place, locking, and assembly.
monitoring the postures of the robot arm during op- The common point of these actions is that they use
eration, and generating polishing path using RoboDK a pure position-control architecture to perform tasks.
package. Note that combination of TwinCAT (the Win- However, under pure position control, irrespective of
dows Control and Automation Technology, a C# proj- the force applied in the working environment, the ro-
ect) and EtherCAT is used as an easy-to-configure au- botic arm will move to the position based on the co-
tomated system. Figure 2 depicts the communication ordinate point provided by the operator. This control
protocol used in this study. method may generate contact forces, such as those for
mechanical processing, which often lead to the exces-
sive force, and thereby causing damage to the robotic
arm or processed workpieces. Therefore, the ability
of the robotic arm to comply with external forces is
an extremely important issue. To solve the aforemen-
tioned problems, the force control strategy can enable
the robot to interact with the force it experiences dur-
ing operation, such as imparting the same force to an
object, or adjusting when encountering geometrical
differences in assembly tasks. Force control exhibits
evident certain advantages in terms of safety consid-
erations or adapting to the environment. Generally,
control strategies are divided into two categories: in-
direct force control strategies and direct force control
strategies.

3.1 Indirect Force Control

Fig. 1. Robotic polishing system: 1 robot arm, 2 force Force control of robotic systems usually uses force/
sensor, 3 grinding module torque sensors to process the external forces mea-
sured in the environment. However, indirect force

38 Articles
Journal of Automation, Mobile Robotics and Intelligent Systems VOLUME 15, N° 4 2021

control does not require force/torque sensors. Under Fe (n) Fe ( n ) − Fe ( n −1)

this control strategy, when the robot’s current posi- Z n +1 =
Zn + K p + KD
tion coordinates deviate too far from the target posi- Fd Fd (1)
tion, a force is exerted to control it. Therefore, there is
no clear closed-loop feedback control, which implies where Zn+1 denotes the new coordinate position of
that the control mechanism cannot handle the large the robotic arm in the surface normal direction, Zn
external force due to the trajectory deviation, and the denotes the current coordinate position, Fe(n) denotes
flexibility is relatively poor when compared to that the error between the desired force value Fd (gravity
of the direct force control. Indirect force control in- compensation is included) and the current force val-
volves two control strategies: impedance control and ue, and Fe(n–1) represents the last error value. Figure 3
admittance control. Among the strategies, the spring shows a force comparison with and without force
damping system is the most accurate representation control. The figure shows that in the contact force ex-
of impedance control. The contact force and arm mo- periment, position control directly through the path
tion are used as input and output, respectively. This does not have the ability to adjust the position. Hence,
implies that the impedance mechanism controls the this leads to a larger force deviation. However, the
robot, and the external force generated by the envi- force that is obtained by adjusting the position via the
ronment ensures compliance of the movement pro- PD controller is controlled within the desired value.
cess.

3.2 Direct Force Control

When compared with indirect force control, the direct
force control strategy employs a force/torque sensor
that senses external force, and the measured force is
fed back to the robot for path trajectory correction to
ensure compliance of the end effector of the robotic
arm [8]. In this control strategy, trajectories of force
and motion are considered for robot control and can
be further matched with indirect force control. For
robots it is often required to maintain external forces
within a certain range. Hybrid position/force control Fig. 3. Comparison of grinding force
is a common direct force control strategy. This control
strategy involves simultaneous control of the force
and movement of the end effector of the robotic arm.
To perform hybrid position/force control on the ro- 4. Machining Procedures and Path Planning
bot, a surface is created first. Then, position control This section describes the machining process of ro-
is performed in the tangential direction of the surface botic arm grinding and polishing and the machining
and force control is performed along the normal di- path for different shapes of workpieces.
rection of the surface. The force and position are con-
trolled in two directions to form a hybrid position/ 4.1 Process Design
force control strategy. When the robot starts per- The workpiece used in this study is 304 stainless steel.
forming work, it searches for the contact force on the This kind of stainless steel has wide applications and
unconstrained axis, and it only moves along this axis is used mainly for food-grade utensils, containers,
until it generates contact force with the surface of the and furniture. The surface of stainless steel is usually
object. Throughout the process, the force/torque sen- stained due to chemical and electrochemical corro-
sor sends the force data back to the controller. Once sions. Additionally, weld beads and scratches also af-
contact is realized, a constant force is applied to the fect the surface of the workpiece. Therefore, grinding
constrained axis for control, and the force is always and polishing using grinding wheels with a variety of
maintained when the programmed trajectory is exe- particle sizes and cloth wheels is proposed to regain
cuted. Hence, this ensures that the position of the end excellent stainless steel surfaces. To date, this type of
effector of the robotic arm and force are controlled in mechanical processing method still exists in major
a closed loop. factories and is done mostly by skilled workers. How-
In this study, a proportional-derivative (PD) con- ever, stainless steel exhibits high toughness and thus
troller is used for force control. Thus, the force of is not easy to grind. In this study, by consulting skilled
grinding and polishing can be maintained via a PD workers in this field, the hands-on experience by the
controller. In this experiment, the force control is authors, and also by referring to modern grinding and
applied to the position path of the robotic arm, and polishing technology principles [9, 10], a 6-steps ma-
Cartesian coordinates of the robotic arm are adjusted chining process is proposed. First, grinding wheels
according to the contact force. This ensures that the made by polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) with grit size of 60
position changes and continuously caters to the force and 120 are used for rough grinding. Then grinding
value to obtain a constant force effect. The PD formula wheels with grit size of 240 and 320 are followed for
designed in this study is shown as follows fine grinding. Furthermore, a grinding wheel with grit

Articles 39
 Journal of Automation, Mobile Robotics and Intelligent Systems VOLUME 15, N° 4 2021

size of 400 is employed for final grinding. Lastly, cloth workpiece is similar to that for the flat workpiece as
wheel with polishing wax is applied in the final step described in the previous paragraph. Furthermore, it
for the polishing process. Based on this processing is necessary to focus on collision detection and path
sequence, the surface of stainless steel can reach the generation due to the large curvature of the work-
#300 grade as per the Japanese standard, namely a piece. A schematic diagram of path planning using
smooth and mirror-grade surface. RoboDK package is shown in Figure 4.
After the process design is completed, the follow-
ing rules of thumb are advised for robotic arm grind-
ing and polishing stainless steel:
1. During grinding and polishing processes, the total
material removal should not exceed 0.3 mm in
thick to the maximum possible extent. Essentially,
within this range, the workpiece will not be
affected.
2. When performing rough grinding, the feed rate
must be greater than that of fine grinding.
3. The number of repetitions of each process needs to
be reduced. Grinding and polishing are techniques
for removing material. Repeating too many times
will excessively increase the amount of material
removed.
4. The angle of the grinder with respect to surface
tangent during grinding varies across individuals.
Typically, it is in the range of 30°–45°. However,
approximately 5° and up is sufficient for robotic
arm grinding and polishing.
5. The grinding wheel with high grit size wears faster
than the one with low grit size, so care must be
taken for the latter grinding processes. Fig. 4. Grinding and polishing path simulation of flat
6. As far as the grinding and polishing process is (top) and curved (bottom) workpieces
concerned, the correct method involves holding
the grinder to move forward for a certain distance
after the grinding wheel touches the workpiece
and then pulling it up. It is important not to move 5. Experimental Results
grinder back and forth because it can easily result The study is divided into two experimental methods,
in uneven surfaces. namely position control [11] and hybrid position/
In the study, stainless steel workpieces are divided force control [12, 13], and two types of workpiece,
into flat workpieces and curved workpieces. Both of flat and curved workpieces. First, in the position
which require path planning using RoboDK package control experiment, the robotic arm directly uses
as described in the next subsection. the path planned by the RoboDK package and the
converted coordinate position for the experiment.
4.2 Path Planning Simultaneously, the force sensor is turned on and
The grinding path of a flat workpiece is relatively sim- is responsible for monitoring the force value during
ple. We use a robotic arm equipped with a grinder and pure position control. Second, in the experiment of
choose the grinding surface of the grinding wheel as hybrid position/force control, force sensor is em-
the TCP (tool center point) position. A grinding area ployed for adjusting the grinding path in Z direction
with a width of 42.55 mm and length of 100 mm is through the PD controller in (1). During the grind-
considered based on the TCP coordinates. The grind- ing and polishing process, the coordinate position of
ing path is a straight line divided into 20 points, and the end effector of the robot arm is updated, and the
the tool orientation remains unchanged along the robot attempts to maintain the grinding force as con-
path. In grinding and polishing operations, the robotic stant. In terms of parameter settings, the rotation
arm moves forward in a straight line throughout the speed of the grinder is fixed at 12000 rpm and the
entire process and is pulled up at the end in a manner feed rate of the robotic arm is set to 25 mm/s. More-
similar to a skilled worker. The rough grinding and over, the surface roughness is related to the grinding
fine grinding process are performed 1–2 times, and force, and excessive force can easily lead to poor sur-
the polishing process is performed 5–6 times. face quality. After a few tries in the study, the results
When grinding a curved workpiece with a diam- indicated that when the applied force exceeded 30 N,
eter of 212.30 mm, the grinding wheel moves along the cloth wheel responsible for the polishing task
the surface for an arc length of 237.92 mm. Along the was easily burnt and the stainless-steel surface was
curved path, the number of points is 96 and the X-axis overheated and oxidized. Thus, the desired applied
and Z-axis of the tool coordinate change continuous- force for grinding and polishing is set to 10 N in the
ly so that Z-axis always keeps normal to the surface. experiment. The robot arm grinding and polishing
The grinding and polishing operations for the curved processes are shown in Figure 5.
40 Articles
Journal of Automation, Mobile Robotics and Intelligent Systems VOLUME 15, N° 4 2021

Tab. 1. MAE error between the actual grinding force

and desired force
Experiment Position control Hybrid position/
Process (%) force control (%)

#60 29.3 11

#120 37.73 12.11

#240 97.99 20.44

#320 153.8 22.45

#400 197.9 14.07

Polishing 42.63 15.09

Fig. 5. Photos of grinding and polishing of flat (left) and
curved (right) workpieces Tab. 2. Surface roughness of stainless steel of each
process
5.1 Results of the Flat Workpiece
Experiment Position control Hybrid position/
The experimental results of the study were summa-
Process (µm) force control (µm)
rized into two parts, namely the mean absolute error
(MAE in %) of the grinding and polishing force of each #60 2.27 2.10
process
#120 1.66 1.60

N #240 1.26 1.19

∑F e (n) /N
#320 0.95 0.80
MAE (%)
= n =1
×100
Fd (2) #400 0.80 0.66

Polishing 0.68 0.47

and the value of the surface roughness (arithmetic
mean deviation Sa) [14] of stainless steel after each
process is completed. To measure surface roughness,
a 3D surface profiler (Keyence VR 3000) with a high-
magnification lens (40x) was used to evaluate the
machining quality for each process. In the results of
the flat workpiece, given that the position control ex-
periment was not aided by force control, a large gap
existed between the grinding and polishing force and
the desired value. In the hybrid position/force control
experiment, force control was added to the original
path such that the force response was improved dur-
ing flat grinding, and the force error was significantly
reduced. In other words, the robotic arm attempted
to process the workpiece surface with the desired
grinding force. The MAE of machining force for each
process using PVA sponge wheel for grinding (granu-
larity: 60–400) and cloth wheel for polishing of the
two experiments was listed in Table 1. Large force
deviation using only position control was apparently
reduced by applying hybrid position/force control in
each process. Improved surface roughness for each
corresponding process was listed in Table 2, and the
finished workpiece surfaces were shown in Figure 6
with clearly seen mirror effect on both surfaces. For
flat workpiece, surface roughness has been reduced
from 3.04 µm before grinding to final 0.68 µm and
0.47 µm respectively by position control and hybrid
position/force control. Approximate 30.88% im-
provement in surface roughness was achieved by hy-
brid position/force control over pure position control.
Fig. 6. Finished flat workpieces: position control (top)
and hybrid position/force control (bottom)

Articles 41
 Journal of Automation, Mobile Robotics and Intelligent Systems VOLUME 15, N° 4 2021

Tab. 4. Surface roughness of stainless steel of each

process
Experiment Position control Hybrid position/
Process (µm) force control (µm)

#320 1.76 1.01

#400 1.25 0.96

Polishing 1.12 0.76

6. Conclusion
In this study, a robotic arm and two experimental
methods were used to realize the automatic grind-
ing and polishing of stainless steel. Furthermore, a
6-steps machining process for polishing stainless
steel along with some practical rules of thumb was
proposed. Grinding and polishing with pure position
control is simple to implement, however it could have
untouched areas on the workpiece in the planned
path due to deformation and/or wear of the grind-
ing wheel, especially for the curved workpiece. For
example, the last step of polishing curved workpiece
in Table 3 has 19.7% MAE in the polishing force for
position control which is comparable to 20% MAE for
hybrid position/force control. But position control
gives worse surface roughness 1.12 µm as compared
Fig. 7. Finished curved workpieces: position control to 0.76 µm by the hybrid position/force control as
(top) and hybrid position/force control (bottom) shown in Table 4, this is because almost half of the
polishing path is untouched by the cloth wheel using
5.2 Results of the Curved Workpiece pure control method (during this period the zero pol-
For curved workpiece, because the surface was al- ishing force is excluded in the calculation of MAE).
ready smooth in the beginning thus only the last By using a force/torque sensor in the robot arm,
3 steps of fine grinding (using grinder with grit size the developed hybrid position/force control method
320 and 400) and polishing (by cloth wheel) were was excellent in terms of the consistency of machining
conducted. MAE errors of the grinding and polish- force and the surface quality of the finished workpiece.
ing force of each process for the two control methods Therefore, problems such as uneven applied force by
were compared in Table 3, where in general hybrid either human operator or pure position control, man-
position/force control outperformed the position ufacturing and/or positioning errors in the workpiece,
control. Improved surface roughness for each cor- and deformation and/or wear of the grinding wheel can
responding process was shown in Table 4, where in be alleviated to certain extent by adding force control
the final polishing task approximate 32.14% improve- in the machining process. The flat and curved stainless
ment (from 1.12 µm to 0.76 µm) was obtained by the steel in the experiments were surface finished to reach
hybrid position/force control over pure position con- respective 0.47 µm and 0.76 µm in surface roughness
trol. The finished workpiece surfaces were illustrated by the proposed machining procedures with hybrid
in Figure 7. Indeed, the curved workpiece surface was position/force control. According to DIN standard for
smoother and brighter by the hybrid position/force surface quality of stainless steel [15], the results in this
control. study reached 1J-2J grade in the category of Mechani-
cally Polished & Brushed Stainless Steel Finishes, with
Tab. 3. MAE error between the actual grinding force which grade the stainless steel is usually used in fur-
and desired force niture, elevator door, and upholstery accessories. For
comparison with a skilled worker, the surface rough-
Experiment Position control Hybrid position/
ness obtained by a skilled worker basically can reach
Process (%) force control (%)
about 0.4 µm, which is not far from what this paper can
#320 75 23.7 achieve. However, a skilled worker is hard to find and
expensive to hire, and requires years of training but has
#400 51.45 29.8
a limited working hours per day. The technique devel-
Polishing 19.7 20 oped in this paper can help save training costs and ex-
cessive labor expenses.

42 Articles
Journal of Automation, Mobile Robotics and Intelligent Systems VOLUME 15, N° 4 2021

[7] “Active contact flange”, FerRobotics Compliant

It is noted that the developed polishing technique Robot Technology GmbH. https://www.ferrobo-
can also be applied to a workpiece with both flat and tics.com/en/services/products/active-contact-
curved surfaces, since the employed RoboDK soft- -flange/. Accessed on: 2022-08-30.
ware can deal with straight and curved path. In addi-
tion, the desired applied force was set to 10 N for both [8] B. Siciliano and L. Villani, Robot Force Control,
flat and curved surfaces in the experiment, hence the Springer US, 1999.
control algorithm can be used throughout the entire
[9] W. B. Rowe, Principles of modern grinding tech-
object without difficulty.
nology, William Andrew, 2014.
[10] N. Kurihara, S. Yamazaki, T. Yoshimi, T. Eguchi and
AUTHORS
H. Murakami, “The proposal of automatic task
Jinsiang Shaw* – National Taipei University of Tech- parameter setting system for polishing robot”.
nology, Taiwan, e-mail: [email protected].
In: 2015 12th International Conference on Ubi-
quitous Robots and Ambient Intelligence (URAI),
Yu-Jia Fang – National Taipei University of Technol-
ogy, Taiwan, e-mail: [email protected]. 2015, 479–481, 10.1109/URAI.2015.7358808.
[11] J. Kim, W. Lee, H. Yang and Y. Lee, “Real-time
* Corresponding author monitoring and control system of an industrial
robot with 6 degrees of freedom for grinding
and polishing of aspherical mirror”. In: 2018
International Conference on Electronics, Infor-
REFERENCES
mation, and Communication (ICEIC), 2018, 1–4,
[1] J. Li, T. Zhang, X. Liu, Y. Guan and D. Wang, “A Su- 10.23919/ELINFOCOM.2018.8330691.
rvey of Robotic Polishing”. In: 2018 IEEE In-
ternational Conference on Robotics and Biomi- [12] P. G. M. Cáceres. Grinding Force Control of the
metics (ROBIO), 2018, 2125–2132, 10.1109/ Cutting Edge of a Blade by a Robot Manipulator,
ROBIO.2018.8664890. Master’s Thesis, National Taipei University of
Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, 2019, https://hdl.
[2] D. Zhu, X. Xu, Z. Yang, K. Zhuang, S. Yan and handle.net/11296/wnu34a.
H. Ding, “Analysis and assessment of robotic belt
grinding mechanisms by force modeling and [13] M. Fazeli and M. J. Sadigh, “Adaptive hybrid po-
force control experiments”, Tribology Interna- sition/force control for grinding applications”.
tional, vol. 120, 2018, 93–98, 10.1016/j.tribo- In: 2012 IEEE International Conference on Cyber
int.2017.12.043. Technology in Automation, Control, and Intelli-
gent Systems (CYBER), 2012, 297–302, 10.1109/
[3] K. Ma, X. Wang and D. Shen, “Design and Expe- CYBER.2012.6392569.
riment of Robotic Belt Grinding System with
Constant Grinding Force”. In: 2018 25th Interna- [14] E. Jansons, J. Lungevics and K. A. Gross, “Surface
tional Conference on Mechatronics and Machine roughness measure that best correlates to ease
Vision in Practice (M2VIP), 2018, 1–6, 10.1109/ of sliding”. In: 15th International Scientific Confe-
M2VIP.2018.8600899. rence, Engineering for Rural Development, 2016.

[4] M. Jinno, F. Ozaki, T. Yoshimi, K. Tatsuno, M. Taka- [15] “Stainless Steel Finishes Explained – EN &
hashi, M. Kanda, Y. Tamada and S. Nagataki, “De- ASTM,” (2019), Andreas Velling, https://frac-
velopment of a force controlled robot for grin- tory.com/stainless-steel-finishes-en-astm/. Ac-
ding, chamfering and polishing”. In: Proceedings cessed on: 2022-08-30.
of 1995 IEEE International Conference on Robo-
tics and Automation, vol. 2, 1995, 1455–1460,
10.1109/ROBOT.1995.525481.
[5] M. A. Elbestawi, K. M. Yuen, A. K. Srivastava and
H. Dai, “Adaptive Force Control for Robotic Disk
Grinding”, CIRP Annals, vol. 40, no. 1, 1991, 391–
394, 10.1016/S0007-8506(07)62014-9.
[6] J. A. Dieste, A. Fernández, D. Roba, B. Gonzalvo
and P. Lucas, “Automatic Grinding and Poli-
shing Using Spherical Robot”, Procedia Engine-
ering, vol. 63, 2013, 938–946, 10.1016/j.pro-
eng.2013.08.221.

Articles 43