In a previous article, we discussed the current state of servo motors, a core component, in the article "Where are the Weaknesses of Domestic Servo Motors?". We noticed that the robot control system seems to receive far less attention than the other two aspects. Today, we will focus specifically on the issue of robot controllers, examining how they affect industry development and how my country's controller market can break through its current limitations.
The controller has a direct impact on robot performance.
As one of the most crucial components of industrial robots, the controller has a significant impact on the robot's performance. However, my country still heavily relies on imports for its industrial robots, especially high-end ones. While many companies have dedicated themselves to the research and development of servo motors and reducers, the controller is widely considered the easiest area to achieve a breakthrough in; however, no breakthrough has been made. Many agree that the biggest gap between domestic and foreign companies in the industrial robot industry lies in the controller.
Data shows that the three key components account for approximately 80% of the total cost of an industrial robot. Specifically, the reducer accounts for about 33%–38%, the drive and servo motor about 20%–25%, and the controller about 10%–15%. Therefore, controlling the cost of a robot is arguably the most crucial aspect of controlling the cost of its core components.
The controller, essentially the brain of an industrial robot, has a near-decisive impact on its performance. It controls the robot's movement within the workspace, including position, posture, and trajectory, and also manipulates the sequence of operations and the timing of actions. Different types of robots employ significantly different controllers and control systems. For example, Cartesian robots typically use a motion control card and industrial computer for relatively simple motion control, while complex multi-joint robots and SCARA robots often employ embedded controllers, making motion control much more complex.
In other words, the more joints a robot has, the higher its degrees of freedom and the better its displacement accuracy. In general, each multi-axis robot is controlled by a control system, which means that the requirements for the controller performance are higher.
What are the differences in robot controllers?
There is a gap between my country's controllers and those of foreign countries. To close this gap as soon as possible, we need to know exactly where the gap lies.
On the one hand, there are differences in the controllers used in different robots. In terms of development time, my country's industrial robot industry started much later and lacks extensive experience in control systems, so a certain gap will remain in the short term. However, in the emerging collaborative robot, SCARA robot, and especially the recently booming logistics robot market, domestically produced and self-developed controllers are gradually overtaking their competitors and gaining a significant share of the domestic market. However, in multi-axis robots, especially in high-speed industrial robot applications, domestically produced controllers remain at a disadvantage.
On the other hand, there are differences in hardware and software. In fact, there is little difference between domestic and foreign companies in the hardware of industrial robot control systems, and they are even basically the same. The main difference lies in the software, especially in the core algorithms. Foreign companies have the advantage of time accumulation and technological accumulation, and have optimized the response speed and compatibility.
For example, domestically produced small-load welding robots generally achieve a repeatability of 0.05mm, while many overseas brands commonly achieve 0.02mm. While 0.05mm is sufficient for production needs, it is indeed slightly insufficient compared to other products. This difference is even more pronounced when comparing maximum axis speeds. Robots from the four major domestic manufacturers can reach a maximum axis speed of 700°/s, but only a few leading domestic robot companies can achieve this.
Of course, controllers are not the only factor contributing to this gap, but it is quite clear that my country is not at a disadvantage in the race to catch up with controllers.
What is the right path for domestically produced controllers?
The market has always been about "survival of the fittest." In the future, the companies that will be able to stand firm and thrive in the robotics industry will not be those that buy parts and assemble them, but those that have mature production lines, can provide supporting software and hardware, and possess independent and controllable capabilities.
The current state of the chip industry is a prime example. If the gap between domestic and foreign companies becomes too large, or if there's a reliance on imports, the entire industry will be severely impacted if the environment changes. Currently, the domestic chip industry is a mixed bag; there aren't enough truly capable companies, and many are just trying to make money and expand their market share. Nobody wants the robot component industry to experience the same fate someday, being forced to develop its own chips.
To change the current situation of domestically produced controllers, efforts must be made in several aspects.
Robots are primarily software-driven electromechanical systems. Looking at the industry as a whole, mainstream robot companies all have their own control systems. It is difficult to establish a foothold and is not conducive to the development of enterprises if they only make controllers. Therefore, robot manufacturers should build their own strong capabilities in controllers. In the next few years, the Chinese industrial robot market will further expand, and the demand for controllers will inevitably increase. Therefore, domestic enterprises can learn from the development path of the four major companies, realize the self-development, self-manufacturing, and self-sales of controllers, and match their controllers with robot bodies to form a complete business.
Secondly, hardware determines performance limits, while software leverages hardware performance and defines the robot's behavior. Every company truly passionate about building high-quality robots hopes to define their robots as unique, especially when hardware differences are minimal, making software the dominant factor. However, my country lacks a robust platform foundation, and its control systems are not open enough, resulting in insufficient flexibility, independence, and scalability to meet the demands of intelligence and flexibility. Fortunately, my country's computer industry is developing rapidly, and thanks to favorable industry conditions and a supportive environment, more and more people are choosing to dedicate themselves to software development, leading to a surge of talent in robot control software.
In short, the industrialization of industrial robots still has a long way to go. We are well aware of our shortcomings, so we can make up for them. The industry is becoming more and more lively, but behind the liveliness, it takes painstaking efforts from some people to make breakthroughs so that domestically produced robots can gain a place in the market and eventually have a broader future.
