RBTXpert Debrief: The Vibration Problem Nobody Talks About in Robot Selection
Partner Resource: Epson Robots — GYROPLUS Technology: Taking Robot Performance to the Next Level
Content Type: Technical White Paper
Best For: Engineers and automation managers evaluating SCARA or 6-axis robots for high-speed, precision-critical applications
Why We Are Sharing This
Speed, payload, and precision are the three variables every robot spec sheet leads with. What most spec sheets do not explain is why improving one of them tends to degrade the others. The answer is vibration, and it is the hidden constraint that derails more robot selection decisions than any other single factor.
Epson’s GYROPLUS technology white paper addresses this problem at the engineering level. Axis is sharing it because it explains a genuinely important concept that most buyers encounter only after a system is installed and underperforming. Understanding it before selection is significantly more useful.
What the Content Actually Covers
The Physics Problem Behind Every Speed-Precision Tradeoff
The paper opens with an honest explanation of why robot performance tradeoffs exist at all. Increasing speed and acceleration increases vibration in the robot arm. Higher vibration means longer settling time before the next process can execute. In other words, much of the cycle time gain from running faster gets consumed waiting for the arm to stop moving. The net result is often less improvement than the speed increase suggested.
The root cause is straightforward. A robot controller estimates arm position and velocity based on feedback from the motor encoder. The motor encoder sits at the joint, not at the end of the arm. Because robot arms flex under load and at speed, the actual position at the tip of the arm frequently differs from what the motor encoder reports. The controller issues commands based on an estimate rather than the real position. That gap is where vibration problems originate.
Why the Traditional Fix Creates New Problems
The standard industry workaround for arm vibration is to make the arm stiffer and more rigid. Stiffer arms deflect less and vibrate less. However, stiffer arms are heavier arms. Heavier arms require larger motors, larger gearboxes, and larger drive components. The robot grows in size, cost, and energy consumption. The vibration problem improves, but the footprint, weight, and cost problems get worse. The paper presents this tradeoff clearly in a table that maps each common workaround to the specification it compromises. It is a useful reference for any team that has been told “just use a bigger robot” without understanding what that actually costs.
What GYROPLUS Actually Does Differently
Epson’s approach places a gyro sensor directly at the end of the robot arm rather than relying solely on motor encoder feedback. The sensor measures actual angular velocity at the tip, the point that matters, and feeds that data continuously to the controller. The controller then issues motion commands based on real arm behavior rather than estimated behavior. This closes the feedback loop that traditional encoder-only control leaves open.
The engineering challenge was size. Conventional gyro sensors are roughly thumb-sized, far too large to integrate into a robot arm without adding mass. Epson’s quartz MEMS process produces a sensor small enough to balance on the end of a pencil lead. That size reduction is what makes the integration practical without affecting the robot’s weight, inertia, or footprint.
The result is that smaller, lighter robot arms can run faster moves, handle heavier payloads, and hold tighter positioning accuracy than traditional designs of equivalent size. The paper notes that some applications previously requiring Cartesian or gantry robots for speed and precision can now use SCARA or 6-axis robots, with smaller footprints, simpler integration, and less complex programming.
The RBTXpert Take
The practical value of this paper sits in the tradeoff table and the settling time explanation. Both belong in any serious robot evaluation conversation. When a vendor claims their robot delivers a specific cycle time at a specific precision level, the question worth asking is how much of that cycle time is settling time. A robot that moves fast but settles slowly may not outperform a robot that moves moderately but settles quickly.
Beyond the Epson-specific technology discussion, the paper gives buyers a framework for asking better questions across any SCARA or 6-axis evaluation. Axis recommends it for any team comparing robots where both speed and precision matter, which in practice describes most assembly, dispensing, and inspection applications.
Access the full GYROPLUS technology paper Here.