{"id":5944,"date":"2026-09-07T15:49:55","date_gmt":"2026-09-07T13:49:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.alsace-techniques-etiquetage.fr\/?p=5944"},"modified":"2026-09-08T12:32:05","modified_gmt":"2026-09-08T10:32:05","slug":"die-cut-parts-robotic-placement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.alsace-techniques-etiquetage.fr\/en\/die-cutting\/die-cut-parts-robotic-placement\/","title":{"rendered":"Robotic placement of a die-cut adhesive part: what the part must allow for"},"content":{"rendered":"

The part has been qualified for six years and placed by hand. The automation project starts, the arm holds two hundredths of a millimetre, and at start-up placement drifts by two millimetres. The robot is not the problem: the part was never designed to be picked by anything other than a hand.<\/p>\n

3M puts it in its own automation handbook: you need to know whether die-cut parts will be applied manually or automatically\u00a0before<\/em>\u00a0the tape is specified and converted.<\/p>\n

Have your part reviewed for automated application<\/a><\/p>\n

Nine steps, nine requirements on the part<\/h2>\n

Manual placement comes down to two gestures, peel and apply. The operator absorbs everything else with two hands and by eye, which a machine does not do.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Automated placement sequence and the requirement on the part<\/strong><\/caption>\n
Step<\/th>\nWhat the part must allow for<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
1. Presentation<\/td>\nA web on a continuous liner. Bulk parts rule out pick and place<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2. Separation<\/td>\nA consistent release force, and a cut that has not scored the liner<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3. Pick<\/td>\nA pick area whose face against the tool does not stick<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4. Transfer<\/td>\nEnough stiffness not to fold under acceleration<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5. Approach<\/td>\nA detectable target if vision alignment is used<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6. Application<\/td>\nA flat geometry, or a conformable tool for even pressure<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7. Dwell<\/td>\nThis time counts against cycle time<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8. Release<\/td>\nA bond to the substrate already stronger than to the gripper<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9. Inspection<\/td>\nContrast or a target showing the part is correctly placed<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\"Nine-step<\/a>

The real sequence of an automated placement<\/strong>, from web presentation to inspection. Click the diagram to enlarge.<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Steps 3 and 8 are where projects fail, for the same reason: the gripper touches a material designed to stick.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The robot is the smallest contributor to placement error<\/h2>\n

When placement drifts, the reflex is to look at the arm’s datasheet, and that is rarely where the answer is. On datasheets citing ISO 9283, pose repeatability for a small-payload six-axis robot or a SCARA falls between 0.01 and 0.04 mm, and the manufacturers themselves state that this is an average across a small number of robots, varying with position in the working envelope, speed and arm configuration.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Contributors to final placement error<\/strong><\/caption>\n
Contributor<\/th>\nOrder of magnitude<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Arm repeatability<\/td>\n0.01 to 0.04 mm per ISO 9283<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Die-cutting tolerance<\/td>\nDepends on process and material. Ask for it, then check it<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Repeat pitch on the liner<\/td>\nA paper liner stretches under tension and the pitch drifts<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Pick-up by the gripper<\/td>\nNot published. Part geometry drives it<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Substrate fixturing<\/td>\nOften the real leading contributor, and the most overlooked<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Vision alignment<\/td>\nCorrects upstream error, if there is a target to see on the part<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

No standard publishes a placement tolerance for a die-cut adhesive part applied by robot. The only published figure we found comes from a label applicator manufacturer: plus or minus 0.5 mm at fixed speed, measured at the dispensing edge.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

What keeps the part from sticking to the gripper<\/h2>\n

At step 8, the part’s bond to the substrate has to already exceed its bond to the tool. Peel and shear tell you nothing about this, since they measure joint strength after pressure has been applied. The useful property here is instantaneous tack, measured by loop tack under FINAT FTM 9 or ASTM D6195, two methods aimed at adhesives that form a measurable bond on contact, with no pressure applied. That is the regime of the contact between part and tool, and it is a value few people think to ask for.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Workable gripping method by type of part<\/strong><\/caption>\n
Part<\/th>\nWorkable<\/th>\nRuled out, and why<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Thin flat film<\/td>\nFlat suction cup on the non-adhesive face<\/td>\nA pinch gripper marks the edge and distorts the film<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Perforated film<\/td>\nFlow gripper, designed for air-permeable parts<\/td>\nA standard cup cannot seal<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Open-cell foam<\/td>\nNeedle gripper, designed for porous parts<\/td>\nVacuum passes through the foam and the part crushes<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Non-flat part<\/td>\nBellows suction cup, or a conformable tool<\/td>\nA flat cup gives uneven pressure<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Double-sided part<\/td>\nAn adhesive-free pick zone, or a liner held to the last moment<\/td>\nAny direct pick on the adhesive<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

What gets decided when the cutting tool is designed<\/h2>\n

The gripper can pick the part without touching the adhesive, provided the part was designed for it. Six parameters are set when the\u00a0precision die-cutting tool<\/a>\u00a0is made. Once the tool exists, there is no catching up on them.<\/p>\n