which are more challenging for removal. Upon completion, the robot grasps the heatbed steel sheet with the prints and executes the remove step, followed by a Replace step for the next print with 8 N as the desired force (the built-in force control in the UR10e). In addition, the cases where the adhesive force between the prints and sheet is stronger than the specification of the gripper are not considered in this experiment. The results are shown in Table 2 and Figure 8. In the remove step, the nondefective prints are successfully removed 13 times out of 13 tests, with the size ranging from a small point (5 mm in width and height) to a large print that covers nearly the entire heatbed steel sheet. In addition, the removal of the defective prints is difficult as the prints are scattered all over the place, and the robot is still able to successfully remove defective prints seven times out of eight Small Sizes Medium Sizes a small point with supports Large Sizes half of the print bed long and thin tall entire sheet (a) Failed Manipulation The prints drop out of the sheet. (b) Figure 8. The results of experiment 2 in which the proposed manipulation method for part extraction is evaluated. The proposed method achieves a 95.24% success rate for removing the current prints and replacing the heatbed steel sheet for the next print. The test sets include the print with and without failures. JUNE 2022 * IEEE ROBOTICS & AUTOMATION MAGAZINE * 43