Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Abstract In this paper, a typical 3-degree of freedom (3- relatively small workspace, complex forward kinematics,
DOF) translational parallel kinematic machine (PKM) is complicated universal and spherical joints and design
studied and analyzed whose tool platform has only difficulties. Hence researchers are diverting attention
translations along X-, Y- and Z-axes. It consists of three towards parallel mechanisms with less than 6-DOF since
limbs, each of which have arm and forearm with prismatic- it costs less. 2-DOF and 3-DOF mechanisms offer
revolute-revolute-revolute (PRRR) joints. Inverse kine- attractive performance characteristics for manufacturing
matics analysis is carried out to find the slider coordinates applications [1]. For example, Lee and Shah [2] analyzed a
and joint angles for a given position of tool platform. 3-DOF parallel manipulator with 3-revolute-prismatic-
Stiffness modeling is done based on the compliance spherical (RPS) chains. Yang et al. [3] developed a low-
matrices of arm and forearm of each limb. Using the cost driving simulator using the 3-RPS manipulator.
stiffness modeling the variations of minimum and max- Ceccarelli [4] proposed a 3-DOF parallel manipulator
imum translational stiffness in the workspace are analyzed. called CaPaMan in which each leg mechanism is made up
For various architectural parameters of the 3-DOF PKM of a planar parallelogram, a prismatic joint and a ball joint.
the tendency of variations on the minimum and maximum However, these manipulators have coupled motion
stiffness over the entire workspace is studied; and also the between the position and orientation of the end-effector.
deflections of the tool platform along X, Y, and Z directions Recent research on 3-DOF parallel manipulators has been
with respect to various forces are presented. leaning toward the decoupling of the position and
orientation of the end-effector and the elimination of
Keywords 3-DOF translational PKM, inverse kine- complicated multi-DOF joints. Three-DOF parallel manip-
matics, stiffness modeling, translational stiffness ulators with a rotational or translational moving platform
have been investigated. The classical 3-RRR spherical
manipulator was studied in detail by Gosselin and Angeles
1 Introduction [5]. Other spatial parallel manipulators with a rotational
moving platform, called rotational parallel manipulators
Parallel kinematic machine (PKM) attracts more research- (RPMs), had been proposed [6–9]. The structural synthesis
ers and manufacturers as an alternative to the conventional of 3-DOF RPMs had been carried out by Fang and Tsai
serial manipulators, because it offers several advantages [10]. For translational parallel manipulator (TPM), Clavel
over its serial counterparts like high dynamic performance [11] invented a simple and fast parallel manipulator called
and structural rigidity. However, the design of PKM is a the DELTA robot, which was analyzed in more detail by
difficult task and it needs further research for its wide Pierrot et al. [12]. Tsai et al. [13,14] designed a 3-DOF
acceptance in industries. PKMs are finding applications in TPM that employs only revolute joints and planar
assembly and manufacturing in the recent past. Most of the parallelograms. Tsai [15] presented the design of a spatial
research is being carried out on 6-degree of freedom (6- 3-universal-prismatic-universal manipulator and pointed
DOF) PKMs. However, they suffer from the problems of out the conditions that lead to pure translational motion.
The existing planar 2-DOF parallel mechanisms are the
Received July 12, 2014; accepted July 31, 2014 well-known five-bar mechanism with prismatic actuators
or revolute actuators. The output of the mechanism is the
✉
S. SHANKAR GANESH ( ), A.B. KOTESWARA RAO translational motion of a point on the end-effector [16].
Department of Mechanical Engineering Gayatri Vidya Parishad College
of Engineering, Visakhapatnam 530048, India
Stiffness is one of the most important performances of
E-mail: shankar_1500@rediffmail.com parallel manipulators, particularly for those which are used
234 Front. Mech. Eng. 2014, 9(3): 233–241
Fig. 2 Schematic diagrams of (a) the first limb; (b) the second limb; (c) the third limb
11 ¼ a tan2ðz,y – Lp Þ – atan2ðL21 sin 21 ,L11 to the Cartesian axes as shown in Fig. 3
The workspace volume of the PKM, which is the 3-
þ L21 cos 21 Þ (4) dimensional space reachable by the tool platform, is given
as
For the second limb shown in Fig. 2(b), the z and x
coordinates of P are expressed as WSV ¼ SLX SLY SLZ (13)
z ¼ L12 cos 12 þ L22 cos 22 (5) where SLX, SLY and SLZ are the stroke lengths of each
slider in X, Y, and Z direction, respectively.
x – LP ¼ L12 sin 12 þ L22 sin 22 (6) The stoke lengths of PKM are: SLX= 0.4 m; SLY= 0.4 m;
SLZ = 0.3 m.
Solving the Eqs. (5) and (6), the joint angles of the The workspace of the PKM understudy is considered
second limb are as a rectangular parallelepiped of dimensions of 0:4m
( ) 0:4m 0:3m, i.e., WSV ¼ SLX SLY SLZ ¼ 0:4m
½ðx – Lp Þ2 þ z2 – ðL212 þ L222 Þ 0:4m 0:3m.
22 ¼ arccos (7)
2L12 L22
12 ¼atan2ðx,x – Lp Þ
3 Stiffness modeling
– a tan2ðL22 sin 22 ,L12 þ L22 cos 22 Þ (8) The deformation of the limbs of the PKM can be
determined by applying Hook’s law [28]:
For the third limb shown in Fig. 2(c), the x and y
coordinates of P are expressed as fFg ¼ ½KfQg (14)
x þ LP – D1 ¼ L13 cos 13 þ L23 cos 23 (9) where, {F} is the external load vector applied to the limbs
and {Q} is the vector denoting deformation of the limbs.
y – D2 ¼ L13 sin 13 þ L23 sin 23 (10) Consider the free body diagram of a limb shown in Fig. 4,
which is made up of two solids and called arm and forearm.
Solving the Eqs. (9) and (10), the joint angles of the third When the limb is subjected to an external load, the arm and
limb are the forearm are subjected to a torsion and flexion
deformation. The component loads depend on the limb
ðx þ LP þ D1 Þ2 þ ðy – D2 Þ2 – ðL213 þ L223 Þ
23 ¼ arccos opening angle (α). The methodology used for the modular
2L13 L23 design of the robot determines the stiffness matrix of the
(11) limb. First, the compliance matrix of the PKM limb arm
and forearm are calculated using Eq. (15). The PKM
13 ¼atan2ðy – D2 , x þ Lp – D1 Þ stiffness matrix is deduced by the assembly of 3 legs, due
– atan2ðL23 sin 23 ,L13 þ L23 cos 23 Þ to revolute joints. The leg can only have a force parallel to
(12)
its revolute joint axis, and there is no moment component
where, L11 ¼ L12 ¼ L13 ¼ L1 ; L21 ¼ L22 ¼ L23 ¼ L2 . parallel to these axes.
Actuation of the ith slider along its axis, while holding The 33 compliance matrix of the ith limb maps 3 loads
the other two sliders, moves the tool platform along a line to the 3 displacements and is expressed as
parallel to the respective axis. Thus, the workspace of
PKM would be a rectangular parallelepiped with dimen- ½Si ¼ ½S f i þ ½U i T ½S a i ½U i (15)
sions equal to the stroke lengths of the sliders and parallel
236 Front. Mech. Eng. 2014, 9(3): 233–241
Fig. 3 Auto-Cad model and kinematic sketch of 3-DOF PKM with workspace
2 3
where, [Sa]i and [Sf]i are the compliance matrix of the arm L32i L22i
6 3EI 0
and the forearm, respectively; [Ui] is the transition matrix
6 2EI 77
between the arm coordinate system at point Mi and the 6 L2i 7
forearm coordinate system at point Bi and is given by ½S f i ¼ 6
60 0 7 7 (18)
6 2 GJ 7
2 3 4 L L2i 5
1 0 0 2i
0
6 7 2EI EI
½U i ¼ 4 – L2i sin αi – cos αi – sin αi 5 (16)
L2i cos αi sin αi – cos αi where, G is the modulus of rigidity; E is the Young’s
modulus; J is the polar moment of inertia; and I is the
The length of the arm and forearm are L1i and L2i, second moment of area. Substitution of Eqs. (17) and (18)
respectively, for i = 1, 2 and 3; α is the opening angle in Eq. (15) provides the compliance matrix of the limb. It
between the arm and forearm. may be noted that the compliance matrix is reversible and
The arm and forearm compliance matrix are found by [S]–1 can be expressed as
Castigliano’s method as 2 3
2 3 3 k11 k12 k13
L1i L21i 6 7
½Ki ¼ ½Si– 1 ¼ 4 k21 k22 k23 5 (19)
6 3EI 0 2EI 7
6 7
6 L 7 k31 k32 k33
6
½S a i ¼ 6 0 1i
0 7 (17)
GJ 7
6 2 7 Using the reversible compliance matrix [K] given by Eq.
4 L L1i 5
1i
0 (19), the local stiffness matrix of the ith leg/limb, [KL], can
2EI EI be obtained as
S. SHANKAR GANESH et al. Stiffness of a 3-DOF translational PKM 237
2 3 2 3
k11 0 0 0 k12 k13 krx,tx krx,ty krx,tz
6 7 6
60 0 0 0 0 0 7 ½K rt ¼ 4 kry,tx kry,ty kry,tz 7
5 (25)
6 7
6 7
60 0 0 0 0 0 7 krz,tx krz,ty krz,tz
½K Li i¼1 ¼6
60
7 (20)
6 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 in which kt,xy denotes the component of translational
6 7
6k k23 7 stiffness in XY plane, i.e., the force necessary along X-axis
4 21 0 0 0 k22 5
per unit deflection along Y-axis; kr,xy denotes the
k31 0 0 0 k32 k33 component of rotational stiffness in XY plane, i.e., the
It may be noted that the local stiffness matrix of the ith torque necessary about X-axis per unit rotation about Y-
limb is singular. This is due to passive joints which are axis; and ktx,ry denotes the component of combined
commonly seen in most of the PKM’s and the supple- translational-rotational stiffness in XY plane, i.e., the
mental zeros are the characteristics of the remaining limbs force necessary along X-axis per unit rotation about Y-axis.
of the PKM under study. The stiffness matrix of each limb
about global X, Y, and Z axes can be obtained from
4 Results of stiffness analysis
½K Gi ¼ ½T i T ½K Li ½T i (21)
A MATLAB source code is developed to find the stiffness
where, the 66 transformation matrix [Ti] is given as
in the workspace, for a given dimensions of the PKM. For
" #
½Ri O the purpose of study and analyses, the dimensions
½T i ¼ (22) provided in Table 1 are considered. These are obtained
O ½Ri by authors through optimization of the performance
where [Ri] is the rotation transformation matrix of the three characteristics of PKM understudy [27]. The variations
limbs, i = 1, 2 and 3; and O is a 33 null matrix. Since the of minimum and maximum translational stiffness in top
three limbs are connected to the tool platform in parallel, plane, middle plane and bottom plane with in the
the global stiffness matrix of the PKM can be found from workspace are shown in Fig. 5.
The minimum and maximum variations of translation
X
3 stiffness with in top plane, middle plane and bottom plane
½K G ¼ K Gi (23) of Z plane are presented in Table 2. It may be noted that the
i¼1 variation of minimum translational stiffness is more in top
The global stiffness matrix varies depending on the plane; whereas the variation of maximum stiffness is more
position of the tool platform within the workspace as well in bottom plane.
as the direction of the applied force on it. For various architectural parameters of the 3-DOF PKM,
" # the tendency of variation on the minimum and maximum
½K t ½K tr translational stiffness over the entire workspace is shown
½K G ¼ (24) in Fig. 6. It can be observed from Fig. 6 the increase of arm
½K rt ½K r
and forearm lengths decreases both minimum and max-
where in ½K t denotes 33 translational stiffness matrix; imum translational stiffness; and also the increase of
½K r denotes 33 rotational stiffness matrix; ½K tr and ½K rt distance of the Z-slider from the origin, i.e., D1, decreases
denote 33 combined translational and rotational stiffness both minimum and maximum translational stiffness;
matrices. whereas the increase of radius of platform size increases
2 3 the both minimum and maximum translational stiffness.
kt,xx kt,xy kt,xz
6 7
½K t ¼6 7
4 kt,yx kt,yy kt,yz 5,
Table 1 Dimensions of the 3-DOF translational PKM
Parameters Values
kt,zx kt,zy kt,zz Length of the arm (L1)/m 0.681
2 3
kr,xx kr,xy kr,xz Length of the arm (L2)/m 0.557
6 7
½K r ¼6 7
4 kr,yx kr,yy kr,yz 5,
Distance of the Z-slider from the origin (D1)/m 1.190
Offset of the Z-slider from the X-axis (D2)/m 0.257
kr,zx kr,zy kr,zz Starting point of the X-slider (XI)/m 0.259
2 3
ktx,rx ktx,ry ktx,rz Starting point of the Y-slider (YI)/m 0.271
6 7
½K tr ¼6 7
4 kty,rx kty,ry kty,rz 5,
Starting point of the Z-slider (ZI)/m -0.682
Length of the platform (Lp)/m 0.100
ktz,rx ktz,ry ktz,rz
238 Front. Mech. Eng. 2014, 9(3): 233–241
Fig. 5 Variation of minimum and maximum translational stiffness at the (a) top plane; (b) middle plane; (c) bottom plane
Table 2 Minimum and maximum translational stiffness at the top, middle and bottom plane
Plane Minimum of minimum stiffness Maximum of minimum stiffness Minimum of maximum stiffness Maximum of maximum
/(kN$m–1) /(kN$m–1) /(kN$m–1) stiffness/(kN$m–1)
Top 855.1 1074.6 1036.8 1661.7
Middle 790.7 931.5 918.5 1661.7
Bottom 709.6 799.8 855.5 1661.7
Fig. 6 Effect of minimum and maximum translational stiffness for various architectural parameters (a) L1; (b) L2; (c) D1; (d) Lp
Fig. 7 Variation of deflection for a force 50 N applied at the tool platform in X, Y and Z directions at the middle plane of Z-plane
240 Front. Mech. Eng. 2014, 9(3): 233–241
Table 3 Variation of deflection for a force of 50 N applied to the tool platform in X, Y and Z directions at the middle plane
Deflection/mm
Direction
Minimum Maximum
X-direction 0.0537 0.0632
Y-direction 0.0535 0.0584
Z-direction 0.0301 0.0584
14. Tsai L W. US Patent, 5656905, 1997-08-12 Parallel Manipulator). Mechanism and Machine Theory, 2002, 37
15. Tsai L W. Kinematics of a three-DOF platform with three extensible (5): 427–439
limbs. In: Lenarcic J, Parenti-Castelli V, eds. Recent Advances in 23. Li Y, Xu Q. Stiffness analysis for a 3-PUU Parallel Kinematic
Robot Kinematics. Berlin: Springer Netherlands, 1996, 401–410 Machine. Mechanism and Machine Theory, 2008, 43(2): 186–200
16. Wang J S, Tang X Q. Analysis and dimensional design of a novel 24. Kim W K, Lee J Y, Yi B J. Analysis for a planar 3 degree-of-
hybrid machine tool. International Journal of Machine Tools & freedom parallel mechanism with actively adjustable stiffness
Manufacture, 2003, 43(7): 647–655 characteristics. In: Proceedings of 1997 IEEE International
17. Gosselin C M. Stiffness mapping for parallel manipulators. IEEE Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, 1997, 2663–2670
Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 1990, 6(3): 377–382 25. Kock S, Schumacher W. A parallel x–y manipulator with actuation
18. Gosselin C, Angeles J. A global performance index for kinematic redundancy for high-speed and active-stiffness applications. In:
optimization of robotic manipulators. Journal of Mechanical Design, Proceedings of 1998 IEEE International Conference on Robotics
1991, 113(3): 220–226 and Automation. IEEE, 1998, 2295–2300
19. Svinin M M, Hosoe S, Uchiyana M. On the stiffness and stability of 26. Chakarov D. Study of the antagonistic stiffness of parallel
Gough-Stewart platforms. In: Proceedings of IEEE International manipulators with actuation redundancy. Mechanism and Machine
Conference on Robotics and Automation. 2001, 3268–3273 Theory, 2004, 39(6): 583–601
20. El-Khasawneh B S, Ferreira P M. Computation of stiffness and 27. Ganesh S S, Koteswara Rao A B. Error analysis and optimization of
stiffness bounds for parallel link manipulators. International Journal 3-DOF translational parallel kinematic machine. Frontiers of
of Machine Tools & Manufacture, 1999, 39(2): 321–342 Mechanical Engineering, 2014, 9(2): 120–129
21. Huang T, Zhao X Y, Whitehouse D J. Stiffness estimation of a 28. Ganesh S S, Koteswara Rao A B, Darvekar S. Multi-objective
tripod-based parallel kinematic machine. IEEE Transactions on optimization of 3-DOF translational parallel kinematic machine.
Robotics and Automation, 2002, 18(1): 50–58 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 2013, 27(12):
22. Ceccarelli M, Carbone G. A stiffness analysis for CaPaman (Cassino 3797–3804