Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T04:19:40.502Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Design of an XY-theta platform held by a planar manipulator with four revolute joints and evaluation of its precision performances

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2015

Anas Hijazi ,
Jean-François Brethé  and
Dimitri Lefebvre
Anas Hijazi*
Affiliation:
Groupe de Recherche en Electrotechnique et Automatique du Havre (GREAH), Le Havre University, BP540, 76058 Le Havre, France. E-mail: [email protected]
Jean-François Brethé
Affiliation:
Groupe de Recherche en Electrotechnique et Automatique du Havre (GREAH), Le Havre University, BP540, 76058 Le Havre, France. E-mail: [email protected]
Dimitri Lefebvre
Affiliation:
Groupe de Recherche en Electrotechnique et Automatique du Havre (GREAH), Le Havre University, BP540, 76058 Le Havre, France. E-mail: [email protected]
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

This paper is about the precision performance evaluation of an XY-theta platform, with a patented kinematic design. Indeed, this platform is held by a serial redundant robot arm actuated with four revolute joints. The platform offers a wide 300 × 300 mm workspace, whereas the whole mechanism is extremely compact. Any workpiece on the platform can be positioned under a vertical axis to be grasped or manufactured in a two-step approach: in a coarse positioning mode, the four revolute joints are controlled to position and orientate the workpiece with a position error of less than 10 μm; in a fine positioning mode, two revolute joints are mechanically blocked while two others are controlled to reduce the final error to below 2 μm. The mechanism design and the choice of the blocked and moving joints are optimized to enhance the positioning performances in the two-step positioning method. In this paper, the platform positioning repeatability and its spatial resolution are characterized with the help of a camera. The advantage of this method is that it avoids any mechanical contact and can be implemented easily. Then, these results are compared to our previous precision performance evaluation obtained with the stationary cube method. Finally, the positioning repeatability is estimated at 6.5 μm in the coarse positioning mode and 1.4 μm in the fine positioning mode. Between the coarse and fine mode, the repeatability is thus improved by the factor of four, as predicted by the theory.

Keywords

Robot precisionRepeatabilityAccuracySpatial resolutionMaximum position errorRobotic manipulator armXY-theta platform
Type
Articles
Information
Robotica , Volume 34 , Issue 11 , November 2016 , pp. 2532 - 2545
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. ISO9946, Manipulating Industrial Robots – Presentation of Characteristics (ISO, 1999).Google Scholar
2. Merlet, J.-P., Parallel Robots, 2nd ed. (Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006).Google Scholar
3. Rauf, A., Kim, S.-G. and Ryu, J., “A New Measurement Device for Complete Parameter Identification of Parallel Manipulators with Partial Pose Measurements,” The Chemnitz Parallel Kinematics Seminar Chemnitz, Germany (2004) pp. 89–106.Google Scholar
4. Briot, S. and Bonev, I. A., “Are parallel robots more accurate than serial robots?” CSME Trans. 31, 445–456 (2007).Google Scholar
5. Joubair, A., Slamani, M. and Bonev, I. A., “A novel xy-theta precision table and a geometric procedure for its kinematic calibration,” Robot. Comput.-Integr. Manuf. 28, 57–65 (2012).Google Scholar
6. Milanovic, V., Matus, G. A. and McCormick, D. T., “Gimbal-less monolithic silicon actuators for tiptiltpiston micromirror applications,” IEEE J. Sel. Quantum Electron. 10 (3), 462–471 (2004).Google Scholar
7. Itoh, N., Horiuchi, Y., Asari, K. and Hayashi, M., “Tip-Tilt and Chopping Mechanism for the Subaru Telescope ir Secondary Mirror Unit,” SPIE Proceedings Conference on Advanced Technolony OpticaI, Kona, Hawaii, vol. 3352 (1998) pp. 850–857.Google Scholar
8. Du, Z., Su, Y., Yang, W. and Dong, W., “Note: A piezo tip/tilt platform: Structure, kinematics, and experiments,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 85 (4), (2014).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Jia, K., Pals, S. and Xie, H., “An electrothermal tiptiltpiston micromirror based on folded dual s-shaped bimorphs,” J. Microelectromech. Syst. 18, 1004–1015 (2009).Google Scholar
10. ISO9283, Manipulating Industrial Robots – Performance Criteria and Related Test Methods (ISO, 1998).Google Scholar
11. Institute, A. N. S., American National Standard for Industrial Robots and Robot Systems – Point-to-Point and Static Performance Characteristics -Evaluation, R15.05-1-1990 (ANSI, 1990).Google Scholar
12. Brethé, J.-F., Vasselin, E., Lefebvre, D. and Dakyo, B., “Modelling of repeatability phenomena using the stochastic ellipsoid approach,” Robotica 24, 477–490 (2006).Google Scholar
13. Brethé, J.-F., “Innovative Kinematics and Control to Improve Robot Spatial Resolution,” IROS (2010) pp. 3495–3500.Google Scholar
14. Brethé, J.-F., Vasselin, E., Lefebvre, D. and Dakyo, B., “Determination of the Repeatability of a Kuka Robot Using the Stochastic Ellipsoid Approach,” ICRA, IEEE, Barcelona, Spain (2005) pp. 4339–4344.Google Scholar
15. Brethé, J.-F., “High precision motorized micrometric table,” Patent,” FR2011/02184, 2011.Google Scholar
16. Brethé, J.-F., Hijazi, A. and Lefebvre, D., “Innovative XY-theta platform held by a serial redundant arm,” ECMSM (2013) pp. 146–151.Google Scholar
17. Brethé, J.-F., “Manipulator robot and associated control for fine positioning of the terminal end,” Patent,” PCT/FR2009/00459, 2009.Google Scholar
18. Riemer, R. and Edan, Y., “Evaluation of influence of target location on robot repeatability,” Robotica 18, 443–449 (2000).Google Scholar
19. Offodile, O. F. and Ugwu, K., “Evaluating the effect of speed and payload on robot repeatability,” Robot. Comput.-Integr. Manuf. 8, 27–33 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Brethé, J.-F., “Granular stochastic space modeling of robot micrometric precision,” in IROS, Shanghai, China (2011), pp. 4066–4071.Google Scholar
21. Matrox Imaging Library (MIL) (Oct. 20, 2008).Google Scholar
22. Peli, E., “Contrast in complex images,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 7 (10), 2032–2040 (1990).Google Scholar
23. Bernhardt, R. and Albright, S., Robot Calibration (Chapman and Hall, London, 1993).Google Scholar
24. Tamadazte, B., Dembele, S. and Piat, N. L.-F., “A multiscale calibration of a photon video microscope for visual servo control,” Appl. MEMS Micromanipulation Microassembly Sensors Transducers J. (special issue in Robotic and Sensors Environments) Ottawa, ON, 5, 37–52 (2009).Google Scholar
25. Ammi, M., Fremont, V. and Ferreira, A., “Flexible Microscope Calibration using Virtual Pattern for 3-d Telemicromanipulation,” IEEE International Conference Robotics and Automation, Barcelona, Spain (Apr. 2005).Google Scholar
26. Zhou, Y. and Nelson, B. J., “Calibration of a parametric model of an optical microscope,” Opt. Eng. 38 (12), 1989–1995 (1999).Google Scholar
27. Dandash, D., Brethé, J.-F., Vasselin, E. and Lefebvre, D., “Micrometer scale performances of industrial robot manipulators,” Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 9, 1 (2012).Google Scholar